# Smoking and Obamacare #26



## RUKnitting (Dec 17, 2012)

Farewell Sweet One.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> My Mom's gone too....but I bet they're both still talking to us.


My Mom would stop talking to me whenever I said or did something she disapproved of. I bet she's not talking to me.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Because I am tired of being bullied and treated poorly.


There's a big difference between bullying and insulting. Nobody's holding you down and making you read things you don't like.

Interestingly, I saw some posts of yours on the Bullying thread and was surprised that you had something real to say, and you said it well. You seem to know a lot more than you show when you come here.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

RUKnitting said:
 

> Farewell Sweet One.


Farewell to another Sweet One.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Get a room! Ick.


Lukelucy said:


> Farewell to another Sweet One.


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> It's too bad that you do not recognize abusive behavior. That makes it worse. I started this thread. I'll stay as long as I want.


Its my ball and if you don't play the game according to my rules I am going to take it and go home? Well, bye bye little girl.


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> It is time to shut down Smoking and Obamacare.


Everyone hates me and is being nasty to me mummy, make them sit on the naughty stool.


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> Because I am tired of being bullied and treated poorly.


I think you should run home little girl, I think I can hear your mummy calling you.


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> Another bout of rudeness. Accusations that are not valid or true. Just an a rude assumption.


As we say in the land down under "oh do belt up and give it a rest"


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Oh, dear, o is losing more big $$$ supporters...wonder why?

Oprah Tells Obama 'No' for Obamacare Help
Sunday, 20 Oct 2013

Celebrities may be lining up to push the president's healthcare insurance plan, but Obamacare will not be getting any Oprahcare any time soon.

Talk show queen Oprah Winfrey, who went all out during the 2008 presidential election to help President Barack Obama win the White House, is spurning the Oval Office's advances when it comes to promoting the troubled Affordable Care Act, wrote best-selling author Ed Klein in a New York Post piece Sunday.

"The story of why Oprah has changed her tune and gone AWOL on ObamaCare goes well beyond mere gossip," wrote Klein, author of "The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House."

"It speaks volumes about the convergence of celebrity and politics under Obama and about a president who thinks nothing of using and then discarding his most loyal supporters."

In fact, Klein says a close advisor of Winfrey's reported the media mogul gave the White House an "immediate, flat-out, unequivocal no" when she was invited to the White House in August to discuss publicizing the president's health care plan.

White House adviser Valerie Jarrett had phoned Winfrey in August to invite her to the White House to meet with a host of other stars, including Amy Poehler, Jennifer Hudson and Alicia Keys to meet with Obama to discuss publicizing the law.

Winfrey instead sent a lower-level representative from one of her talent agencies. As the president's healthcare plan has turned into the train wreck its Republican opponents have been calling it all along, the woman who brought millions of votes to Obama's first presidential campaign has not lifted a finger to help him out.

Klein said Winfrey is still feeling snubbed because she did not get the unfettered access she expected to the Obama White House when she was stumping nationwide for him. While she campaigned heavily for him in 2008, giving her first-ever presidential endorsement, she backed away for the 2012 race, saying that she was too busy launching her new cable network, OWN, to join in the campaign.

"What was not reported was that, in return, Oprah was promised unique access to the White House if Obama won," Klein said. "Shed get regular briefings on initiatives and a heads-up on programs to give her material for her fledgling cable network, OWN."

A source close to Winfrey told Klein that there were big plans, and a team was put together to come up with proposals that would benefit them both, but nothing happened, and OWN has struggled since its debut.

"Oprah sent notes and a rep to talk to Valerie Jarrett, but nothing came of it," the source said. "It slowly dawned on Oprah that the Obamas had absolutely no intention of keeping their word and bringing her into their confidence.

And while Winfrey has claimed she is too busy to become involved in politics, she did find time to host a recent huge fundraiser for Newark Mayor Cory Booker, who ended up winning his state's Senate seat this past week.

Winfrey's friends protest that the first lady of talk shows is on the outs with Obama and his wife Michelle. They note that Winfrey called the first lady after the 2012 election to congratulate her, and that Michelle Obama invited her to dinner with the family. But that dinner hasn't happened.

Oprah was hoping there would be a genuine change in the atmospherics, a friend told Klein, But there hasnt been. Clearly, she is being rebuffed at the level of Michelle and Valerie. And, just as obviously, President Obama hasnt interfered on Oprahs behalf.
Klein noted that in "The Amateur," the first lady is jealous of Winfrey and furious that her husband was seeking her advice.

For her part, Oprah doesnt like being with Michelle, because the first lady is constantly one-upping the president and anybody else around her, an Oprah advisor told Klein. Oprah has struck back by banning the Obamas from her O, The Oprah Magazine." The advisor said that Oprah is "hurt and angry...she knows how to hold a grudge."

It is too bad she pimped for him in 2007-2008. She gave him a foothold to find other mindless entertainers. If only she would be a little more forthcoming regarding what she really knows about him.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

How Obama's Economic Policies are a Disaster 
Since the moment he came into office, President Obama has pursued the same failed liberal policies that extended the Great Depression, instituted the socially corrosive Great Society programs, and has grown government beyond Americas ability to afford it. Estimates of the U.S. long-term unfunded liabilities range from $87 trillion to an astounding $211 trillion.

One of the first measures Obama undertook was passing an ultimately $812 billion stimulus program. After glibly admitting that shovel-ready (jobs) was not as shovel-ready as we expected, the U.S. is still far off the jobs trajectory projected by his advisers; while it was presumed the U.S. would be near 5% unemployment, we are at 7.3%  and thats with millions dropping out of the workforce.
Instead of focusing on generating jobs and growing the productive economy, President Obama decided to work with the Democrat Congress to force through a trillion-dollar boondoggle known as ObamaCare against the objections of the majority of Americans.

President Obama said in an ABC News interview in 2009 that if Congress did not pass health care legislation that brought down costs, the federal government will go bankrupt. The ten-year cost estimate since then has tripled from $900 billion to nearly $2.7 trillion, and the GAO estimates the program will add $6.2 trillion in debt liability.

The unintended consequences of the ObamaCare provision that employers with 50 or more full-time employees at 30 hours a week or more must offer certain health insurance plans has predictably led to small businesses with more part-time employees. While the president has illegally suspended his enforcement of duly passed law, the employer mandate provision, full-time hiring is not expected to pick up due to long-term uncertainty.
Nearly 2.5 million of the jobs created under President Obama are part-time; as a separate figure, 2.7 million of those jobs created are temporary hires  a 50% increase over Obamas time in office.

The president claims he has created 7.2 million jobs. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were 154,526,000 in the Civilian Labor Force in February 2009 and in June 2013 there were 155,835,000. That would be a net gain of 1.309 million more people working civilian jobs as of the latest figures. The labor force participation rate of 63.5% is hovering at the lowest levels since late 1978.
Even if we took this at face value, like a good Democrat loyalist would, this is still less than half the people added to the food stamp rolls  15 million folks. The escalating gas, electricity, and food prices, as well as the ObamaCare sticker shock on health insurance premiums for an estimated 75% of Americans will not ease their budgets. And the AP now estimates that 4 in 5 Americans are in poverty, low-income, or have no jobs.

Far from being some curse on Obamas record, a historical anomaly or the Republican Party refusing to give the president his way on every issue over the course of his entire term, the results of Obamas economic policies are 100% predictable.

On May 9th, 1939, ten years after the 1929 stock market crash and a decade into the Great Depression, FDRs Treasury Secretary had a taste of bitter medicine for the statists:
We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started.  And an enormous debt to boot!
While many would point to the constriction of the money supply after the stock market crash and protectionist policies like the Smoot-Hawley tarriff as the prime reasons for the extended deflationary depression, the Feds pumps were eventually primed  only to lead to another recession in 1937.

Even if we are of the inclination that the Great Depression was extraordinary, the track record of other Orwellian-named Great Society and War on Poverty welfare programs is more unmistakable. Thomas Sowell has documented well the social and family decay traceable to such 1960s-era programs. Remarkable are a few statistics:
The poverty rate among black families fell from 87 percent in 1940 to 47 percent in 1960, during an era of virtually no major civil rights legislation or anti-poverty programs. It dropped another 17 percentage points during the decade of the 1960s and one percentage point during the 1970s, but this continuation of the previous trend was neither unprecedented nor something to be arbitrarily attributed to the programs like the War on Poverty.

Despite the United States spending $15 trillion on a War on Poverty since its inception in 1964, there are 50 million Americans or one in six people in poverty  the same proportion as under LBJ. For every job the president has created (including all the part-time, temporary, low-pay and low-skill jobs), two people have gone onto the food stamp rolls  now totaling over 47 million people.

There is an alternative to the growing state intervention into the economy and the disruption, dysfunction, inefficiency and cronyism that ensues. The United States has enjoyed a 5.2% unemployment rate historically, while under Obama it has averaged approximately 8%. GDP growth averages roughly 3.2% in the post-war period, and we have seen GDP growth at 0.8% over the last four years, which is less than half the worst rate of any other president in the last sixty years.
And for those who think this is some kind of fairness, inequality is worse under Obama than under Bush. Theres a simple reason for this, and it bears repeating until everyone understands it: economic freedom is indisputably better for wealth creation and does not correlate with more inequality.
The record is abundantly clear: governments can spend their people into poverty. And this president, who has added more than $6 trillion to the national credit card, is the master at it.

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/07/69124-the-poverty-president-how-obamas-economic-policies-are-a-disaster/


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> No, it's simply the truth. Many Americans are fed up with machinations of Cruz, Bachmann, and the rest of the far-right crowd. I've gotten to the point where I simply do not care when the RWN's threaten to pack their bags and leave--in fact, I'll be down at the docks to see them off. This nation would be better off without them.


susanmos2000
I would see them off with a Flag of their liking.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

EveMCooke said:


> My sister prefers the term 'enlightened Catholic'.


EveMCooke
people from many other Faiths are leaving their Churches as well. That is a world-wide phenomenon. Education is an eye-opener. The push for Religion in Schools and the teaching of Creationism is a direct result of the falling off of Believers. The religious Zealots want to maintain their power and get back what they have lost already.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Huckleberry said:


> susanmos2000
> I would see them off with a Flag of their liking.


Heck, I'd start a campaign to round up all the Confederate flags in the nation and stow them in the hold of the Ark or whatever the righties chose to sail off in.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I would never survive.



jelun2 said:


> At least you were thinking and allowed to think.
> I don't understand the sects that discourage questioning and thought, which seem to me to be the foundation for a strong belief.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I can tell I really like your sister too.



EveMCooke said:


> My sister prefers the term 'enlightened Catholic'.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> Why--because the number of righties posting here has dwindled to a pitiful few?


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Take responsibility for yourself and do something yourself.



Lukelucy said:


> Because I am tired of being bullied and treated poorly.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And you cannot stop anyone else from what you perceive to be rudeness. You can only control your actions. (I'll spell it out for you if you can't figure it out for yourself.)



Lukelucy said:


> The rudeness continues.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

alcameron said:


> So I disagree with that point of view. Now my point of view is "wrong?" Opinions are opinions and we're each entitled to them. Sometimes, though, some opinions are particularly repugnant---like waving those flags at the White House.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Is that a kiss off?



RUKnitting said:


> Farewell Sweet One.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Just read this on Yahoo News:

"According to Public Policy Polling, which conducted 25 surveys in GOP-held House districts on behalf of MoveOn.org, incumbent Republicans now trail generic Democratic candidates in 15 of the 25 districts. The results, combined with two previous surveys, show Democrats leading in 37 of 61 districts polled since the beginning of the government shutdown.

And when voters were informed that the Republican candidates supported the government shutdown, Democrats took the lead in 11 additional districts (one race became tied)."

Thumbs up! Maybe something good WILL come out of that insane government shutdown.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Good girl. I'm sure you preferred not to hear it.



Poor Purl said:


> My Mom would stop talking to me whenever I said or did something she disapproved of. I bet she's not talking to me.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Mush.



Lukelucy said:


> Farewell to another Sweet One.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

EveMCooke said:


> Everyone hates me and is being nasty to me mummy, make them sit on the naughty stool.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

EveMCooke said:


> As we say in the land down under "oh do belt up and give it a rest"


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: Oh, I do like that.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> I think you hit the nail on the head, Maid. The Confederate flag represents a hankering for a past that never really existed except in the minds of those who've read Gone With The Wind a few too many times. I've noticed the white-sheet crowd has a particular fondness for the Stars and Bars--one gets the impression those folks spend a lot of time in some alternate universe where all Southern women have green eyes and 16-inch waists.
> 
> Even the slightly-more sophisticated argument that the Confederate flag stands for state's rights and minimal Federal interference falls flat. It was under the banner of state's rights that the South clung to the institution of slavery and, later, Jim Crow--proof enough that what an individual state may want is sometimes the worst thing in the world.


:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

More momeeisms.....and we all know what they are worth.



momeee said:


> Oh, dear, o is losing more big $$$ supporters...wonder why?
> 
> Oprah Tells Obama 'No' for Obamacare Help
> Sunday, 20 Oct 2013
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

WARNING: momee is at the cut and paste buttons again.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Huckleberry said:


> EveMCooke
> people from many other Faiths are leaving their Churches as well. That is a world-wide phenomenon. Education is an eye-opener. The push for Religion in Schools and the teaching of Creationism is a direct result of the falling off of Believers. The religious Zealots want to maintain their power and get back what they have lost already.


Sounds like goals bound in futility, but they are welcome to try.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Susie, you made my day. Thanks.



susanmos2000 said:


> Just read this on Yahoo News:
> 
> "According to Public Policy Polling, which conducted 25 surveys in GOP-held House districts on behalf of MoveOn.org, incumbent Republicans now trail generic Democratic candidates in 15 of the 25 districts. The results, combined with two previous surveys, show Democrats leading in 37 of 61 districts polled since the beginning of the government shutdown.
> 
> ...


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Lukelucy said:


> I'll stay as long as I want.





Lukelucy said:


> It is time to shut down Smoking and Obamacare.


First you say you'll stay as long as you want. Then you say this topic should be shut down. Which one of those two things do you want the most? What's the point of making contradictory statements? I don't understand how you might benefit by that kind of communication.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

damemary said:


> WARNING: momee is at the cut and paste buttons again.


damemary
several have an eye on the position that has been vacated and momeee is trying hard to fill it


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Now, here is a man that ALL of Amricans can get admire and support.

Dr. Ben Carson Explains to Roland Martin Why He Believes ObamaCare 'Worst Thing Since Slavery' 
On October 19, 2013 

Dr. Ben Carson made waves throughout the media last week when he slammed ObamaCare in the fiercest terms imaginable: the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery.

Unsurprisingly, progressives who are unused to being lectured to in stark moral terms were outraged or more outraged, rather, and attacked Dr. Ben Carson for the statement. Carson clarified his comments to liberal radio host Roland Martin on Friday. As reported by Noel Sheppard of Newsbusters:

DR. BEN CARSON: I didnt say this is as bad as slavery. I said this is the worst thing since slavery. The reason I said that

ROLAND MARTIN: Which includes Jim Crow, which includes

CARSON: Yes, absolutely, including those, and Ill tell you why I think that. This nation was founded on the principle that it would be a new type of nation that was for, of, and by the people. A constitution was put in place that would assure that the people remained at the pinnacle of power and that the central government would never reach the point where it had control of the people. This fundamentally changes the relationship.

MARTIN: How so?

CARSON: It places the government now at the pinnacle because it now is placed on a road that will give it control of everyones health. Your health is the most important thing that you have, and I think most of us are asleep at the wheel. We dont actually realize whats happening.
MARTIN: But Dr. Carson, how is the government, hows the government controlling peoples health when you talk about providing health care. Actually arent individuals in control of their health in terms of wellness, in terms of how they take care of themselves?

Because the reality is we have a system in America that says that county hospitals  look, I cover county government, and I had to deal with this  county hospitals must see anybody who comes through that door. And one of the things that we have seen in this country: dramatic increases in terms of the budget, in terms of the budget gaps because of exploding healthcare costs. And so we are paying higher property taxes and higher sales taxes as it relates to our county hospitals. And so weve been funding a national healthcare system, and it hasnt been working. So how is this somehow controlling peoples health?

CARSON: Ill tell you. What do you need for good healthcare? You need a patient and you need a healthcare provider. Along has come a middleman to facilitate the relationship. Now it has become the primary entity with the patient and the healthcare provider at its beckon call. Completely turns the situation upside-down. And this is only the beginning. What you will see  mark my words  is that a lot of the insurance companies will begin to fold. People will have fewer and fewer options. Ultimately we will have a single-payer system if we dont stop this from happening. And that will give the government the kind of control that it needs. And, you know, all you have to do is look back through history  and this is something that most people dont, they dont know very much about history, even in this country.
It is difficult to understand why millions of people would want the government that gave us the always-respectful TSA, the perennially bankrupt U.S. postal service, and the model of efficiency at the DMV to get between them and their doctors. But as displayed by the ObamaCare website, the dysfunction of the government takeover of healthcare is just beginning.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> I can see that you are continuing the bullying. The above statement is cruel.


Lukelucy
are you still moving about in the revolving door? There is an exit you know! You declare that you are leaving and then you announce that you have a right (which of course you have) to stay. Need some help with a final decision? Simply ask, plenty of help available.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Now, here is a man that ALL of Amricans can get admire and support.

Dr. Ben Carson Explains to Roland Martin Why He Believes ObamaCare 'Worst Thing Since Slavery' 
On October 19, 2013 

Dr. Ben Carson made waves throughout the media last week when he slammed ObamaCare in the fiercest terms imaginable: the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery.


I think Dr. Carson might be the worst thing that's happened since slavery.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

alcameron said:


> Now, here is a man that ALL of Amricans can get admire and support.
> 
> Dr. Ben Carson Explains to Roland Martin Why He Believes ObamaCare 'Worst Thing Since Slavery'
> On October 19, 2013
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> WARNING: momee is at the cut and paste buttons again.


I just love articles with unattributed quotes from the likes of Ed Klein. 
Many conservative pundits agree...

http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/05/12/483210/edward-klein-obama-book/?mobile=nc

Although you wouldnt know it from reading the New York Post, the Drudge Report or other popular right-wing outlets, Klein is a discredited author with a history of presenting falsehoods as fact. Heres what you need to know about Edward Klein:

(partial article)
1. Kleins last book, which was self-published, suggests Obama was born on foreign soil and is a practicing Mulism. Kleins 2010 work The Obama Identity: A Novel (Or Is It?), co-authored with a former Republican congressman, is a compendium of Obama conspiracy theories. He had to self-publish the book.

2. Klein promoted a shameful conspiracy theory that Bill Clinton raped Hillary. In his 2005 book, Klein promoted an anonymous, hateful allegation supposedly made by two people who claim to have spoken with Bill Clinton about the circumstances surrounding the birth of the Clintons daughter Chelsea.

3. Klein repeatedly questioned Hillary Clintons sexual orientation. He has similarly disparaged Carolyn Bessette Kennedy, Jackie Kennedy and Katie Couric in previous works, leading the Washington Post to comment that Klein has made a second career of leaving knuckle prints on famous women.

4. Klein has a history of publishing demonstrably false allegations about Obama as fact. In a 2010 entry in The Huffington Post, Klein detailed President Obamas ...


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Just read this on Yahoo News:
> 
> "According to Public Policy Polling, which conducted 25 surveys in GOP-held House districts on behalf of MoveOn.org, incumbent Republicans now trail generic Democratic candidates in 15 of the 25 districts. The results, combined with two previous surveys, show Democrats leading in 37 of 61 districts polled since the beginning of the government shutdown.
> 
> ...


It is really too bad that this wasn't an election year, and yet, they never would have pulled that foolishness so close to an election. That may be one of the reasons President Obama and Minority Leader McConnell agree that there won't be such a mess come the first of the year.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Obama's Job Approval Declines for 3rd Straight Quarter to Near-Record Low
October 21, 2013 - 5:56 AM

(CNSNews.com) - President Obama's approval rating has taken another hit, dropping for the third quarter in a row, this time to 44.5 percent between July 20-Oct. 19, Gallup reported on Monday.

That's a three point decline from the previous quarter, and it is the third largest quarter-to-quarter decline of his five-year (19-quarter) presidency.

Obama's highest approval rating (63 percent) came during his first quarter as president, and by the fifth quarter, it had dropped to 48.8 percent. Obama's lowest quarterly approval rating, 41 percent, came in the 11th quarter (third year) of his presidency.

Looking at the most recent quarter, Gallup says Obama's daily job approval rating dropped in August and September amid criticism over his call for military action in Syria and Russia's intervention to prevent it. The partial government shutdown that began on Oct. 1 and Obama's refusal to negotiate over that and the debt limit sent his job approval rating as low as 41 percent in the current quarter, before it rebounded slightly.

Gallup notes that three post-World War II presidents -- Ronald Reagan, Dwight Eisenhower, and Bill Clinton -- had significantly higher 19th quarter averages than Obama, all near 60 percent. Two presidents had lower 19th quarter averages than Obama: Richard Nixon, whose 19th quarter came during the Watergate investigations, and Lyndon Johnson, attributable mostly to the increasingly unpopular Vietnam War.

Obama's 19th quarter approval average is very similar to that of George W. Bush (43.9 percent). Bush's 19th quarter ratings drop came amid criticism of his handling of Hurricane Katrina, and it never recovered.

A decline in approval from the 19th to the 20th quarter has been the norm for presidents, Gallup says; only Reagan and Clinton did not see at least slight declines in their 20th quarter, and only Reagan's rating notably improved.

The implications, according to Gallup: Obama is suffering through another approval slump, something he experienced during the latter part of his first year into his second year as president, and during the latter part of his third year. After a relatively strong fourth year that included several quarters of higher ratings that aided his re-election, his approval rating has now declined in each of the last three quarters.

The legislative battles over the federal budget and the Affordable Care Act, as well as the federal debt limit, took a toll on the president's popularity, with his Gallup daily approval rating falling to 41% on some days during the shutdown.

The deal to end the gridlock over spending and the debt limit -- and problems with implementation of the Affordable Care Act -- may have some effect on Obama's 20th quarter ratings, which Gallup continues to track with its daily polls.
- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/obamas-job-approval-declines-3rd-straight-quarter-near-record-low#sthash.AjDekB6r.dpuf


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

And it's "beck and call" not "beckon call."


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

alcameron said:


> And it's "beck and call" not "beckon call."


 :XD:


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Designer1234 said:


> I guess we have learned more about each other. I am wondering are you a member of the Tea Party (although I realize you said you were not a member of the Republican Party. I have never come on here without seeing your posts - but I guess i just happened to hit the days you were posting? It has appeared to me that you are one of the leaders of the group here on the right. I have read your posts everytime I have come here and I believe you do believe what you say - even though to me it is flawed by the links you post and the stations you watch. I believe you have to study where links come from, who posts them and over a period of time decide who you believe. I also believe that if you only read one type of post or watch one sided news stations you don't have to question - you follow blindly.
> 
> For someone who isn't a Republican, you have a lot of right wing (not meant as an insult by the way) thoughts and statements. It is usually nearly the opposite of what I think. If I was an American, I would not have been a believer in Bush or that he was a good President. I believe from everything I have ever read (on both sides) that he deliberately with the push from others in his cabinet - including the Vice President - deliberately started a war that cost many many lives and the United States billions of dollars. I also believe that President Obama inherited that debt. I believe that the GOP deliberately planned from the day he first ran and then was elected to not allow anything to pass even if prior to that, they had said that some ideas were good. I believe that because he was only half white, that this has been a huge factor in the feelings the Right wing (especially the far right) and southern States repubs especially have felt and still feel and will continue to feel about anyone who has ***** (not sure if this is the approved word) blood.
> 
> ...


I welcome reading your thoughts. I have 2 good friends that are Canadian and respect their thoughts on how they see our country and the direction it is taking.

Our country is in very deep trouble. It appears Congress has dug its trenches and are holding firm. They are more interested in pointing fingers and in blaming one another, than getting to the bottom of our problems and fixing them. At this point, I don't think our government is overly concerned about where we stand in the world. The administration seems almost willing to let China or Russia take our place. I do believe that Putin wants the title back and does not want to share this time around.

I am not a leader of 'my side", as I don't believe we have/had a leader. I'm just joining in on the conversation. Although I am not a member of the Tea Party, I do believe in a smaller government, less spending and waste and energy independence. I do side with that part of their message. I don't think many on here just listen to one news source and do decide for themselves what they are comfortable believing. I certainly don't believe that anyone here is an expert on news sources and can say which is the best source for information. It's a personal choice, which makes it neither right nor wrong.

As far as Momee's post - I have said that it was posted before. Some of it is true, some not so much. They are not Momee's words. I chose to let it go and not rehash what was already said. Frankly, I was more appalled at the KKK pictures and the group on the left carrying on and inferring that LovetheLake was a member. To me, that showed just how low those "ladies" are willing to go. It went far beyond being a joke.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> Good question, but I know Jews feel guilt. It's inculcated in them by their mothers.
> 
> How many Jewish mothers does it take to change a lightbulb? None, I'll just sit here in the dark.


In the neighborhood where I grew up, Jewish and Italian mothers knew how to use guilt to their advantage. :lol: :lol:


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

MaidInBedlam said:


> That's MIB to you, dearie. What exactly is the example of me defending my behavior? You seem to have left that little item out, rendering your post meaningless.


Well Seattle dearie, if you can't understand what you write, then perhaps you should stop posting.


----------



## shayfaye (May 6, 2011)

Okay. I went to the site and was willing to read this. However, the tag line at the top stopped me. 
Right News. Right Now. No thank you.



momeee said:


> Obama's Job Approval Declines for 3rd Straight Quarter to Near-Record Low
> October 21, 2013 - 5:56 AM
> 
> - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/obamas-job-approval-declines-3rd-straight-quarter-near-record-low#sthash.AjDekB6r.dpuf


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

solow writes:
The administration seems almost willing to let China or Russia take our place. I do believe that Putin wants the title back and does not want to share this time around.


I have to ask how is an administration (or anyone) almost willing to do anything?
Could you give us some examples of what you see playing out that leads you to think that the US leadership is willing to let China or Russia take our place?


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

EveMCooke said:


> As we say in the land down under "oh do belt up and give it a rest"


And we can say right back at ya!


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> Just read this on Yahoo News:
> 
> "According to Public Policy Polling, which conducted 25 surveys in GOP-held House districts on behalf of MoveOn.org, incumbent Republicans now trail generic Democratic candidates in 15 of the 25 districts. The results, combined with two previous surveys, show Democrats leading in 37 of 61 districts polled since the beginning of the government shutdown.
> 
> ...


All polls should be taken with a grain of salt. Ask the same question of the same people in 1 month's time, and the answer will no doubt be different. Chances are they will probably not even remember the shutdown.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> All polls should be taken with a grain of salt. Ask the same question of the same people in 1 month's time, and the answer will no doubt be different. Chances are they will probably not even remember the shutdown.


Everybody here recognizes that polls, other than perhaps those from Nate Silver, are faulty. 
To write a disclaimer is simply stating the obvious. The only interesting part, to me, is that you only post those disclaimers when it is a poll that shows positives for the administration.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> All polls should be taken with a grain of salt. Ask the same question of the same people in 1 month's time, and the answer will no doubt be different. Chances are they will probably not even remember the shutdown.


You're probably right that people have short memories. I hope they DO remember that the repubs were responsible for the shutdown and vote accordingly in 2014.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

OCTOBER 16, 2013
CRUZ: THE DREAM OF KEEPING POOR PEOPLE FROM SEEING A DOCTOR MUST NEVER DIE
POSTED BY ANDY BOROWITZ

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)Acknowledging that the government shutdown was coming to an end, an emotional Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) took to the Senate floor today to make an impassioned speech, telling his colleagues, The dream of keeping poor people from seeing a doctor must never die.

His eyes welling up with tears, Sen. Cruz said, I embarked on this crusade with a simple goal: to keep affordable health care out of the reach of ordinary, hard-working Americans. And while this battle was lost, that dreamthat precious, cherished dreamwill live on.

Reflecting on the government shutdown and near-default that almost touched off a global financial apocalypse, Sen. Cruz said, Well give it another try in a few weeks.

Sen. Cruzs closest ally, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) also spoke reverently of the shutdown, calling it the most expensive Civil War reënactment in history.

Unfortunately, once again, the wrong side won, he said.

Over in the House of Representatives, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) congratulated his colleagues on the deal to resolve the shutdown, telling reporters, This proves that when we work together, we can come up with a totally unsatisfactory solution to a completely unnecessary crisis.

But the last word belonged to Sen. Cruz, who ended his emotional speech with a quiet benediction: Goodnight stars. Goodnight air. Goodnight noises everywhere.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/10/cruz-the-dream-of-keeping-poor-people-from-seeing-a-doctor-must-never-die.html


----------



## galinipper (Apr 30, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> I have to ask how is an administration (or anyone) almost willing to do anything?
> Could you give us some examples of what you see playing out that leads you to think that the US leadership is willing to let China or Russia take our place?


 Hyperinflation would bring on the collapse of our economy. I wonder what Countries would be there to help the US When and if it happens. I can think of 2, and China and Russia are not on that short list. This is an opinion and I did not come to this opinion reading a few articles, also I am not fear mongering... take what I just posted or leave it.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> All polls should be taken with a grain of salt. Ask the same question of the same people in 1 month's time, and the answer will no doubt be different. Chances are they will probably not even remember the shutdown.


soloweygirl
we shall make great efforts to remind people of what the Nuts put us through. Memory like Elephants we have. We don't forget, you can count on it.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

galinipper said:


> Hyperinflation would bring on the collapse of our economy. I wonder what Countries would be there to help the US When and if it happens. I can think of 2, and China and Russia are not on that short list. This is an opinion and I did not come to this opinion reading a few articles, also I am not fear mongering... take what I just posted or leave it.


I agree with you about Russia but disagree on the other. I think the American and the Chinese economy are hopelessly intertwined--we need cheap goods, and they need someone to sell them to. All countries want to be #1, but I don't believe at this point China could get there all on its own.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> OCTOBER 16, 2013
> CRUZ: THE DREAM OF KEEPING POOR PEOPLE FROM SEEING A DOCTOR MUST NEVER DIE
> POSTED BY ANDY BOROWITZ
> 
> ...


Poor Purl
what a heartless and poor Actor Cruz is. I hope that he keeps speaking so that we get to know him thoroughly. Amazing how much we know about him already just think how much he can reveal yet.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Huckleberry said:


> soloweygirl
> we shall make great efforts to remind people of what the Nuts put us through. Memory like Elephants we have. We don't forget, you can count on it.


I don't think people are likely to forget about the shutdown in 12 month's time--particularly as it's possible we'll go through it all again in January. Mainstream Republicans now know better, but I doubt Cruz has learned a thing.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Huckleberry said:


> Poor Purl
> what a heartless and poor Actor Cruz is. I hope that he keeps speaking so that we get to know him thoroughly. Amazing how much we know about him already just think how much he can reveal yet.


He knows exactly who his audience is and plays his part perfectly. If he has a decent staff, though, they'll stop him before he goes too far.

BTW, Huck and everyone, the piece I posted was satire; Cruz didn't exactly say what's in it, but I bet it was on his mind.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

damemary said:


> Thank you Designer for your well articulated thoughts. You are patient and fair minded and it is a pleasure to read your thoughts.


I agree.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> Purl I am no longer a Catholic and haven't been for several years. Too many things have happened in the church that I totally can't accept any more and I have changed too. I see the church as another institution of old men using religion to control people. I don't think Jesus would be too thrilled with things as they are and neither am I. I am more concerned with living a simple life, helping my fellow man and preserving the earth. I think Eastern philosophy makes more sense to me at this point in my life.


I could've written that. Was there a turning point for you? There was for me, though I'd been "working" toward it prior to the incident.

I went to a Catholic grade school (all the way to grade 8 in those days), and it was religion class, 7th grade. I don't know how the subject came up, but we were discussing what would happen if a woman showed up at a Catholic hospital ER with a medical emergency with her pregnancy, and what if it came to making a choice between saving her or saving the fetus?

In every case, without exception, the nun assured us the baby would be saved. I had LOTS of questions:

"Without asking her?" Yes.
"Without asking her husband?" Yes.
"Or her other children ... or her parents?" Yes.
"what if she's not Catholic?" Yes.

Something clicked deep within me and to put it in words, it was a silent scream: "GET ME OUTTA HERE, this is no place for a female!" And I never considered myself a Catholic again, though purely to keep peace I continued to go to Mass on Sundays and so forth.

That is pure, unadulterated misogyny, as is the refusal to ordain women, and it is NOT of God. It's also spiritual abuse to tell any group (women, gays, minorities) that they are in any way less favored by God because of who they are, because of who God made them to be in the first place.

The start of 2nd Wave Feminism was still about 10 years off in the future. Clearly, I am a born feminist. :mrgreen:


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

EveMCooke said:


> Alcameron, I will be thinking of you when you are having your surgery. Hope things go fine for you.


Me too. Best wishes for an easy time and very speedy healing.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

damemary said:


> You got it. Here's some thoughts from me as a child trying to figure out Catholicism in Catholic school.
> 
> And the sins at the time were so confusing. Eat meat on Friday and it's a mortal (serious) sin. If you die before confessing, you go straight to hell. Then they said it was okay to eat meat on Friday. I worried about all the poor souls stuck forever in hell when they didn't have to be there. Did they get a 'get out of hell free' card?


Yes! It was so illogical, irrational. I was getting to the point where I was thinking to myself: these are MAN-made laws, not GOD-made laws, and frankly I want a more compassionate, reasonable and rational God than this. If God is perfect, that ain't it; something is wrong.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

Knitcrazydeborah said:


> Amen. I grew up in Chicago but lived in the south for over 20 years and believe what you say about the confederate flag to be true. Northerners tend to see the confederate flag as a sign of racism, but that usually has not got anything to do with it. In my experience in the south, when someone was losing an argument they often hurled the "racist" slur at the other party to shut down the argument.


You're trying to put lipstick on a pig. Won't work. All of what you're saying falls into the category of "dog whistling" and other code worded rationalizations for the underlying reality of racism.

As for that "shut down the argument" line, it's just an attempt by the offending racist to excuse or innoculate him or herself from further challenge, turning the tables to try to pose as the victim - and oh yes, change the subject. It's bogus. You don't have to stop the discussion, just grow a spine and respond appropriately, offering evidence and proof that you're not. It's also a great way for racists to minimize and decrease discussions about racism, which serves the purpose of letting racism go unchallenged. Another argument, the one that goes "we should all be just regular Americans, not hyphenated Americans, so we can just quit talking about race" serves the very same purpose. If you quit talking about racism, it becomes invisible. So much the better for the racists, and so much the worse for their victims.



> Southerners tend to view the confederate flag as a symbol of states rights and resistance to bullying from an aggressive federal government. Blacks rightly see it as a symbol of slavery. Those that feel better viewing that flag as a racist symbol will always see it that way. The actual truth lies elsewhere...


No, the actual truth is that you cannot separate the Confederate flag from its shameful birth in slavery. "States' rights" is just code word for "we fought a war to keep our slaves - as enshrined in our various Confederate state laws -- and want want them back."

Now, you may not consciously THINK think those things when you think of the flag, but that's what the symbol means and you can't separate it from its true meaning.

Further, when you put your remarks in the context of the flag's primary contemporary use, your argument just falls on its face: It sounds high-minded and oh so reasonable, but is ultimately meaningless and fails utterly.

Here's the contemporary history:



> The flag was kept out of popular culture until the middle of the twentieth century. Southern soldiers waved Confederate flags in World War II, but they were merely seen as signs that the Southerners were in the war alongside Yankees and fighting loyally.The tone was different when in October of 1947 a group of fraternity brothers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill brought Confederate flags and waved them at a football game. A month later U.Va. fans brought Confederate flags with them to a football game against the University of Pennsylvania. Soon the rebel flag became the rage at football games and social events across the South. With the coming of the Civil Rights movement came the beginnings of the controversy surrounding the flag which we know today. White Southerners believed that their exclusive culture was being threatened, and the flag became a symbol against civil rights. The segregationist Dixiecrat party of 1948, who ran Strom Thurmond for president, took on the Confederate flag as its symbol. Anti-Civil Rights sentiment ran strongin the South, which was once again feeling imposed upon by a distant federal government. The conflict was on again. http://xroads.virginia.edu/~class/am483_97/projects/sarratt/intro.html


----------



## Queenmum (Dec 3, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> OCTOBER 16, 2013
> CRUZ: THE DREAM OF KEEPING POOR PEOPLE FROM SEEING A DOCTOR MUST NEVER DIE
> POSTED BY ANDY BOROWITZ
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :XD: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> solow writes:
> The administration seems almost willing to let China or Russia take our place. I do believe that Putin wants the title back and does not want to share this time around.
> 
> I have to ask how is an administration (or anyone) almost willing to do anything?
> Could you give us some examples of what you see playing out that leads you to think that the US leadership is willing to let China or Russia take our place?


jelun2
the greatest responsibility for reducing our standing in the World goes to greed. It goes to those who have been sending manufacturing abroad. The Administration has practically no power to prevent that unless we wind up with a different Congress who is willing to put laws into place which prevent outsourcing which is killing our economy.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> He knows exactly who his audience is and plays his part perfectly. If he has a decent staff, though, they'll stop him before he goes too far.
> 
> BTW, Huck and everyone, the piece I posted was satire; Cruz didn't exactly say what's in it, but I bet it was on his mind.


Poor url
the post made it quite clear how he and his chronies think. I got it.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

alcameron said:


> I think Dr. Carson might be the worst thing that's happened since slavery.


Well said! I don't know how a man can be a medical doctor and not have a brain in his head. He's a wreck.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

OK. I admit I don't always pay enough attention to the nuttier nut jobs in Congress, but did Cruz actually say he wants to KEEP poor people from seeing doctors? This is a positive goal? He's sad that he can't cause more people to suffer? What's up with that?


Poor Purl said:


> OCTOBER 16, 2013
> CRUZ: THE DREAM OF KEEPING POOR PEOPLE FROM SEEING A DOCTOR MUST NEVER DIE
> POSTED BY ANDY BOROWITZ
> 
> ...


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

MaidInBedlam said:


> OK. I admit I don't always pay enough attention to the nuttier nut jobs in Congress, but did Cruz actually say he wants to KEEP poor people from seeing doctors? This is a positive goal? He's sad that he can't cause more people to suffer? What's up with that?


Relax, Maid, it was just a satire piece.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

i'm glad what you posted was satire. I was really scared there for a few moments.


Poor Purl said:


> He knows exactly who his audience is and plays his part perfectly. If he has a decent staff, though, they'll stop him before he goes too far.
> 
> BTW, Huck and everyone, the piece I posted was satire; Cruz didn't exactly say what's in it, but I bet it was on his mind.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

I have to ask... how do i put this nicely?

Sorry, I was momentarily crazed by the KP lunacy bug.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

MaidInBedlam said:


> i'm glad what you posted was satire. I was really scared there for a few moments.


I know--give what a slob the guy is, it really does seem possible.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> I have to ask... how do i put this nicely?
> 
> Is that person who began another thread, similar to this, dumb as a post, crazy, a master manipulator, or all of the above?


I know who you're referring too--I think she's just pitifully ignorant. And that "doctor" of hers should be stripped of his license (if he even has one, which I doubt).


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> I know who you're referring too--I think she's just pitifully ignorant. And that "doctor" of hers should be stripped of his license (if he even has one, which I doubt).


Now SOMEONE is claiming that several docs have said the same thing. 
I am afraid I was not very nice in my response.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> snip
> 
> Our country is in very deep trouble. It appears Congress has dug its trenches and are holding firm. They are more interested in pointing fingers and in blaming one another, than getting to the bottom of our problems and fixing them.
> 
> ...


Here's the thing though: Silence Condones. And again and again and again you have not only chosen to remain silent, but valiantly and energetically defended your silence. Shrug. Your call, but be prepared to be either challenged for it or assumed to have concurred.

BTW, I didn't see anyone implying anyone was a member of the KKK -- may have missed it. Would you be good enough to locate that and provide the link? (The little # sign in the right hand corner is where you can get individual post links, in case you're not familiar with it.)

Finally, when you say Congress is more interested in pointing fingers and assigning blame, that's not true. ONE part of Congress -- the Republicans -- is dead set on doing NOTHING but obstructing the other side including the President. They SAY otherwise, but they're lying. The Democrats have gone so far out of their way to accommodate and negotiate and try to get the governing for which they were all elected going, to no avail. So that's another lie you're getting from your rightwing media. It's called "false equivalence," and it's the same as saying "both sides do it" when both sides DON'T. Or giving both sides of an argument equal treatment when one side is clearly, provably, demonstrably a lie.

Of course, the refusal to negotiate with political terrorists holding the government and world economy hostage is a whole 'nother matter.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Now SOMEONE is claiming that several docs have said the same thing.
> I am afraid I was not very nice in my response.


Oh well...it's hard not to get exasperated with folks who spout these crazy ideas. It's like we've gone back a thousand years and are dealing with people who believe the earth is flat and they'll fall off the edge if they sail too close.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Knitry said:

BTW, I didn't see anyone implying anyone was a member of the KKK -- may have missed it. Would you be good enough to locate that and provide the link? (The little # sign in the right hand corner is where you can get individual post links, in case you're not familiar with it.)


I didn't see that implication either. I was too lazy to go back and check it out, though. 
There's 2 votes for no impying of membership. 
As a matter of fact, it was quite clear from one of my posts that I was joking that she wanted me to come to VA so that OTHERS could use their guns on me.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> All polls should be taken with a grain of salt. Ask the same question of the same people in 1 month's time, and the answer will no doubt be different. Chances are they will probably not even remember the shutdown.


Yes, that's why they take them repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly.

A lot of people were hurt very badly by the shutdown. They're definitely going to remember.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Knitry said:


> Yes, that's why they take them repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly.
> 
> A lot of people were hurt very badly by the shutdown. They're definitely going to remember.


24 BILLION dollars is a LOT of money. All of those business people who were hurt to the extent of considering closure are not going to forget.


----------



## Designer1234 (Aug 9, 2011)

Knitry said:


> Yes! It was so illogical, irrational. I was getting to the point where I was thinking to myself: these are MAN-made laws, not GOD-made laws, and frankly I want a more compassionate, reasonable and rational God than this. If God is perfect, that ain't it; something is wrong.


I was raised very devout Baptist -- very far right - I accepted everything until I was a late teen, Then I started asking myself -- why would God or Jesus be happy when someone was so unforgiving and so 'always right'. As time went by and the women's movement happened in the States and at home -- I understood and agreed with it. I could not feel it was wrong for a woman to have control of her own body and life- when one of the main things I saw growing up was women being 'put down' and treated in many ways like Chattels in my own Church (not by all men- but by a lot of men and often those men were high members of the Church) . Over time once I was out on my own, I questioned more and more and became more liberal in my views. Don't get me wrong, my Grandparents were really good people and really were 'good' Baptists in the best sense of the word but they were the minority in my opinion.

My Grandmother was left as a widow with 5 children and ended up raising my sister and I when my mother died. So I saw the best and the worst of living in a strongly Baptist Home.

I do understand the 'fear' and the closed minds of people who have never questioned what they have been told their whole life. I think in many ways it is like the Catholic Church-- men (not women) make the decisions - in both cases - and usually women bury their own deep feelings of anger, and frustration and those who question it and if it is strong enough they usually somehow break away. I am free to make my own decision about what I believe -- and will face my maker (which I do believe will happen) and I guess we will see then whether my choices were God's will or not.

I never tell anyone who is a strong believer that they are incorrect -- who really knows? however I believe that I am a good person who believes 'do unto others as ye would have them do unto you." off my soap box Shirley


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Do I detect some racism here?


HAHAHAAA, good one!


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

Knitry said:


> I could've written that. Was there a turning point for :


I started to question in grade 1 when I saw a picture of the flood, with Noah and his family safely on the Ark and sailing magestly past women holding their babies up to him to be saved. "Are the babies and children also evil?" I asked. "Yes" was the reply. The picture gave me nightmares, I could not understand it. I continued to ask questions the nuns could not answer, except for one who opened my eyes to Eastern Philosophy and religions and their way of thinking, especially Karma. She told me that was probably my way in life. That was in year 7. I then changed schools because we moved house. The church there was run by the Franciscan Friars who were free thinkers, but not some of the nuns and definitely not some of the girls. I left school at the end of year 10. I did attend mass for the sake of peace for several more years, but not every Sunday. I would leave home for church but would often go to the park and observe nature. My church, more peaceful than the church and I said it was closer to God than themchurch building. If anyone said they did not see me at mass I would ask what mass they attended and then tell them I went to either the earlier or later mass or I went to Bellevue or even went to Perth and the cathederal.
The last time I attended mass was at the cathederal in 1960 when the priest was ranting on about changes to the divorce laws that were being contemplated. They were to reduce the time between getting a legal separation and divorce from 5 years to 2 years. he ranted and raved and told everyone to sign the petition at the back of the church. I was 19 at the time and like my mother and grandmother, I supported divorce. They were also pro choice, but back thenthis was pretty meaningless as it was still illegal so it was always a back alley proceedure. They both said this caused somany unnecessary deaths and so much missery. There was also no supporting parents social security benefits either so women were dorced to remain with their husbands no matter how bad the situation. It was the only way to keep a roof over the children's head and feed. No divorce after 12 months or guilt free divorce back then. I thought the priest, a man who would never marry, should not tell married people they had to remain together or separate but not remarried, all their life. I got up and walked out of the church and never attended mass again. I told my mother and she supported my action. My mother remained catholic all her life but only attended mass on a regular basis after she turned 60. At one stage we lived only 6 doors away from the church and she did not go to mass, she was too busy she said. We were not a family that prayed or said the rosary together.

My sister in law is a very strong catholic. At one stage she told people that she taught religion at the local Catholic school. She was the lay volunteer who heard the year 1 and 2 catechism. The school could not get volunteers so took anyone who volunteered. She sat there and listened to little children recite the catechism parrot fashion. I asked her to explain one question and she just parrotted the answer written in the book. She could not understand that was not explaining the question. Mum told me to leave her alone as my question was beyond her comprehension. My mother really did not have a high opinion of her, neither did my three sister or I.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Oh well...it's hard not to get exasperated with folks who spout these crazy ideas. It's like we've gone back a thousand years and are dealing with people who believe the earth is flat and they'll fall off the edge if they sail too close.


If someone wants to take contributions for a sailboat...


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> If someone wants to take contributions for a sailboat...


Make it an Ark--there's be room for that many more.


----------



## Designer1234 (Aug 9, 2011)

Huckleberry said:


> jelun2
> the greatest responsibility for reducing our standing in the World goes to greed. It goes to those who have been sending manufacturing abroad. The Administration has practically no power to prevent that unless we wind up with a different Congress who is willing to put laws into place which prevent outsourcing which is killing our economy.


I agree -- No American wants their country (at least 95.% of Americans to lose their place in the world in my opinion. I do feel that many Americans on the right are listening to the 4-5% who really because they want Power don't care if the States loses their place in the world.

They are inexperienced with the way the US government should work and 'in my opinon' are perfectly willing to do whatever it takes to gain the Presidency and the Government, even if it means the end of the United States as we know it. The US Government as does the Canadian Government - depends on support and belief by the people that their system is the best in the world -- In my opinion, Cruz and his friends are much more interested in obtaining power than in worrying about such a minor thing as the place America has in the world.

I just don't think they really care,and in his speeches he has said he doesn't care - that the Government is being undermined by him and his followers. and I think their followers are being led down a terrible path which will come back to bite them. It has happened before -- In Germany - although I am not saying he is a 'hitler' but he convinced enough people that he had all the answers that they followed him like sheep. It looks familiar - and it will have to be nipped in the bud - by people who use their minds to question and read all information and have open minds and think, in my opinion.

If ever there was a time when the US Government should work together to strengthen their position, in my opinion it is now. But instead one side is trying to sink the other for reasons that are hidden even from themselves. They will do anything to prove that Obama is a poor President, instead of standing and backing him -- even if they don't always agree with him as both parties have done in the past. He was elected, and that is the bottom line. *Think what could happen if they forgot their personal agenda and showed a face to the world that the US stands together rather than is being torn apart*.

I am so uneasy about what is happening but then who am I and why do I worry? -- good question. I am not sure of that answer myself and I guess I should not care.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

What makes you think 'all Americans' would support this? You are way off base. And you're OUT.



momeee said:


> Now, here is a man that ALL of Amricans can get admire and support.
> 
> Dr. Ben Carson Explains to Roland Martin Why He Believes ObamaCare 'Worst Thing Since Slavery'
> On October 19, 2013
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> I just love articles with unattributed quotes from the likes of Ed Klein.
> Many conservative pundits agree...
> 
> http://thinkprogress.org/media/2012/05/12/483210/edward-klein-obama-book/?mobile=nc
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

alcameron said:


> And it's "beck and call" not "beckon call."


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## Designer1234 (Aug 9, 2011)

damemary said:


> What makes you think 'all Americans' would support this? You are way off base. And you're OUT.


Momeee after the post you posted yesterday I have lost any interest in reading anything you ever post again. YOu should be ashamed. You are just as vicious as the people you quoted, hopefully some of the people on the right who read your post - way down deep will feel the same way. who knows, but I do know that posts like yours do nothing to solve any problems your country may have. I will never read another of your posts.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I also look forward to some thoughtful examples for this reasoning. Please reply.



jelun2 said:


> solow writes:
> The administration seems almost willing to let China or Russia take our place. I do believe that Putin wants the title back and does not want to share this time around.
> 
> I have to ask how is an administration (or anyone) almost willing to do anything?
> Could you give us some examples of what you see playing out that leads you to think that the US leadership is willing to let China or Russia take our place?


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Knitry said:


> Well said! I don't know how a man can be a medical doctor and not have a brain in his head. He's a wreck.


Knitry
He suffers from limited brain capacity. Only great in a very restricted area, Not uncommon. Einstein could not even match his Socks.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Please tell me this is satire. I hate to think of lunatics on the loose.



Poor Purl said:


> OCTOBER 16, 2013
> CRUZ: THE DREAM OF KEEPING POOR PEOPLE FROM SEEING A DOCTOR MUST NEVER DIE
> POSTED BY ANDY BOROWITZ
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Oh, thank heavens!



Poor Purl said:


> He knows exactly who his audience is and plays his part perfectly. If he has a decent staff, though, they'll stop him before he goes too far.
> 
> BTW, Huck and everyone, the piece I posted was satire; Cruz didn't exactly say what's in it, but I bet it was on his mind.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Do I detect some racism here?


joeysomma
I think only you see that. This Doctor is very limited and only 0.025% of his Colleagues have agreed with him. I think that proves my point quite well.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

damemary said:


> Please tell me this is satire. I hate to think of lunatics on the loose.


damemary
sorry to disappoint you. There are plenty of lunatics on the loose.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

The subservient condition of woman always infuriated me. I could also find no solace in the teachings....only you must. I'm out of there.



Knitry said:


> I could've written that. Was there a turning point for you? There was for me, though I'd been "working" toward it prior to the incident.
> 
> I went to a Catholic grade school (all the way to grade 8 in those days), and it was religion class, 7th grade. I don't know how the subject came up, but we were discussing what would happen if a woman showed up at a Catholic hospital ER with a medical emergency with her pregnancy, and what if it came to making a choice between saving her or saving the fetus?
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

From the mouths of babes.



Knitry said:


> Yes! It was so illogical, irrational. I was getting to the point where I was thinking to myself: these are MAN-made laws, not GOD-made laws, and frankly I want a more compassionate, reasonable and rational God than this. If God is perfect, that ain't it; something is wrong.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Huckleberry said:


> damemary
> sorry to disappoint you. There are plenty of lunatics on the loose.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## Designer1234 (Aug 9, 2011)

damemary said:


> The subservient condition of woman always infuriated me. I could also find no solace in the teachings....only you must. I'm out of there.


me too!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

The article was thankfully identified as satire, but it still reflects his thoughts.



MaidInBedlam said:


> OK. I admit I don't always pay enough attention to the nuttier nut jobs in Congress, but did Cruz actually say he wants to KEEP poor people from seeing doctors? This is a positive goal? He's sad that he can't cause more people to suffer? What's up with that?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Nothing lost. Relax.



jelun2 said:


> Now SOMEONE is claiming that several docs have said the same thing.
> I am afraid I was not very nice in my response.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Do I detect some racism here?


Nope -- partisanship.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> Oh well...it's hard not to get exasperated with folks who spout these crazy ideas. It's like we've gone back a thousand years and are dealing with people who believe the earth is flat and they'll fall off the edge if they sail too close.


And the rest of us are praying they all decide to go for a sail on the ocean blue.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And I've heard Einstein only wore black suits and white shirts so he wouldn't have to think about getting dressed. I like simple.



Huckleberry said:


> Knitry
> He suffers from limited brain capacity. Only great in a very restricted area, Not uncommon. Einstein could not even match his Socks.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

jelun2 wrote:
solow writes:
The administration seems almost willing to let China or Russia take our place. I do believe that Putin wants the title back and does not want to share this time around.

I have to ask how is an administration (or anyone) almost willing to do anything?
Could you give us some examples of what you see playing out that leads you to think that the US leadership is willing to let China or Russia take our place?
*******************************************



damemary said:


> I also look forward to some thoughtful examples for this reasoning. Please reply.


Nuttin' Honey.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Sometimes I hate it when my expectations are matched. I give up on this one.



jelun2 said:


> jelun2 wrote:
> solow writes:
> The administration seems almost willing to let China or Russia take our place. I do believe that Putin wants the title back and does not want to share this time around.
> 
> ...


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

alcameron said:


> And it's "beck and call" not "beckon call."


 :thumbup: :XD:


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

Still can't see what's available. The fed site sent me to my state site that is down. Maybe I'll find out in december..Breaking news there won't be any penalties against anyone if they can't sign up.due to website probs. Also seemedto say no one was even going to be penalized..


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Joey, don't even TRY logic or making sense. You have lost the knack.



joeysomma said:


> But he is black and so many do not like him. Why isn't that racist?
> 
> Obama is only half black and I do not like his policies or his lack of brains. and you call me racist.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

What a fiasco. It is obscuring the good in the program, but I'm hanging in there too.



ute4kp said:


> Still can't see what's available. The fed site sent me to my state site that is down. Maybe I'll find out in december..Breaking news there won't be any penalties against anyone if they can't sign up.due to website probs. Also seemedto say no one was even going to be penalized..


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> Still can't see what's available. The fed site sent me to my state site that is down. Maybe I'll find out in december..Breaking news there won't be any penalties against anyone if they can't sign up.due to website probs. Also seemedto say no one was even going to be penalized..


Was the no penalty thing passed or are they just talking about the possibility for now? It would certainly make sense to postpone it for a year. 
I did hear this morning that part of the problem, as some of us suspected, is that the volume is so high and problematic due to what they termed "tourists"; people are going who have no need of health insurance they just want to check it out.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Was the no penalty thing passed or are they just talking about the possibility for now? It would certainly make sense to postpone it for a year.
> I did hear this morning that part of the problem, as some of us suspected, is that the volume is so high and problematic due to what they termed "tourists"; people are going who have no need of health insurance they just want to check it out.


You heard wrong, sorry. The people going to the website proved that the website is a disaster. 5,000,000 lines of the program need to be rewritten. In NY State, no one has been approved for health care.

The cost of creating the website cost almost 300-400 million to create and it does not work. If you paid 500 programmers $200.00 an hour, it would take 10 years to use up that amount of money. How did they spend that much money? Where is the accountability for the misuse of funds? Couldn't that money have been used to set up a fund to help people with their medical bills and leave the rest of us alone?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Do you stay up nights making up the worst possible explanation for things, or is it a special gift you have for it?

Do you ever give anyone the benefit of the doubt or is it just President Barack Obama that is deprived of that benefit? And if it's just the President, do you know why?



lovethelake said:


> You heard wrong, sorry. The people going to the website proved that the website is a disaster. 5,000,000 lines of the program need to be rewritten. In NY State, no one has been approved for health care.
> 
> The cost of creating the website cost almost 300-400 million to create and it does not work. If you paid 500 programmers $200.00 an hour, it would take 10 years to use up that amount of money. How did they spend that much money? Where is the accountability for the misuse of funds? Couldn't that money have been used to set up a fund to help people with their medical bills and leave the rest of us alone?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> Do you stay up nights making up the worst possible explanation for things, or is it a special gift you have for it?
> 
> Do you ever give anyone the benefit of the doubt or is it just President Barack Obama that is deprived of that benefit? And if it's just the President, do you know why?


I am just ignoring the worst of the wasps.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> But he is black and so many do not like him. Why isn't that racist?
> 
> Obama is only half black and I do not like his policies or his lack of brains. and you call me racist.


jeoysoomma
why do you want us to again and again point out your flaws when you do not seem to be able to understand what we are saying. The dislike for him has absolutely nothing to do with ANY Race.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

a private Website I tried to visit
turned into a disaster, is that the President's fault as well?


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

HANNITY
this scoundrel had three couples on his show who claimed to be hurt by Obamacare. Some reputable Reporter got in touch with these people and nothing that was said on Hannity's Show turned out to be true. So much for FAUX News.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Huckleberry said:


> a private Website I tried to visit
> turned into a disaster, is that the President's fault as well?


Not only that, but, if that is the case we should shut that private company down. They are, without a doubt, in a massive conspiracy to create a space station for all the loons outside this galaxy. 
Want to celebrate with me?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Huckleberry said:


> HANNITY
> this scoundrel had three couples on his show who claimed to be hurt by Obamacare. Some reputable Reporter got in touch with these people and nothing that was said on Hannity's Show turned out to be true. So much for FAUX News.


 :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Cheers!



jelun2 said:


> Not only that, but, if that is the case we should shut that private company down. They are, without a doubt, in a massive conspiracy to create a space station for all the loons outside this galaxy.
> Want to celebrate with me?


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> You heard wrong, sorry. The people going to the website proved that the website is a disaster. 5,000,000 lines of the program need to be rewritten. In NY State, no one has been approved for health care.
> 
> The cost of creating the website cost almost 300-400 million to create and it does not work. If you paid 500 programmers $200.00 an hour, it would take 10 years to use up that amount of money. How did they spend that much money? Where is the accountability for the misuse of funds? Couldn't that money have been used to set up a fund to help people with their medical bills and leave the rest of us alone?


lovethelake
misuse of money. Let us start with Chris Christy who spent 24.000 Million Dollars just to have voting on two different dates which he thinks favors him.

FACT: no-one will be paying a fine for not enrolling in Obamacare on time.

GLITCHES: it would not surprise me if someone was trying to corrupt the Computer system to renroll in Obamacare.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Was the no penalty thing passed or are they just talking about the possibility for now? It would certainly make sense to postpone it for a year.
> I did hear this morning that part of the problem, as some of us suspected, is that the volume is so high and problematic due to what they termed "tourists"; people are going who have no need of health insurance they just want to check it out.


jelun2
No penalties will be enforced, not now not ever. Let's get on, iron out the kinks and protect people with Affordable Health Care. I like to think that my Country fits into the 21st Century soon.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Huckleberry said:


> lovethelake
> misuse of money. Let us start with Chris Christy who spent 24.000 Million Dollars just to have voting on two different dates which he thinks favors him.
> 
> FACT: no-one will be paying a fine for not enrolling in Obamacare on time.
> ...


You know what is really annoying the living daylights out of me is that at least half of these folks who are complaining so loudly have absolutely nothing to do with ACA.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> You heard wrong, sorry. The people going to the website proved that the website is a disaster. 5,000,000 lines of the program need to be rewritten. In NY State, no one has been approved for health care.
> 
> The cost of creating the website cost almost 300-400 million to create and it does not work. If you paid 500 programmers $200.00 an hour, it would take 10 years to use up that amount of money. How did they spend that much money? Where is the accountability for the misuse of funds? Couldn't that money have been used to set up a fund to help people with their medical bills and leave the rest of us alone?


lovethelake,
who is bothering you? If you have Insurance, stick with it. BTW inquiries and enrollments can easily be made via phone or an Insurance Agent. There are many ways to Rome.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Currently, the only way the penalties will be enforced is by a reduction in the refund on your tax return. Anything else will either have to be passed by Congress, or Obama will need to write another illegal executive order.


joeysomma
wrong again. Penalties will not be enforced. I am for it down the road however. Am tired to pay for those who can and don't.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> You know what is really annoying the living daylights out of me is that at least half of these folks who are complaining so loudly have absolutely nothing to do with ACA.


jelun2
oh yeah, most of them are on Medicare and S.S. and HATE any government program. Go figure. Wonder what is it, Dementia or pure stupidity. Both with some folks I encounter re. this issue.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

NEEDED: 
Gingrich's space community to transport some Lunatics there. They are messing up this Planet. Got a list of passengers all ready.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Huckleberry said:


> jelun2
> oh yeah, most of them are on Medicare and S.S. and HATE any government program. Go figure. Wonder what is it, Dementia or pure stupidity. Both with some folks I encounter re. this issue.


I vote for willful stupidity.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Huckleberry said:


> NEEDED:
> Gingrich's space community to transport some Lunatics there. They are messing up this Planet. Got a list of passengers all ready.


HAHAHAHA, spend a little time over on that new obamacare thread. (insert expletive here if so inclined) There's a whole new crop of veggies.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Not only that, but, if that is the case we should shut that private company down. They are, without a doubt, in a massive conspiracy to create a space station for all the loons outside this galaxy.
> Want to celebrate with me?


jelun2
YES!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Huckleberry said:


> jelun2
> YES!


My grandson was playing games on Disneyjr.com this morning when the page crashed, I propose a takeover...


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Before I retired I had jobs that were so necessary to my employers that I had a broader range of possible behavior than most of my co-workers. One of the things I was able to do was directly confront racists and other misguided people in my workplace.

For those of you who can, let me recommend my method. When someone makes a racist joke or remark or shows obvious racism, get up on your desk or a chair or whatever's safe and handy to get you above the crowd. Commence to take the racist to task for their words or attitude as loudly as possible, using simple, decent and acceptable language. When you've had your say, return to your work. 

You will find that everyone takes what you said seriously. There will be a complete end to racism in the area where your voice was heard. Your boss will be pleased, too, unless he/she is the guilty party. Then that person will be grateful. This technique works for other unacceptable actions and attitudes in and out of the workplace. 

Silence condones what is unacceptable. Making enough noise can kill what's unacceptable faster than the speed of light. Just remember to choose your battles carefully.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

e


joeysomma said:


> Where is your proof? You will need to find it in writing. Remember I do taxes and my information states that the penalty will be deducted from the refund. Unless Obama has written one of his illegal executive orders.


You know it is pretty strange since you obviously have to understand, if you do taxes, that the IRS makes regs and changes to those regs all the time that other agencies do, also. 
Think HHS here.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> HAHAHAHA, spend a little time over on that new obamacare thread. (insert expletive here if so inclined) There's a whole new crop of veggies.


jelun2
and we live among these pea brains.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> My grandson was playing games on Disneyjr.com this morning when the page crashed, I propose a takeover...


jelun2
Obama Adm. conspiracy. My Computer closed down yesterday, Obama's fault of course. Amazing that Man can do everything. He is so busy that I think he deserves more vacation time. Knew that he was highly intelligent but he is way beyond that, more like a Genius.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> e
> 
> You know it is pretty strange since you obviously have to understand, if you do taxes, that the IRS makes regs and changes to those regs all the time that other agencies do, also.
> Think HHS here.


jelun2
ever tought that she does not keep up with changes? Sure sounds like it periodically.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Huckleberry said:


> jelun2
> and we live among these pea brains.


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> Everybody here recognizes that polls, other than perhaps those from Nate Silver, are faulty.
> To write a disclaimer is simply stating the obvious. The only interesting part, to me, is that you only post those disclaimers when it is a poll that shows positives for the administration.


No, I've said that about all polls. They only show how many have been polled, not the dynamics of the people polled.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> I agree with you about Russia but disagree on the other. I think the American and the Chinese economy are hopelessly intertwined--we need cheap goods, and they need someone to sell them to. All countries want to be #1, but I don't believe at this point China could get there all on its own.


Americans don't need cheap goods. We need goods that are manufactured in America, not China. We need goods that will last more then just beyond the warranty date. We need goods that will give Americans their jobs back and if that means that we have to pay more for those good, so be it. We shouldn't care that China needs someone to sell their goods to.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> He knows exactly who his audience is and plays his part perfectly. If he has a decent staff, though, they'll stop him before he goes too far.
> 
> BTW, Huck and everyone, the piece I posted was satire; Cruz didn't exactly say what's in it, but I bet it was on his mind.


I'm glad it was you that pointed out that obvious fact to Huckleberry and the others. Imagine the backlash we would have received if anyone on the right stated the obvious. Thank you.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Knitry said:


> Here's the thing though: Silence Condones. And again and again and again you have not only chosen to remain silent, but valiantly and energetically defended your silence. Shrug. Your call, but be prepared to be either challenged for it or assumed to have concurred.
> 
> BTW, I didn't see anyone implying anyone was a member of the KKK -- may have missed it. Would you be good enough to locate that and provide the link? (The little # sign in the right hand corner is where you can get individual post links, in case you're not familiar with it.)
> 
> ...


i have said before part of what Momee posted was true, other parts, not so much. These were not Momee's words. I'm not defending someone else's blog. Blogs pop up all the time and it's a waste of time to read them, let alone defend or criticize them.

The posts following LTL's post about the Confederate flag, prompted pictures of the KKK in one form or another. Reread them yourself. I came away with the impression that your friends were implying that LTL was a member of the KKK. This kind of behavior is not beneath them as they have been way out of line in their comments on health issues that certain ladies on the right are dealing with.

The Democrats are not innocent either. They are just as guilty of obstructionist behavior as the Republicans are. Harry Reid has said repeatedly that he won't consider a bill passed by the House. This has constantly been recorded during his speeches to the press. He wouldn't bring them up for discussion, let alone a vote. So don't pretend that the Democrats have gone out of their way to do anything other than place their feet firmly in the dirt and hold their ground. To me that is not being open to negotiation and it is a far cry from being accommodating. If you don't want to open your eyes to this behavior, so be it. It is there for all to see. Especially through the repeated/parroted buzz words and phrases of the day.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> But he is black and so many do not like him. Why isn't that racist?
> 
> Obama is only half black and I do not like his policies or his lack of brains. and you call me racist.


There you go Joey, using their reasoning against them. They are admitting they are racists.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Huckleberry said:


> jeoysoomma
> why do you want us to again and again point out your flaws when you do not seem to be able to understand what we are saying. The dislike for him has absolutely nothing to do with ANY Race.


That is EXACTLY the reasoning of those on the right that do not like Obama's policies. Yet they are always called racists. We can now point out to you your flaws over and over again. i=It's the same situation, just different people.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Huckleberry said:


> lovethelake
> misuse of money. Let us start with Chris Christy who spent 24.000 Million Dollars just to have voting on two different dates which he thinks favors him.
> 
> FACT: no-one will be paying a fine for not enrolling in Obamacare on time.
> ...


You are not going with conspiracy theories? What a joke.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> That is EXACTLY the reasoning of those on the right that do not like Obama's policies. Yet they are always called racists. We can now point out to you your flaws over and over again. i=It's the same situation, just different people.


Nobody would have to point anything out to you, you wouldn't have to see it and we wouldn't have to read any of your foolishness if you just PLEASE PLEASE stop talking to lefties.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Huckleberry said:


> jelun2
> oh yeah, most of them are on Medicare and S.S. and HATE any government program. Go figure. Wonder what is it, Dementia or pure stupidity. Both with some folks I encounter re. this issue.


It has more to do with what their children and grandchildren will have to pay in the future. It's not always about them, something which you don't get.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> Americans don't need cheap goods. We need goods that are manufactured in America, not China. We need goods that will last more then just beyond the warranty date. We need goods that will give Americans their jobs back and if that means that we have to pay more for those good, so be it. We shouldn't care that China needs someone to sell their goods to.


soloweygirl
wow, you woke up. I applaud you. I have been preaching that sermon for ages. Now go after the Koch Brothers - and others -who give a damn about the working people.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> I'm glad it was you that pointed out that obvious fact to Huckleberry and the others. Imagine the backlash we would have received if anyone on the right stated the obvious. Thank you.


soloweygirl
you again did not read my response, did you. But then if I do not spell out in plain English what I am saying, you just don't get it, do you. No wonder FAUX news got you in their Net.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> It has more to do with what their children and grandchildren will have to pay in the future. It's not always about them, something which you don't get.


According to most of them end times are coming. There will be no worries for the young'uns they will be at the right hand of God.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> You heard wrong, sorry. The people going to the website proved that the website is a disaster. 5,000,000 lines of the program need to be rewritten. In NY State, no one has been approved for health care.
> 
> The cost of creating the website cost almost 300-400 million to create and it does not work. If you paid 500 programmers $200.00 an hour, it would take 10 years to use up that amount of money. How did they spend that much money? Where is the accountability for the misuse of funds? Couldn't that money have been used to set up a fund to help people with their medical bills and leave the rest of us alone?


I'm sorry, your credibility is ... small. You'll have to provide sources. If not links, then precisely WHERE you "heard" this garbage.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> But he is black and so many do not like him. Why isn't that racist?


"Like" has nothing to do with racism - or more accurately, it depends on WHY you dislike him. It's entirely possible to dislike someone of another race without it being about bigotry, but an awful lot of people who really, really dislike him ARE racist. They see him as an imposter, as not worthy of the office, as an interloper, and so forth and so on. They think he "has no right" to the office, despite having been democratically elected overwhelmingly. They will believe ANY bad thing about him (however untrue), and never any good. Their resentment is nearly overwhelming. Their "dislike" tends to not be based on policy issues or things he has done or said -- or if they are, they're bogus.



> Obama is only half black and I do not like his policies or his lack of brains. and you call me racist.


Not sure what the "half-black" has to do with anything, but do you think it could be because we've seen plenty of racist sentiment expressed rather than just objective criticisms to those policies you say you dislike?


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

MaidInBedlam said:


> Before I retired I had jobs that were so necessary to my employers that I had a broader range of possible behavior than most of my co-workers. One of the things I was able to do was directly confront racists and other misguided people in my workplace.
> 
> For those of you who can, let me recommend my method. When someone makes a racist joke or remark or shows obvious racism, get up on your desk or a chair or whatever's safe and handy to get you above the crowd. Commence to take the racist to task for their words or attitude as loudly as possible, using simple, decent and acceptable language. When you've had your say, return to your work.
> 
> ...


That's a GREAT method. Thanks for sharing it.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> The Democrats are not innocent either. They are just as guilty of obstructionist behavior as the Republicans are. Harry Reid has said repeatedly that he won't consider a bill passed by the House. This has constantly been recorded during his speeches to the press. He wouldn't bring them up for discussion, let alone a vote. So don't pretend that the Democrats have gone out of their way to do anything other than place their feet firmly in the dirt and hold their ground. To me that is not being open to negotiation and it is a far cry from being accommodating. If you don't want to open your eyes to this behavior, so be it. It is there for all to see. Especially through the repeated/parroted buzz words and phrases of the day.


You are exactly right -- as far as you go. You would do well to pay a LOT more attention, and get some sources that will tell you the whole story, not little bits and pieces.

Harry Reid said repeatedly that he would not take up any House bill that included things that (a) he knew would not pass the Democratically-controlled Senate, (b) he knew would be vetoed by the President. Why waste the time and money to bring them up in the Senate?

THAT's not a refusal to negotiate, that's not obstructionism, it's realism.
And a refusal to let the House play stupid games.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> i have said before part of what Momee posted was true, other parts, not so much. These were not Momee's words. I'm not defending someone else's blog. Blogs pop up all the time and it's a waste of time to read them, let alone defend or criticize them.
> 
> The posts following LTL's post about the Confederate flag, prompted pictures of the KKK in one form or another. Reread them yourself. I came away with the impression that your friends were implying that LTL was a member of the KKK. This kind of behavior is not beneath them as they have been way out of line in their comments on health issues that certain ladies on the right are dealing with.
> 
> The Democrats are not innocent either. They are just as guilty of obstructionist behavior as the Republicans are. Harry Reid has said repeatedly that he won't consider a bill passed by the House. This has constantly been recorded during his speeches to the press. He wouldn't bring them up for discussion, let alone a vote. So don't pretend that the Democrats have gone out of their way to do anything other than place their feet firmly in the dirt and hold their ground. To me that is not being open to negotiation and it is a far cry from being accommodating. If you don't want to open your eyes to this behavior, so be it. It is there for all to see. Especially through the repeated/parroted buzz words and phrases of the day.


soloweygirl
why give someone a gun to kill you with? Understand, or do I have to get into details?


----------



## Joan H (Nov 28, 2012)

momeee said:


> Oh, dear, o is losing more big $$$ supporters...wonder why?
> 
> Oprah Tells Obama 'No' for Obamacare Help
> Sunday, 20 Oct 2013
> ...


If I remember correctly after the Obamas won in 2008, Michelle went off on Oprah announcing "I am the only first lady" or fighting words to that effect. Oprah chose to take her money and go home.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I hate to hear racist and other unacceptable remarks go unchallenged. Your tactics make sense.



MaidInBedlam said:


> Before I retired I had jobs that were so necessary to my employers that I had a broader range of possible behavior than most of my co-workers. One of the things I was able to do was directly confront racists and other misguided people in my workplace.
> 
> For those of you who can, let me recommend my method. When someone makes a racist joke or remark or shows obvious racism, get up on your desk or a chair or whatever's safe and handy to get you above the crowd. Commence to take the racist to task for their words or attitude as loudly as possible, using simple, decent and acceptable language. When you've had your say, return to your work.
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Happens to us all the time joey.



joeysomma said:


> I changed my mind since most of the posters on this thread are to dumb to understand


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Knitry said:


> That's a GREAT method. Thanks for sharing it.


I also spent a lot of time working in male-dominated workplaces. For some reason part of the culture in such places includes proving how tough you are. Men wrestle their way through ranking themselves and each other in some ways women don't particularly find amusing. I have had to pet a tarantula, and that was one of the gentler tests to my strength of character and credibility. In general, my experience was that I needed to stand up to challenges to my credibility from men in the same terms they stood up to each other. Not mincing words was one of the best methods.

One time I encountered a truly persistent fellow who was very invested in making me flinch though I still don't know why. I was working in a print shop and was, among other things, the scheduler of jobs as they made their way through the shop. The pressmen started work at 6:30am and left at 2:30pm. After they had left it was my job to go throuhg the shop and check the status of works in progress and modify the original schedule for the next day to fit reality if necessary. This guy spent a couple of months leaving pornographic pictures interleaved in his sample sheets and plates. I collected them, tore them up and put them in the trash. We did not speak about this or allude to what was going on in any way. He finally stopped his little harrassing game.

I believe my patience and the damage I did to his pocketbook won out in the end. After all, he did have to spend money more often on his porno collection because what he left for me disappeared. If he'd gone any further, especially if he had laid a finger on me, he would have discovered that a woman can be surprisingly dangerous and can even remove a man's finger from his hand with the right incentive. Sure it was sexual harrassment. I could have acted the poor, victimized woman, but it would never have worked as well as addressing the problem in terms that fellow could understand and eventually had to respect.

When it came out that the former mayor of San Diego was a real slime ball sexual harrasser, so many of the women he had violated teared up and told the news reporters how violated they felt. I had a hard time understanding why nobody kicked him in the balls hard enough so they popped out of his mouth. Yes, the violations were real and the women's feelings were valid, too. i am not trying to say the women did anything to cause that man's behavior or that their feelings were out of proportion to their experiences. I just think they stopped too soon and didn't or couldn't allow themselves to retrain that bastard. After being shocked by a nasty old letch it's time to shock that fellow right back.

It's getting late. I spent a lot of time crocheting a shawl today. I'm babbling. Must be time to say bazinga for now and see y'all in the morning. Hang tough all you liberal ladies.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Huckleberry said:


> lovethelake
> misuse of money. Let us start with Chris Christy who spent 24.000 Million Dollars just to have voting on two different dates which he thinks favors him.
> 
> FACT: no-one will be paying a fine for not enrolling in Obamacare on time.
> ...


Chris Christy: If the voters in that state find that deplorable, they will not reelect him, it is their issue and their money. Obamacare is my money, so it is my issue. Justify this fraudulent misuse of money. Oh that's right you can't

How do you know there will be no fines?

Oh that's right, since you can't blame President Bush for the Obamacare train wreck, pull out the Hilary playbook and start a conspiracy lie..............wanna a cookie?

It is truly hilarious watching Carney try to unsuccessfully try to answer questions about Obamacare. I would almost feel sorry for him, but his lies and cover ups are coming back to haunt him. Could the Obamacare debacle be this year's October Surprise..........................but it is only a surprise to the Dems


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Huckleberry said:


> soloweygirl
> why give someone a gun to kill you with? Understand, or do I have to get into details?


Yes, would not like to misinterpret what you said. Are you threatening to kill her?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Don't be ridiculous....or perhaps I should say, quit deliberately misinterpreting.

Aren't you the person who told Huck in no uncertain terms, "you must die" and frantically attempted to cover it?



lovethelake said:


> Yes, would not like to misinterpret what you said. Are you threatening to kill her?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Knitry said:


> You are exactly right -- as far as you go. You would do well to pay a LOT more attention, and get some sources that will tell you the whole story, not little bits and pieces.
> 
> Harry Reid said repeatedly that he would not take up any House bill that included things that (a) he knew would not pass the Democratically-controlled Senate, (b) he knew would be vetoed by the President. Why waste the time and money to bring them up in the Senate?
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> Happens to us all the time joey.


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Huckleberry said:


> soloweygirl
> why give someone a gun to kill you with? Understand, or do I have to get into details?


Huckleberry
It is becoming very clear that soloweygirl and some others do not understand my prev. response whatsoever. My resonse is
to her remark about Reid not presenting any bills. Perhaps you get it now. I know, it is tough for some folks to figure things out. I need to get into the habit of a 2nd Grade style of writing.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Huckleberry said:


> Huckleberry
> It is becoming very clear that soloweygirl and some others do not understand my prev. response whatsoever. My resonse is
> to her remark about Reid not presenting any bills. Perhaps you get it now. I know, it is tough for some folks to figure things out. I need to get into the habit of a 2nd Grade style of writing.


That doesn't help, then they just say I am immature and like a school child.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

After all this you're crocheting a _shawl?_ Not a jockstrap? Oh, never mind. You go, girl.


MaidInBedlam said:


> I also spent a lot of time working in male-dominated workplaces. For some reason part of the culture in such places includes proving how tough you are. Men wrestle their way through ranking themselves and each other in some ways women don't particularly find amusing. I have had to pet a tarantula, and that was one of the gentler tests to my strength of character and credibility. In general, my experience was that I needed to stand up to challenges to my credibility from men in the same terms they stood up to each other. Not mincing words was one of the best methods.
> 
> One time I encountered a truly persistent fellow who was very invested in making me flinch though I still don't know why. I was working in a print shop and was, among other things, the scheduler of jobs as they made their way through the shop. The pressmen started work at 6:30am and left at 2:30pm. After they had left it was my job to go throuhg the shop and check the status of works in progress and modify the original schedule for the next day to fit reality if necessary. This guy spent a couple of months leaving pornographic pictures interleaved in his sample sheets and plates. I collected them, tore them up and put them in the trash. We did not speak about this or allude to what was going on in any way. He finally stopped his little harrassing game.
> 
> ...


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> That doesn't help, then they just say I am immature and like a school child.


jelun2
you are right. We just have to suffer them. I already have scaled down on vocabulary in hopes that they do better, hasn't worked. Need to remember the "silk purse...." saying.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> After all this you're crocheting a _shawl?_ Not a jockstrap? Oh, never mind. You go, girl.


Absolutely--I love how you handled those male chauvinist pigs! :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Oh, for Pete's sake. Is this misinterpretation still getting attention? Huck asked for directions to Heaven and Hell. LTL gave the accurate Christian directions. She said "You need to die." That's the Christian path to those two places. Much as I hate to defend LTL, in this one case, she has nothing to cover up or defend.

Those of you who got your knickers in a twist about what LTL said need to get over yourselves and drop the inapprpriate and inaccurate responses some of you seem obsessed with making. Talk about ancient and useless news... :hunf: :thumbdown: LTL has posted miles and miles of real drivel that is ripe and ready for much-need criticism. Go for all THAT nonsense! :thumbup: :thumbup:


damemary said:


> Don't be ridiculous....or perhaps I should say, quit deliberately misinterpreting.
> 
> Aren't you the person who told Huck in no uncertain terms, "you must die" and frantically attempted to cover it?


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Huckleberry said:


> soloweygirl
> you again did not read my response, did you. But then if I do not spell out in plain English what I am saying, you just don't get it, do you. No wonder FAUX news got you in their Net.


Oh just admit you didn't get the satire and be done with it. Your reply only reinforces the fact that you were clueless.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Knitry said:


> You are exactly right -- as far as you go. You would do well to pay a LOT more attention, and get some sources that will tell you the whole story, not little bits and pieces.
> 
> Harry Reid said repeatedly that he would not take up any House bill that included things that (a) he knew would not pass the Democratically-controlled Senate, (b) he knew would be vetoed by the President. Why waste the time and money to bring them up in the Senate?
> 
> ...


Thanks for the lecture, but I'll pass. My sources are fine. Sounds like Reid is more afraid to find out that he doesn't have all the support he thinks he has. Reid also knew the ACA would not pass the Democratically controlled Senate, so he found a way around that where he only needed 51 votes, instead of the 60 required votes to get the ACA passed.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

lovethelake said:


> Yes, would not like to misinterpret what you said. Are you threatening to kill her?


Thank you LTL, I think she did threaten me. Alas, I'm not the drama queen she is and not in the least bit starved for attention. I shall not make a big to do about nothing and imitate her.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

damemary said:


> Don't be ridiculous....or perhaps I should say, quit deliberately misinterpreting.
> 
> Aren't you the person who told Huck in no uncertain terms, "you must die" and frantically attempted to cover it?


There were no frantic attempts to cover up anything. It was not a threat, just Huckleberry's sad need for attention and you all gave it to her.

There has been no deliberate misinterpreting done by LTL here. It was a threat to me made by Huckleberry. Simple.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Using my value as an employee, picking my battles very carefully, being as sure as possible it would be extremely unlikely I would be fired, and working in male-dominated places hasn't caused me to grow anything that needs a jocstrap, except perhaps figuratively. A woman's gotta do what a women's gotta do, and it's still a good idea to roar now and then so our strength won't be forgotten.:mrgreen: :thumbup: :mrgreen: We still need to set a good example for younger women, too. A creatively crafted example just might be remembered really, really well. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: Thanks for your post. I got a nice giggle out of it.


Poor Purl said:


> After all this you're crocheting a _shawl?_ Not a jockstrap? Oh, never mind. You go, girl.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Huckleberry said:


> Huckleberry
> It is becoming very clear that soloweygirl and some others do not understand my prev. response whatsoever. My resonse is
> to her remark about Reid not presenting any bills. Perhaps you get it now. I know, it is tough for some folks to figure things out. I need to get into the habit of a 2nd Grade style of writing.


It seems to be that you are just trying to cover up your threat to me.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> I agree with this statement. finally some common sense from the left.


Like I said, defending LTL's statement was pretty difficult to do. You won't find me doing that sort of thing very often. Enjoy this rare occassion. It's almost as rare as hen's teeth.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

soloweygirl said:


> It seems to be that you are just trying to cover up your threat to me.


See, here I am, back to normal. There are no real threats, bullying or stalking going on here. There are, unfortunately, tons of insults being thrown around. Some people are more inclined than others to read without understanding, getting their knickers in a twist. jumping straight to hysteria and making ridiculous remarks.

Remember this:
"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me."


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> Thanks for the lecture, but I'll pass. My sources are fine. Sounds like Reid is more afraid to find out that he doesn't have all the support he thinks he has. Reid also knew the ACA would not pass the Democratically controlled Senate, so he found a way around that where he only needed 51 votes, instead of the 60 required votes to get the ACA passed.


You don't know much about the budget process, do you?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> It has more to do with what their children and grandchildren will have to pay in the future. It's not always about them, something which you don't get.


What no answer to the end times? Aren't they right around the corner?


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

MaidInBedlam said:


> See, here I am, back to normal. There are no real threats, bullying or stalking going on here. There are, unfortunately, tons of insults being thrown around. Some people are more inclined than others to read without understanding, getting their knickers in a twist. jumping straight to hysteria and making ridiculous remarks.
> 
> Remember this:
> "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me."


Seattle, I was being sarcastic. I was attempting to show how stupid and ridiculous the whole "threat" business was with Huckleberry. How her need for attention had your friends in a feeding frenzy.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I agree with this statement. finally some common sense from the left.


My thought as well; finally and about time they posted some common sense.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> Oh just admit you didn't get the satire and be done with it. Your reply only reinforces the fact that you were clueless.


 :XD: :-D She had no idea until it was pointed out to her!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> It seems to be that you are just trying to cover up your threat to me.


Yep, that is exactly what Huckleberry is doing.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Those subtle sort of insults are really cool, I suppose.



MaidInBedlam said:


> See, here I am, back to normal. There are no real threats, bullying or stalking going on here. There are, unfortunately, tons of insults being thrown around. Some people are more inclined than others to read without understanding, getting their knickers in a twist. jumping straight to hysteria and making ridiculous remarks.
> 
> Remember this:
> "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me."


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

MaidInBedlam said:


> See, here I am, back to normal. There are no real threats, bullying or stalking going on here. There are, unfortunately, tons of insults being thrown around. Some people are more inclined than others to read without understanding, getting their knickers in a twist. jumping straight to hysteria and making ridiculous remarks.
> 
> Remember this:
> "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me."


Great, so take your own advice and stop your ridiculous insults and hatred you post to and about me all over KP. Your words will never hurt me, but do you by showing your ignorance, hate and stupidity.

BTW: I've never been contacted by Admin about what I post; have you? (rhetorical ?)


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> Thanks for the lecture, but I'll pass. My sources are fine. Sounds like Reid is more afraid to find out that he doesn't have all the support he thinks he has. Reid also knew the ACA would not pass the Democratically controlled Senate, so he found a way around that where he only needed 51 votes, instead of the 60 required votes to get the ACA passed.


Typical Lib tactic; when you don't get what you want, cheat or change the rules (break the law) to get your way. Then when the other party gains or has control; change it back.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

soloweygirl said:


> Seattle, I was being sarcastic. I was attempting to show how stupid and ridiculous the whole "threat" business was with Huckleberry. How her need for attention had your friends in a feeding frenzy.


Your sarcasm is just another example of the popularity of tossing insults around here for no particularly good reason and certainly with no expection of positive replies. Pointing out that some people indulged in what you call a "feeding frenzy" doesn't negate that fact that you and your buddies are talented in the art of hysteria and writing amazingly ugly insults.

This topic is an equal opportunity insult festival. Keep in mind you participate in the primary activity here just as much as anyone else.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Typical Lib tactic; when you don't get what you want, cheat or change the rules (break the law) to get your way. Then when the other party gains or has control; change it back.


Well, well. You've come out of hiding and are back to the same old same old. I knew your absence would be short-lived. Welcome back, KPG/karverr/Cherf.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Great, so take your own advice and stop your ridiculous insults and hatred you post to and about me all over KP. Your words will never hurt me, but do you by showing your ignorance, hate and stupidity.
> 
> BTW: I've never been contacted by Admin about what I post; have you? (rhetorical ?)


ewewewew (picture Horshak) I have I have!


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

MaidInBedlam said:


> Well, well. You've come out of hiding and are back to the same old same old. I knew your absence would be short-lived. Welcome back, KPG/karverr/Cherf.


Snorting with laughter

KPG is now karverr.......................hilarious


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

What is it with Florida Dems?

First there is the queen of lying Debbie

Now Rep Grayson

I would be so embarrassed to have any association with a party that associates or approves with them


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> Those subtle sort of insults are really cool, I suppose.


I don't think very many subtle insults appear on these pages. I DO think the liberal ladies are less inclined to go from 0 to 60 faster than the speed of light when it comes to hysteria. The so-called "other side" seems to exist in a state of hysteria most of the time. Boy, am I ever glad I don't have any personal contact with that sustained level of hysterical behavior.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> My thought as well; finally and about time they posted some common sense.


Maybe, maybe not. You can count on the fact that no one who could remotely be considered liberal is holding their breath waiting for YOU to post some common sense.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Great, so take your own advice and stop your ridiculous insults and hatred you post to and about me all over KP. Your words will never hurt me, but do you by showing your ignorance, hate and stupidity.
> 
> BTW: I've never been contacted by Admin about what I post; have you? (rhetorical ?)


When you start telling the truth I MIGHT consider leaving this topic. I figure that means I'll never be leaving unless I get bored. However, your overblown reactions and gratuitous insults form a never-ending supply of amusement to me. How do you manage to maintain such a level of hatred and anger? Where do you get your refills to keep you supplied with the endless stream of vitriol you spray liberally all over this topic?


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

MIB, Cherf couldn't stay away. It is not in the nature of the beast.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

BrattyPatty said:


> MIB, Cherf couldn't stay away. It is not in the nature of the beast.


That's for sure. And she doesn't realize I'm a tough old piece of meat, and is trying very hard to chew a piece out of me. :mrgreen:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Snorting with laughter
> 
> KPG is now karverr.......................hilarious


I know huh? Hilarious is correct!  I'm also Knit Crazy's husband and Cherf and somebody else, I forgotten. Sounds like SS is snorting her drugs again.

BTW: I never left nor stopped posting on KP (check my back posts) - just the dumbos coming out of the woodwork again shouting their hatred.

I rarely ever post to SS yet she believes I care about her posts and words. _That's_ even more hilarious! :XD:


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

MaidInBedlam said:


> That's for sure. And she doesn't realize I'm a tough old piece of meat, and is trying very hard to chew a piece out of me. :mrgreen:


Lovely visualization you present about yourself. Now you are condoning cannibalism? Gross, just the picture that you want someone to chomp on you to prove a point is disgusting. But then again Seattle (Remember you had to change your name because of all the problems you caused in the past?) nothing surprises me.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> FYI:
> Cherf is Cheryl
> KPG is Andie
> Karverr is a gentleman from Texas who does beautiful carvings.


Joey - you're wasting your time explaining anything to her; her brain doesn't work in a logical way nor does she have a good memory.

I just checked; Cherf hasn't posted on KP since Oct 2012!

Karverr has done some fantastic carvings - I agree (looked at his back posts as well)!


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

You should definitely give lessons. 



MaidInBedlam said:


> I also spent a lot of time working in male-dominated workplaces. For some reason part of the culture in such places includes proving how tough you are. Men wrestle their way through ranking themselves and each other in some ways women don't particularly find amusing. I have had to pet a tarantula, and that was one of the gentler tests to my strength of character and credibility. In general, my experience was that I needed to stand up to challenges to my credibility from men in the same terms they stood up to each other. Not mincing words was one of the best methods.
> 
> One time I encountered a truly persistent fellow who was very invested in making me flinch though I still don't know why. I was working in a print shop and was, among other things, the scheduler of jobs as they made their way through the shop. The pressmen started work at 6:30am and left at 2:30pm. After they had left it was my job to go throuhg the shop and check the status of works in progress and modify the original schedule for the next day to fit reality if necessary. This guy spent a couple of months leaving pornographic pictures interleaved in his sample sheets and plates. I collected them, tore them up and put them in the trash. We did not speak about this or allude to what was going on in any way. He finally stopped his little harrassing game.
> 
> ...


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Snorting with laughter
> 
> KPG is now karverr.......................hilarious


It's okay for pigs to snort. But is it ladylike to snort?
Are you a pig or are you a lady?


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Joey - you're wasting your time explaining anything to her; her brain doesn't work in a logical way nor does she have a good memory.
> 
> I just checked; Cherf hasn't posted on KP since Oct 2012!
> 
> Karverr has done some fantastic carvings - I agree (looked at his back posts as well)!


Cherf opened another account on KP and used a different name.
So easy to do! And so easy to check out.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> It's okay for pigs to snort. But is it ladylike to snort?
> Are you a pig or are you a lady?


I will ask you the same question, but wait we already know the answer if we look at your avatar. One would think that when you choose an avatar, it is a reflection of you.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

lovethelake said:


> Lovely visualization you present about yourself. Now you are condoning cannibalism? Gross, just the picture that you want someone to chomp on you to prove a point is disgusting. But then again Seattle (Remember you had to change your name because of all the problems you caused in the past?) nothing surprises me.


You leap like a gazelle to stand on an amazing pinnacle of absurdity. That's a figurative image of what I think you've done in response to some things I've said here. When I changed my user name I clearly announced I was doing so, and why.

Cannabilism? Do you know the difference between a literal and figurative image? Literally speaking, I'm a short, round, white-haired lady who definetly needs to improve her muscle tone. Figuratively, I'm a tough old broad and darn proud of it. I would much rather that KPG went back to chewing her figurative cud in the figurative cow pen of "Ff Wearing Denim and Pearls" instead of wasting her time trying to chew on my firgurative toughness. I can't help it if she likes figuratively tough meat. She's the one who's in charge of what she figuratively goes after with her figuratively sharpened and figuratively poisoned fangs.

A folk duet I've been familiar with since 1965, Kathy Larisch and Carol McComb, recorded the following on their latest CD. They have a great talent for finding plaintive songs and singing them very beautifully. This is a song they recorded and was the inspiration for my change of username. I don't understand why you don't like the change I made. You don't seem to have noticed that my new username could be taken to mean I'm figuratively a good candidate for Bedlam myself. This should really speak clearly to you. Perhaps you are figuratively deaf as a post. That's figuratively quite sad.

A Maid In Bedlam (traditional)

Abroad as I was walking one morning in the Spring
I heard a maid in Bedlam, so sweetly she did sing
Her chain she rattled in her hand and always so sang she
I love my love because I know he first loved me

My love he was sent from me by friends who were unkind
They sent him far beyond the sea all to torment my mind
Although I've suffered for his sake, contented I will be
For I love my love because I know he first loved me

My love he won't come near me to hear the moan I make
And neither would he pity me if my poor heart should break
Although I've suffered for his sake, contented i will be
For i love my love because i know he first loved me


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

MaidInBedlam said:


> You leap like a gazelle to stand on an amazing pinnacle of absurdity. That's a figurative image of what I think you've done in response to some things I've said here. When I changed my user name I clearly announced I was doing so, and why.
> 
> Cannabilism? Do you know the difference between a literal and figurative image? Literally speaking, I'm a short, round, white-haired lady who definetly needs to improve her muscle tone. Figuratively, I'm a tough old broad and darn proud of it. I would much rather that KPG went back to chewing her figurative cud in the figurative cow pen of "Ff Wearing Denim and Pearls" instead of wasting her time trying to chew on my firgurative toughness. I can't help it if she likes figuratively tough meat. She's the one who's in charge of what she figuratively goes after with her figuratively sharpened and figuratively poisoned fangs.
> 
> ...


You are, both literally and figuratively, very funny. Except for that sad song.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> I will ask you the same question, but wait we already know the answer if we look at your avatar. One would think that when you choose an avatar, it is a reflection of you.


That's Bette Midler, fool. It's a Halloween avatar like many on the site.
BTW I never snort. Does your avatar make you the Swamp Thing?


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> You are, both literally and figuratively, very funny. Except for that sad song.


Thank you for the very nice complement. I like to provide a little fun for people, though it isn't always very easy to do that here. I am a sucker for the old time, sad ballads. My friends say the happier I am, the sadder and grimmer are the song I sing. Instead of whistling while I work, I like to sing instead and often sing old time hymns.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> What is it with Florida Dems?
> 
> First there is the queen of lying Debbie
> 
> ...


But it doesn't embarrass you to have a Governor like McDonald? Or an AG like Cuccinelli? Talk about a family of takers.....and liars to boot.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> That's Bette Midler, fool. It's a Halloween avatar like many on the site.
> BTW I never snort. Does your avatar make you the Swamp Thing?


tsk tsk, again with the name calling. Pretty lame attempt at a put down.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> But it doesn't embarrass you to have a Governor like McDonald? Or an AG like Cuccinelli? Talk about a family of takers.....and liars to boot.


Nope


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Nope


Yeh, but, she got what she deserved with Al Franken. The guy who used to be/write for Saturday Night Live and didn't pay his taxes and started his political career with controversy/stolen election; that guy! :-D Oh, ya, a Democrat.


----------



## shayfaye (May 6, 2011)

It would be a great day if we could convince Rick Boucher to come back to the House and vote out Morgan Griffith. The man doesn't even live in the district he represents! The fighting 9th!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> FYI:
> Cherf is Cheryl
> KPG is Andie
> Karverr is a gentleman from Texas who does beautiful carvings.


Who gives a flying fig. The two I have seen in print are nasty enough to be 3.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Who gives a flying fig. The two I have seen in print are nasty enough to be 3.


Stop talking about yourself


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

MaidInBedlam said:


> Thank you for the very nice complement. I like to provide a little fun for people, though it isn't always very easy to do that here. I am a sucker for the old time, sad ballads. My friends say the happier I am, the sadder and grimmer are the song I sing. Instead of whistling while I work, I like to sing instead and often sing old time hymns.


I still cry when I hear "Barbara Allen."


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Stop talking about yourself


This would be a clever remark if you were 9 years old.

Or you could say "I'm rubber, you're glue, etc."

Okay, you're probably going to tell me to butt out, but I was so impressed by your snappy comeback that I couldn't resist complimenting you on it. Bye, now.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Typical Lib tactic; when you don't get what you want, cheat or change the rules (break the law) to get your way. Then when the other party gains or has control; change it back.


Juan Williams is now blaming the GOP for the failure of Healthcare.gov. Williams claimed that" the WH would have delayed the rollout of Obamacare's exchanges except for the opposition of the GOP to the program as a whole". As a result, Williams argues that "Obama and Sebelius had no choice but to lie about the exchanges and let it unfold". WTF - so now it's OK to lie to the public about Obamacare being ready to go just because you wanted to delay the rollout but were beaten to the idea by the GOP? Can these "leaders" be any more immature? This is the way grade school kids argue. Oh boy do we, as a country, need help.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

MaidInBedlam said:


> I don't think very many subtle insults appear on these pages. I DO think the liberal ladies are less inclined to go from 0 to 60 faster than the speed of light when it comes to hysteria. The so-called "other side" seems to exist in a state of hysteria most of the time. Boy, am I ever glad I don't have any personal contact with that sustained level of hysterical behavior.


This statement coming from a person that doesn't know which side is up most of the time. You spin so fast you are in a constant confused state as you search for your "friends". Keep searching you might just find one.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> Juan Williams is now blaming the GOP for the failure of Healthcare.gov. Williams claimed that" the WH would have delayed the rollout of Obamacare's exchanges except for the opposition of the GOP to the program as a whole". As a result, Williams argues that "Obama and Sebelius had no choice but to lie about the exchanges and let it unfold". WTF - so now it's OK to lie to the public about Obamacare being ready to go just because you wanted to delay the rollout but were beaten to the idea by the GOP? Can these "leaders" be any more immature? This is the way grade school kids argue. Oh boy do we, as a country, need help.


I actually agree with you here, Solowey. I'm sure the world was agog watching Washington play legislative hot potato a few weeks back, even more stunned to see the thing morph into a grenade mid-toss and end up down the front of Boehner's trousers. I do feel that all party members--both left and right--need to start acting like adults. I'm not sure how the political scene in Washington has devolved into the equivalent of an elementary school food fight, but it has to stop.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Obamacare encourages divorce. Here is a paragraph from the article:

Marriage Penalty?
Federal subsidies in the form of tax credits are available for incomes up to 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL). That would be $45,960 for an individual, $62,040 for a couple, $94,200 for a family of four and $158,520 for a family of eight. Once a person has exceeded that threshold, however, he or she loses the subsidy and must pay the full premium. Those who apply for Silver plans with incomes that do not exceed 250% of the FPL are eligible for further cost-sharing reductions.
Because married couples are treated as one taxable unit, their combined income puts them at a disadvantage to unmarried couples applying for health-insurance subsidies. A number of reports using the Kaiser Family Foundations Health Reform Subsidy Calculator show that unmarried couples could end up saving thousands of dollars over their married counterparts.
According to an analysis by Hans Bader, a senior attorney for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a 40-year-old couple with children, where the husband makes $70,000 per year full time and his wife makes $23,000 per year, could save $7,200 by getting a legal divorce but remaining to live together  a cost-saving option not available for faithful Catholics and others who wish to be married.
Similarly, Bader notes that a 60-year-old couple with no children at home and making $62,041 a year could save $11,000 per year by getting a divorce. Cannon explained that the ACA creates enormous obstacles for young people trying to earn a living wage, get married and raise a family. The problem, said Cannon, is that the premiums function as a tax-and-transfer scheme, placing higher premiums on young people, who typically have debt and must borrow to start their adult lives. It takes those earnings and reduces the premiums for the old, who generally are more established and have savings, and those with expensive medical conditions.
Cannon said that the laws calculation for subsided benefits could discourage employees from taking on another part-time job, getting a raise or getting a better job, because their increased earnings could also substantially reduce their subsidies.
He said, They could make thousands more per year, but they could lose thousands as well.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/obamacare-threatens-to-hit-many-families-pocketbooks?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register#When:2013-10-23 21:13:01#ixzz2ifRhgS00


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

There ya go, one of those Old Testament tests of faith.



lovethelake said:


> Obamacare encourages divorce. Here is a paragraph from the article:
> 
> Marriage Penalty?
> Federal subsidies in the form of tax credits are available for incomes up to 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL). That would be $45,960 for an individual, $62,040 for a couple, $94,200 for a family of four and $158,520 for a family of eight. Once a person has exceeded that threshold, however, he or she loses the subsidy and must pay the full premium. Those who apply for Silver plans with incomes that do not exceed 250% of the FPL are eligible for further cost-sharing reductions.
> ...


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Obama wants to ruin the 40 hour workweek

Part-Time Pressures
Griswold said he has been speaking to some small businesses with less than 50 full-time employees that are considering dropping health coverage as a cost-saving measure and sending their employees to the exchange.
I think youre going to see a lot of small-group policies go by the wayside in favor of employers saying, Were going to give you $300 to $400 toward health insurance instead, he added.
Although the law requires employers with more than 50 full-time workers to extend health coverage to full-time employees, it also redefines full time to mean 30 hours a week, as opposed to the traditional 40 hours a week, as a way to expand coverage.
The Obama administration defended this regulation, explaining that the law was designed to expand the number of Americans receiving health insurance.
But many companies and small businesses are reported to have cut back employee hours to part time (less than 30 hours a week) as a cost-saving measure.
The result, according to some analysts, is that many people will have to work at least two part-time jobs  and juggle those schedules  in order to earn the wages they had before the law took effect.
Cannon said, Its going to be much harder for [young people] to climb the economic ladder.
Peter Jesserer Smith is a Register staff writer.
Part II: The Moral Dilemmas Families Face With Obamacare.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/obamacare-threatens-to-hit-many-families-pocketbooks?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register#When:2013-10-23 21:13:01#ixzz2ifXiTI2L


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

It took us a long time to get here, susanmos2000. 
Remember 
"Mr. Gorbachov, tear down this wall!"

Mr. Kruschev's "We will bury you!"?

It has been going on from the beginning of time. The difference is that now we can see it.



susanmos2000 said:


> I actually agree with you here, Solowey. I'm sure the world was agog watching Washington play legislative hot potato a few weeks back, even more stunned to see the thing morph into a grenade mid-toss and end up down the front of Boehner's trousers. I do feel that all party members--both left and right--need to start acting like adults. I'm not sure how the political scene in Washington has devolved into the equivalent of an elementary school food fight, but it has to stop.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

lovethelake said:


> Obama wants to ruin the 40 hour workweek
> 
> Part-Time Pressures
> Griswold said he has been speaking to some small businesses with less than 50 full-time employees that are considering dropping health coverage as a cost-saving measure and sending their employees to the exchange.
> ...


If you increase the cost of something - business will use less of it. If you decrease the cost, businesses will use more of it. If you increase the cost of FT employees, businesses will reduce the number of FT employees. Obamacare is increasing the cost of the insurance through its regulations and mandates. Employers are required to comply so if they didn't have all these items covered in their provided insurance, they have to have it now. This makes their insurance cost go up.In this economy, employers cannot afford to take on the extra costs.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

If Obama and the powers that be decide to postpone the individual mandate, as they did with the corporate mandate, what happens to the parts of the ACA that are already in effect? The parts that took effect before the mandates were supposed to, i.e. medical device taxes, pre-existing conditions?

The start dates are the law of the land, so anyone have any ideas on what will happen if this part is delayed a year as well?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> If Obama and the powers that be decide to postpone the individual mandate, as they did with the corporate mandate, what happens to the parts of the ACA that are already in effect? The parts that took effect before the mandates were supposed to, i.e. medical device taxes, pre-existing conditions?
> 
> The start dates are the law of the land, so anyone have any ideas on what will happen if this part is delayed a year as well?


These things went through in the end. In fact, eliminating the medical device tax was something the House Reps clung to during the shutdown until Boehner penned his ill-fated piece of legislation.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> If Obama and the powers that be decide to postpone the individual mandate, as they did with the corporate mandate, what happens to the parts of the ACA that are already in effect? The parts that took effect before the mandates were supposed to, i.e. medical device taxes, pre-existing conditions?
> 
> The start dates are the law of the land, so anyone have any ideas on what will happen if this part is delayed a year as well?


Did you notice that EVERY Dem running for reelection next year wants to have Obamacare postponed for longer than the 6 weeks the administration says it needs to fix the glitches?

But I guess they will have to rejigger it


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> Juan Williams is now blaming the GOP for the failure of Healthcare.gov. Williams claimed that" the WH would have delayed the rollout of Obamacare's exchanges except for the opposition of the GOP to the program as a whole". As a result, Williams argues that "Obama and Sebelius had no choice but to lie about the exchanges and let it unfold". WTF - so now it's OK to lie to the public about Obamacare being ready to go just because you wanted to delay the rollout but were beaten to the idea by the GOP? Can these "leaders" be any more immature? This is the way grade school kids argue. Oh boy do we, as a country, need help.


I have not heard this; complete lunacy. You're correct, our country is very near the cliff edge with Obamacare steering.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> There ya go, one of those Old Testament tests of faith.


Do you have any idea of what you post? What a ridiculous thing to say especially coming from a non Christian.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Obama wants to ruin the 40 hour workweek
> 
> But many companies and small businesses are reported to have cut back employee hours to part time (less than 30 hours a week) as a cost-saving measure.
> 
> ...


Obamacare is a complete disaster. Finally, the American people, those who loved the 'idea as promised by Obama' or simply accepted Obamacare because Obama supported it and fed the lies about it, are realizing how it will or has already destroyed their lives (income, work, insurance, costs, taxes and health services).


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Do you have any idea of what you post? What a ridiculous thing to say especially coming from a non Christian.


LOL, the old testament is about non-Christians, you do know that,right?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> If you increase the cost of something - business will use less of it. If you decrease the cost, businesses will use more of it. If you increase the cost of FT employees, businesses will reduce the number of FT employees. Obamacare is increasing the cost of the insurance through its regulations and mandates. Employers are required to comply so if they didn't have all these items covered in their provided insurance, they have to have it now. This makes their insurance cost go up.In this economy, employers cannot afford to take on the extra costs.


That may seem logical, but it isn't true, at least if the something is labor.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...minimum-wage-fair-labor-standards-act-workers

Five myths about the minimum wage
By Betsey Stevenson,April 05, 2013
Betsey Stevenson, an associate professor of public policy at the University of Michigan, served as chief economist of the Labor Department from 2010 to 2011.

In Februarys State of the Union address, President Obama provoked conservatives ire by proposing an increase in the minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $9. Especially in a struggling economy, wouldnt a minimum-wage boost increase unemployment and hurt small businesses? And would it even help the working poor? Lets unpack some of the assumptions about the minimum wage that have stuck around since its creation almost eight decades ago.

1. The minimum wage covers everyone.

The Fair Labor Standards Act established a minimum wage for the United States in 1938 and criteria that determine who must receive it.

A babysitter or the kid who mows your lawn isnt covered as long as he or she doesnt work more than eight hours per week or get paid more than $1,700 per year by one employer. Some employers, such as small farms, arent required to pay minimum wage. There are minimum-wage exceptions for full-time students and the disabled. Those younger than 20 can be paid a sub-minimum wage of $4.25 for up to 90 days while these inexperienced workers learn the ropes. And workers who receive more than $30 per month in tips are required to be paid only $2.13 per hour.

But the biggest group of people left out of minimum-wage laws are those working in the rapidly growing field of home health care. Congress excluded companionship services for the aged or infirm when it expanded minimum wage and other protections to domestic service workers in 1974. This exclusion has been interpreted broadly to exclude the rising group of professional home health-care workers. The Labor Department has been working on a new rule that would narrow the scope of companionship, but until it is enacted, these workers are not covered.

2. The minimum wage stays the same if Congress doesnt change it.

Congress sets the minimum wage in nominal dollars, so it doesnt keep pace with inflation. Because the cost of living is always rising, the value of a new minimum wage begins to fall from the moment it is set. In fact, todays minimum wage of $7.25 buys less than the minimum wage did through all of the 1960s, 1970s and much of the 1980s. Raising the minimum wage to $9 an hour in 2015 would give us about the same real value as the $3.35 minimum wage of 1981.

Although the minimum wage has been raised 22 times since it was established, those increases are needed to restore its inflation-eroded value back to its earlier real level. Every time Congress debates raising the minimum wage, it is simply rehashing an old debate: Do we want the same policy today that we had last time the minimum wage was raised? Instead, Congress should set an inflation-adjusted or -indexed minimum wage. It would not only be more fair to workers but efficient for government.

3. Raising the minimum wage increases unemployment.

In a perfectly competitive market, anything that raises the wage above a level at which the supply of workers equals the demand for them will create unemployment. But a perfectly competitive labor market requires that neither workers nor firms have bargaining power; that everyone has all the necessary information; that workers are a commodity, rather than different people with different skills and a need to be motivated; and that there are no frictions preventing supply from matching demand.

Although everyone I know who teaches introductory economics presents this model to students, few believe that it describes the real world. In fact, in a survey of 40 leading economists through the Initiative on Global Markets, a diverse group including both prominent liberals and conservatives, only about a third agreed that raising the minimum wage would make it harder for low-skilled workers to find employment. Because only about one in 10 thought the costs of hiring probably would be bigger than the benefits of higher wages for low-skilled workers, even that number overstates how concerned these economists are about the potential negative effects of raising the minimum wage.

So whats the discrepancy between theory and what so many economists think? When economists have analyzed the data, many have found few, if any, negative effects of a minimum wage on employment. This has shifted some of the thinking in the profession  and pointed to flaws in a perfectly competitive model.

Paying workers more often leads them to feel better about their work and reduces stress, both of which increase productivity. And when workers produce more, employers labor costs fall. Companies such as Costco have figured this out, and voluntarily pay higher wages. Other firms may not care whether they pay less and get less from their workers, or pay more and get more.

But workers arent indifferent to this choice. A family trying to survive on the minimum wage can find itself living deep in poverty. Raising the minimum wage would not only lift some families out of poverty, but their additional earnings would contribute to the overall economy by raising demand and job growth as they spend more in their communities.

4. The minimum wage is a partisan issue.

The vast majority of the public supports raising the minimum wage from $7.25 to $9 per hour, according to a Gallup poll. Not surprisingly, more Democrats than Republicans favored Obamas proposal, but 71 percent favored the increase, including a majority of respondents in each party.

Perhaps most interesting is a study that randomly exposed participants to information about inequality in the United States. A majority of liberals and almost half of conservatives already supported a higher minimum wage, and those shown information about U.S. income distribution became even more supportive of raising the minimum wage.

5. Raising the minimum wage wouldnt help the working poor.

Think only teenagers earn the minimum wage? Analysis of minimum-wage workers shows that, at most, 20 percent are teenagers, about 50 percent are full-time employees and about 60 percent are women. The vast majority have household earnings below the median, which was $50,054 in 2011.

Those working full-time for minimum wage earn about $15,000 per year. This income puts a parent with two children well below the poverty line of $19,530 for a family of three. Its even worse for tipped workers, making it no surprise that more than 20 percent of restaurant and service workers live in poverty.

Not only would raising the minimum wage reduce poverty, but research has shown that erosion of the minimum wage leads to increases in inequality. We should ask why we have a minimum wage in the first place. Surely the answer is that people who work full-time year-round should be able to keep their families out of poverty.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> If Obama and the powers that be decide to postpone the individual mandate, as they did with the corporate mandate, what happens to the parts of the ACA that are already in effect? The parts that took effect before the mandates were supposed to, i.e. medical device taxes, pre-existing conditions?
> 
> The start dates are the law of the land, so anyone have any ideas on what will happen if this part is delayed a year as well?


I have no idea, and I seriously doubt that the Admin does either hence why no one knows.

I'm worried about all those who lost or will lose their insurance and cannot have what they lost or eliminated reinstated. How about all those who will need to re-qualify for their prior policies which, of course, will have increased rates for lesser coverage? How about all those whose work weeks decreased and will not be recovered? What a disaster Obamacare is. The Repubs have been telling us for years and now people are beginning to understand they were lied to.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> LOL, the old testament is about non-Christians, you do know that,right?


She must be looking it up.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Did you notice that EVERY Dem running for reelection next year wants to have Obamacare postponed for longer than the 6 weeks the administration says it needs to fix the glitches?
> 
> But I guess they will have to rejigger it


No surprise there! Every Dem will want to separate themselves FAR from Obamacare in the next couple of weeks, never mind near their mid-term elections.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> LOL, the old testament is about non-Christians, you do know that,right?


Wrong again. You do know that about yourself, correct?

First four words, "In the beginning, _God _ ... "

The ENTIRE Bible has everything to do with Christians.

You know nothing about the Faith or the Bible, so give it a rest.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> She must be looking it up.


jelun2
she is checking with her fellow Church members and is asking: "what are they talking about". Little by little they are learning from us if they want to or not.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> No surprise there! Every Dem will want to separate themselves FAR from Obamacare in the next couple of weeks, never mind near their mid-term elections.


KPG
how much you wish to be correct. Stock up on Handkerchiefs, you will need them.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Huckleberry said:


> jelun2
> she is checking with her fellow Church members and is asking: "what are they talking about". Little by little they are learning from us if they want to or not.


OMFW. She actually thinks that the Old Testament is about Christians.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Huckleberry said:


> KPG
> how much you wish to be correct. Stock up on Handkerchiefs, you will need them.


I think that she means those up for elections. 
But hey, with that old testament comment she has just convinced me of how much she doesn't know about anything.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> This statement coming from a person that doesn't know which side is up most of the time. You spin so fast you are in a constant confused state as you search for your "friends". Keep searching you might just find one.


soloweygirl
Here, here MIB.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Huckleberry said:


> jelun2
> she is checking with her fellow Church members and is asking: "what are they talking about". Little by little they are learning from us if they want to or not.


I think I am going to be sick.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> I think that she means those up for elections.
> But hey, with that old testament comment she has just convinced me of how much she doesn't know about anything.


jelun2
you are so kind to give her that much time. You have known that all along.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> No surprise there! Every Dem will want to separate themselves FAR from Obamacare in the next couple of weeks, never mind near their mid-term elections.


How many times have we heard this? Fast and Furious/Benghazi hearings/the shutdown/the millions of truckers allegedly descending on Washington--always there's something that's supposed to send the Democrats into a tailspin and turn the tide of battle in favor of the GOP. Never happens.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Huckleberry said:


> KPG
> how much you wish to be correct. Stock up on Handkerchiefs, you will need them.


So true, Huck. Still, we might see another mass exodus from the thread when, once more, the righties' fervent hopes are dashed.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> OMFW. She actually thinks that the Old Testament is about Christians.


Prophecies Jesus Fulfilled
44 Prophecies of the Messiah Fulfilled in Jesus Christ

By Mary Fairchild
Ads:

Life of Jesus
Bible Study Sites
About Jesus Christ
Jesus
Bible Quotes

"Crucifixion of Jesus Christ"

The crucifixion was prophesied in Scripture 1,000 years before Jesus Christ was born.
Photo: Getty Images	
The books of the Old Testament contain many passages about the Messiahall prophecies Jesus Christ fulfilled. For instance, the crucifixion of Jesus was foretold in Psalm 22:16-18 approximately 1,000 years before Christ was born, long before this method of execution was even practiced.

Some Bible scholars suggest there are more than 300 prophetic Scriptures completed in the life of Jesus.

Although this list is not exhaustive, you'll find 44 messianic predictions clearly fulfilled in Jesus Christ, along with supporting references from the Old and New Testament.
Prophecies Jesus Fulfilled
44 Prophecies Jesus Christ Fulfilled
Prophecies About Jesus	Old Testament
Scripture	New Testament
Fulfillment
1	Messiah would be born of a woman.	Genesis 3:15	Matthew 1:20
Galatians 4:4
2	Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.	Micah 5:2	Matthew 2:1
Luke 2:4-6
3	Messiah would be born of a virgin.	Isaiah 7:14	Matthew 1:22-23
Luke 1:26-31
4	Messiah would come from the line of Abraham.	Genesis 12:3
Genesis 22:18	Matthew 1:1
Romans 9:5
5	Messiah would be a descendant of Isaac.	Genesis 17:19
Genesis 21:12	Luke 3:34
6	Messiah would be a descendant of Jacob.	Numbers 24:17	Matthew 1:2
7	Messiah would come from the tribe of Judah.	Genesis 49:10	Luke 3:33
Hebrews 7:14
8	Messiah would be heir to King David's throne.	2 Samuel 7:12-13
Isaiah 9:7	Luke 1:32-33
Romans 1:3
9	Messiah's throne will be anointed and eternal.	Psalm 45:6-7
Daniel 2:44	Luke 1:33
Hebrews 1:8-12
10	Messiah would be called Immanuel.	Isaiah 7:14	Matthew 1:23
11	Messiah would spend a season in Egypt.	Hosea 11:1	Matthew 2:14-15
12	A massacre of children would happen at Messiah's birthplace.	Jeremiah 31:15	Matthew 2:16-18
13	A messenger would prepare the way for Messiah	Isaiah 40:3-5	Luke 3:3-6
14	Messiah would be rejected by his own people.	Psalm 69:8
Isaiah 53:3	John 1:11
John 7:5
15	Messiah would be a prophet.	Deuteronomy 18:15	Acts 3:20-22
16	Messiah would be preceded by Elijah.	Malachi 4:5-6	Matthew 11:13-14
17	Messiah would be declared the Son of God.	Psalm 2:7	Matthew 3:16-17
18	Messiah would be called a Nazarene.	Isaiah 11:1	Matthew 2:23
19	Messiah would bring light to Galilee.	Isaiah 9:1-2	Matthew 4:13-16
20	Messiah would speak in parables.	Psalm 78:2-4
Isaiah 6:9-10	Matthew 13:10-15, 34-35
21	Messiah would be sent to heal the brokenhearted.	Isaiah 61:1-2	Luke 4:18-19
22	Messiah would be a priest after the order of Melchizedek.	Psalm 110:4	Hebrews 5:5-6
23	Messiah would be called King.	Psalm 2:6
Zechariah 9:9	Matthew 27:37
Mark 11:7-11
24	Messiah would be praised by little children.	Psalm 8:2	Matthew 21:16
25	Messiah would be betrayed.	Psalm 41:9
Zechariah 11:12-13	Luke 22:47-48
Matthew 26:14-16
26	Messiah's price money would be used to buy a potter's field.	Zechariah 11:12-13	Matthew 27:9-10
27	Messiah would be falsely accused.	Psalm 35:11	Mark 14:57-58
28	Messiah would be silent before his accusers.	Isaiah 53:7	Mark 15:4-5
29	Messiah would be spat upon and struck.	Isaiah 50:6	Matthew 26:67
30	Messiah would be hated without cause.	Psalm 35:19
Psalm 69:4	John 15:24-25
31	Messiah would be crucified with criminals.	Isaiah 53:12	Matthew 27:38
Mark 15:27-28
32	Messiah would be given vinegar to drink.	Psalm 69:21	Matthew 27:34
John 19:28-30
33	Messiah's hands and feet would be pierced.	Psalm 22:16
Zechariah 12:10	John 20:25-27
34	Messiah would be mocked and ridiculed.	Psalm 22:7-8	Luke 23:35
35	Soldiers would gamble for Messiah's garments.	Psalm 22:18	Luke 23:34
Matthew 27:35-36
36	Messiah's bones would not be broken.	Exodus 12:46
Psalm 34:20	John 19:33-36
37	Messiah would be forsaken by God.	Psalm 22:1	Matthew 27:46
38	Messiah would pray for his enemies.	Psalm 109:4	Luke 23:34
39	Soldiers would pierce Messiah's side.	Zechariah 12:10	John 19:34
40	Messiah would be buried with the rich.	Isaiah 53:9	Matthew 27:57-60
41	Messiah would resurrect from the dead.	Psalm 16:10
Psalm 49:15	Matthew 28:2-7
Acts 2:22-32
42	Messiah would ascend to heaven.	Psalm 24:7-10	Mark 16:19
Luke 24:51
43	Messiah would be seated at God's right hand.	Psalm 68:18
Psalm 110:1	Mark 16:19
Matthew 22:44
44	Messiah would be a sacrifice for sin.	Isaiah 53:5-12	Romans 5:6-8


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I have no idea, and I seriously doubt that the Admin does either hence why no one knows.
> 
> I'm worried about all those who lost or will lose their insurance and cannot have what they lost or eliminated reinstated. How about all those who will need to re-qualify for their prior policies which, of course, will have increased rates for lesser coverage? How about all those whose work weeks decreased and will not be recovered? What a disaster Obamacare is. The Repubs have been telling us for years and now people are beginning to understand they were lied to.


Don't worry, they will just rejigger everything.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> How many times have we heard this? Fast and Furious/Benghazi hearings/the shutdown/the millions of truckers allegedly descending on Washington--always there's something that's supposed to send the Democrats into a tailspin and turn the tide of battle in favor of the GOP. Never happens.


Don't forget the bikers.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> OMFW. She actually thinks that the Old Testament is about Christians.


Well, it says "God," doesn't it, and only Christians believe in God; _ergo_ she's right.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> How many times have we heard this? Fast and Furious/Benghazi hearings/the shutdown/the millions of truckers allegedly descending on Washington--always there's something that's supposed to send the Democrats into a tailspin and turn the tide of battle in favor of the GOP. Never happens.


Won't stop them from trying again. They exactly fit the definition of insanity.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Well, it says "God," doesn't it, and only Christians believe in God; _ergo_ she's right.


Three in one. God the Father, Jesus the Son, Holy Spirit the Teacher. Trinity. They are One. Jews believe in God.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Three in one. God the Father, Jesus the Son, Holy Spirit the Teacher. Trinity. They are One. Jews believe in God.


LOL, so do Muslims. Now what?
For that matter, so do I. 
I have had no revelations yet. OMG OMG


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Three in one. God the Father, Jesus the Son, Holy Spirit the Teacher. Trinity. They are One. Jews believe in God.


Jews believe in a God who is not schizophrenic.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> LOL, so do Muslims. Now what?
> For that matter, so do I.
> I have had no revelations yet. OMG OMG


Well don't give up. I am praying for you!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Three in one. God the Father, Jesus the Son, Holy Spirit the Teacher. Trinity. They are One. Jews believe in God.


Can you believe Jelun2 thinks the Old Testament has nothing to do with Christians? Never in my lifetime have a heard such a stupid statement.

Where the heck does she think the history and facts of the entire creation of the Heavens and Earth and all those who are in the Bible with their teachings come from? How does she think Christians learn anything about God, Israel, the Jews, Moses, Abraham, Adam/Eve, anyone or anything, etc.?

Complete ignorance by some of those posting ... why she posts anything on the subject is beyond me.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Won't stop them from trying again. They exactly fit the definition of insanity.


Well, how long are they going to keep it up? Until November 7, 2016? What a waste of time and energy. :hunf:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Well don't give up. I am praying for you!


Thank you, I reciprocate.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Thank you, I reciprocate.


 :thumbup:


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Prophecies Jesus Fulfilled
> 44 Prophecies of the Messiah Fulfilled in Jesus Christ
> 
> By Mary Fairchild
> ...


I like that you left the ads in.

What I didn't see in the list is the most important reason Jews (at least, some Jews) are hoping for a messiah: That *as soon as he comes*, the world will be a more peaceful, happier place. Swords into ploughshares, etc. If the messiah comes, he won't make us all wait a few thousand years before he does his job.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> I like that you left the ads in.
> 
> What I didn't see in the list is the most important reason Jews (at least, some Jews) are hoping for a messiah: That *as soon as he comes*, the world will be a more peaceful, happier place. Swords into ploughshares, etc. If the messiah comes, he won't make us all wait a few thousand years before he does his job.


Pretty telling,isn't it? The quick and easy way. Ads, sheesh.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Three in one. God the Father, Jesus the Son, Holy Spirit the Teacher. Trinity. They are One. Jews believe in God.


I don't see the relevance of this to what was said.

Jews definitely do not believe in the trinity; they're pretty good mathematicians and can prove that 3 doesn't equal 1.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Jews believe in a God who is not schizophrenic.


Okay, you say schizophrenic, I say bad at arithmetic.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Well, how long are they going to keep it up? Until November 7, 2016? What a waste of time and energy. :hunf:


Maybe they have nothing better to do.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> I like that you left the ads in.
> 
> What I didn't see in the list is the most important reason Jews (at least, some Jews) are hoping for a messiah: That *as soon as he comes*, the world will be a more peaceful, happier place. Swords into ploughshares, etc. If the messiah comes, he won't make us all wait a few thousand years before he does his job.


That's interesting. I remember asking a girl in one of my university religious courses whether the Jewish people were still waiting for a messiah. She said no, the Torah had been reinterpreted and that was no longer the focus.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Can you believe Jelun2 thinks the Old Testament has nothing to do with Christians? Never in my lifetime have a heard such a stupid statement.
> 
> Where the heck does she think the history and facts of the entire creation of the Heavens and Earth and all those who are in the Bible with their teachings come from? How does she think Christians learn anything about God, Israel, the Jews, Moses, Abraham, Adam/Eve, anyone or anything, etc.?
> 
> Complete ignorance by some of those posting ... why she posts anything on the subject is beyond me.


Want to show me where I said it has nothing to do with Christians?
The whole fairy tale was developed to support the Jesus story. 
That is why thinking people understand that it is not a history, more like a memoir. It shifts where convenient to gentler terrain. 
That selective memory issue kicks in where the facts don't fit. 
You would do better to ask someone who can read the story in its original to help you out with that.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> That's interesting. I remember asking a girl in one of my university religious courses whether the Jewish people were still waiting for a messiah. She said no, the Torah had been reinterpreted and that was no longer the focus.


The really traditional right-wing Jews claim to be waiting for the messiah; the rest of us have lives to live. But I don't know about the Torah having been reinterpreted. The messiah has never been the focus.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> The really traditional right-wing Jews claim to be waiting for the messiah; the rest of us have lives to live. But I don't know about the Torah having been reinterpreted. The messiah has never been the focus.


I think my friend meant it in the sense of actively expecting the Messiah to drop from the clouds at any moment, such as some Christians do. But I definitely remember her saying that the Torah had been reinterpreted--maybe that has something to do with the different sects and what each believes?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> I think my friend meant it in the sense of actively expecting the Messiah to drop from the clouds at any moment, such as some Christians do. But I definitely remember her saying that the Torah had been reinterpreted--maybe that has something to do with the different sects and what each believes?


God knows I am no expert (yes, humor there) my understanding is that for many communities the Torah is living, it evolves so to speak to mantain a freshness. 
This, naturally, for fundamentalists and conservatives would not be as likely as for what used to be known as Reform Judaism.
Relevancy, not freshness. sheesh


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> I think my friend meant it in the sense of actively expecting the Messiah to drop from the clouds at any moment, such as some Christians do. But I definitely remember her saying that the Torah had been reinterpreted--maybe that has something to do with the different sects and what each believes?


I don't know how much your friend knew. The Torah is constantly being interpreted and explained, and there's often conflict between interpreters, but I wouldn't call it *re*interpretation. Different scholars have different views; some are more along the lines of the religious right, and some are more "modern." I'm talking here about Orthodox Judaism; the other denominations have their own views of how to practice. But only the far right fundamentalists are focused on a messiah, and some even think he was here in the person of a rabbi who died in the 1990's. These believers are regarded as a fringe movement.


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Do I detect some racism here?


Huh? Return to Earth immediately, how the heck did you come to that conclusion.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> God knows I am no expert (yes, humor there) my understanding is that for many communities the Torah is living, it evolves so to speak to mantain a freshness.
> This, naturally, for fundamentalists and conservatives would not be as likely as for what used to be known as Reform Judaism.
> Relevancy, not freshness. sheesh


I don't want to get into a torah discussion here on Smoking and Obamacare; in fact, I don't think Reform Jews (and they're still know by that name) bother much with the torah. Reform Judaism originated in a desire of some people to be able to eat nonkosher food at some meeting in Germany in the 19th century, which was a big break with tradition and with the torah. Now they're the ones who maintain the civil and social concerns that we should all be interested in.


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

"jelun2 wrote:
Who gives a flying fig. The two I have seen in print are nasty enough to be 3."



Lovethelake wrote:
"Stop talking about yourself"

Good grief, what are you Lovethelake, 5 years old? There is one thing to have healthy discussions and then there are people who sit hidden behind a computer screen taking childish pot shots.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Cindy S said:


> "jelun2 wrote:
> Who gives a flying fig. The two I have seen in print are nasty enough to be 3."
> 
> Lovethelake wrote:
> ...


Careful, Cindy. You will end up with a big target on your back.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> I don't want to get into a torah discussion here on Smoking and Obamacare; in fact, I don't think Reform Jews (and they're still know by that name) bother much with the torah. Reform Judaism originated in a desire of some people to be able to eat nonkosher food at some meeting in Germany in the 19th century, which was a big break with tradition and with the torah. Now they're the ones who maintain the civil and social concerns that we should all be interested in.


Hey, I said I was no expert. Muah.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> The really traditional right-wing Jews claim to be waiting for the messiah; the rest of us have lives to live. But I don't know about the Torah having been reinterpreted. The messiah has never been the focus.


I wish that there were a way to have a closed discussion.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Hey, I said I was no expert. Muah.


Well, now you are. This is not what I should be talking about here, anyway.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> I wish that there were a way to have a closed discussion.


Frankly, when I get on certain subjects, esp. where there's a bright audience who have little knowledge of the field, I become Empress Poor Lecturer, which is not what I want to be.


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Careful, Cindy. You will end up with a big target on your back.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

I am all for people voicing their opinions, but when it crashes down into childish behavior I lose patience.....and interest in what they have to say.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Three in one. God the Father, Jesus the Son, Holy Spirit the Teacher. Trinity. They are One. Jews believe in God.


Country Bumpkins
Trinity is a concoction past the old Testment, isn't it?


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

Huckleberry said:


> Country Bumpkins
> Trinity is a concoction past the old Testment, isn't it?


No. You should not blaspheme Ingried. Not a good thing to do.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Want to show me where I said it has nothing to do with Christians?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You are a complete idiot. You should stop attempting to tell Christians, and intelligent individuals what you don't know nor understand.

You do not know nor comprehend what the Bible is, represents, teaches or means to Christians. Any intelligent non-Christian can at least understand what the Bible is and represents. Not you, however. You are a fool and show yourself to be one again and again when telling Christians what they believe.

The Bible was NOT developed to support the Jesus story as you stated. You are simply showing again your ignorance.

May you find some understand before you expire.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Cindy S said:


> "jelun2 wrote:
> Who gives a flying fig. The two I have seen in print are nasty enough to be 3."
> 
> Lovethelake wrote:
> ...


Good grief, awfully judgmental and quick to find fault with someone to be only on kp for a few days. Wonder why that is that of all the old posts to jump on, you start with that one ?


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Good grief, awfully judgmental and quick to find fault with someone to be only on kp for a few days. Wonder why that is that of all the old posts to jump on, you start with that one ?


Well heck, nobody told me you had to be on kp for a certain period of time before I could voice an opinion!!! And that is in some rules on this site where? Darn, please accept my apology!

:roll:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You are a complete idiot. You should stop attempting to tell Christians, and intelligent individuals what you don't know nor understand.
> 
> You do not know nor comprehend what the Bible is, represents, teaches or means to Christians. Any intelligent non-Christian can at least understand what the Bible is and represents. Not you, however. You are a fool and show yourself to be one again and again when telling Christians what they believe.
> 
> ...


I have no intention of expiring. My spirit will live on forever. 
If the Bible was not honed to support that story why the edits? Why are sections omitted?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You are a complete idiot. You should stop attempting to tell Christians, and intelligent individuals what you don't know nor understand.
> 
> You do not know nor comprehend what the Bible is, represents, teaches or means to Christians. Any intelligent non-Christian can at least understand what the Bible is and represents. Not you, however. You are a fool and show yourself to be one again and again when telling Christians what they believe.
> 
> ...


Talk to me again when you develop some level of reading comprehension. It is no wonder you fail to live by the lessons in that book. You cannot understand the written word.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> I have no intention of expiring. My spirit will live on forever.
> If the Bible was not honed to support that story why the edits? Why are sections omitted?


They're not.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Talk to me again when you develop some level of reading comprehension. It is no wonder you fail to live by the lessons in that book. You cannot understand the written word.


You don't comprehend much, especially anything having to do with the Bible. Too bad for you, huh?

Instead of listening and learning about that of which you do not know, you spout of your ignorance, trying to impress and think no one notices.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> They're not.


The Deuterocanonical books have been in the Bible since the canonization in the 4th Century.

These books were later removed by Luther and have remained outside of the Bible in Protestant circles since:

Tobit 
Judith 
Wisdom 
Ecclesiasticus 
Baruch 
1 Maccabees 
2 Machabees

Biblical apocrypha

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about a class of books included in some Bibles. For other books generally excluded from Bibles, see Apocrypha.

This article is about biblical books printed apart from the New and Old Testaments. For books whose inclusion in the Old Testament canon is controversial, see Deuterocanonical books.

Part of a series on

The Bible

The Malmesbury Bible

Biblical canons and books[show]

­(·
­·
­)
·
­·
­·
­·
­·
­·
­·
­

Development and authorship[show]

­­

Translations and manuscripts[show]

­·
­

Biblical studies[show]

­

Interpretation[show]

­·
­

Perspectives[show]

­­

­Wikipedia book Bible book·
­Portal icon Bible portal

­v·
­t·
­e

The Biblical apocrypha (from the Greek word ἀπόκρυφος, apókruphos, meaning "hidden") denotes the collection of ancient books found, in some editions of the Bible, in a separate section between the Old and New Testaments[1] or as an appendix after the New Testament.[2] Although the term apocrypha had been in use since the 5th century, it was in Luther's Bible of 1534 that the Apocrypha was first published as a separate intertestamental section.[3] Luther was making a polemical point about the canonicity of these books. As an authority for this division, he cited St. Jerome, who in the early 5th century distinguished the Hebrew and Greek Old Testaments,[4] stating that books not found in the Hebrew were not received as canonical. Although his statement was controversial in his day,[5] Jerome was later titled a Doctor of the Church and his authority was also cited in the Anglican statement in 1571 of the Thirty-Nine Articles.[6]

There was agreement among the Reformers that the Apocrypha contained "books proceeding from godly men" and therefore recommended reading. The Geneva Bible[7] said this in 1560:
These bokes that follow in order unto the Newe testament, are called Apocrypha, that is, bokes, which were not received by a comune consent to be red and expounded publickely in the Church, neither yet served to prove any point of Christian religion, save inasmuche as they had the consent of the other Scriptures called Canonical to confirme the same, or rather whereon they were grounded : but as bokes proceding from godlie men, were received to be red for the advancement and furtherance of the knowledge of the historie, and for the instruction of godlie maners : which bokes declare that at all times God had an especial care of his Church and left them not utterly destitute of teachers and meanes to confirme them in the hope of the promised Messiah, and also witnesse that those calamities that God sent to his Church, were according to his providence, who had bothe so threatened by his Prophetes, and so broght it to passe for the destruction of their enemies, and for the tryal of his children.
Later, during the English Civil War, the Westminster Confession of 1647 excluded the Apocrypha from the canon and made no recommendation of the Apocrypha above "other human writings",[8] and, as the Catholic Encyclopedia says, "...the name Apocrypha soon came to have an unfavourable signification which it still retains, comporting both want of genuineness and canonicity."[9] This hostile attitude towards the Apocrypha (considered Catholic by some British Protestants) is represented by the refusal of the British and Foreign Bible Society in the early 19th century to print it (see below).

Catholic and Orthodox Christians regard as fully canonical most of these books called Apocrypha, and their canonicity was explicitly affirmed at the Council of Trent in 1546[10] and Synod of Jerusalem (1672) respectively. They are called deuterocanonical by Catholics and anagignoskomena by the Orthodox.

KPG says:
"Instead of listening and learning about that of which you do not know, you spout of your ignorance, trying to impress and think no one notices."

I say...
Who the hell talks like this?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> You are right. Your spirit will live on forever. The only question is where will it be. Heaven or Hell?


I am quite sure that I have several "trips back" before I will qualify for "heaven". There is no hell.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Cindy S said:


> Well heck, nobody told me you had to be on kp for a certain period of time before I could voice an opinion!!! And that is in some rules on this site where? Darn, please accept my apology!
> 
> :roll:


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> I am quite sure that I have several "trips back" before I will qualify for "heaven". There is no hell.


The devil told you a lie. He wants you to spend eternity with him. Don't listen to it. Eternity is forever. Father I come to you in the Name of Jesus to open jeluns eyes to the Truth. I pray she will see that Jesus can be her Savior. Lord I don't want her living in eternal hell while looking up and seeing that she could have been with You. Praying in the Name of Jesus for the salvation of her soul. Thank You Lord.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> The Deuterocanonical books have been in the Bible since the canonization in the 4th Century.
> 
> These books were later removed by Luther and have remained outside of the Bible in Protestant circles since:
> 
> ...


Thanks for the lesson. Unfortunately, it was addressed to someone whose knowledge of English includes phrases like "that of which you do not know" (even "you know not" would sound better) and mixed tenses.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Country Bumpkins said:


> The devil told you a lie. He wants you to spend eternity with him. Don't listen to it. Eternity is forever. Father I come to you in the Name of Jesus to open jeluns eyes to the Truth. I pray she will she that Jesus can be her Savior. Lord I don't want her living in eternal hell while looking up and seeing that she could have been with You. Praying in the Name of Jesus for the salvation of her soul. Thank You Lord.


Your prosthelytizing will not have any effect on me. 
Face it, none of us knows which of our paths is correct or if all of them are. I come into the latter camp. 
I don't have a problem with you thinking that you are correct other than this effort to change my mind.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> I am quite sure that I have several "trips back" before I will qualify for "heaven". There is no hell.


Being tested by Joeysomma is hell; I can testify to that. But you don't have to die for it to happen.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Jeez, what a thing to post in public.


Country Bumpkins said:


> The devil told you a lie. He wants you to spend eternity with him. Don't listen to it. Eternity is forever. Father I come to you in the Name of Jesus to open jeluns eyes to the Truth. I pray she will see that Jesus can be her Savior. Lord I don't want her living in eternal hell while looking up and seeing that she could have been with You. Praying in the Name of Jesus for the salvation of her soul. Thank You Lord.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Being tested by Joeysomma is hell; I can testify to that. But you don't have to die for it to happen.


So true, Purl--it must qualify as the Inner Ring.

:-D


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> So true, Purl--it must qualify as the Inner Ring.
> 
> :-D


I don't think Dante ever got far enough to find out.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Your prosthelytizing will not have any effect on me.
> Face it, none of us knows which of our paths is correct or if all of them are. I come into the latter camp.
> I don't have a problem with you thinking that you are correct other than this effort to change my mind.


I don't prosthelytize. I witness God's Love thru His Son that died for us. I do know the truth. I would not want to know that I haven't shared my faith to anyone that is going to hell and happy about it. You chose whatever you want but one day you will be sorry. Just trying to help you. Praying that the Holy Spirit comes to you and changes your mind.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> I don't prosthelytize. I witness God's Love thru His Son that died for us. I do know the truth. I would not want to know that I haven't shared my faith to anyone that is going to hell and happy about it. You chose whatever you want but one day you will be sorry. Just trying to help you. Praying that the Holy Spirit comes to you and changes your mind.


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Jeez, what a thing to post in public.


Doesn't matter much, I outgrew bogey men a long time ago.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Country Bumpkins said:


> I don't prosthelytize. I witness God's Love thru His Son that died for us. I do know the truth. I would not want to know that I haven't shared my faith to anyone that is going to hell and happy about it. You chose whatever you want but one day you will be sorry. Just trying to help you. Praying that the Holy Spirit comes to you and changes your mind.


Thanks, I don't need your help. 
I would prefer to deal with Mormons and Jehovah's Witness visitors on my doorstep. 
I cannot say what I would like, please, read my mind.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Your prosthelytizing will not have any effect on me.
> Face it, none of us knows which of our paths is correct or if all of them are. I come into the latter camp.
> I don't have a problem with you thinking that you are correct other than this effort to change my mind.


I find her message to be offensive - the second one even more so. But it does give a clue to how they all believe things without logic and without proof. They're trained to "think" that way (not sure the mental process they use is really thinking).


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> You are right. Your spirit will live on forever. The only question is where will it be. Heaven or Hell?


Now she is quoting Wikipedia to tell us what 'she' thinks Christians believe. What an ignoramus.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Doesn't matter much, I outgrew bogey men a long time ago.


I know. I just thought the message deserved a "Jeez."


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Being tested by Joeysomma is hell; I can testify to that. But you don't have to die for it to happen.


Many stood up to testing, including Jesus, and they lived through it; why cannot you?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Jesus was tested by Joeysomma? In what book is that written?


knitpresentgifts said:


> Many stood up to testing, including Jesus, and they lived through it; why cannot you?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Jeez, what a thing to post in public.


Thought you didn't like the conversation here so you left? Think about doing so again to ease your time on earth.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

And to think poor Purl is Jewish and would say that.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Country Bumpkins said:


> I don't prosthelytize. I witness God's Love thru His Son that died for us. I do know the truth. I would not want to know that I haven't shared my faith to anyone that is going to hell and happy about it. You chose whatever you want but one day you will be sorry. Just trying to help you. Praying that the Holy Spirit comes to you and changes your mind.


 :thumbup: Although she has told us again and again she refuses to learn and believe the truth.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> I know. I just thought the message deserved a "Jeez."


Father I come to You in the Name of Jesus for Poor Purl. She doesn't know the Truth about Jesus laying down His Life for her. She has head knowledge but needs heart a soft heart. I am praying for her salvation too. Praying that the Holy Spirit comes to her too. Praying both of their souls out of hell. Thank you Lord God.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Thought you didn't like the conversation here so you left? Think about doing so again to ease your time on earth.


Faulty memory on your part. It was the Obamacare thread I left. And thanks for the free advice. It's worth every penny.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Jesus was tested by Joeysomma? In what book is that written?


Never said that, try using logic instead of ignorance if you have any.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Excuse me?


theyarnlady said:


> And to think poor Purl is Jewish and would say that.


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Never said that, try using logic instead of ignorance if you have any.


Priceless.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> I find her message to be offensive - the second one even more so. But it does give a clue to how they all believe things without logic and without proof. They're trained to "think" that way (not sure the mental process they use is really thinking).


Faith isn't really about thinking. The difference being, I guess, is that some of us can accept our faith for what it is and still think about it. Others cannot challenge their faith; for fear of losing it? 
I see it as a personal journey. They are welcome to theirs. I only wish they didn't feel the need to spread the ignorance.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Never said that, try using logic instead of ignorance if you have any.


Sorry, I'm all out of ignorance.

If you can't remember what message of mine you responded to, you can look it up.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Faith isn't really about thinking. The difference being, I guess, is that some of us can accept our faith for what it is and still think about it. Others cannot challenge their faith; for fear of losing it?
> I see it as a personal journey. They are welcome to theirs. I only wish they didn't feel the need to spread the ignorance.


I wish I could grant your wish. It's a wish I've been wishing since childhood.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Many stood up to testing, including Jesus, and they lived through it; why cannot you?


Interesting--Jesus and others were tempted by Satan...are you implying that Joey is an agent of the Dark forces?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Interesting--Jesus and others were tempted by Satan...are you implying that Joey is an agent of the Dark forces?


Bless you, Empress Susan, at least you understood what she was writing.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Interesting--Jesus and others were tempted by Satan...are you implying that Joey is an agent of the Dark forces?


Another idiot - who mentioned temptation by Satan? Trying READING what is written and discussing that while not changing the subject or topic to suit your purposes.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Bless you, Empress Susan, at least you understood what she was writing.


No she didn't and neither did you. Surprise!

You both just reminded me why I mainly chose to ignore responding to the Liberal idiots on these threads. I'll try to respond only to those with logic, reasoning and brains.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Now she is quoting Wikipedia to tell us what 'she' thinks Christians believe. What an ignoramus.


That would be because in your ignorance you don't even realize how you are being played. 
FGS, investigate at least so that your faith can be honest and complete with as much knowledge as possible.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Excuse me?


Oh G-d, Empress PP. Forgive them, they really don't know what they are doing. 
Plus, in their ignorance they believe that Jesus died for their sins so they can be as ugly as they like and not answer for it.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> That would be because in your ignorance you don't even realize how you are being played.
> FGS, investigate at least so that your faith can be honest and complete with as much knowledge as possible.


Get out of your bedroom and get some fresh air; you need it and so much more.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Get out of your bedroom and get some fresh air; you need it and so much more.


One could say the same to you. Why not go conjure up a few more stories about your purchases? Better yet, make up a few about taking some Christian actions.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Did anyone see ABC News last night.

Mention of Calf. and 1,600 losing insurance because of Obama care. One poor lady talking about it and how Obama care cost her more after losing her insurance.

Mention of Benghazi and first hand account from man who was there. 60 mins. on Sunday will have full interview.

And to top it all off How world leaders are angrey about US spying.

Also NBC had some thought on Obama Care that put it in a bad lite too.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> One could say the same to you. Why not go conjure up a few more stories about your purchases? Better yet, make up a few about taking some Christian actions.


What the heck are you talking about now? Craziness ...


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> I still cry when I hear "Barbara Allen."


There's a huge supply of old time tear jerkers. I'm pretty sure it would be impossible to hear them all in one lifetime.

My Dad used to sing some songs to me when I was little, rhat always made me cry. But there I'd be the next night begging him to sing them again. He's tell me I'd just cry again, I'd promise I wouldn't, he'd sing to me and there I'd go, crying again. After awhile he accepted this. Even though he knew some real tear-jerkers, he had such a lovely voice I couldn't help wanting to hear him sing.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

lovethelake said:


> Obamacare encourages divorce. Here is a paragraph from the article:
> 
> Marriage Penalty?
> Federal subsidies in the form of tax credits are available for incomes up to 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL). That would be $45,960 for an individual, $62,040 for a couple, $94,200 for a family of four and $158,520 for a family of eight. Once a person has exceeded that threshold, however, he or she loses the subsidy and must pay the full premium. Those who apply for Silver plans with incomes that do not exceed 250% of the FPL are eligible for further cost-sharing reductions.
> ...


Retirement encourages people to avoid remarrying so their finances won't be comingled, which can ge disastrous. Even some Cathyolics choose to live in sin rather than risk the possibilit, even if it's unlikely, of facing financial ruin, all of which is to say that the ACA isn't the only factor in influencing people's relationships.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I think this is very fitting to this conversation.


Love it!


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Huckleberry said:


> Country Bumpkins Trinity is a concoction past the old Testment, isn't it?


If by "past The Old Testament" you mean that the triune nature of God is only discussed in The New Testament, the answer is "no".

*Ths post is in no way meant to show that I agree with anthing "the other side" says. 
*
This is from www.gotQuestions,org ("The Bible has the answers! We'll help you find them!"

*What is the Godhead?*
*Answer:* The term "Godhead" is found three times in the King James Version: Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; Colossians 2:9. Three different Greek words are used, but each one means divinity. It is important for us to understand from the outset that God exists in three Persons. The concept of the Godhead is that God is one yet God is three. How can this be?

While the word trinity is not found in the Scriptures, the concept is found there from beginning to end. There is no question about itthe doctrine of the Trinity is divinely revealed biblical truth: our one God exists in three Persons. That is not to say that the authors of Scripture understood it clearly. When Peter, John, and the other disciples first saw Jesus they did not say, Oh look, there goes God in flesh, the second Person of the holy Trinity. Yet as they heard Him claim to be the revelation of the Father with the prerogatives of deity, and as they watched Him perform the supernatural works of deity, they came to the convinced persuasion that He was God the Son.

Additionally, they probably gave very little thought at first to the Holy Spirit being the third Person of the eternal Godhead. But when the events of the day of Pentecost had ended, it was obvious to them that the power they had witnessed working in them and through them was not their own. It was the power of God. The Spirit who indwelled them was none other than God Himself. So then, led by that same divine Spirit, they revealed to us in their writings the Trinity of the eternal God.

*Explanation of the triune Godhead*
What then does it mean that God exists as the Trinity? It is a basic principle of our biblical faith that there is only one God. Hear, O Israel! The LORD our God, the LORD is one! (Deuteronomy 6:4). The unity of the Godhead cannot be questioned. God does not consist of parts. He is one. But Scripture reveals that there are, in that one divine essence, three eternal distinctions. Those distinctions seem best described as Persons, known as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All three have identical attributes, however, and therefore they are onenot merely one in mind and purpose, but one in substance. To possess all the same attributes is to be one in essential nature. The three Persons of the Godhead possess identical attributes. They are one in substance and one in essence, and therefore they are one God.

*Evidence for the Triune Godhead*
While the primary emphasis of the Old Testament is on the unity of God, the indications of His triune nature are clearly seen even there. We need not read very far to find the first one: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1). Elohim, the Hebrew name for God in this verse, is plural. That may not prove the Trinity, but it definitely points to more than one Person in the Godhead. There was no other logical reason to choose a plural name. As such, we are not surprised, then, to hear Him say a short time later, Let us make man in our image (Genesis 1:26, emphasis added). The plural pronouns could not refer to angels because they were never associated with God in His creative activity. Consequently, more than one divine Person was clearly involved. The plural pronouns make no sense otherwise (Genesis 3:22; Genesis 11:7). John reiterates this truth when, speaking of Jesus, he declares, Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made (John 1:3). Clearly, Jesus was present and involved in the act of creation, yet Genesis 1:1 says that God created the heavens and the earth.

The undeniable biblical testimony to the Trinity is simply that all three Persons are referred to as divine. First, the Father is called God. He is referred to as God the Father (Galatians 1:1), God our Father (Galatians 1:3; Ephesians 1:2), and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:3). His deity is unquestioned. But the Son is likewise referred to as God. He possesses the attributes of deity such as eternality, immutability, omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence. He bears the names of deity such as Jehovah, Lord, Immanuel, and the Word. He even permitted Thomas to call Him my Lord and my God (John 20:28). He exercises the prerogatives of deity such as forgiving sins, raising the dead, and judging all men. And He accepts worship reserved only for God.

Jesus claimed that He deserved the very same reverence that was reserved for God the Father. He was not a liar or a lunatic, so He must have been who He claimed to beGod the Son, equal with the Father and worthy of the same honor as the Father. The Father Himself addressed His Son as God: But about the Son He says, Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever (Hebrews 1:8). Paul further explains that in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9). The Greek word translated godhead is theotēs which means divinity, so the totality of divinity (God) is in Jesus. The prologue to Johns gospel tells us one reason Christ came to earth: to make the Father known, to reveal God to men (John 1:18). We can know more of what God is like by examining the Person of Jesus Christ. He was God in flesh. As we explore Scripture and seek to discover who God is, we cannot neglect the earthly life of Jesus Christ. He is God the Son.

But the Holy Spirit is also part of the Godhead. His name is the Spirit of God (Genesis 1:2). He, too, possesses the attributes of deity and performs the works of deity. While He is the Spirit who proceeds from the Father (John 15:26), He is at the same time called the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9). He is coequal with both the Father and the Son. The Apostle Peter clearly viewed Him as God when he said to Ananias, Why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit? . . . You have not lied to men, but to God (Acts 5:3-4). If the Father, the Son, and the Spirit all bear the names of God, possess the attributes of God, and perform the works of God, then there is no alternative but to acknowledge that our one God exists in three Persons.

*The Ministry of the Triune Godhead*
Scripture links these three Persons of the Godhead together so closely in so many divine activities that it would be foolish to deny that any one of them is God. Observe some of those activities:

* Creating the World.* All three were involved in creation: the Father (Genesis 1:1); the Son (John 1:3, 10; Colossians 1:16); and the Spirit (Genesis 1:2, Psalm 104:30). If all three created, then God the Creator must exist in three Persons.

* Sending the Son.* All three members of the Trinity were active in the incarnation. When Mary questioned the angel about the possibility of a virgin birth, the angel answered her, The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35). The power of the Father, ministered through the agency of the Spirit, resulted in the birth of the Son into the world. This close association in the birth of the Savior is further indication of their oneness.

* Identifying the Messiah.* At precisely the proper moment, Jesus Christ was revealed to Israel as her Messiah. John the Baptist was the chosen instrument and the act of baptism was the chosen means (Matthew 3:16-17). As the Spirit came upon the Son, the Fathers voice was heard from heaven expressing His approval. It was another powerful testimony to the eternal triune Godhead.

* Providing Redemption.* Two central passages bring the three members of the Godhead together in providing for mans eternal salvation. How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! (Hebrews 9:14). It was the offering of the Son to the Father by the power of the Spirit. The Apostle Peter taught, furthermore, that God the Father chose us to salvation, God the Son paid for it by shedding His blood, and God the Spirit set us apart unto the obedience of faith (1 Peter 1:1-2). Without each Person of the Godhead doing His part, we would remain in our sins.

* Proclaiming Salvation.* In the early years of the church, God did some spectacular things to verify the gospel message which the apostles were preaching. The writer to the Hebrews tells us, How shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, God also bearing witness with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will (Hebrews 2:3-4). It was the same message that was first spoken by the Son Himself. When the apostles proclaimed it, the Father bore witness to its truthfulness by bestowing miraculous gifts through the Spirit. It was not only a powerful witness to the truth of the message, but another demonstration of the triune God at work.

* Sending the Spirit.* The three Persons of the Trinity are so interwoven in sending the Spirit into the world that it is difficult to distinguish between them. In one passage it is stated that the Father would send the Spirit in Christs name and that He would testify concerning Christ (John 14:26). In another it is said that the Son would send Him from the Father (John 15:26). In yet another, the Father sends Him and calls Him the Spirit of His Son (Galatians 4:6). What a picture of unitysuch perfect unity that the actions of one are considered to be the actions of the other. The Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son. But all three are vitally involved in His coming.

* Indwelling Believers.* Jesus taught His disciples that both He and His Father would make their home with them (John 14:23). But their indwelling would be in the Person of the Comforter, the Spirit of truth (John 14:16-17). As the Spirit of both the Father and the Son, His indwelling is the indwelling of the Godhead. That would not be possible unless the three are one.

* Baptizing Believers.* In our Lords commission to His disciples He said, Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). The unity of the Godhead is declared by combining them in one name (singular). Yet the distinctiveness of the Persons is maintained by listing them separately. It is another link in the long chain of evidence that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are one God.

* Entering Gods Presence.* All three members of the Godhead are intimately involved in the believers access into the presence of God. Speaking of Christ, the Apostle Paul taught, For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit (Ephesians 2:18). Both Jews and Gentiles can approach the Father through the merits of the Son with the help of the Spirit.

* Blessing Believers.* In Pauls final remarks to the Corinthian Christians, he linked the three members of the Godhead together in a beautiful benediction: The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all (2 Corinthians 13:14). Unless the three are one, eternally and equally supreme, there would be little reason to put them together on an equal basis like this in a divine blessing. The apostle certainly considered them to be one.

The reality of the triune Godhead cannot be denied. Those outside of Christ may object to it, but their objections arise primarily because they seek to understand the Creator in terms of the creature, to see God as merely a bigger and better version of man when in reality He is a totally different kind of being, an infinite being whom our finite minds cannot fully comprehend. We believe in the Godhead not because we understand it, but because God has revealed it. It is not incidental or unimportant. It is the very essence of His being, the way He is. And it is necessary for us to know it if we hope to grow in our understanding of His nature and perfections.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

MaidInBedlam said:


> There's a huge supply of old time tear jerkers. I'm pretty sure it would be impossible to hear them all in one lifetime.
> 
> My Dad used to sing some songs to me when I was little, rhat always made me cry. But there I'd be the next night begging him to sing them again. He's tell me I'd just cry again, I'd promise I wouldn't, he'd sing to me and there I'd go, crying again. After awhile he accepted this. Even though he knew some real tear-jerkers, he had such a lovely voice I couldn't help wanting to hear him sing.


How lucky you were to have a singing dad. My dad was a honey, but he couldn't sing to save his life. So I married a man who can't sing.

I think people like to listen to sad songs because they can release feelings bottled up inside. We all pretend not to like being sad, but sometimes it's a relief.

Something similar happens with scary movies.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I think this is very fitting to this conversation.


I really like that.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

MaidInBedlam said:


> If by "past The Old Testament" you mean that the triune nature of God is only discussed in The New Testament, the answer is "no".
> 
> *Ths post is in no way meant to show that I agree with anthing "the other side" says.
> *
> This is from www.gotQuestions,org ("The Bible has the answers! We'll help you find them!"<snip>


If you're posting this seriously, I can find many things to argue with in it, though I've wasted enough time today. If this is meant to be a joke, you went to great lengths for it.

I would not believe anything that announces "The Bible has the answers!"


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> How lucky you were to have a singing dad. My dad was a honey, but he couldn't sing to save his life. So I married a man who can't sing.
> 
> I think people like to listen to sad songs because they can release feelings bottled up inside. We all pretend not to like being sad, but sometimes it's a relief.
> 
> Something similar happens with scary movies.


 I believe that I was, indeed, very lucky to have the Dad I did. And the mother I still have. I never wished anyone else's paretnts were mine, though many of my childhood friends loved to come to my house and hang out around my parents. Heck, I'll fo so far as to say I was incredibly blessed to be born to my parents. After all, none of us gets to choose our parents.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> If you're posting this seriously, I can find many things to argue with in it, though I've wasted enough time today. If this is meant to be a joke, you went to great lengths for it.
> 
> I would not believe anything that announces "The Bible has the answers!"


It's been a long time, I admit, aren't Matthew, Luke, and John New Testament? Besides the Old Testament is the story of the Jews for Christians. So any trinity reference has nothing to do with Judaism. it is meant for reference material for Christians, right?


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> If you're posting this seriously, I can find many things to argue with in it, though I've wasted enough time today. If this is meant to be a joke, you went to great lengths for it.
> 
> I would not believe anything that announces "The Bible has the answers!"


I was posting seriously. Of course, many of us can find all sorts of things in the Bible to argue about. I agree with you about that. I'm sure you know that Christians believe the Bible has the answers, whether they choose to consider the Bible literally or as a form of mythology filled with symbolism. I'm sure you know that belief and fact are two very different things. My post only addresses belief.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

MaidInBedlam said:


> I was posting seriously. Of course, many of us can find all sorts of things in the Bible to argue about. I agree with you about that. I'm sure you know that Christians believe the Bible has the answers, whether they choose to consider the Bible literally or as a form of mythology filled with symbolism. I'm sure you know that belief and fact are two very different things. My post only addresses belief.


I have begun a new thread for the Bible discussion stuff.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Deleted this in favor or the version below.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

MaidInBedlam said:


> Read a bit more closely. While the triune nature of God is referrenced more often in the New Testament, there are also instances in which that is referred to in the Old Testament, according to the source I quoted. The theological analysis seems pretty standard and reliable to me. Again, we're talking about belief, not fact. I'm not going to open that can of worms, and if I already hae, I won't encourage paying attention to all the worms that will never fit back into the can.


LOL, your mention just made my stomach turn. 
I thought that was what I was saying, that the Old Testament is not the Jewish history for Jews; it is the Jewish history for Christians. 
And it is all academic for me. As I have state several times I see all of historical info that early as a sort of memoir since recordings of events were pretty poor.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> It's been a long time, I admit, aren't Matthew, Luke, and John New Testament? Besides the Old Testament is the story of the Jews for Christians. So any trinity reference has nothing to do with Judaism. it is meant for reference material for Christians, right?


Read a bit more closely. While the triune nature of God is referenced more often in the New Testament, there are also instances in which that is referred to in the Old Testament, according to the source I quoted. The theological analysis seems pretty standard in light of other theological analyses I've read. Again, we're talking about belief, not fact. I'm not going to open that can of worms, and if I already have, I apologize and won't be encouraging any discussion about the Bible being entirely factual.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> It's been a long time, I admit, aren't Matthew, Luke, and John New Testament? Besides the Old Testament is the story of the Jews for Christians. So any trinity reference has nothing to do with Judaism. it is meant for reference material for Christians, right?


No, the so-called Old Testament existed long before Jesus was a twinkle in the eye of God. (The phrase "old testament" is somewhat offensive to Jews, implying as it does that what's in it is no longer valid.) Christians have pulled out parts of it that they claim foreshadowed Jesus's coming, but Jews don't read it that way. With a very large text, it's not hard to find something to support any point of view. And there is no reference to a "triune" nature of God. The oneness of God is basic; the Jews were the first monotheists, and many see the Trinity and the saints as polytheistic.

Look, I know I've been acting as Spokesman for the Jews for the past few days, but I'm speaking historically and/or abstractly, not necessarily as I believe things to be. Well, I believe the historical stuff that scholars have determined, but not that the Bible is actual history. Noah's Ark? Jonah in the whale? Come on.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> I have begun a new thread for the Bible discussion stuff.


I'm keeping away. I'd only get into serious arguments with the Usual Suspects.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> LOL, your mention just made my stomach turn.
> I thought that was what I was saying, that the Old Testament is not the Jewish history for Jews; it is the Jewish history for Christians.
> And it is all academic for me. As I have state several times I see all of historical info that early as a sort of memoir since recordings of events were pretty poor.


I'm sorry that you have a delicate stomach. It's my understanding that The Old Testament is largely taken from The Torah. Isn't the Torah the cental and most holy Jewish scripture of the Jews?


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

lovethelake said:


> Did you notice that EVERY Dem running for reelection next year wants to have Obamacare postponed for longer than the 6 weeks the administration says it needs to fix the glitches?
> 
> But I guess they will have to rejigger it


I believe they are now kicking themselves for not reading the legislation before voting into law. So much for following Pelosi blindly.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> LOL, your mention just made my stomach turn.
> I thought that was what I was saying, that the Old Testament is not the Jewish history for Jews; it is the Jewish history for Christians.
> And it is all academic for me. As I have state several times I see all of historical info that early as a sort of memoir since recordings of events were pretty poor.


Wrong. The Hebrew Bible was written for the Jews, as a way of putting together their history. It wasn't all that well written because different people wrote parts at different times, so sometimes it contradicts itself. But it was not written for Christians; they co-opted it because it was their history as well, at least the ones who were Jewish.

As an English major in college, I learned that you can find almost anything you want in a book if you interpret passages correctly. So of course the Christians see the Bible as foreshadowing Jesus; Muslims see it as foreshadowing Mohammed; the Flying Spaghetti Monster followers probably see it as ...never mind.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I have no idea, and I seriously doubt that the Admin does either hence why no one knows.
> 
> I'm worried about all those who lost or will lose their insurance and cannot have what they lost or eliminated reinstated. How about all those who will need to re-qualify for their prior policies which, of course, will have increased rates for lesser coverage? How about all those whose work weeks decreased and will not be recovered? What a disaster Obamacare is. The Repubs have been telling us for years and now people are beginning to understand they were lied to.


You're the one doing the lying. Do you ever consider that there are people who will finally have access to Healthcare?


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> That may seem logical, but it isn't true, at least if the something is labor.
> 
> Businesses will not absorb all the costs resulting from increased wages. Much of that cost will be passed on to the consumer in one form or another. I.e., increased product cost, service costs, delivery charges, etc.
> 
> Minimum wage jobs are for the most part entry level positions and positions requiring few skills. It is up to the employee to decide if this is where they wish to remain.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> I have begun a new thread for the Bible discussion stuff.


Thanks for that. I'll check it out and discuss religion there if I feel like discussing it all. I won't do it here anymore now that there's a potentially better place to do so.:thumbup:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> I believe they are now kicking themselves for not reading the legislation before voting into law. So much for following Pelosi blindly.


Wonder how long before Sebelius cannot stand the heat or gets so frustrated to quit?

Loved her quote of whom she works for. NOT!


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

MaidInBedlam said:


> Read a bit more closely. While the triune nature of God is referrenced more often in the New Testament, there are also instances in which that is referred to in the Old Testament, according to the source I quoted. The theological analysis seems pretty standard and reliable to me. Again, we're talking about belief, not fact. I'm not going to open that can of worms, and if I already hae, I won't encourage paying attention to all the worms that will never fit back into the can.


Okay, I'll go back over the excerpt, at least where it pertains to the Hebrew Bible:



> 1. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1). Elohim, the Hebrew name for God in this verse, is plural. That may not prove the Trinity, but it definitely points to more than one Person in the Godhead. There was no other logical reason to choose a plural name. As such, we are not surprised, then, to hear Him say a short time later, Let us make man in our image (Genesis 1:26, emphasis added). The plural pronouns could not refer to angels because they were never associated with God in His creative activity. Consequently, more than one divine Person was clearly involved. The plural pronouns make no sense otherwise (Genesis 3:22; Genesis 11:7)


The use of plurals is a sign of great respect, i.e., God is so much more than us that we can't use the same words for him as for ourselves. Queen Victoria used the plural to refer to herself ("We are not amused") but that doesn't mean she was actually several people.


>  Creating the World. All three were involved in creation: the Father (Genesis 1:1); the Son (John 1:3, 10; Colossians 1:16); and the Spirit (Genesis 1:2, Psalm 104:30). If all three created, then God the Creator must exist in three Persons.


I had to look up Psalm 104:30. It says "Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth." The Hebrew word for "spirit" is also used to mean "wind" (noun) or "breath." This passage refers to God breathing life into his creation, not another person called the "spirit."

Genesis 1:2 reads "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." Here again is a misinterpretation of the word "spirit." It just means what it means to us all, not another person.

And that's the entire evidence the piece has for showing the Hebrew Bible foreshadows the Trinity.

Are there any Unitarians out there who can take over? You know Christianity a lot better than I do.

I rest my case. And now I have to log off, because I have other things to do.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

alcameron said:


> You're the one doing the lying. Do you ever consider that there are people who will finally have access to Healthcare?


At what cost to the country as a whole?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> At what cost to the country as a whole?


She refuses to consider those who HAD health insurance and now or soon will not. She refuses to consider all those whose job hours were reduced or their costs increased. She refuses to consider the increases in taxes for EVERY American citizen whether working or not to be able to insure 30 million more people. She refuses to accept that those most hurt, not helped, by Obamacare is the middle class.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> No, the so-called Old Testament existed long before Jesus was a twinkle in the eye of God. (The phrase "old testament" is somewhat offensive to Jews, implying as it does that what's in it is no longer valid.) Christians have pulled out parts of it that they claim foreshadowed Jesus's coming, but Jews don't read it that way. With a very large text, it's not hard to find something to support any point of view. And there is no reference to a "triune" nature of God. The oneness of God is basic; the Jews were the first monotheists, and many see the Trinity and the saints as polytheistic.
> 
> Look, I know I've been acting as Spokesman for the Jews for the past few days, but I'm speaking historically and/or abstractly, not necessarily as I believe things to be. Well, I believe the historical stuff that scholars have determined, but not that the Bible is actual history. Noah's Ark? Jonah in the whale? Come on.


The theologial analysis I quoted earlier is a good example of pulling things out of The Old Testament to support someone's theories. I'm sorry about that.

Maybe you wouldn't mind going over to "The Bible as History" and posting a bit about what I think is the case, that The Old Testament is taken primarily from the Torah. I would appreciate learning whether that's true or not, and any further history of the Old Testament you happen to know.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> No, the so-called Old Testament existed long before Jesus was a twinkle in the eye of God. (The phrase "old testament" is somewhat offensive to Jews, implying as it does that what's in it is no longer valid.) Christians have pulled out parts of it that they claim foreshadowed Jesus's coming, but Jews don't read it that way. With a very large text, it's not hard to find something to support any point of view. And there is no reference to a "triune" nature of God. The oneness of God is basic; the Jews were the first monotheists, and many see the Trinity and the saints as polytheistic.
> 
> Look, I know I've been acting as Spokesman for the Jews for the past few days, but I'm speaking historically and/or abstractly, not necessarily as I believe things to be. Well, I believe the historical stuff that scholars have determined, but not that the Bible is actual history. Noah's Ark? Jonah in the whale? Come on.


g Scriptures, demonstrate that there is a plurality of persons in the Godhead, in other words, you see more than one divine person in each passage listed:

Genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7; Isaiah 6:8; 48:16; 61:1-2; Jeremiah 23:5-6; Zechariah 10:12; Matthew 28:19; Luke 4:18-19; John 1:1-3; John 14:23; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Colossians 2:2; Hebrews 1:8-10; Hebrews 3:7-11; 1 Peter 1:2; and 1 John 2:24

Yet, the Bible makes it indisputable that there is only one God:

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD. (Deuteronomy 6:4)

I am he: before me there was no God formed. Neither shall there be after me, I, even I, am LORD, And beside me there is no saviour. (Isaiah 43:10)

I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. (Isaiah 44:6)

Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any? (Isaiah 44:8)

The Bible teaches the Father is God in the following verses:

To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 1:7)

Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. (I Cor. 1:3)

Grace be to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. (II Cor. 1:2)

The Father is Jehovah:

In Exodus 3:13, 14 God (Elohim) reveals Himself as the I Am or Jehovah the Lord.

The Father is both Jehovah and Elohim:

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD [Jehovah] God [Elohim] made the earth and the heavens. (Genenis 2:4)

And the LORD [Jehovah] God [Elohim] planted a garden Eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. (Genesis 2:8)

And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God (Elohim) of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? What shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he Said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM [Jehovah] hath sent me unto you. (Exodus 3:13.14)

The Son is proved to be God by the following verses:

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. (Hebrews 1:8)

For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. (Colossians 2:9)

And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. (I John 5:20)

Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; (Titus 2:13)

Jesus is Jehovah:

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say you, before Abraham was, I am [Jehovah] (John 8:58)

Jesus is using the divine name from Exodus 3:14. The Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) uses (Ego eimi) for Jehovah (I AM) in this verse. John 8:58 in the Greek uses the same formulation (Ego eimi). It is inescapable that Jesus is Jehovah.

Isaiah 45:23 says That unto me [Jehovah] every knee shall bow The New Testament in Philippians 2:10 tells us that this verse speaks of Jesus. Jesus is Jehovah.

The following passage speaks of Jehovah:

Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the LORD God might dwell among them. (Psalms 68:18)

The next verse from Ephesians speaks of Jesus with the wording from Psalms 68:18. This makes Jesus Jehovah.

Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Ephesians 4:8)

Jeremiah the prophet records:

I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings. (Jeremiah 17:10)

What does the New Testament teach about Jesus that identifies him with Jehovah whom Jeremiah spoke? Consider what John says in Revelation 2:23:

I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works. (Revelation 2:23)

More passages could be sited from the Old Testament in which the New Testament writers apply to Christ. The above two examples should be sufficient. In addition, consider Christs following claim:

I and my Father are one. (John 10:30)

Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. (John 10:31) Why? Jesus was clearly claiming to be Jehovah God this verse. Is this true? The Jews said:

The Jews answered him; saying, For a good work we stone thee not; bur for blasphemy: and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. (John 10:33)

The Holy Spirit is called God in the following verses:

But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? ...thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. (Acts 5:3-4)

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? (I Corinthians 3:16)

Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, Today if ye will hear his voice, Harden not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: (Hebrews 3:7,8) See Psalms 95:7,8.

As seen clearly from Acts 5:3, 4 the Holy Spirit is a person who can be lied to. In John 14:26 the Holy Spirit is sent to teach the apostles and bring things to their remembrance. This is proof that the Holy Spirit is an intelligent member of the Godhead, hence a person.

The Holy Spirit is Jehovah:

Now the Lord [Kyrios] is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord [Kyrios] is, there is liberty. (2 Corinthians 3:17)

The Greek word Kyrios is used in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) to translate Jehovah. Kyrios is translated in English with the word Lord.

God is the creator. All three persons are involved in creation:

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (I Corinthians 8:6) (Father)

All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:3) (Son)

The spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life. (Job 33:4) (Spirit)

All three persons share the attributes of deity. For example, all three persons are omniscient:

Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. (Acts 15:18) (Father)

And he said unto him, Lord thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. (John 21:17b) (Son)

But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. (I Corinthians 2:10) (Spirit)

All three persons are omnipotent:

And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. (Revelation 19:6) (Father)

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. (Matthew 28:18) (Son)

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee:... For with God nothing shall be impossible. (Luke 1:35,37) (Spirit)

All three persons are omnipresent:

Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? (Jeremiah 23:24) (Father)

...and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world, Amen. (Matthew 28:20) (Son)

Wither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? (Psalms 139:7) (Spirit)

The Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are all eternal:

But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: (Romans 16:26) (Father)

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever. (Hebrews 13:8) (Son)

How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit... (Hebrews 9:14) (Spirit)

All three persons of the Trinity dwell in us. Only God can do this:

Jesus answered and said unto him, if a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. (John 14:23) (Father)

That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye being rooted and grounded in love. (Ephesians 3:17) (Son)

Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him, for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. (John 14:17) (Spirit)

All three persons of the Trinity were involved in the resurrection of Christ from the dead. Only God can raise the dead:

Paul, An apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead (Galatians 1:1) (Father)

Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.... But he spake of the temple of his body. (John 2:18-20) (Son)

For Christ also hath once suffered for sin, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: (I Peter 3:18) (Spirit)

We see all three persons at the baptism of Christ. These are persons, not modes of existence:

And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (Matthew 3:16,17)

We see all three persons at the Great Commission:

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (Matthew 28:19)

We see all three persons in Paul's letter:

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. (II Corinthians 13:14)

How many Gods are there in the Bible? The Bible is abundantly clear on this. Two verses are sufficient to put an end to polytheism forever:

...Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. (Isaiah. 44:8)

And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: (Mark 12:32)

The Bible teaches that there are three persons who are called God, and yet the Bible is emphatic that there is only one God.

In conclusion, theologian Norman Geisler summarizes:

All three Persons possess the attribute of omnipresence (that is, all three are everywhere-present): the Father (Matthew 19:26), the Son (Matthew 28:18), and the Holy Spirit (Psalm 139:7).

All three have the attribute of omniscience: the Father (Romans 11:33), the Son (Matthew 9:4), and the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:10).

All three have the attribute of omnipotence (that is, all three are all powerful): the Father (Jeremiah 32:27), the Son (Matthew 28:18), and the Holy Spirit (Romans 15:19).

Holiness is ascribed to each of the three Persons: the Father (Revelation 15:4), the Son (Acts 3:14), and the Holy Spirit (John 16:7-14).

Eternity is ascribed to all three Persons: the Father (Psalm 90:2), the Son (Micah 5:2; John 1:2; Revelation 1:8, 17), and the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 9:14).

Each of the three Persons is individually described as the truth: the Father (John 7:28), the Son (Revelation 3:7), and the Holy Spirit (1 John 5:6).

As well, each of the three is called Lord (Romans 10:12; Luke 2:11; 2 Corinthians 3:17), everlasting (Romans 16:26; Revelation 22:13; Hebrews 9:14), almighty (Genesis 17:1; Revelation 1:8; Romans 15:19), and powerful (Jeremiah 32:17; Hebrews 1:3; Luke 1:35).

Indeed, the Holy Spirit was present at the same time, revealing that they coexist. Further, the fact that they have separate titles (Father, Son, and Spirit) indicate that they are not one person. Also, each member of the Trinity has special functions that help us to identify them. For example, the Father planned salvation (John 3:16; Ephesians 1:4); the

Son accomplished it on the cross (John 17:4; 19:30; Heb. 1:1-2) and at the resurrection (Rom. 4:25; 1 Cor. 15:1-6), and the Holy Spirit applies it to the lives of the believers (John 3:5; Ephesians 4:30; Titus 3:5-7). The Son submits to the Father (1 Cor. 11:3; 15:28), and the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son (John 16:14).3

A further response to rationalist critics of God's triune nature Geisler says:

Critics make a point of computing the mathematical impossibility of believing there is a Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the Godhead, without holding that there are three gods. Does not 1+1+1=3? It certainly does if you add them, but Christians insist that the triunity of God is more like 1x1x1=1. God is triune, not triplex. His one essence has multiple centers of personhood. Thus, there is no more mathematical problem in conceiving the Trinity that there is in understanding 1 cubed (13).4

There is one God Deuteronomy 6:4 and Jesus is YAHWEH
Job 33:4

Isaiah 40:28

Genesis 1:1
Creator John 1:3

Colossians 1:16, 17

Hebrews 1:10-12
Psalms 106:21

Isaiah 45:21-23

Isaiah 43:3, 11

Savior
John 4:42

1 John 4:14

Acts 4:12
Jeremiah 10:10

Isaiah 44:6

Psalms 47:8
King Matthew 2:1-6

Luke 23:3

John 19:21
Joel 3:12

Genesis 18:25

Hebrews 12:23
Judge 2 Timothy 4:1

2 Corinthians 5:10

Romans 14:10
Exodus 3:14

Isaiah 43:10

Deuteronomy 32:39
I Am John 8:24

John 8:58

John 13:19

John 18:5
Isaiah 17:10

2 Samuel 22:32

Deuteronomy 32:4
Rock 1 Corinthians 10:4

1 Peter 2:6-8

Numbers 20:10,11
Isaiah 17:10

Psalms 100

Psalms 23
Shepherd John 10:11

Hebrews 13:20

1 Peter 5:4
Isaiah 60:20

Psalms 27:1
Light John 8:12

Luke 2:23

John 1:9
Isaiah 48:12

Isaiah 44:6

Isaiah 41:4
First and Last Revelation 1:17

Revelation 2:8

Revelation 22:13

This chart shows that there is only one God. Jesus in Revelation 1:17 is said to be the First and Last. YAHWEH in Isaiah 41:4 is the First and Last. Therefore, there is only one God.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

MaidInBedlam said:


> The theologial analysis I quoted earlier is a good example of pulling things out of The Old Testament to support someone's theories. I'm sorry about that.
> 
> Maybe you wouldn't mind going over to "The Bible as History" and posting a bit about what I think is the case, that The Old Testament is taken primarily from the Torah. I would appreciate learning whether that's true or not, and any further history of the Old Testament you happen to know.


I'd rather not, certainly not today. However, allow me to correct you on one point: the Torah is the first 5 books, the Five Books of Moses. What you think of as the old testament includes a lot more (prophets, books like Ruth and Esther, Daniel, much more). What I mean is that the "old testament" contains the Torah, not vice versa.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> g Scriptures, demonstrate that there is a plurality of persons in the Godhead, in other words, you see more than one divine person in each passage listed:<snip>


Thank you. Bless your heart.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Thank you. Bless your heart.


Welcome. Anytime. :lol:


----------



## shayfaye (May 6, 2011)

What about Lilith? What happened to her book?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Lilith predates the Bible. There's no book dedicated to her, though she is mentioned once or twice. She'd have been a lot more interesting than all those male prophets. (There was, supposedly, only one female prophet, Deborah.)

A short discussion of Lilith is at http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/people-in-the-bible/lilith/



shayfaye said:


> What about Lilith? What happened to her book?


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Florida has had 200,000 dropped from their insurance plans

California several hundred thousand dropped

New Jersey will get slammed next year

As of today 800,000 have been dropped from their insurance companies, so much for being able to keep your insurance. 

As of today, there have been more people dropped by their insurance companies than those signing up for Obamacare


A 30 year old woman that makes $36,000 will have her insurance premiums go up almost 100% and is not eligible for subsidies. But if you are a staffer for a Congressman and make that amount of money you would get a subsidy. How is that fair

choo choo, the train wreck is still on schedule


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Florida has had 200,000 dropped from their insurance plans
> 
> California several hundred thousand dropped
> 
> ...


Could you explain how a woman who is just over the amount that would qualify her for the extended Medicaid will not qualify for a subsidy for the health insurance?
What will her rate be for 2014?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> A 30 year old woman that makes $36,000 will have her insurance premiums go up almost 100% and is not eligible for subsidies. But if you are a staffer for a Congressman and make that amount of money you would get a subsidy. How is that fair
> 
> choo choo, the train wreck is still on schedule


Are you speaking about all 30-year-old women, or a particular one? If the former, and what you say is true, then I'll grant that it's a bad thing. If you're just relaying an anecdote, then it's probably not true, or else her premiums were so low that 100% more is meaningless.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> At what cost to the country as a whole?


soloweygirl
healthier Citizens, finally.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Country Bumpkins, I guess it's some sort of accomplishment to be able to make such a long post about the triune narure of God and support it with appproporiate and myriad quotes from Scripture. However, it doesn't seem to say much more than my post on page 23. No matter in what esteem you hold the Bible, long chains of quotes from it are a lot of work that I think is uneccesary to provide Biblical confirmation of the Trinity. many of your quoted repeat others in your list. A little editing might have made your post easier to read.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

First from Anna Gorman and Julie Appleby at Kaiser Health News: Thousands get health insurance cancellation notices

Florida Blue, for example, is terminating about 300,000 policies, about 80 percent of its individual policies in the state. Kaiser Permanente in California has sent notices to 160,000 people  about half of its individual business in the state. Insurer Highmark in Pittsburgh is dropping about 20 percent of its individual market customers, while Independence Blue Cross, the major insurer in Philadelphia, is dropping about 45 percent.

That is far north of half a million lives dropped due to new ObamaCare regulations in just 3 states. That doesnt even include recent reports in North Carolina of Blue Cross planning to cancel a sizable portion of their plans, or carriers doing the same in Illinois or Nebraska.


Oh and don't be fooled by what the Obama Administration touts as the number of enrolled. It will be a lie, because they are cooking the books, so to speak:

States Inflating Enrollment Numbers

As I have tracked enrollment by states, many are reporting out both Medicaid and exchange enrollment at the same time.

Therefore the 476,000 number is misleading. My best guess is that for the 17 states that have reported out some data, the number is closer to 193,818 applications (once you pull out the Medicaid applications that have been reported on). Of course, this number is also still too high as it is compromised by the jointly reported data.


What becomes clear, is that the federal exchanges in 34 states are accounting for a single digit percentage of the accounts being filed.


So another example of the transparency of this administration, not

Thought we could keep our insurance. But because of the large brush stroke of Obamacare, companies are dropping people. 

So people are dropped. Website a joke. False 'facts' about enrollment. People's hours being cut. Premiums going up. Where are the 7,000,000 healthy 20 somethings that are to pay the largest percentage of Obamacare's cost? 


choo choo


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

The train is about to crash. 

It won't be re-engineered either at least not under the current President.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Kaiser is dropping 160.000 frm California, the state in which they fave the most memners. I haven't heard anything about why, but will do a bit of reesearch.


lovethelake said:


> First from Anna Gorman and Julie Appleby at Kaiser Health News: Thousands get health insurance cancellation notices
> 
> Florida Blue, for example, is terminating about 300,000 policies, about 80 percent of its individual policies in the state. Kaiser Permanente in California has sent notices to 160,000 people  about half of its individual business in the state. Insurer Highmark in Pittsburgh is dropping about 20 percent of its individual market customers, while Independence Blue Cross, the major insurer in Philadelphia, is dropping about 45 percent.
> 
> ...


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> First from Anna Gorman and Julie Appleby at Kaiser Health News: Thousands get health insurance cancellation notices
> 
> Florida Blue, for example, is terminating about 300,000 policies, about 80 percent of its individual policies in the state. Kaiser Permanente in California has sent notices to 160,000 people  about half of its individual business in the state. Insurer Highmark in Pittsburgh is dropping about 20 percent of its individual market customers, while Independence Blue Cross, the major insurer in Philadelphia, is dropping about 45 percent.
> 
> ...


Lovethelake
the system is improving and much faster than when Medicare became law. Changes are taking place which benefit the subscribers. I know folks like you wish it weren't so, sorry to disappoint you so much. ACA is here to stay.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> The train is about to crash.
> 
> It won't be re-engineered either at least not under the current President.


KPG
you again? Just get too lonely without annyoing others?


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Huckleberry said:


> KPG
> you again? Just get too lonely without annyoing others?


Yes, KPG, here you are again. I pray that you somehow manage to find peace instead of remaining in the hysterical, angry, fearful and emotionaly and verbal violent state you seem to live in presently. If you are being abused, please know that you don't have to live that way. If you have some personal issues, psychotherapy has made great advances and there is surely a therapist you would find acceptable and who could help you.

Much as I disagree with what you say here and in other topics, I really do hope you will find the help you seem to need.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> _Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance, the only thing it cannot be is moderately important._ C. S. Lewis


joeyomma
he is entitled to his opinion and is worth no more or less than mine.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

MaidInBedlam said:


> Kaiser is dropping 160.000 frm California, the state in which they have the most members. I haven't heard anything about why, but will do a bit of reesearch.


Follow-up, Kaiser is saying what other insurers who are dropping members are saying. They say their plans don't conform to what they should include according to the ACA. It makes sense that they wouldn't cover post-menapausal women for fertilityy services, prenatal care and birthing services. I've been a Kaiser member for 13 years and am not among the 160,000 dropped members even though it would be a miracle if I got pregnant, especially considering I don't have a uterus...


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> _Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance, the only thing it cannot be is moderately important._ C. S. Lewis


Lewis was deeply religious. I agree wholeheartedly with what you quoted from him.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Huckleberry said:


> joeyomma
> he is entitled to his opinion and is worth no more or less than mine.


Lewis's Christianity ran deep and true and was well informed. Sure, he's entitled to his opinion but I think his is worth more than a lot of other people's opinion about Christianity.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> She refuses to consider those who HAD health insurance and now or soon will not. She refuses to consider all those whose job hours were reduced or their costs increased. She refuses to consider the increases in taxes for EVERY American citizen whether working or not to be able to insure 30 million more people. She refuses to accept that those most hurt, not helped, by Obamacare is the middle class.


I heard on the radio that Oregon did not have anyone sign up for Obamacare itself, but 48K signed up for Medicaid. Didn't Congress take 700B+ from Medicare to help pay for Medicaid because of Obamacare? The seniors would be the ones getting hurt here. I guess that doesn't matter.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> I heard on the radio that Oregon did not have anyone sign up for Obamacare itself, but 48K signed up for Medicaid. Didn't Congress take 700B+ from Medicare to help pay for Medicaid because of Obamacare? The seniors would be the ones getting hurt here. I guess that doesn't matter.
> 
> soloweygirl
> on who's radio show, pretty please?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/17/obamacare-just-cut-oregons-uninsured-rate-by-10-percent/
The Oregon system was not up and running as of 10/17.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> At what cost to the country as a whole?


You know, if there's something that costs me a little more in taxes and it is for the good of the country, I don't care.
I think the ability for people without healthcare to finally be able to get some, is a good thing for them and the good of the country.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> She refuses to consider those who HAD health insurance and now or soon will not. She refuses to consider all those whose job hours were reduced or their costs increased. She refuses to consider the increases in taxes for EVERY American citizen whether working or not to be able to insure 30 million more people. She refuses to accept that those most hurt, not helped, by Obamacare is the middle class.


I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I am thinking of all those people. Many middle class people have lost jobs and their healthcare. If costs for everyone go up, I don't blindly blame the ACA. Healthcare costs have been on an upward spiral for years before the ACA was a gleam in the president's eye. I have sat on several task forces at the clinic at which we receive our healthcare. Our clinic was preparing for rapidly rising healthcare costs long before the ACA came along. Without going into detail, I can tell you that improved methods of serving patients and maintaining high standardsin the face of rising costs were being discussed because the toll that health cost was having on our economy was staggering. Something was going to be done whether it was the ACA or something else.
Why would you not want American citizens to have access to healthcare? I dare even bring up the subject of Christianity, which focuses on being charitable to one's fellow man as one reason for going forward with the ACA. In a rich country such as ours, I think we have moral responsibilities to our fellow citizens. I don't think your moral compass should be checked at the door.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> The train is about to crash.
> 
> It won't be re-engineered either at least not under the current President.


You're swalllowing the repub and Teahaddists propaganda again.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

alcameron said:


> You know, if there's something that costs me a little more in taxes and it is for the good of the country, I don't care.
> I think the ability for people without healthcare to finally be able to get some, is a good thing for them and the good of the country.


Since you can afford more taxes, please pay mine.

Just talked to a cousin's husband who just shut down is medical practice of 22 years because of Obamacare. (He is not of retirement age) He could not afford what Medicare repaid him, could not afford to wait for Medicare's payments, he couldn't afford to hire more people to handle the paperwork, he felt the government would not allow him to practice to the best of his ability.....so he took down his shingle and started teaching and not seeing patients. You wanted proof, he is it. And he told me that he is not the only one, and more are thinking about it for next year.

More patients, less doctors how can this possibly work? It is cheaper to pay the penalty than pay the higher premium costs, how does that make sense?

WTG Obamacultists


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Since you can afford more taxes, please pay mine.
> 
> Just talked to a cousin's husband who just shut down is medical practice of 22 years because of Obamacare. (He is not of retirement age) He could not afford what Medicare repaid him, could not afford to wait for Medicare's payments, he couldn't afford to hire more people to handle the paperwork, he felt the government would not allow him to practice to the best of his ability.....so he took down his shingle and started teaching and not seeing patients. You wanted proof, he is it. And he told me that he is not the only one, and more are thinking about it for next year.
> 
> ...


First of all, let me set you straight because you obviously don't pay attention to what individuals say. You lump anyone who doesn't think your way into one category. I am not now and never have been an "obamacultist."
I was actually waiting for you to make the statement about my beng able to afford paying taxes and that I pay yours, too. We are both retired and have been for awhile now, so it's not like we have a huge income coming in. However, I see paying taxes as my dues for being a responsible citizen of this great country. I have consideration for others who can't afford to pay higher taxes or can't afford health care or can't afford good shelter or wholesome food. How much more do you think you have to sacrifice to pay a little more so your fellow American can have healthcare? (If any?) Do you now have to trade in Your spinning wheel? Give up your lakeshore property? Buy acrylic instead of cashmere? Yes, I'm being facetious to try to get you to use your brain a little differently. We need money to run our government, and we are already at a bare bones way of running things. That's the way to go Tea Party! Make our country fall from one of the richest and most progressive to a third world nation-----and a good way of getting there is to let millions of people live without healthcare.(sarcasm, just in case). Why are you so upset with people getting healthcare? Where's your sense of Christian charity that you love to talk about?
Furthermore, I was never in favor of the ACA. I thought we should expand the Medicare system and include EVERYONE under a single payer system. I guess that makes me a socialist, but I think I'm in good company with the Som of God.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

While anecdotes are not evidence, neither is this statement, but it represents how the doctors in the Us are dealing with the ACA. I, like Lukelucy have "contact with a lot of doctors."


AMA to Wall Street Journal: AMA Support of Affordable Care Act

July 6, 2012(unpublished)

Wall Street Journal
Letter to the Editor

To the Editor:

The recent column from Daniel Henninger (ObamaCare's Lost Tribe: Doctors, 7-5-12) describes challenges facing physicians in our nation, but incorrectly attributes them to the health reform law. Quality reporting requirements were established years before passage of the Affordable Care Act. Meanwhile, ongoing intrusions from government, insurers and others outside the exam room have chipped away at the patient-physician relationship. Protecting this relationship has been  and will remain  a core focus for the American Medical Association.

While the law is not perfect, the AMA, the nation's largest physician organization, supported it because it makes necessary improvements to our health care system. We are pleased the law expands coverage to millions of uninsured who live sicker and die younger than those with insurance. It allows physicians to see patients earlier before care is more expensive, provides funding for research on drugs and treatments, increases Medicare and Medicaid payments for primary care physicians and includes Medicare bonus payments for general surgeons in underserved areas.

The AMA is working during implementation of the law to make changes like eliminating the Independent Payment Advisory Board. Lawmakers also must address two problems that predate the law, the broken Medicare physician payment formula and the flawed medical liability system.
Jeremy A. Lazarus, MD
President, American Medical Association



inShare


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

lovethelake said:


> Since you can afford more taxes, please pay mine.
> 
> Just talked to a cousin's husband who just shut down is medical practice of 22 years because of Obamacare. (He is not of retirement age) He could not afford what Medicare repaid him, could not afford to wait for Medicare's payments, he couldn't afford to hire more people to handle the paperwork, he felt the government would not allow him to practice to the best of his ability.....so he took down his shingle and started teaching and not seeing patients. You wanted proof, he is it. And he told me that he is not the only one, and more are thinking about it for next year.
> 
> ...


Ok, I get my health insurancce and care from Kaiser. They are unique in that they sell health insurance and provide the care for whatever a member's plan call for. They have more doctors in the facility that I use. Yes, they have almost every service a member could want under one roof, but there are a couple that don't because their use is not great enough to justify the expense of having those services in every Medical Center in my area.

Yes, they have dropped 160,000 members in California, giving the same reason every other insurer is giving. They don't cover all the services mandated under the ACA and those 160,000 will get better, cheaper care through the ACA. Some of them will even be returning to Kaiser because it's opted into the California exchange. Yes, I know there will be some degree of nuisance value for those folks.

As I understand it, as someone who already has health insurance, I will have to pay an additional $63 a year to help fund the ACA. I'm happy to do so. Sure, I get Medicare and I have a Part B Plan to pay for as well, but I don't think that's a valid reason for me to be excluded from or protest being included as part of the funding base for the ACA.

For people who can't easily get to any Kaiser facility there are transportation alternatives such as Paratransit for people of all ages who can't use public transportation due to some physical condition. I live in a large metropolitan area, mostly have all my life, so I can't speak to the problems of access to care for people in rural areas. I'm skeptical enough to suspect it won't improve.

The Senior Center in my town even has a program that refunds 70% of a senior's taxi cab fares when you sign up for the program and provide it with receipts. As a result, my mother can easily afford to use taxis, which she needs because she can no longer drive or use public transportation and doesn't feel like switching to Paratransit. She's had the same taxi driver for 8 years. He's a smart guy. He has a solid customer base of other people just like my mother. We can't wait until he gets back from India to see him again and meet his new wife.

It sure looks like there are more ways to access health care than in the past. Sadly, I know nothing I've said will find a positive reception with those of you who are so against the ACA.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

alcameron said:


> First of all, let me set you straight because you obviously don't pay attention to what individuals say. You lump anyone who doesn't think your way into one category. I am not now and never have been an "obamacultist."
> I was actually waiting for you to make the statement about my beng able to afford paying taxes and that I pay yours, too. We are both retired and have been for awhile now, so it's not like we have a huge income coming in. However, I see paying taxes as my dues for being a responsible citizen of this great country. I have consideration for others who can't afford to pay higher taxes or can't afford health care or can't afford good shelter or wholesome food. How much more do you think you have to sacrifice to pay a little more so your fellow American can have healthcare? (If any?) Do you now have to trade in Your spinning wheel? Give up your lakeshore property? Buy acrylic instead of cashmere? Yes, I'm being facetious to try to get you to use your brain a little differently. We need money to run our government, and we are already at a bare bones way of running things. That's the way to go Tea Party! Make our country fall from one of the richest and most progressive to a third world nation-----and a good way of getting there is to let millions of people live without healthcare.(sarcasm, just in case). Why are you so upset with people getting healthcare? Where's your sense of Christian charity that you love to talk about?
> Furthermore, I was never in favor of the ACA. I thought we should expand the Medicare system and include EVERYONE under a single payer system. I guess that makes me a socialist, but I think I'm in good company with the Som of God.


:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

lovethelake said:


> Since you can afford more taxes, please pay mine.
> 
> Just talked to a cousin's husband who just shut down is medical practice of 22 years because of Obamacare. (He is not of retirement age) He could not afford what Medicare repaid him, could not afford to wait for Medicare's payments, he couldn't afford to hire more people to handle the paperwork, he felt the government would not allow him to practice to the best of his ability.....so he took down his shingle and started teaching and not seeing patients. You wanted proof, he is it. And he told me that he is not the only one, and more are thinking about it for next year.
> 
> ...


Meant to say in the post I just made in reponse to yours, that saying a cousin told you her husband has to shut down his practice kind of sounds like the kind of story you get when someone you know says they heard from someone she knows who heard from someone he knows who heard it around the water cooler.

You also don't say anything of substance to prove that your cousin's husband has no other alternative than to close his practice and teach. Maybe he hasn't thought through his situation as thoroughly as he could. People do that all the time.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

alcameron said:


> First of all, let me set you straight because you obviously don't pay attention to what individuals say. You lump anyone who doesn't think your way into one category. I am not now and never have been an "obamacultist."
> I was actually waiting for you to make the statement about my beng able to afford paying taxes and that I pay yours, too. We are both retired and have been for awhile now, so it's not like we have a huge income coming in. However, I see paying taxes as my dues for being a responsible citizen of this great country. I have consideration for others who can't afford to pay higher taxes or can't afford health care or can't afford good shelter or wholesome food. How much more do you think you have to sacrifice to pay a little more so your fellow American can have healthcare? (If any?) Do you now have to trade in Your spinning wheel? Give up your lakeshore property? Buy acrylic instead of cashmere? Yes, I'm being facetious to try to get you to use your brain a little differently. We need money to run our government, and we are already at a bare bones way of running things. That's the way to go Tea Party! Make our country fall from one of the richest and most progressive to a third world nation-----and a good way of getting there is to let millions of people live without healthcare.(sarcasm, just in case). Why are you so upset with people getting healthcare? Where's your sense of Christian charity that you love to talk about?
> Furthermore, I was never in favor of the ACA. I thought we should expand the Medicare system and include EVERYONE under a single payer system. I guess that makes me a socialist, but I think I'm in good company with the Som of God.


What an arrogant response. You do not have the power to set me straight, and your Obamacultist Socialistic opinions have no value to me.

We have taken more in tax revenue last month than ever taken in before.

We have overspent, nothing more nothing less. Not wanting to pay more in taxes is not a lack of Christian values, because I view that as a waste of money. You have no idea how I spend my money. I try to keep my money in my community and not given to the Obama government that is scandal ridden. You have no idea what family members rely on me. You have no idea what charities I donate to monthly. My 'lake shore' property is my home, not a vacation home. (With the horrible housing market, I could not afford to sell, even if I wanted to sell)

You want to cleanse your guilt ridden soul overpay your taxes and sing 'Kumbaya'. But stop with your empty holier than thou attitude, I think you protest too much to be taken seriously


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Since you can afford more taxes, please pay mine.
> 
> Just talked to a cousin's husband who just shut down is medical practice of 22 years because of Obamacare. (He is not of retirement age) He could not afford what Medicare repaid him, could not afford to wait for Medicare's payments, he couldn't afford to hire more people to handle the paperwork, he felt the government would not allow him to practice to the best of his ability.....so he took down his shingle and started teaching and not seeing patients. You wanted proof, he is it. And he told me that he is not the only one, and more are thinking about it for next year.
> 
> ...


I have never responded to a post like this on here, but I am now. It is not just a "Medicare reimbursement" issues causing doctors to close their practices. My one doctor is now not participating in ANY health insurance plans. He s totally private. He told us the reason was because all of the HMO regulations are causing him to not be able to practice as he wants. What a lot of people don't realize is that HMOs have been placing more and more "conditions" on what they require for them to be paid. The HMOs also will decide, with no medical personnel input, that the doctor cannot order certain tests (like they decide that no contrast is needed for an MRI). Any for-profit health system has a fatal flaw: they make money on the business of people being sick (at the very least the threat of illness).


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> What an arrogant response. You do not have the power to set me straight, and your Obamacultist Socialistic opinions have no value to me.
> 
> We have taken more in tax revenue last month than ever taken in before.
> 
> ...


I do believe I have the right to set you straight about how I feel and what I believe. Talk about arrogance! You're the one that referred to me as an "obamacultist!" I would say you're the one with the holier than thou attitude. I'm not the one that cries about Catholics' rights being infringed upon, etc. and I would expect nothing less from you than to scoff at a "Kumbaya" attitude. Examine your own conscience, my dear. I think if you oppose trying to help people get healthcare you need to take a long, hard look inward. Or does it scare you?


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> I have never responded to a post like this on here, but I am now. It is not just a "Medicare reimbursement" issues causing doctors to close their practices. My one doctor is now not participating in ANY health insurance plans. He s totally private. He told us the reason was because all of the HMO regulations are causing him to not be able to practice as he wants. What a lot of people don't realize is that HMOs have been placing more and more "conditions" on what they require for them to be paid. The HMOs also will decide, with no medical personnel input, that the doctor cannot order certain tests (like they decide that no contrast is needed for an MRI). Any for-profit health system has a fatal flaw: they make money on the business of people being sick (at the very least the threat of illness).


Insurance companies have been making decisions about what procedures and treatment you can receive for years. It's not just HMO's doing these things. It all has to do with rising costs of all these procedures and treatment plans. The clinic we belong to is non-profit.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

alcameron said:


> First of all, let me set you straight because you obviously don't pay attention to what individuals say. You lump anyone who doesn't think your way into one category. I am not now and never have been an "obamacultist."
> I was actually waiting for you to make the statement about my beng able to afford paying taxes and that I pay yours, too. We are both retired and have been for awhile now, so it's not like we have a huge income coming in. However, I see paying taxes as my dues for being a responsible citizen of this great country. I have consideration for others who can't afford to pay higher taxes or can't afford health care or can't afford good shelter or wholesome food. How much more do you think you have to sacrifice to pay a little more so your fellow American can have healthcare? (If any?) Do you now have to trade in Your spinning wheel? Give up your lakeshore property? Buy acrylic instead of cashmere? Yes, I'm being facetious to try to get you to use your brain a little differently. We need money to run our government, and we are already at a bare bones way of running things. That's the way to go Tea Party! Make our country fall from one of the richest and most progressive to a third world nation-----and a good way of getting there is to let millions of people live without healthcare.(sarcasm, just in case). Why are you so upset with people getting healthcare? Where's your sense of Christian charity that you love to talk about?
> Furthermore, I was never in favor of the ACA. I thought we should expand the Medicare system and include EVERYONE under a single payer system. I guess that makes me a socialist, but I think I'm in good company with the Som of God.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Since you can afford more taxes, please pay mine.
> 
> Just talked to a cousin's husband who just shut down is medical practice of 22 years because of Obamacare. (He is not of retirement age) He could not afford what Medicare repaid him, could not afford to wait for Medicare's payments, he couldn't afford to hire more people to handle the paperwork, he felt the government would not allow him to practice to the best of his ability.....so he took down his shingle and started teaching and not seeing patients. You wanted proof, he is it. And he told me that he is not the only one, and more are thinking about it for next year.
> 
> ...


I've had contact with several doctors, mainly ob-gyns, who stopped taking Medicare and HMO patients years ago, before Obama was ever elected. They didn't have to close their practice; they make it clear, when a new patient calls for a first appointment, that they expect to be paid directly. Since neither Medicare nor private insurance would pay what they felt their time was worth, they tried something new and succeeded.

Maybe it's easier to find patients able to pay in my city than where you live, but if that's true, people where you live need the ACA insurance more than a doctor who can simply close his practice - before ACA has gone into effect - needs his payments.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> I have never responded to a post like this on here, but I am now. It is not just a "Medicare reimbursement" issues causing doctors to close their practices. My one doctor is now not participating in ANY health insurance plans. He s totally private. He told us the reason was because all of the HMO regulations are causing him to not be able to practice as he wants. What a lot of people don't realize is that HMOs have been placing more and more "conditions" on what they require for them to be paid. The HMOs also will decide, with no medical personnel input, that the doctor cannot order certain tests (like they decide that no contrast is needed for an MRI). Any for-profit health system has a fatal flaw: they make money on the business of people being sick (at the very least the threat of illness).


Absolutely true. In the Middle Ages doctors used leeches as a kind of cure; nowadays the leeches attach themselves to patients in the form of insurance companies and get in the way of the cure.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> I heard on the radio that Oregon did not have anyone sign up for Obamacare itself, but 48K signed up for Medicaid. Didn't Congress take 700B+ from Medicare to help pay for Medicaid because of Obamacare? The seniors would be the ones getting hurt here. I guess that doesn't matter.


I heard the majority of those signing up for Obamacare are those who qualify for Medicaid = non payers. Obamacare will never get off the ground regardless of when/if the website works. The only folks interested in joining and PAYING for their insurance remain the few or none.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

alcameron said:


> I do believe I have the right to set you straight about how I feel and what I believe. Talk about arrogance! You're the one that referred to me as an "obamacultist!" I would say you're the one with the holier than thou attitude. I'm not the one that cries about Catholics' rights being infringed upon, etc. and I would expect nothing less from you than to scoff at a "Kumbaya" attitude. Examine your own conscience, my dear. I think if you oppose trying to help people get healthcare you need to take a long, hard look inward. Or does it scare you?


Then once again you are wrong

Still believe you protest too much. But Obamacultists (or anyone else that belongs to a cult) do that. So if Kumbaya offends you, do a conference call on a free Obamaphone and sing Puff the Magic Dragon. Makes no difference to me


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

MaidInBedlam said:


> Meant to say in the post I just made in reponse to yours, that saying a cousin told you her husband has to shut down his practice kind of sounds like the kind of story you get when someone you know says they heard from someone she knows who heard from someone he knows who heard it around the water cooler.
> 
> You also don't say anything of substance to prove that your cousin's husband has no other alternative than to close his practice and teach. Maybe he hasn't thought through his situation as thoroughly as he could. People do that all the time.


People may do it all the time, but in this case it was because of Obamacare. Another wonderful doctor has left the field because of this train wreck, nothing more nothing less. His word is proof enough for me. One does not leave medicine after 22 years of practice (expect for their own medical or family issues), he left it because of Obamacare, nothing more, nothing less. So not only did the area lose a doctor, but a lot of people lost their jobs.

Choo chooooooo


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

We have much more power than you think. Don't tease the sleeping dragon.



lovethelake said:


> Then once again you are wrong
> 
> Still believe you protest too much. But Obamacultists (or anyone else that belongs to a cult) do that. So if Kumbaya offends you, do a conference call on a free Obamaphone and sing Puff the Magic Dragon. Makes no difference to me


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

More Urban Legends offered as 'proof.'



lovethelake said:


> People may do it all the time, but in this case it was because of Obamacare. Another wonderful doctor has left the field because of this train wreck, nothing more nothing less. His word is proof enough for me. One does not leave medicine after 22 years of practice (expect for their own medical or family issues), he left it because of Obamacare, nothing more, nothing less. So not only did the area lose a doctor, but a lot of people lost their jobs.
> 
> Choo chooooooo


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I heard the majority of those signing up for Obamacare are those who qualify for Medicaid = non payers. Obamacare will never get off the ground regardless of when/if the website works. The only folks interested in joining and PAYING for their insurance remain the few or none.


That is in Oregon, Oregon's exchange was not online as late as 10/17.
Be honest, if you have six health insurance plans to peruse are you going to make a decision in a week? 
Wouldn't you be more likely, as I would, to think about which is the best in the long run since you wouldn't want to change policies every year during open enrollment?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> It was not totally the insurance companies decision. It was the contract that either you, individually, had with the insurance company. Or it was the contract your employer or union had with the insurance company. I'm sure most people didn't read the contract. Most of the decisions to not pay were for experimental or questionable treatments. Many of these disputes could be settled with either a second opinion or a detailed explanation from your doctor.
> 
> With Obamacare there will be no negotiations with the company over even what they will cover.
> 
> An example: When I was much younger (30 years ago). The insurance company would not pay for the doctors visit or a pap test, if that was the only reason you went to the doctor. But if you went to the doctor for another woman problem and he did the pap test, it would be paid. It was just what was in the contract.


Data?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Since you can afford more taxes, please pay mine.
> 
> Just talked to a cousin's husband who just shut down is medical practice of 22 years because of Obamacare. (He is not of retirement age) He could not afford what Medicare repaid him, could not afford to wait for Medicare's payments, he couldn't afford to hire more people to handle the paperwork, he felt the government would not allow him to practice to the best of his ability.....so he took down his shingle and started teaching and not seeing patients. You wanted proof, he is it. And he told me that he is not the only one, and more are thinking about it for next year.
> 
> ...


WTG, Ron Paul follower.

If that doctor couldn't wait for his payments, then he is simply a poor businessman who was spending money too quickly or couldnt attract enough patients. Government payments have been slow since the programs' inception. 
Lots of businesses close because the owner spends more than they take in. I think it is called lack of self control.
BTW, doctors limit their practices or do dual duty all the time. Here in Massachusetts sometimes it seems that half the docs are teaching and practicing.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Do you know what a contract is?
> 
> Use some common sense!


Please, try to follow the content of your own posts.

You posted...

Most of the decisions to not pay were for experimental or questionable treatments. Many of these disputes could be settled with either a second opinion or a detailed explanation from your doctor.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Do you know what a contract is?
> 
> Use some common sense!


Do you know who wrote those contracts? Most patients can't afford to hire a lawyer to make changes in the contracts written by the insurance companies' lawyers.

I'd suggest that _you_ use some common sense, but I've dealt with you often enough to know you don't have any.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> If you are so interested I will quote you, "Look it up."


Back in the reject bin with the hate groups for you.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Then once again you are wrong
> 
> Still believe you protest too much. But Obamacultists (or anyone else that belongs to a cult) do that. So if Kumbaya offends you, do a conference call on a free Obamaphone and sing Puff the Magic Dragon. Makes no difference to me


 :XD: How can they not understand that EVERYONE will pay more in taxes and most in insurance costs, no matter their income level, zero or a billion, now that Obamacare has begun? How they remain uninformed and in the dark is beyond me.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> People may do it all the time, but in this case it was because of Obamacare. Another wonderful doctor has left the field because of this train wreck, nothing more nothing less. His word is proof enough for me. One does not leave medicine after 22 years of practice (expect for their own medical or family issues), he left it because of Obamacare, nothing more, nothing less. So not only did the area lose a doctor, but a lot of people lost their jobs.
> 
> Choo chooooooo


If he was really a "wonderful" doctor, he would have managed to maintain a practice even under Obamacare, or outside of it. He was more probably a greedy doctor and didn't give s### what happened to "a lot of people" who lost their jobs. Just how many people were working for him, anyway? Why would one doctor need "a lot of people" as support?

I bet "a lot of" your story is a figment of your imagination.

I hope he can get into a training program to help him prepare for a new career.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> That is in Oregon, Oregon's exchange was not online as late as 10/17.
> Be honest, if you have six health insurance plans to peruse are you going to make a decision in a week?
> Wouldn't you be more likely, as I would, to think about which is the best in the long run since you wouldn't want to change policies every year during open enrollment?


It is around the country - get a clue. I know what I'm talking about. You do not as usual.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> It was not totally the insurance companies decision. It was the contract that either you, individually, had with the insurance company. Or it was the contract your employer or union had with the insurance company. I'm sure most people didn't read the contract. Most of the decisions to not pay were for experimental or questionable treatments. Many of these disputes could be settled with either a second opinion or a detailed explanation from your doctor.
> 
> With Obamacare there will be no negotiations with the company over even what they will cover.
> 
> An example: When I was much younger (30 years ago). The insurance company would not pay for the doctors visit or a pap test, if that was the only reason you went to the doctor. But if you went to the doctor for another woman problem and he did the pap test, it would be paid. It was just what was in the contract.


How come you didn't get the contract changed, the way you expect other people to do? Everyone has been at the mercy of the insurance companies, and very few can afford to fight them in court.

Have you ever heard of Marie Antoinette? You're her wannabe!


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Why would LOL make up story. I have read and heard it on national news that many Dr.s are leaveing practice.

As to making money most Dr's because of their education have to make money to pay back the huge debt from going to college and training as a Doctor. 

So why would a Dr. want to get paid less. They have to pay for their living expense too just like everyone else, plus the bills to get to becoming a Dr.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> Why would LOL make up story. I have read and heard it on national news that many Dr.s are leaveing practice.
> 
> As to making money most Dr's because of their education have to make money to pay back the huge debt from going to college and training as a Doctor.
> 
> So why would a Dr. want to get paid less. They have to pay for their living expense too just like everyone else, plus the bills to get to becoming a Dr.


That's why we're trying to get the minimum wage raised.

And thank you for calling Love the lake LOL. I'll do that too from now on.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Why would anyone feel the need to insult what others have seem. Just because they do not agree with you does not mean they are lieing There is no hate when stating what one believes and has seen in writing Joey checks and rechecks what she post as do LOL and KGP. 

I see more angry and hate from your post then from any other's on this topic. Why not state your facts instead of angry. You prove nothing if you don't. Stop the name calling and maybe you would be able to get your point across.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> That's why we're trying to get the minimum wage raised.
> 
> And thank you for calling Love the lake LOL. I'll do that too from now on.


 :thumbup:


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> Why would anyone feel the need to insult what others have seem. Just because they do not agree with you does not mean they are lieing There is no hate when stating what one believes and has seen in writing Joey checks and rechecks what she post as do LOL and KGP.
> 
> I see more angry and hate from your post then from any other's on this topic. Why not state your facts instead of angry. You prove nothing if you don't. Stop the name calling and maybe you would be able to get your point across.


You're right, though you probably don't even notice the insults from Joey, LOL, and KGP. The name calling isn't all on one side.

Have you tried reasoning with the people you agree with and asking them to stop the name calling? If you can convince them, I'll be happy to do as you ask.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

theyarnlady said:


> Why would anyone feel the need to insult what others have seem. Just because they do not agree with you does not mean they are lieing There is no hate when stating what one believes and has seen in writing Joey checks and rechecks what she post as do LOL and KGP.
> 
> I see more angry and hate from your post then from any other's on this topic. Why not state your facts instead of angry. You prove nothing if you don't. Stop the name calling and maybe you would be able to get your point across.


You tell me...

It is around the country - get a clue. I know what I'm talking about. You do not as usual.
From one of your pals because I have the audacity to suggest that someone may be living above his means.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Why not share what "national news" you see this on? Could this be why?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jul/12/jeff-duncan/gop-lawmaker-jeff-duncan-repeats-survey-finding-83/

or something like this? This doesn't say that docs are leaving medical practice, it says they are leaving the business end to others. A practical decision, shared office costs...

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/obamacare-expected-increase-loss-doctor-owned-practices

It takes so little effort to get the facts. Why not give it a try occasionally?



theyarnlady said:


> Why would LOL make up story. I have read and heard it on national news that many Dr.s are leaveing practice.
> 
> As to making money most Dr's because of their education have to make money to pay back the huge debt from going to college and training as a Doctor.
> 
> So why would a Dr. want to get paid less. They have to pay for their living expense too just like everyone else, plus the bills to get to becoming a Dr.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> You're right, though you probably don't even notice the insults from Joey, LOL, and KGP. The name calling isn't all on one side.
> 
> Have you tried reasoning with the people you agree with and asking them to stop the name calling? If you can convince them, I'll be happy to do as you ask.


Personally, I don't see how it is an insult to question the basis of the story. It is about the story, it is not personal, it is the issue and facts that count. 
Except of course, when someone says that the person telling the story is telling a lie. If someone states this doesn't sound right, it doesn't mean that the person relaying the false info is the potential liar.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> You tell me...
> 
> It is around the country - get a clue. I know what I'm talking about. You do not as usual.
> From one of your pals because I have the audacity to suggest that someone may be living above his means.


Jelun - another of your poor attempts to be the victim. YOU told me I was referring only to Oregon with MY post. I didn't name call you nor tell you what YOU think. My statement was a FACT of how the entire NATION is responding to Obamacare, yet you attempted to twist my words into what you wanted me to say to fit your ideals. Nothing about a person's 'means' was mentioned by me or you; just your attempt to spin.

You apply no logic nor common sense to your responses and then try to place the blame for your ignorance on me. You'd be best to respond only to your pals since you cannot follow the conversation nor interact with others. Talk to Poor Purl who got off to a "rocky" start.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Oregon is the only state that has reported only having successful applications to the expanded Medicaid program. It really isn't hard to figure out what figures you are referring to, even if you are unaware of it. 
Bellieve me, I am NEVER a victim. Most certainly not victimized by anyone who is as ignorant of facts are you seem to be.



knitpresentgifts said:


> Jelun - another of your poor attempts to be the victim. YOU told me I was referring only to Oregon with MY post. I didn't name call you nor tell you what YOU think. My statement was a FACT of how the entire NATION is responding to Obamacare, yet you attempted to twist my words into what you wanted me to say to fit your ideals. Nothing about a person's 'means' was mentioned by me or you; just your attempt to spin.
> 
> You apply no logic nor common sense to your responses and then try to place the blame for your ignorance on me. You'd be best to respond only to your pals since you cannot follow the conversation nor interact with others. Talk to Poor Purl who got off to a "rocky" start.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Talk to Poor Purl who got off to a "rocky" start.


What rocky start was that?


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

I am sorry LTL for putting up wrong initial's ? Sorry for causing another problem.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Back in the reject bin with the hate groups for you.


You sound like you are in a hate group to me. All I have seen is hate coming from you. Are you not happy? Have people hurt you to make you so bitter. I am still praying for you.XX


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:



> Oregon is the only state that has reported only having successful applications to the expanded Medicaid program. It really isn't hard to figure out what figures you are referring to, even if you are unaware of it.
> Bellieve me, I am NEVER a victim. Most certainly not victimized by anyone who is as ignorant of facts are you seem to be.


For the love of God, read what I write, not what you think I write. Why do I even bother ... The ENTIRE country is seeing enrollment primarily by MEDICAID participants, not just in Oregon. The majority of enrollees WILL NOT HAVE TO PAY for their health insurance. Those who would have to pay insurance premiums are barely enrolling. That is what I SAID.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Country Bumpkins said:


> You sound like you are in a hate group to me. All I have seen is hate coming from you. Are you not happy? Have people hurt you to make you so bitter. I am still praying for you.XX


 :thumbup:


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> You sound like you are in a hate group to me. All I have seen is hate coming from you. Are you not happy? Have people hurt you to make you so bitter. I am still praying for you.XX


Haven't you noticed that Jelun2 is one of the people hoping to get medical care to the millions who until now were unable to afford it? That's hardly what a hate group would do. A hate group would sit around and say that those people don't deserve it, or you're stupid to want to do that, or it will bring disaster down on the country if those people have the care they need. It's not Jelun2 who says things like that.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I need to apologize for not using a word that could be understood.
> 
> A contract


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Haven't you noticed that Jelun2 is one of the people hoping to get medical care to the millions who until now were unable to afford it? That's hardly what a hate group would do. A hate group would sit around and say that those people don't deserve it, or you're stupid to want to do that, or it will bring disaster down on the country if those people have the care they need. It's not Jelun2 who says things like that.


Not to worry, Empress, I know their game. People who have wanted to deny the same rights to others that they enjoy so unabashedly love to negate the message by insulting the messenger. 
If just one more person who is discouraged or has a family member who is discouraged about getting coverage reads something I have written or something that one of you has, and it gives them a boost, all the disdain from "the haves" is well worth it.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> For the love of God, read what I write, not what you think I write. Why do I even bother ... The ENTIRE country is seeing enrollment primarily by MEDICAID participants, not just in Oregon. The majority of enrollees WILL NOT HAVE TO PAY for their health insurance. Those who would have to pay insurance premiums are barely enrolling. That is what I SAID.


Changing what you posted initially and trying to pass it off as what you said is just foolish. People see through that who need to know the truth. 
Why is it so important to you to show disdain for this program? 
We are spending billions of dollars on shoring up businesses that are already prosperous in oil, in mining, in farming, in medical research, pharmeceuticals, and in many areas that don't immediately come to mind. 
Why do you object so strongly to an attempt to bolster the health care access of millions of people? 
Why not expend your energies on fighting the spending in those other areas?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> For the love of God, read what I write, not what you think I write. Why do I even bother ... The ENTIRE country is seeing enrollment primarily by MEDICAID participants, not just in Oregon. The majority of enrollees WILL NOT HAVE TO PAY for their health insurance. Those who would have to pay insurance premiums are barely enrolling. That is what I SAID.


What you write is misguided, people need to see that you don't know a fact when you see it.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Changing what you posted initially and trying to pass it off as what you said is just foolish. People see through that who need to know the truth.
> Why is it so important to you to show disdain for this program?
> We are spending billions of dollars on shoring up businesses that are already prosperous in oil, in mining, in farming, in medical research, pharmeceuticals, and in many areas that don't immediately come to mind.
> Why do you object so strongly to an attempt to bolster the health care access of millions of people?
> Why not expend your energies on fighting the spending in those other areas?


Not to mention banks.

But the talking points say to fight Obamacare.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Thanks, Empress Poor Purl, but no. She cannot see that. She doesn't want to see that. Just as she doesn't want to see that, until pushed to a position where any person would lash out, my comments are about issues and the unwillingness to confirm statements that are not factual. 
It's their loss, the times they are a-changin'.



Poor Purl said:


> Haven't you noticed that Jelun2 is one of the people hoping to get medical care to the millions who until now were unable to afford it? That's hardly what a hate group would do. A hate group would sit around and say that those people don't deserve it, or you're stupid to want to do that, or it will bring disaster down on the country if those people have the care they need. It's not Jelun2 who says things like that.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Not to mention banks.
> 
> But the talking points say to fight Obamacare.


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Not to worry, Empress, I know their game. People who have wanted to deny the same rights to others that they enjoy so unabashedly love to negate the message by insulting the messenger.
> If just one more person who is discouraged or has a family member who is discouraged about getting coverage reads something I have written or something that one of you has, and it gives them a boost, all the disdain from "the haves" is well worth it.


You may know their game, but Country Bumpkins apparently doesn't, or she wouldn't see them as all sweetness and light and us as all dark and hateful.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I wonder why jelun2 is so interested in the number of so-called hate groups in Wisconsin.


Why not? There seem to be an awful lot of them in what was once an enlightened state.

I wonder why you have so little interest in learning about what's going on in your own state.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> You may know their game, but Country Bumpkins apparently doesn't, or she wouldn't see them as all sweetness and light and us as all dark and hateful.


I know that for some reason several of you give cb a pass on her nastiness. I don't see any good reason to, she doesnt contribute a single fact to the discussion. The only time she has anything to say to me it is hatefilled and nasty. 
The only excuse I could see for that behavior is if she is on the far side of 85.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> I know that for some reason several of you give cb a pass on her nastiness. I don't see any good reason to, she doesnt contribute a single fact to the discussion. The only time she has anything to say to me it is hatefilled and nasty.
> The only excuse I could see for that behavior is if she is on the far side of 85.


I think it's the religiosity that makes her sound so innocent. Also the name she took.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Yes Jelun. But you are an intelligent thinking person....unlike KPG. Who knows why they look or what criteria they might employ?



jelun2 said:


> That is in Oregon, Oregon's exchange was not online as late as 10/17.
> Be honest, if you have six health insurance plans to peruse are you going to make a decision in a week?
> Wouldn't you be more likely, as I would, to think about which is the best in the long run since you wouldn't want to change policies every year during open enrollment?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I rest my case.



jelun2 said:


> Data?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> Do you know who wrote those contracts? Most patients can't afford to hire a lawyer to make changes in the contracts written by the insurance companies' lawyers.
> 
> I'd suggest that _you_ use some common sense, but I've dealt with you often enough to know you don't have any.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: Good girl Purl.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

It's just another Urban Legend fantasy.



Poor Purl said:


> If he was really a "wonderful" doctor, he would have managed to maintain a practice even under Obamacare, or outside of it. He was more probably a greedy doctor and didn't give s### what happened to "a lot of people" who lost their jobs. Just how many people were working for him, anyway? Why would one doctor need "a lot of people" as support?
> 
> I bet "a lot of" your story is a figment of your imagination.
> 
> I hope he can get into a training program to help him prepare for a new career.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> I rest my case.


LOL, I have to give you all credit you can make me chuckle.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

IMHO someone who forwards the rumor without fact checking is a liar. Just my opinion, of course.



jelun2 said:


> Personally, I don't see how it is an insult to question the basis of the story. It is about the story, it is not personal, it is the issue and facts that count.
> Except of course, when someone says that the person telling the story is telling a lie. If someone states this doesn't sound right, it doesn't mean that the person relaying the false info is the potential liar.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> Yes Jelun. But you are an intelligent thinking person....unlike KPG. Who knows why they look or what criteria they might employ?


She has a wonderful way - really, an awful way - of saying what clearly refers to one thing and then, when she's proven wrong, of saying "I never meant that. I meant something else that hasn't been mentioned." And insulting you because you didn't get that she'd suddenly changed topics.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Jelun, I never see you as a victim. You are intelligent, alert, and always ready to confront wrongs. I'm very proud to know you.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

A fictional rumor in its own mind?



Poor Purl said:


> What rocky start was that?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> Haven't you noticed that Jelun2 is one of the people hoping to get medical care to the millions who until now were unable to afford it? That's hardly what a hate group would do. A hate group would sit around and say that those people don't deserve it, or you're stupid to want to do that, or it will bring disaster down on the country if those people have the care they need. It's not Jelun2 who says things like that.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Bravo from me too.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> Changing what you posted initially and trying to pass it off as what you said is just foolish. People see through that who need to know the truth.
> Why is it so important to you to show disdain for this program?
> We are spending billions of dollars on shoring up businesses that are already prosperous in oil, in mining, in farming, in medical research, pharmeceuticals, and in many areas that don't immediately come to mind.
> Why do you object so strongly to an attempt to bolster the health care access of millions of people?
> Why not expend your energies on fighting the spending in those other areas?


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: I don't understand how anyone can fight it.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: I don't understand how anyone can fight it.


Reminds me of something that was said to my husband years ago: A new building was going up in our neighborhood, and DH noticed that every time he passed it was several stories higher. So he asked one of the workers "How do you build it so fast?" and the worker replied, "Without respect."


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

damemary said:


> It's just another Urban Legend fantasy.


Yes, and the result of more than one twisted survey. These people are shameless. From Mediamatters:

Comically Awful Survey Says 83 Percent Of Doctors Might Quit Over Obamacare

Did you know that American doctors are so incensed over Obamacare's big-government communist socialism that more than eight in ten are going to quit doctoring? It's true, according to a terribly conducted survey conducted by a shady right-wing group, reported credulously by the Daily Caller, and hyped by Matt Drudge and Fox News.

"Eighty-three percent of American physicians have considered leaving their practices over President Barack Obama's health care reform law, according to a survey released by the Doctor Patient Medical Association," reported the Daily Caller yesterday. What is the Doctor Patient Medical Association? The Daily Caller didn't seem too interested (beyond calling them "a non-partisan association of doctors and patients" ) so we'll have to fill in a few gaps.

The Doctor Patient Medical Association's founder, Kathryn Serkes, is a long-time veteran of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a collection of crackpot malcontents that opposes mandatory vaccinations, wrongly believes undocumented immigrants spread leprosy, and dabbled in Vince Foster conspiracy theorism. The group itself is solidly conservative in its politics: it boasts membership in the National Tea Party Federation; describes the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as "Destruction Of Our Medicine," or DOOM; and published a sheet of talking points about the health law to help grassroots activists "beat back the White House spin machine!"

But what about this improbable survey indicating that more than 3/4 of doctors have considered hanging up the stethoscope rather than tolerate Obamacare? Well, the first thing to point out is that the survey didn't actually ask about the Affordable Care Act. Here's the question and the results as given by DPMA:

How do current changes in the medical system affect your desire to practice medicine?

I'm re-energized - 4.6%

Makes me think about quitting - 82.6%

Unsure/no opinion - 12.8%

So they're just assuming that every respondent, upon reading "current changes in the medical system," thought "Obamacare" and nothing else? Doesn't seem too likely. And when asked to give their opinion on these undefined "changes," they were given three options: super-excited, ready to quit, and "unsure." What if they were just slightly dissatisfied? Or cautiously optimistic? The survey left no room for anyone who didn't hold an extreme position.

All this leads up to 83 percent of respondents saying they are ready to quit their chosen profession even though they don't know what they're quitting over. That's a fairly good clue that we're not dealing with the most reliable sample.

And how did we arrive at this unreliable sample? Let's take a look at the methodology [emphasis added]:

The survey was conducted by fax and online from April 18 to May 22, 2012. DPMAF obtained the office fax numbers of 36,000 doctors in active clinical practice, and 16,227 faxes were successfully delivered. Doctors were asked to return their completed surveys by fax, or online at a web address included in the faxed copy. Browser rules prevented doctors from filing duplicate surveys, and respondents were asked to provide personal identification for verification. The response rate was 4.3% for a total of 699 completed surveys.

They had a tiny sample size culled from a scattershot blast-fax that allowed respondents more than a month to answer their questions. And it seems pretty clear that of the vanishingly small percentage that did actually respond, the vast majority were ideologically sympathetic to the DPMA and had axes in need of grinding. If you look at the survey demographics they provided, you'll see that a full 25 percent of respondents were from the South, which is generally more conservative than the rest of the country.

The survey question is entirely worthless as a barometer of professional medical opinion regarding the Affordable Care Act. Which is likely the reason no one paid it any mind when DPMA released it last month. But then the dim bulbs at the Breitbart empire picked it up, followed by the Daily Caller and Drudge, leading to its inevitable appearance on Fox News this morning. It's a uniquely awful survey, but it served up a shocking, headline-friendly number, which is why it's driving the right-wing media's coverage of health care policy.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Of course Purl. Thanks for the reminder. The right wing talking points say to keep saying everything is President Obama's fault....if not his wife's.



Poor Purl said:


> Not to mention banks.
> 
> But the talking points say to fight Obamacare.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Yes, and the result of more than one twisted survey. These people are shameless. From Mediamatters:
> 
> Comically Awful Survey Says 83 Percent Of Doctors Might Quit Over Obamacare
> 
> ...


Susan, love this. "Uniquely comical survey," indeed. No wonder the RWNs are referring to it.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Your post of Mediamatters' "Comically Awful Survey Says 83 Percent Of Doctors Might Quit Over Obamacare" is fascinating. Thanks you. A 699 person group of respondents isn't large enough to result in meaningful conclusions. Coupled with the limitations of the survey question, it's impossible to accept the resulting conclusion of the survey. Of course, we know a lot of people around here who do and will believe those wild survey results.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Assumptions in the place of fact.



Poor Purl said:


> I think it's the religiosity that makes her sound so innocent. Also the name she took.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Changing what you posted initially and trying to pass it off as what you said is just foolish. People see through that who need to know the truth.
> Why is it so important to you to show disdain for this program?
> We are spending billions of dollars on shoring up businesses that are already prosperous in oil, in mining, in farming, in medical research, pharmeceuticals, and in many areas that don't immediately come to mind.
> Why do you object so strongly to an attempt to bolster the health care access of millions of people?
> Why not expend your energies on fighting the spending in those other areas?





knitpresentgifts said:


> I heard the majority of those signing up for Obamacare are those who qualify for Medicaid = non payers. Obamacare will never get off the ground regardless of when/if the website works. The only folks interested in joining and PAYING for their insurance remain the few or none.


That was my original post; it still EXISTS WITH NO CHANGES OR EDITS. NOT ONE WORD ABOUT OREGON BY ME. YOU ARE A SPIN ARTIST (a bad one at that) TRYING TO TWIST MY WORDS AGAIN. I posted a FACT about ObamaCare. I mentioned NOTHING about my opinion of the program. I spoke ONLY about those who have enrolled to date. Barely do we know that since the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION denies and refuses to admit the few who HAVE ENROLLED because the program IS A COMPLETE FAILURE ALONG WITH THE WEBSITE. ObamaCare needs a minimum of 2 million PAYING PARTICIPANTS and presumably 7 million overall of PAYING ENROLLEES to even begin to make the program function. To date, the number of PAYING ENROLLEES are in the tens of thousands. Not even a million folks even chose to look at the website never mind enroll as a PAYING participant.

You tried to change my words. I'll leave you to you Liberal buddies who love to twist and spin and are obsessed with hatred for all things good.

You cannot speak the truth even when you try. You remain the fool along with your prior posts which prove same.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Susan, love this. "Uniquely comical survey," indeed. No wonder the RWNs are referring to it.


89x :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thank you Susan. A masterful bit of research.



susanmos2000 said:


> Yes, and the result of more than one twisted survey. These people are shameless. From Mediamatters:
> 
> Comically Awful Survey Says 83 Percent Of Doctors Might Quit Over Obamacare
> 
> ...


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> Assumptions in the place of fact.


I think "country bumpkins" is a fact.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> That was my original post; it still EXISTS WITH NO CHANGES OR EDITS. NOT ONE WORD ABOUT OREGON BY ME. YOU ARE A SPIN ARTIST (a bad one at that) TRYING TO TWIST MY WORDS AGAIN. I posted a FACT about ObamaCare. I mentioned NOTHING about my opinion of the program. I spoke ONLY about those who have enrolled to date. Barely do we know that since the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION denies and refuses to admit the few who HAVE ENROLLED because the program IS A COMPLETE FAILURE ALONG WITH THE WEBSITE. ObamaCare needs a minimum of 2 million PAYING PARTICIPANTS and presumably 7 million overall of PAYING ENROLLEES to even begin to make the program function. To date, the number of PAYING ENROLLEES are in the tens of thousands. Not even a million folks even chose to look at the website never mind enroll as a PAYING participant.
> 
> You tried to change my words. I'll leave you to you Liberal buddies who love to twist and spin and are obsessed with hatred for all things good.
> 
> You cannot speak the truth even when you try. You remain the fool along with your prior posts which prove same.


This was the message you responded to:



soloweygirl said:


> I heard on the radio that Oregon did not have anyone sign up for Obamacare itself, but 48K signed up for Medicaid. Didn't Congress take 700B+ from Medicare to help pay for Medicaid because of Obamacare? The seniors would be the ones getting hurt here. I guess that doesn't matter.


At no time did you say you were no longer referring to Oregon, so it would be natural to infer that Oregon was still the state under discussion.

Isn't that how you always do it: be vague enough so that your intention - if there is a single intention - can only be guessed at; then, when someone proves you wrong, claim that they didn't understand you. I have to admit, it can be a good tactic as long as people don't pay attention to what you say.

And all that shouting must be giving you a sore throat. Hot tea with honey and lemon, preceded by a salt-water gargle, should fix that.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> At no time did you say you were no longer referring to Oregon, so it would be natural to infer that Oregon was still the state under discussion.
> 
> Isn't that how you always do it: be vague enough so that your intention - if there is a single intention - can only be guessed at; then, when someone proves you wrong, claim that they didn't understand you. I have to admit, it can be a good tactic as long as people don't pay attention to what you say.
> 
> And all that shouting must be giving you a sore throat. Hot tea with honey and lemon, preceded by a salt-water gargle, should fix that.


Another Liberal nutjob. "No longer was referring to?" I NEVER thought of nor EVEN referred to nor EVEN mentioned Orgeon. Believe whatever the hell you want you think I WAS THINKING. I KNOW for a FACT, that you have no power nor knowledge of my thoughts, opinions or written words.

I WAS referring to EXACTLY that which I wrote. You and no one have "proved me wrong" since you don't even understand what I wrote.

Since you cannot think for yourself you should stop attempting to think for me as well.

Thanks for admitting you hang on to my every word; very nice to hear. Perhaps something I say will eventually penetrate your thick skull.

BTW: I don't have a sore throat, yet you, rocky and jejun combined, don't have a brain in your collective head. Perhaps your suggested medicine could help yourselves instead.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

The insults tell the tale. God bless.



knitpresentgifts said:


> Another Liberal nutjob. "No longer was referring to?" I NEVER thought of nor EVEN referred to nor EVEN mentioned Orgeon. Believe whatever the hell you want you think I WAS THINKING. I KNOW for a FACT, that you have no power nor knowledge of my thoughts, opinions or written words.
> 
> I WAS referring to EXACTLY that which I wrote.
> 
> ...


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> The insults tell the tale. God bless.


Whatever, fool.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Good going, Empress. Teamwork creates vitality.



Poor Purl said:


> At no time did you say you were no longer referring to Oregon, so it would be natural to infer that Oregon was still the state under discussion.
> 
> Isn't that how you always do it: be vague enough so that your intention - if there is a single intention - can only be guessed at; then, when someone proves you wrong, claim that they didn't understand you. I have to admit, it can be a good tactic as long as people don't pay attention to what you say.
> 
> And all that shouting must be giving you a sore throat. Hot tea with honey and lemon, preceded by a salt-water gargle, should fix that.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Reminds me of something that was said to my husband years ago: A new building was going up in our neighborhood, and DH noticed that every time he passed it was several stories higher. So he asked one of the workers "How do you build it so fast?" and the worker replied, "Without respect."


How sad is that? It happens all too often, substandard work to profit investors who believe that people deserve substandard housing and/or workspace. 
We can be glad, I suppose, that it is the US rather than Bangladesh or India.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Yes, and the result of more than one twisted survey. These people are shameless. From Mediamatters:
> 
> Comically Awful Survey Says 83 Percent Of Doctors Might Quit Over Obamacare
> 
> ...


***********************************************
Thanks for that, susanmos2000, in addition to what the mediamatters piece points out there is also, isn't there, the thought of some people on any given day that it would be nice to chuck it all and give up the day job?
Current changes could mean most anything. The doctor could have just renewed his contract with his HMO and be unhappy about it, right?


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

alcameron said:


> I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I am thinking of all those people. Many middle class people have lost jobs and their healthcare. If costs for everyone go up, I don't blindly blame the ACA. Healthcare costs have been on an upward spiral for years before the ACA was a gleam in the president's eye. I have sat on several task forces at the clinic at which we receive our healthcare. Our clinic was preparing for rapidly rising healthcare costs long before the ACA came along. Without going into detail, I can tell you that improved methods of serving patients and maintaining high standardsin the face of rising costs were being discussed because the toll that health cost was having on our economy was staggering. Something was going to be done whether it was the ACA or something else.
> Why would you not want American citizens to have access to healthcare? I dare even bring up the subject of Christianity, which focuses on being charitable to one's fellow man as one reason for going forward with the ACA. In a rich country such as ours, I think we have moral responsibilities to our fellow citizens. I don't think your moral compass should be checked at the door.


My biggest beef with the ACA is that it doesn't do nearly enough to address the actual costs of healthcare. Getting people insurance is only one aspect of the actual cost. Costs for operations, stays in hospitals, prices of procedures and medications all vary throughout the country. The ACA is offering different types of coverage: i.e., Bronze, Silver and Platinum. How about a break down of prices in a similar way? There shouldn't be a hole the size of the Grand Canyon for the same operation performed in different parts of the country. Control these costs and the cost of healthcare will come down. JMO.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

alcameron said:


> First of all, let me set you straight because you obviously don't pay attention to what individuals say. You lump anyone who doesn't think your way into one category. I am not now and never have been an "obamacultist."
> I was actually waiting for you to make the statement about my beng able to afford paying taxes and that I pay yours, too. We are both retired and have been for awhile now, so it's not like we have a huge income coming in. However, I see paying taxes as my dues for being a responsible citizen of this great country. I have consideration for others who can't afford to pay higher taxes or can't afford health care or can't afford good shelter or wholesome food. How much more do you think you have to sacrifice to pay a little more so your fellow American can have healthcare? (If any?) Do you now have to trade in Your spinning wheel? Give up your lakeshore property? Buy acrylic instead of cashmere? Yes, I'm being facetious to try to get you to use your brain a little differently. We need money to run our government, and we are already at a bare bones way of running things. That's the way to go Tea Party! Make our country fall from one of the richest and most progressive to a third world nation-----and a good way of getting there is to let millions of people live without healthcare.(sarcasm, just in case). Why are you so upset with people getting healthcare? Where's your sense of Christian charity that you love to talk about?
> Furthermore, I was never in favor of the ACA. I thought we should expand the Medicare system and include EVERYONE under a single payer system. I guess that makes me a socialist, but I think I'm in good company with the Som of God.


I suppose that since Bush can no longer be blamed, the Tea Party falls into that category. The Tea Party isn't to blame for the US falling into a third world country status. It's Congress and the voting population that is to blame. Congress for basically doing what it wants to do and the voters for voting the same people into office over and over again. As the government increased in size, it has become more and more inefficient. All that has been done to fix problems is to put a bandaid on them and deal with the problem later, then another bandaid is applied and the promise of dealing with the problem at another time, and on and on it goes. A government can't be run that way and expect to be efficient. Inefficiency = decline. Maybe some of these "progressive" ideas are also to blame for our current slide downhill. JMO

Not to worry, if Harry Reid has his way, there will be more taxes for everyone. He believes that everyone doesn't mind paying more taxes. I'm quite sure that those that pay no taxes don't mind at all. I mind very much.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Another Liberal nutjob. "No longer was referring to?" I NEVER thought of nor EVEN referred to nor EVEN mentioned Orgeon. Believe whatever the hell you want you think I WAS THINKING. I KNOW for a FACT, that you have no power nor knowledge of my thoughts, opinions or written words.
> 
> I WAS referring to EXACTLY that which I wrote. You and no one have "proved me wrong" since you don't even understand what I wrote.
> 
> ...


First, when you respond to a message about a particular state, anyone with a brain would think you were referring to that state. Apparently that doesn't include you. Fine. You don't have to be clear about what you mean, since it changes so often.

I certainly do not know what you're thinking; I usually can't even pay attention to what you're saying. If I knew what was going on in your head, I think I'd be very frightened. And don't worry, I've never attempted to think for you. I'm not sure "thinking" is a word I'd apply to you. I do, however, think quite well for myself.

I don't "hang on to your every word." I sometimes go back to see what you said when someone else has to put up with you; that's what I did this time. Mostly I ignore your messages because there's nothing in them worth attending to.

And, in case you didn't know, typing in caps indicates shouting. I thought, after all that shouting you do, you might have sore throat. I didn't suggest medicine, just a homey remedy for sore throats. You have my permission not to follow my suggestion.

And now, in case your followers, esp. CB and Yarnlady, haven't caught them, I will list the insults you threw at me in this one short message, after I wrote a message without a single bit of name-calling: Liberal nutjob, you cannot think for yourself, your thick skull, don't have a brain in your collective head.

A clear case of psychological projection.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> My biggest beef with the ACA is that it doesn't do nearly enough to address the actual costs of healthcare. Getting people insurance is only one aspect of the actual cost. Costs for operations, stays in hospitals, prices of procedures and medications all vary throughout the country. The ACA is offering different types of coverage: i.e., Bronze, Silver and Platinum. How about a break down of prices in a similar way? There shouldn't be a hole the size of the Grand Canyon for the same operation performed in different parts of the country. Control these costs and the cost of healthcare will come down. JMO.


Once again you're saying something sensible. They should be working on the costs you speak of; I think the fact that the only people involved in setting costs are the insurance companies and the hospitals, rather than doctors and patients, has allowed these costs to blow up. Medicare, on the other hand, has lowered its costs in what seems to be an unfair way. One example: physical therapists have had their Medicare payments cut by 13%, though their expenses haven't gone down. Another example is the fact that ob-gyns can't afford to take on new Medicare patients (ask how I know) because Medicare long ago set payments too low for a doctor to do a decent exam.

It's not JYO; it's the opinion of a lot of thinking people.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> If he was really a "wonderful" doctor, he would have managed to maintain a practice even under Obamacare, or outside of it. He was more probably a greedy doctor and didn't give s### what happened to "a lot of people" who lost their jobs. Just how many people were working for him, anyway? Why would one doctor need "a lot of people" as support?
> 
> I bet "a lot of" your story is a figment of your imagination.
> 
> I hope he can get into a training program to help him prepare for a new career.


In that case your scenario is just as much a figment of your imagination. You know nothing about this doctor, the way he operates his business or about his patients. You know nothing to say whether it is true or not.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

12


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Once again you're saying something sensible. They should be working on the costs you speak of; I think the fact that the only people involved in setting costs are the insurance companies and the hospitals, rather than doctors and patients, has allowed these costs to blow up. Medicare, on the other hand, has lowered its costs in what seems to be an unfair way. One example: physical therapists have had their Medicare payments cut by 13%, though their expenses haven't gone down. Another example is the fact that ob-gyns can't afford to take on new Medicare patients (ask how I know) because Medicare long ago set payments too low for a doctor to do a decent exam.
> 
> It's not JYO; it's the opinion of a lot of thinking people.


Just one little thing I would like to comment on. I haven't gone to an OBGYN since I was 42 and the silly woman told me that I was too young for menopause. Did she offer any testing or suggestion as to what my issue might be? Nuttin' Honey. So from that day to this I have had all of my gyno stuff done during my annual physical at my PCP. No mess, no full, no more charges. Oh, and did I ever have another period? Um, no.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Just one little thing I would like to comment on. I haven't gone to an OBGYN since I was 42 and the silly woman told me that I was too young for menopause. Did she offer any testing or suggestion as to what my issue might be? Nuttin' Honey. So from that day to this I have had all of my gyno stuff done during my annual physical at my PCP. No mess, no full, no more charges. Oh, and did I ever have another period? Um, no.


Mine doesn't do pap tests, but my urologist said by this time of life I probably don't need one anyway. Yours sounds like an idiot. I was 44; she would probably have said the same thing to me.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Mine doesn't do pap tests, but my urologist said by this time of life I probably don't need one anyway. Yours sounds like an idiot. I was 44; she would probably have said the same thing to me.


I do push mine off for a couple or three years at this stage, family history has no indicators that I should have problems. I feel it is responsible health care usage to make my own decisions about testing. 
I do the same with testing for Vitamin D, it is not included in my regular testing regimen and costs the insurance company an extra $160. They wanted me to get that done every 3 months. My numbers are so low there is no way I won't be deficient for at least 4 years. I will get tested again then. LOL.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> I suppose that since Bush can no longer be blamed, the Tea Party falls into that category. The Tea Party isn't to blame for the US falling into a third world country status. It's Congress and the voting population that is to blame. Congress for basically doing what it wants to do and the voters for voting the same people into office over and over again. As the government increased in size, it has become more and more inefficient. All that has been done to fix problems is to put a bandaid on them and deal with the problem later, then another bandaid is applied and the promise of dealing with the problem at another time, and on and on it goes. A government can't be run that way and expect to be efficient. Inefficiency = decline. Maybe some of these "progressive" ideas are also to blame for our current slide downhill. JMO
> 
> Not to worry, if Harry Reid has his way, there will be more taxes for everyone. He believes that everyone doesn't mind paying more taxes. I'm quite sure that those that pay no taxes don't mind at all. I mind very much.


soloweygirl
and what is it that you DON'T mind?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Maybe you should take your own advice. When you reply to a post about buying and reading a Bible, a sensible person would think you are talking about the same Bible, claiming you can read it in its original language. Then when challenged you say you didn't mean *that* Bible, only the Hebrew Bible.


For the last time, and I will type slowly because I see you apparently have as much understanding of English as you have of Greek: you made the unwarranted assumption that the original language was Greek. That was only the language of the second part, not the original part.

Merriam Webster defines the adjective _original_ as : "of, relating to, or constituting an origin or beginning : initial <the original part of the house>"

In the beginning the Bible was written in Hebrew; hundreds of years later came the Greek part. But the original language was obviously Hebrew, and only a narrow-minded bigot would continue to argue the point.

And only a logic-deficient moron would call it lying if I said I had read it in Hebrew and she thought I should have meant Greek, WHICH WAS NOT THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE. I've tried to keep from calling you names; I even stopped insisting that you apologize for calling me a liar. But you can't leave well enough alone.

And I have never left a message about "buying" a Bible; that's something else you made up. I can understand that most people here would believe it was the Jewish and Christian Bible, but that makes no difference, since the writing of The Bible began with Hebrew. 
את טיפש גדולה
להתראות


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> First, when you respond to a message about a particular state, anyone with a brain would think you were referring to that state. Apparently that doesn't include you. Fine. You don't have to be clear about what you mean, since it changes so often.
> 
> I certainly do not know what you're thinking; I usually can't even pay attention to what you're saying. If I knew what was going on in your head, I think I'd be very frightened. And don't worry, I've never attempted to think for you. I'm not sure "thinking" is a word I'd apply to you. I do, however, think quite well for myself.
> 
> ...


Why do you insist to continue pointing out your own ignorance, it is not becoming.

Here is the post I responded to exactly as you stated:

"I heard on the radio that Oregon did not have anyone sign up for Obamacare itself, ... "

with my response:

I heard the majority of those signing up for Obamacare are those who qualify for Medicaid = non payers. Obamacare will never get off the ground regardless of when/if the website works. The only folks interested in joining and PAYING for their insurance remain the few or none.

HOW in your mind am I referring to the residents in Oregon when Soloweygirl said NO ONE in Oregon signed up for ObamaCare?

I wrote about those SIGNING UP for Obamacare. Since Oregon has NONE according to the OP, why do you infer or demand I was referring to people who don't exist nor did I mention?

ARE YOU A COMPLETE IDIOT OR JUST TRYING TO PRODUCE SOMETHING THAT ISN'T THERE?

Use the brain you claim to possess and prove me wrong next time you try. You admitted I didn't refer to Oregon YET you berate me for MEANING Oregon. Stupid!

Enough of your ridiculous lies that no one believes. If you truly ignored my posts and didn't read them you wouldn't have anything to say, yet here you are on round four dissecting and re-quoting MY words and not making any sense.

Get back into the ring and start fighting with someone you can conquer. You seem to need the victory.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> WTG, Ron Paul follower.
> 
> If that doctor couldn't wait for his payments, then he is simply a poor businessman who was spending money too quickly or couldnt attract enough patients. Government payments have been slow since the programs' inception.
> Lots of businesses close because the owner spends more than they take in. I think it is called lack of self control.
> BTW, doctors limit their practices or do dual duty all the time. Here in Massachusetts sometimes it seems that half the docs are teaching and practicing.


Sounds like Obama's administration. Spending money they don't have and ruining the economy. Their idea of good business is to have the Fed print more money. Thank you for the analogy, one good thing from the Obamacultists today


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> If he was really a "wonderful" doctor, he would have managed to maintain a practice even under Obamacare, or outside of it. He was more probably a greedy doctor and didn't give s### what happened to "a lot of people" who lost their jobs. Just how many people were working for him, anyway? Why would one doctor need "a lot of people" as support?
> 
> I bet "a lot of" your story is a figment of your imagination.
> 
> I hope he can get into a training program to help him prepare for a new career.


Pathetic Rocky, new name same vile posts

You Obamacultists always ask for the facts. I told them, you can't handle the truth............once again pathetic


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Maybe you should take your own advice. When you reply to a post about buying and reading a Bible, a sensible person would think you are talking about the same Bible, claiming you can read it in its original language. Then when challenged you say you didn't mean *that* Bible, only the Hebrew Bible.


Bravo joey! Knock out punch, rocky style!!!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Good going, Empress. Teamwork creates vitality.


More like the 'bullying gang' to me. 'Cause none can go it alone on their own two feet.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Karverr posted about buying and reading the Bible you said you could read it in it original language
> 
> I will bring this up again every time you make a similar comment like you did to KPG.


Thanks Joey. But unlike all that her Highness lies about, I actually do skip over most of the Liberals posts that I know are written by those who have no facts or knowledgable opinions or common sense.

It isn't likely I'll read any more of her insults, they don't concern nor affect me if I did, and so we don't have to suffer the fools.

However, I do appreciate your support!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I'd say something but I see your posts stand alone.

You said you were leaving and now you're back.....proving you are a liar too. God bless.



knitpresentgifts said:


> Whatever, fool.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Party time.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

UH OHHHhttp://legalinsurrection.com/2013/10/60-minutes-confirms-benghazi-is-a-real-scandal-and-youve-been-lied-to/


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> UH OHHHhttp://legalinsurrection.com/2013/10/60-minutes-confirms-benghazi-is-a-real-scandal-and-youve-been-lied-to/


you know don't you that now they will change the facts ect. they won't believe it. Thats the sad part , is they will not admit that it did happen. Hiliary for President yes why not she is a good lair, just like her leader.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

http://www.cbsnews.com/60-minutes/

Remember Benghazi.

It was not a video


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Why do you insist to continue pointing out your own ignorance, it is not becoming.
> 
> Here is the post I responded to exactly as you stated:
> 
> ...


You wouldn't understand.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> http://www.cbsnews.com/60-minutes/
> 
> Remember Benghazi.
> 
> It was not a video


I see a lot of angry post on the cbs report. Why were they not reporting the news over a year ago on Benghazi. That is why Fox is #1


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> I see a lot of angry post on the cbs report. Why were they not reporting the news over a year ago on Benghazi. That is why Fox is #1


#1 in false reporting and only relaying their take on the stories.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> #1 in false reporting and only relaying their take on the stories.


Did you watch 60 minutes Patty? Everything that Fox said a year ago. Truth is finally coming out. The other stations will have to keep up with CBS now.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Did you watch 60 minutes Patty? Everything that Fox said a year ago. Truth is finally coming out. The other stations will have to keep up with CBS now.


60 minutes is only opinion like all the rest, CB.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Karverr posted about buying and reading the Bible you said you could read it in it original language
> 
> I will bring this up again every time you make a similar comment like you did to KPG.


If that makes you happy, fine. את טפש גדולה.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Pathetic Rocky, new name same vile posts
> 
> You Obamacultists always ask for the facts. I told them, you can't handle the truth............once again pathetic


Who the hell is Rocky?


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> 60 minutes is only opinion like all the rest, CB.


Wrong it is not opinions when someone was there . Try facts that would be more accurate.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> Wrong it is not opinions when someone was there . Try facts that would be more accurate.


Only time will tell, yarnie.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Who the hell is Rocky?


rocky is someone who occasionally posts on the left side. 
LTL has been drinking her yarn dye and chemicals again.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> rocky is someone who occasionally posts on the left side.
> LTL has been drinking her yarn dye and chemicals again.


Oh. Thanks. I thought I was Huck, but maybe LOL wasn't aware of that.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> Wrong it is not opinions when someone was there . Try facts that would be more accurate.


And the facts are that Army General Carter Ham, head of the US Africa Command, was well aware of the situation and offered twice to provide more security in the month before the attack. Stevens refused both times--heavens knows why.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Then once again you are wrong
> 
> Still believe you protest too much. But Obamacultists (or anyone else that belongs to a cult) do that. So if Kumbaya offends you, do a conference call on a free Obamaphone and sing Puff the Magic Dragon. Makes no difference to me


Oh, soooo cute!


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> People may do it all the time, but in this case it was because of Obamacare. Another wonderful doctor has left the field because of this train wreck, nothing more nothing less. His word is proof enough for me. One does not leave medicine after 22 years of practice (expect for their own medical or family issues), he left it because of Obamacare, nothing more, nothing less. So not only did the area lose a doctor, but a lot of people lost their jobs.
> 
> Choo chooooooo


Gee, you believe one anecdote equals evidence which equals a train wreck. That's some deep thinking going on!


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I need to apologize for not using a word that could be understood.
> 
> A contract with your insurance company is called a policy.
> 
> ...


It's not that simple. There are treatments, surgeries, procedures not mentioned anywhere in the policy at all. The policy doesn't always state what is and is not covered. I have some personal experience taking on a health insurance company.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

alcameron said:


> Gee, you believe one anecdote equals evidence which equals a train wreck. That's some deep thinking going on!


His patients are probably better off, al. Sounds like that one was in it just for the money. For most doctors it is a vocation.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> And the facts are that Army General Carter Ham, head of the US Africa Command, was well aware of the situation and offered twice to provide more security in the month before the attack. Stevens refused both times--heavens knows why.


Susan, I just read the transcript from 60 min. Nothing new was revealed. Same accounts only by a different security guard.The fact still remains that terrorists attacked the embassy.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake wrote:
Then once again you are wrong

Still believe you protest too much. But Obamacultists (or anyone else that belongs to a cult) do that. So if Kumbaya offends you, do a conference call on a free Obamaphone and sing Puff the Magic Dragon. Makes no difference to me



alcameron said:


> Oh, soooo cute!


Can you say "stuck in the '70s"?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> Susan, I just read the transcript from 60 min. Nothing new was revealed. Same accounts only by a different security guard.The fact still remains that terrorists attacked the embassy.


Uh huh, a mercenary who has written a book, so we know why he was there. 
I couldn't see anything but a rehash of many things that have already been made public. The only thing that is cloudy for me is just how much CIA this was in relation to State.
While I was brushing my teeth, I did think maybe 60 Minutes will have a follow up segment or two. <shrug>

Nite, folks.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Another Liberal nutjob. "No longer was referring to?" I NEVER thought of nor EVEN referred to nor EVEN mentioned Orgeon. Believe whatever the hell you want you think I WAS THINKING. I KNOW for a FACT, that you have no power nor knowledge of my thoughts, opinions or written words.
> 
> I WAS referring to EXACTLY that which I wrote. You and no one have "proved me wrong" since you don't even understand what I wrote.
> 
> ...


Spoken like a true Christian!


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Susan, I just read the transcript from 60 min. Nothing new was revealed. Same accounts only by a different security guard.The fact still remains that terrorists attacked the embassy.


I agree--seems that the righties have merely received their new marching orders. Time to sharpen their fangs for the election in 2016 and, in their minds, Benghazi = Hillary.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

alcameron said:


> Spoken like a true Christian!


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> You wouldn't understand.


I don't think it's precisely a matter of not understanding on KPG's part. I believe she refuses to understand. Like the United ***** College Fund used to say, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste." KPG doesn't mind wasting hers. Kinda sad, dontcha think?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

MaidInBedlam said:


> I don't think it's precisely a matter of not understanding on KPG's part. I believe she refuses to understand. Like the United ***** College Fund used to say, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste." KPG doesn't mind wasting hers. Kinda sad, dontcha think?


Maybe sad, if you assume there's anything there. Maybe just the way things are.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Country Bumpkins said:


> I see a lot of angry post on the cbs report. Why were they not reporting the news over a year ago on Benghazi. That is why Fox is #1


Because the are not journalists, only Obama supporters. Everyone knew what happened a year ago, but Obama cannot run for the Presidency now, so the fake journalists are willing to speak the truth about the Obama Administration's cover-up. Especially good timing now to take the focus of the Obamacare failure.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Never mind Empress Purl. You have just been dubbed into the Misnamed Club. They can't tell one of us from another. They hate to think how many of us there are. For your information, you have been confused with a very intelligent person who must have gotten tired of the foolishness.



Poor Purl said:


> Who the hell is Rocky?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

We all sound alike and they are afraid of how many of us there are.



Poor Purl said:


> Oh. Thanks. I thought I was Huck, but maybe LOL wasn't aware of that.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Truthfully, I find this much ado about a relatively minor attack. Mistakes may have been made. There was no intent to do harm to our own people. Get on to something of substance.



susanmos2000 said:


> And the facts are that Army General Carter Ham, head of the US Africa Command, was well aware of the situation and offered twice to provide more security in the month before the attack. Stevens refused both times--heavens knows why.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

My guess is that CIA is written all over this. They also never admit anything. Sound like anyone we know?



jelun2 said:


> Uh huh, a mercenary who has written a book, so we know why he was there.
> I couldn't see anything but a rehash of many things that have already been made public. The only thing that is cloudy for me is just how much CIA this was in relation to State.
> While I was brushing my teeth, I did think maybe 60 Minutes will have a follow up segment or two. <shrug>
> 
> Nite, folks.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Hillary would handle them like that heckler she shut up.



susanmos2000 said:


> I agree--seems that the righties have merely received their new marching orders. Time to sharpen their fangs for the election in 2016 and, in their minds, Benghazi = Hillary.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Nope. Not a mind like hers.



MaidInBedlam said:


> I don't think it's precisely a matter of not understanding on KPG's part. I believe she refuses to understand. Like the United ***** College Fund used to say, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste." KPG doesn't mind wasting hers. Kinda sad, dontcha think?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> Truthfully, I find this much ado about a relatively minor attack. Mistakes may have been made. There was no intent to do harm to our own people. Get on to something of substance.


There's so little that they can get hold of, that minor things become major to them. It was a sad thing that happened, but nobody was really to blame for it, except maybe intelligence people, who weren't prepared.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> It was not totally the insurance companies decision. It was the contract that either you, individually, had with the insurance company. Or it was the contract your employer or union had with the insurance company. I'm sure most people didn't read the contract. Most of the decisions to not pay were for experimental or questionable treatments. Many of these disputes could be settled with either a second opinion or a detailed explanation from your doctor.
> 
> With Obamacare there will be no negotiations with the company over even what they will cover.
> 
> An example: When I was much younger (30 years ago). The insurance company would not pay for the doctors visit or a pap test, if that was the only reason you went to the doctor. But if you went to the doctor for another woman problem and he did the pap test, it would be paid. It was just what was in the contract.


Unfortunately even if you know your contract a lot of HMOs will try to deny services. I needed all my teeth removed because of a medical condition. We had the actual page number of the contract and read the thing to them. We didn't want them to cover the actual removal as we knew the dental insurance only covered a certain amount. But I needed general anesthesia for it, which was supposed to be covered for my issues. We had so many people just say it wasn't covered, to telling us to just have it done (it needed a pre-auth according to the contract or it would be denied after). My husband's employer, who had their contract with them, even called on our behalf because after a while nobody would call us back. It took going through the appeals process and then the attorney general before they would cover it. About a year, during which time I got more and more sick. Then after it, they sent us a letter saying it was denied! Unfortunately they just wanted the money from premiums and contracts and whenever they need to pay out they try to refuse. It is sickening. I'm also a nurse and have seen truly horrendous things that come about the insurance companies bs.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> His patients are probably better off, al. Sounds like that one was in it just for the money. For most doctors it is a vocation.


Only an Obamacultist would think that loosing money would be a good thing. It is the same reason teachers leave the teaching vocation. Loving one's job doesn't provide money to pay the rent, nurses, staff, medical supplies, malpractice insurance......

Patients lost, people lost jobs, but a university has a great professor.

You just can't handle the truth.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

MaidInBedlam said:


> I don't think it's precisely a matter of not understanding on KPG's part. I believe she refuses to understand. Like the United ***** College Fund used to say, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste." KPG doesn't mind wasting hers. Kinda sad, dontcha think?


It is, Maid. Why bother even trying to explain anything to these folks? The lights are on, but nobody's home.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

This is my edited post...


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> It is, Maid. Why bother even trying to explain anything to these folks? The lights are on, but nobody's home.


It seems like the folks who aren't at home are permanently vacationing here and on the other political topics.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> There's so little that they can get hold of, that minor things become major to them. It was a sad thing that happened, but nobody was really to blame for it, except maybe intelligence people, who weren't prepared.


In light of XL and all the pressures there, it would make much more sense for the right wing to jump on this sort of info. Then when the Obama Administration OKs XL...

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/25/north-dakota-oil-pipeline-spills-secrecy

Why would anybody with any sense not know this is in the news? While Benghazi has not been in the news for months. When was McCarthy Issa's last hearing?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> Unfortunately even if you know your contract a lot of HMOs will try to deny services. I needed all my teeth removed because of a medical condition. We had the actual page number of the contract and read the thing to them. We didn't want them to cover the actual removal as we knew the dental insurance only covered a certain amount. But I needed general anesthesia for it, which was supposed to be covered for my issues. We had so many people just say it wasn't covered, to telling us to just have it done (it needed a pre-auth according to the contract or it would be denied after). My husband's employer, who had their contract with them, even called on our behalf because after a while nobody would call us back. It took going through the appeals process and then the attorney general before they would cover it. About a year, during which time I got more and more sick. Then after it, they sent us a letter saying it was denied! Unfortunately they just wanted the money from premiums and contracts and whenever they need to pay out they try to refuse. It is sickening. I'm also a nurse and have seen truly horrendous things that come about the insurance companies bs.


I am so sorry for your troubles, this will happen to less people under the new regs, if we are lucky.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> It is, Maid. Why bother even trying to explain anything to these folks? The lights are on, but nobody's home.


susanmos2000
you are right on the button.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> In light of XL and all the pressures there, it would make much more sense for the right wing to jump on this sort of info. Then when the Obama Administration OKs XL...
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/oct/25/north-dakota-oil-pipeline-spills-secrecy


Interestingly, I'm just now watching a podcast of Rachel Maddow's Friday show, and she's interviewing someone in ND about the 300 oil spills the state has had this year.

Serious conflict would occur if Obama okays the XL. How can the right support the people over the industry? Yet how can they support anything this President does?

Oh, dear.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

I personally like the article about farmers and natual gas myself.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

theyarnlady said:


> I personally like the article about farmers and natual gas myself.


Isn't it interesting that with all the scandals, the dismal failure of Obamacare and now the 60 Minutes report highlighting the lies by Obama and his Administration in Benghazi, the Left and Libs want only to discuss things not presently in the news? :-D

Why is that :?:


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Isn't it interesting that with all the scandals, the dismal failure of Obamacare and now the 60 Minutes report highlighting the lies by Obama and his Administration in Benghazi, the Left and Libs want only to discuss things not presently in the news? :-D
> 
> Why is that :?:


Because to admit they may be wrong would mean that they are wrong.

Did you read one of the comments on CBS web site real eye opener.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

MaidInBedlam said:


> I don't think it's precisely a matter of not understanding on KPG's part. I believe she refuses to understand. Like the United ***** College Fund used to say, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste." KPG doesn't mind wasting hers. Kinda sad, dontcha think?


Hey I said that in a post a while back but not the way you mean it. Yes it is very sad when one thinks only one person doesn't use the brains God has given them. But as I see it not the person you mention may want to . To thine owen self be true. You can use that in the future as like the mind one is open to all.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> Unfortunately even if you know your contract a lot of HMOs will try to deny services. I needed all my teeth removed because of a medical condition. We had the actual page number of the contract and read the thing to them. We didn't want them to cover the actual removal as we knew the dental insurance only covered a certain amount. But I needed general anesthesia for it, which was supposed to be covered for my issues. We had so many people just say it wasn't covered, to telling us to just have it done (it needed a pre-auth according to the contract or it would be denied after). My husband's employer, who had their contract with them, even called on our behalf because after a while nobody would call us back. It took going through the appeals process and then the attorney general before they would cover it. About a year, during which time I got more and more sick. Then after it, they sent us a letter saying it was denied! Unfortunately they just wanted the money from premiums and contracts and whenever they need to pay out they try to refuse. It is sickening. I'm also a nurse and have seen truly horrendous things that come about the insurance companies bs.


This is a horror story. Sadly, it's not the only one of its kind that I've heard. But the right can't support the ACA because they've been told not to.

I don't want to turn your situation into an opportunity for a political rant. It's a nightmare situation. Have you been able to get any relief by now?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

theyarnlady said:


> Because to admit they may be wrong would mean that they are wrong.
> 
> Did you read one of the comments on CBS web site real eye opener.


Not yet. I'm very interested to see how the lamestream journalists will spin Hillary away from the foreign spying and wire tapping of world leaders and diplomats. All part of Hillary's scheme when she was Sec of State; will be a huge problem for her run at the Presidency unless the lamestreamers cover for her like they did/do Obama. Which, of course, some will.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> Because to admit they may be wrong would mean that they are wrong.
> 
> Did you read one of the comments on CBS web site real eye opener.


Comments on websites are written by anyone who feels they can write them, *not by experts* or even by people who follow the news. They're no more believable than anyone else, including you and me.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Have not had any problems with my HMO. Have had all test ect. covered. Plus they are not going to drop myself and hubby for ACA care.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

theyarnlady said:


> Have not had any problems with my HMO. Have had all test ect. covered. Plus they are not going to drop myself and hubby for ACA care.


I wonder how long before the truths of Benghazi will now be available after Sixty Minutes finally covered a tiny part of the story. At this point, I want the truth to come out two weeks before the next Presidential election. Or maybe just prior to the last Presidential Debate. Hillary can and should be penalized for her involvement of the four murdered Americans on her watch.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Comments on websites are written by anyone who feels they can write them, *not by experts* or even by people who follow the news. They're no more believable than anyone else, including you and me.


Exactly, Empress Poor Purl, those people are expressing opinions. Most of them like the lovely ladies here *heard* something somewhere, they can't remember where... have no sources and lack the curiosity to type a couple of keywords. The way to spell relief is definitely not L-O-W I-N-F-O-R-M-A-T-I-O-N.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Comments on websites are written by anyone who feels they can write them, *not by experts* or even by people who follow the news. They're no more believable than anyone else, including you and me.


I agree but this comment was more than a comment. It was stated as fact.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

theyarnlady said:


> Have not had any problems with my HMO. Have had all test ect. covered. Plus they are not going to drop myself and hubby for ACA care.


Glad to hear this news!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

theyarnlady said:


> I agree but this comment was more than a comment. It was stated as fact.


So does that mean that anytime I write "this is a fact" you will accept it as the truth?
LOL, if only I had known.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I wonder how long before the truths of Benghazi will now be available after Sixty Minutes finally covered a tiny part of the story. At this point, I want the truth to come out two weeks before the next Presidential election. Or maybe just prior to the last Presidential Debate. Hillary can and should be penalized for her involvement of the four murdered Americans on her watch.


I wonder if anyone who runs against her on The Dem side will bring it up and use it against her. It should be interesting to see what happens. She has already gone after Biden sounds like he may run for the party too.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> So does that mean that anytime I write "this is a fact" you will accept it as the truth?
> LOL, if only I had known.


I read your article today about oil spills and find it to be true. But we as a nation have to except the fact that we need oil as we have pass laws to make it impossible to open any drilling. Considering we use oil not just for cars but many other products. I do question how many will be willing to give up all that oil is used for.

Plus I did like article about farmers allowing drilling for natural gas as many farmers no longer want wind power on their land and many people have complained about the killing of birds as they mirgrate in spring and fall. Know that Michigan did not want wind power put into lake michigan as did the citys along lake Michigan here in Wisconsin. They worry about the ruining of fishing on the Lakes that it may disrupt.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

theyarnlady said:


> I read your article today about oil spills and find it to be true. But we as a nation have to except the fact that we need oil as we have pass laws to make it impossible to open any drilling. Considering we use oil not just for cars but many other products. I do question how many will be willing to give up all that oil is used for.
> 
> Plus I did like article about farmers allowing drilling for natural gas as many farmers no longer want wind power on their land and many people have complained about the killing of birds as they mirgrate in spring and fall. Know that Michigan did not want wind power put into lake michigan as did the citys along lake Michigan here in Wisconsin. They worry about the ruining of fishing on the Lakes that it may disrupt.


Do you know how much of that oil we get to keep? This is not a trick question. I have read that the XL will carry oil for export. I don't know about the oil in this line. 
I know that the idea of natural gas is appealing. 
It is their land, they can do what they will as far as leasing. 
I have an idea that their fishing will be ruined anyway between invasive lines of fish, etc.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> I agree but this comment was more than a comment. It was stated as fact.


There are 250 comments there, too many to read. Could you copy and paste the one you're referring to?


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Isn't it interesting that with all the scandals, the dismal failure of Obamacare and now the 60 Minutes report highlighting the lies by Obama and his Administration in Benghazi, the Left and Libs want only to discuss things not presently in the news? :-D
> 
> Why is that :?:


I thought the interview with ex-CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell was informative and interesting. I'm well aware that he became DD of the CIA in 2010, but his CIA career began in 1980, and spanned the administrations of several past Presidents. See his brief bio below, copied from the CIA's website.

Benhazi is a deeply expensive lesson in inter-agency communication. It's a price the victims in the Benghazi tragedy should never have had to pay, and that's my bottom line opinion.

I don't have anything even vaguely positive to say about what happened there but it did happen. One of the ways our government can take responsibility for it is to learn the lessons that tragedy puts our noses right down into.

*From the CIA's website:*
"Mr. Michael J. Morell has served as Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency since May 2010. A career Agency officer, he has held a variety of senior leadership positions, including serving as Acting Director twice, most recently for four months before the appointment of CIA Director John Brennan in March 2013. Mr. Morell previously spent two years as the head of the Agencys main analytic arm, the Directorate of Intelligence. Before that job, Mr. Morell served as the CIAs Associate Deputy Director from 2006 until 2008, helping with the overall leadership of the Agency and focusing in particular on its internal management.

Mr. Morell began his Agency career in 1980 as an analyst covering international energy issues. He later worked on East Asia for 14 years, holding a number of jobs in analysis and in management before his selection in 1999 as Director of the Office of Asian Pacific and Latin American Analysis. He also served as the intelligence briefer to President George W. Bush, as chief of the staff that produces the Presidents Daily Brief, and as an executive assistant to CIA Director George J. Tenet. After those assignments, Mr. Morell held a senior position overseas from 2003 until mid-2006. Upon his return to the United States, he served briefly as a Deputy Director at the National Counterterrorism Center, where he was in charge of analysis.

Mr. Morell earned a bachelors degree in economics from the University of Akron and a masters degree in economics from Georgetown University.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> Have not had any problems with my HMO. Have had all test ect. covered. Plus they are not going to drop myself and hubby for ACA care.


You're very fortunate. I hope you can continue in good health.

As we were told, if you like your insurance, you can keep it.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Not yet. I'm very interested to see how the lamestream journalists will spin Hillary away from the foreign spying and wire tapping of world leaders and diplomats. All part of Hillary's scheme when she was Sec of State; will be a huge problem for her run at the Presidency unless the lamestreamers cover for her like they did/do Obama. Which, of course, some will.


Sometimes news sources outside the US give us better information about something happening here and which our press hasn't reported on fully, for whatever variety of reasons they may give us.

*From the BBC News magazine:* 
*US spies on 'the entire globe', experts say*
By Tara McKelvey

The rusted gates in front of a building in Washington DC creak when they open and bang when they close. A camera anchored on a guardhouse watches the entrance.

On a blustery Thursday afternoon, three women stand outside the building, smoking. It is, after all, the French embassy.

The gates are designed to ward off intruders. So are security measures for computers and phones inside the building. They are, however, no obstacle for American spies. The embassy, at least according to media reports, has been bugged.

Meanwhile computers used by French delegates at the UN have reportedly been under surveillance, as has the mobile phone of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. And the US National Security Agency has monitored millions of French telephone calls, according to Le Monde.

According to the press accounts, Americans have been engaged in espionage on France, Germany and other countries - on a scale so vast that even jaded officials say they are taken aback.

"I am not naive. I know intelligence services have to do their job. But if it is true, it's deeply shocking," says one Western official.

"And if it's confirmed, the expression 'abuse of power', which has been used here and there, would not be entirely wrong. Of course, we are giving the US a chance to explain."

James Clapper, US director of national intelligence, has contested as "inaccurate and misleading" the press accounts about US electronic espionage. US officials have not denied spying on Ms Merkel, nor on the French diplomats.

US officials and those from other countries are still arguing over what happened. But no-one denies that nations spy, even on their friends.

European media organisations have revealed details of US eavesdropping, sparking an unprecedented public debate "The rule is that everybody spies on everybody - except when they have an agreement not to," says Steven Aftergood, head of a project on government secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists. "And then they may still do so."

Even given that tacit understanding, the US stands apart in the scope of its espionage capabilities.

"Every country has weapons for spying, but most have the equivalent of a howitzer," says James Bamford, who has written extensively on the National Security Agency. "In terms of eavesdropping, the US has a nuclear weapon."

Aftergood says, "We are photographing and listening to the entire globe."

In recent years, advances in technology have enabled the US to expand its electronic spying dramatically. The growth was driven in part by the effort to monitor threats after the al-Qaeda attacks in 2001.

Yet European officials say wide-scale surveillance operations on citizens and world leaders are harder to justify than monitoring of suspected al-Qaeda leaders.

The Europeans wonder not only why Americans would spy on their friends, but also whether these surveillance operations are legal.

A former US official says they are considered carefully at the highest levels. A decision to spy on the head of a Western government, for example, would be authorised by the president. The president would seek advice from the National Security Council, a team of senior advisers.

Researchers and former officials say decisions to spy on foreign leaders were likely made long ago - and adopted by presidents who later came into office.

Spying on a foreign leader falls under executive order 12333, (*NB:Executive Order 12333 was made on Dec. 4, 1981, by former President Reagan, covers espionage necessary to protect US interests and can be easily found on the National Archives website.*)

"Timely and accurate information about the activities, capabilities, plans and intentions of foreign powers, organizations and persons and their agents, is essential," the order reads.

Intelligence researchers and former US officials describe it as an open secret that even the closest of geopolitical allies spy on one another.

"Allies spy on each other because they don't have identical interests," says Jeffrey Richelson, author of The US Intelligence Community. "There are very few allies that are so close that there's no point in collecting intelligence."

In the 1920s and '30s, the UK used covert methods to monitor the US, he says.

At some point following the end of World War II, the Americans and the British agreed no longer to spy on each other. Eventually they decided to include Australia, Canada and New Zealand in their consortium, a group known as the "Five Eyes" alliance.

Espionage is part of statecraft, and these kinds of secret operations date back centuries.

Today, however, because of revelations in the mass media - provided by ex-NSA contractor Edward Snowden, for example - ordinary citizens, and not just spies and high-level officials, know about their governments' activities.

"The politics of the debate have changed," says Suzanne Nossel, a former deputy assistant secretary of state in the Obama administration.

"Things that we once suspected that were going on are going on. And things we never dreamed of are going on. There's no way that Europeans can lie back and accept that."


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I wonder how long before the truths of Benghazi will now be available after Sixty Minutes finally covered a tiny part of the story. At this point, I want the truth to come out two weeks before the next Presidential election. Or maybe just prior to the last Presidential Debate. Hillary can and should be penalized for her involvement of the four murdered Americans on her watch.


KPG
you are so full of stuff that this site begins to smell to high Heaven.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> And the facts are that Army General Carter Ham, head of the US Africa Command, was well aware of the situation and offered twice to provide more security in the month before the attack. Stevens refused both times--heavens knows why.


Probably because Hillary told him to. He did report to her after all.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

MaidInBedlam said:


> It seems like the folks who aren't at home are permanently vacationing here and on the other political topics.


You just insulted yourself and your friends. You did notice that didn't you? :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> You're very fortunate. I hope you can continue in good health.
> 
> As we were told, if you like your insurance, you can keep it.


According to David Axelrod, the new talking point will be if you like your insurance, SOME of you may be able to keep it. The original selling point can be placed beside the "shovel ready jobs" that weren't so shovel ready.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> You just insulted yourself and your friends. You did notice that didn't you? :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


Sorry, nice try.

I have spoken of this often. 
If what is being said does not describe me, it must not be about me. 
Which is why when so many people scream so loud about being insulted I just laugh.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Sorry, nice try.
> 
> I have spoken of this often.
> If what is being said does not describe me, it must not be about me.
> Which is why when so many people scream so loud about being insulted I just laugh.


jelun2
since most of us are "multiples", the insults are being divided and amount to nothing.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Huckleberry said:


> jelun2
> since most of us are "multiples", the insults are being divided and amount to nothing.


Hi, Huck. Welcome back. Were you away working?

I'm not you any more - I'm Rocky, whom I'd never heard of before last weekend. But I'm still a multiple.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

soloweygirl said:


> You just insulted yourself and your friends. You did notice that didn't you? :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


Your mind is a terrible thing to waste.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> Sorry, nice try.
> 
> I have spoken of this often.
> If what is being said does not describe me, it must not be about me.
> Which is why when so many people scream so loud about being insulted I just laugh.


Thanks for your common sens and patience.:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

MaidInBedlam said:


> Thanks for your common sens and patience.:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Thanks for the poster, jelun2. All too true...


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> This is a horror story. Sadly, it's not the only one of its kind that I've heard. But the right can't support the ACA because they've been told not to.
> 
> I don't want to turn your situation into an opportunity for a political rant. It's a nightmare situation. Have you been able to get any relief by now?


Yes, my teeth were all removed, which was such a relief. Unfortunately in the waiting time I had lot a lot of the bone due to infections/abscesses. But at least now I don't have the pain I did before. The up side of it is that when people I know have had health insurance issues I have been able to tell them what to do and what works. So I think that may be the silver lining ;-)


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> Yes, my teeth were all removed, which was such a relief. Unfortunately in the waiting time I had lot a lot of the bone due to infections/abscesses. But at least now I don't have the pain I did before. The up side of it is that when people I know have had health insurance issues I have been able to tell them what to do and what works. So I think that may be the silver lining ;-)


I guess the school of hard knocks gave you quite an education.

Your case should have gone to court, but the insurance policy must have made that impossible. They usually do. Binding arbitration, with the arbitrator someone close to the industry?


----------



## west coast kitty (May 26, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> Do you know how much of that oil we get to keep? This is not a trick question. I have read that the XL will carry oil for export. I don't know about the oil in this line.
> I know that the idea of natural gas is appealing.
> It is their land, they can do what they will as far as leasing.
> I have an idea that their fishing will be ruined anyway between invasive lines of fish, etc.


The US will be able to keep as much of the oil as they are willing to pay for. It is exported from Canada for processing in US facilities and available for sale to who ever purchases it.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I wonder why you didn't pay for the anesthetic, and have the teeth removed, and arrange with the dentist to return the money when the insurance paid. Or arrange to make payments with the dentist until the insurance paid.


 Maybe you ought to read the message before you give your highly experienced advice. The insurance policy did not cover the dental work, only the general anesthesia that was required, and the company insisted they wouldn't pay it, even when coverage was right there in the policy. Also, the anesthesia required pre-authorization; if the work was done before that, the HMO didn't have to pay.

Wait, you probably did read that but didn't understand it, the way you fail to understand so many things and yet pretend to know what you're talking about.

Ignore my first paragraph. You wouldn't understand it anyway.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> So does that mean that anytime I write "this is a fact" you will accept it as the truth?
> LOL, if only I had known.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :thumbup: :XD: :XD: :thumbup: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Do you think ACA will be any better than an HMO?


Of course. But what does that have to do with all the useless advice you just gave?


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Of course. But what does that have to do with all the useless advice you just gave?


It wasn't useless, you just did not agree with it. The decision to be made was what was better health choice: keeping rotten teeth in your mouth and wait for money, or getting them removed so that you don't get infections and secondary complications? Nothing more nothing less, and a nurse should know this even more what the decision should be best.

Just wait for the Death Panels to be up and running, teeth removal will be the least of a person's problems.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

I think that we now see what the problem might be with the lack of comprehension. Did you ever participate in an "active listening" workshop? 
I would have to guess that the answer is a resounding "NO".

This is what the poster had to say. 
Lkholcomb wrote:
Unfortunately even if you know your contract a lot of HMOs will try to deny services. I needed all my teeth removed because of a medical condition. We had the actual page number of the contract and read the thing to them. We didn't want them to cover the actual removal as we knew the dental insurance only covered a certain amount. But I needed general anesthesia for it, which was supposed to be covered for my issues. We had so many people just say it wasn't covered, to telling us to just have it done (it needed a pre-auth according to the contract or it would be denied after). My husband's employer, who had their contract with them, even called on our behalf because after a while nobody would call us back. It took going through the appeals process and then the attorney general before they would cover it. About a year, during which time I got more and more sick. Then after it, they sent us a letter saying it was denied! Unfortunately they just wanted the money from premiums and contracts and whenever they need to pay out they try to refuse. It is sickening. I'm also a nurse and have seen truly horrendous things that come about the insurance companies bs.

I know that it is difficult for you to envision as you have mounds of cash lying around for dealing with life's little turns. Not all of us have the thousands of dollars that it costs to pay an anesthesiologist for services without putting a serious dent in our emergency funds.

http://health.costhelper.com/anesthesia.html
The poster did not say that she had tooth decay, she said a medical condition. Once again, I have done the research for you.

http://symptoms.rightdiagnosis.com/cosymptoms/loose-tooth.htm

If one voids the contract with the insurance company the payment is NOT made. Period. 
Please, do some research before you decide what to instruct people to do with their money and lives.



lovethelake said:


> It wasn't useless, you just did not agree with it. The decision to be made was what was better health choice: keeping rotten teeth in your mouth and wait for money, or getting them removed so that you don't get infections and secondary complications? Nothing more nothing less, and a nurse should know this even more what the decision should be best.
> 
> Just wait for the Death Panels to be up and running, teeth removal will be the least of a person's problems.


I hear that the Death Panels will be very selective; computer illiteracy will be at the top of the list for qualifications.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> It wasn't useless, you just did not agree with it. The decision to be made was what was better health choice: keeping rotten teeth in your mouth and wait for money, or getting them removed so that you don't get infections and secondary complications? Nothing more nothing less, and a nurse should know this even more what the decision should be best.
> 
> Just wait for the Death Panels to be up and running, teeth removal will be the least of a person's problems.


I knew you wouldn't understand.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> It wasn't useless, you just did not agree with it. The decision to be made was what was better health choice: keeping rotten teeth in your mouth and wait for money, or getting them removed so that you don't get infections and secondary complications? Nothing more nothing less, and a nurse should know this even more what the decision should be best.
> 
> Just wait for the Death Panels to be up and running, teeth removal will be the least of a person's problems.


Be because the oral surgeon and hospital refused to do it unless they had the guarantee that they would be paid and yes I tried several oral surgeons. What most people don't realize is that the CAN refuse treatment if they will not be paid, unless it is an emergency. And even then they only need to treat the emergency, not the underlying medical condition. So when it got bad enough for me to go to the ER they would give me antibiotics and pain medicine, then eliminating the "emergency".

Yes as a nurse I know it's better to have gotten them out, but the anesthesia was close to $10,000. I don't know about you, but as I can no longer work as a nurse due to a disability my income is extremely limited. This was following an extremely difficult pregnancy where I almost died. Any monetary resources we had were depleted because of the medications I required during the pregnancy. We were actually moving in with my mother-in-law when I initially was told I needed the surgery to help her (and us) by sharing expenses. Not everybody has unlimited monetary income.

People often believe that lie that people need to be treated if they are sick. That is a horrible lie that leaves people like you assuming that I was a stupid nurse for not having it done earlier. Your "death panels" are in place now: they are called HMOs. They make the decision all the time who should live or die. I've seen it so many times. It's just that most people believe the lie that HMOs are here for the benefit of people. It's just that... A lie.

As for death panels, I have many friends is countries that have socialized health care, not one has "death panels".


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> Be because the oral surgeon and hospital refused to do it unless they had the guarantee that they would be paid and yes I tried several oral surgeons. What most people don't realize is that the CAN refuse treatment if they will not be paid, unless it is an emergency. And even then they only need to treat the emergency, not the underlying medical condition. So when it got bad enough for me to go to the ER they would give me antibiotics and pain medicine, then eliminating the "emergency".
> 
> Yes as a nurse I know it's better to have gotten them out, but the anesthesia was close to $10,000. I don't know about you, but as I can no longer work as a nurse due to a disability my income is extremely limited. This was following an extremely difficult pregnancy where I almost died. Any monetary resources we had were depleted because of the medications I required during the pregnancy. We were actually moving in with my mother-in-law when I initially was told I needed the surgery to help her (and us) by sharing expenses. Not everybody has unlimited monetary income.
> 
> ...


This should be posted wherever there are readers who still believe the current system is better than Obamacare. I wasn't aware of the extent to which ERs could go *not* to treat someone who is in need of care.

So much easier to use the codewords "death panels" or "they have to treat you" and to make up stories about "wonderful" doctors who must stop working because of Obamacare than to actually think about the situation and the millions of people who can't afford to pay outright for expensive medical treatment.

I'm surprised she didn't say "Let them eat cake."


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> Be because the oral surgeon and hospital refused to do it unless they had the guarantee that they would be paid and yes I tried several oral surgeons. What most people don't realize is that the CAN refuse treatment if they will not be paid, unless it is an emergency. And even then they only need to treat the emergency, not the underlying medical condition. So when it got bad enough for me to go to the ER they would give me antibiotics and pain medicine, then eliminating the "emergency".
> 
> Yes as a nurse I know it's better to have gotten them out, but the anesthesia was close to $10,000. I don't know about you, but as I can no longer work as a nurse due to a disability my income is extremely limited. This was following an extremely difficult pregnancy where I almost died. Any monetary resources we had were depleted because of the medications I required during the pregnancy. We were actually moving in with my mother-in-law when I initially was told I needed the surgery to help her (and us) by sharing expenses. Not everybody has unlimited monetary income.
> 
> ...


It's amazing, as I have commented before, how quickly people forget all the insurance company horrors of the pre-ACA days--chronically ill people being refused coverage, folks getting dumped off the rolls on technicalities when they developed serious and expensive conditions that needed treatment, therapies being refused on the basis on some insurance company clerk's recommendation. Somehow all that's been brushed aside, and the anti-ACA folks have persuaded themselves that these money-hungry conglomerates are their champions. Wake up, folks--these companies exist to make a profit, and they always have.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> If the insurance companies are so bad why not get rid of all of them and each person be totally responsible for themselves. No government involvement either.


Very funny. Just what I'd expect from a logic-disabled moron.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> If the insurance companies are so bad why not get rid of all of them and each person be totally responsible for themselves. No government involvement either.


LOL, please. You are making my ribs hurt. 
How would you prohibit companies from doing business without government intervention?
And, Joey? Saying that a business is profit driven is not saying that they are bad, it is saying that they are a business. [Of course, it is also not saying that they are good.]


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I made the statement to see how you would react. Just as I thought.
> 
> If the insurance companies did not make money, they would not be in business. Then there would be NO health care insurance.
> 
> ...


There is no reason insurance companies can't be reined in by some common-sense legislation and controls. And if they had exercised some common sense and decency in the past, then perhaps the ACA might not have been necessary. Most businesses exist to make a profit, of course, but insurance companies hold people's lives in their hands. In the pre-Obamacare days they were running wild--it's high time that the government tried to put an end to their shenanigans.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I made the statement to see how you would react. Just as I thought.
> 
> If the insurance companies did not make money, they would not be in business. Then there would be NO health care insurance.
> 
> ...


I don't know how old you are, but I remember when we used to deal with doctors directly, without having to get permission from an ins. company. We could do very well without them now - they add nothing to the experience other than skimming their money off the top.

I'd vote for no insurance companies, but I wasn't given the choice. I'd be happy with Medicare for all.

Quit sounding like a smart-a**. You're not smart (though the rest of the word certainly describes you.)


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> There is no reason insurance companies can't be reined in by some common-sense legislation and controls. And if they had exercised some common sense and decency in the past, then perhaps the ACA might not have been necessary. Most businesses exist to make a profit, of course, but insurance companies hold people's lives in their hands. In the pre-Obamacare days they were running wild--it's high time that the government tried to put an end to their shenanigans.


Medical insurance companies should never have been allowed to exist. Medical care should not be a business, except for the providers. Having someone else taking their cut simply adds to the cost without adding to the care.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I made the statement to see how you would react. Just as I thought.
> 
> If the insurance companies did not make money, they would not be in business. Then there would be NO health care insurance.
> 
> ...


You seem to have forgotten the piece about where insurance companies put their monies while they are stalling on making payment for legitimate claims. 
They are in the investment business. You did say that you are a tax consultant, correct? Geez.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> You seem to have forgotten the piece about where insurance companies put their monies while they are stalling on making payment for legitimate claims.
> They are in the investment business. You did say that you are a tax consultant, correct? Geez.


I don't think she's a tax _consultant_. She helps fill out tax returns.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> I don't know how old you are, but I remember when we used to deal with doctors directly, without having to get permission from an ins. company. We could do very well without them now - they add nothing to the experience other than skimming their money off the top.
> 
> I'd vote for no insurance companies, but I wasn't given the choice. I'd be happy with Medicare for all.
> 
> Quit sounding like a smart-a**. You're not smart (though the rest of the word certainly describes you.)


O.k. say we didn't have insurance companies. But just medicare, we would still have people who need medical care how would we provide for them? i am jsut wondering would there be enough money to cover it all? Would we raise taxes ect. I am just wondering how we would be able to do it all?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Medical insurance companies should never have been allowed to exist. Medical care should not be a business, except for the providers. Having someone else taking their cut simply adds to the cost without adding to the care.


You must be referring to the ten NEW taxes on medical devices and services posed and written into this law by the Democrats, huh? I KNOW how much you must LOVE all those new taxes so the govt can get more of everyone's money without adding to health care.


----------



## shayfaye (May 6, 2011)

I have United Health Care as my insurer through work. My generic prescription costs $37.50 for a three month supply if I use my insurance. If I use the $4 plan from Walmart, it cost me $10.00 for three months. And I pay for this insurance!! What is wrong with this picture? Hence, I no longer use my insurance, that I pay money for, when I buy my generic prescriptions. I am paying money for nothing and that is okay with you all????? It's a fraud perpetrated on workers through their health care insurance plans and by the employers who offer it to them to cut costs.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

shayfaye said:


> And I pay for this insurance!! What is wrong with this picture? Hence, I no longer use my insurance, that I pay money for, when I buy my generic prescriptions. I am paying money for nothing and that is okay with you all????? It's a fraud perpetrated on workers through their health care insurance plans and by the employers who offer it to them to cut costs.


Get used to it; because with the ACA, you'll be paying far more for nothing. But that is OK with you being a Liberal and Democrat and all. The ACA is a complete fraud and abuse of the lies told by Obama and his Administration. Drink up!


----------



## shayfaye (May 6, 2011)

You ladies are unbelievable. Did you even read my post? This is through my employer. I don't have a choice.
The ACA has nothing to do with it. And, yes, I am required to have it. It is part of our "package" and I can't opt out.
Leave Obama out of this one. He has no dog in this race.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> If we didn't have insurance companies, we wouldn't have Medicare either. Insurance companies are the reason the medical costs are so high. I have heard of someone who needed minor surgery. He went to one hospital and using his insurance, he would have paid about $25,000 additional. But at another hospital by paying cash it would only be $3,000.
> 
> The prescription drug insurance is a joke. We have Wisconsin Senior Care. Using the insurance, one prescription is $120 for 3 months. Paying cash it is $50.


Thanks Joey I did not know that. I am glad you know about taxes and what you have to know to be a tax consultant.
You have really help me to understand a lot of which I did not know. :thumbup:


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> Be because the oral surgeon and hospital refused to do it unless they had the guarantee that they would be paid and yes I tried several oral surgeons. What most people don't realize is that the CAN refuse treatment if they will not be paid, unless it is an emergency. And even then they only need to treat the emergency, not the underlying medical condition. So when it got bad enough for me to go to the ER they would give me antibiotics and pain medicine, then eliminating the "emergency".
> 
> Yes as a nurse I know it's better to have gotten them out, but the anesthesia was close to $10,000. I don't know about you, but as I can no longer work as a nurse due to a disability my income is extremely limited. This was following an extremely difficult pregnancy where I almost died. Any monetary resources we had were depleted because of the medications I required during the pregnancy. We were actually moving in with my mother-in-law when I initially was told I needed the surgery to help her (and us) by sharing expenses. Not everybody has unlimited monetary income.
> 
> ...


If this had been happening to me I would have used my credit card to pay for what I needed and then continue to go after the insurance company.
Why would one want to be in that much pain, and then get infection on top of it. that could have turned into something worst meaning infection. 
As it seem the out come was the insurance ending up having to pay for it.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

theyarnlady said:


> If this had been happening to me I would have used my credit card to pay for what I needed and then continue to go after the insurance company.
> Why would one want to be in that much pain, and then get infection on top of it. that could have turned into something worst meaning infection.
> As it seem the out come was the insurance ending up having to pay for it.


Because according to our contract, which I did read, if you had the procedure and it was not pre-authorized they would refuse it. Meaning if I paid for it up front and submitted it after they would not pay for it. This is a rather common clause in HMO contracts.

It must be nice to have a credit card with a $10,000 limit. The hospital also would not do it without guarantee of payment. Credit cards can be rejected, so it would not have worked for this.

Apparently people think I WANTED to live in pain. I will make it clear: I did nit want pain, I understood the problems with being REFUSED the surgery. It was not a choice I had. Doctors and hospitals can refuse to do procedures. It was NOT a choice I made.

The ONLY option was to go through the appeals process and then the attorney general. This is rather common, according to the person my husband spoke to at the attorney general. A court case would have not solved the problem as (1) they have attorneys experienced in this and (2) it would take longer to go through the court system, not to mention it would probably go through small claims court as I didn't have the money to hire and attorney and small claims court caps out below $10,000


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> If this had been happening to me I would have used my credit card to pay for what I needed and then continue to go after the insurance company.
> Why would one want to be in that much pain, and then get infection on top of it. that could have turned into something worst meaning infection.
> As it seem the out come was the insurance ending up having to pay for it.


Just a reason to play the victim. One could always buy supplemental insurance. I would not care what it cost, who I had to borrow money from, or if I had to take out a loan. There is no way I would allow rotting teeth to stay in my mouth. But I value my health more than my money.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

theyarnlady said:


> O.k. say we didn't have insurance companies. But just medicare, we would still have people who need medical care how would we provide for them? i am jsut wondering would there be enough money to cover it all? Would we raise taxes ect. I am just wondering how we would be able to do it all?


Well, obviously, it hasn't been fine tuned, but yes. 
Everyone would be covered for basic health care, preventative care and catastrophic events. 
I am sure you have seen some of the contributions from Canada and other nations that have a nationalized health care system. They seem to be the same sort of thing that we do with Medicare; there is a Medicare Advantage sort of system through private entities which keep them from freaking totally about the socialized medicine.

Personally, I would like to see a regionalized program.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Just a reason to play the victim. One could always buy supplemental insurance. I would not care what it cost, who I had to borrow money from, or if I had to take out a loan. There is no way I would allow rotting teeth to stay in my mouth. But I value my health more than my money.


You all make your disdain for others much too obvious when you continue, even after being corrected, to use terms like rotting teeth. 
It was not decayed teeth. She did not say caries, she said a medical condition, I provided a list of possible causes. 
It is udderly disgusting that you refuse to have any compassion for others. "But I value my health more than my money." could only be posted by an ignorant ******** who hasn't had to make the choice.


----------



## shayfaye (May 6, 2011)

Well said Jelun2. I am so tired of LTL's holier than thou attitude. LTL - You need to bring your sorry self down to Southwest VA where we have the largest RAM in America. Yes, right here in your precious VA. I never saw people treated the way they are here until I moved here. It's amazing that Northern VA has so much and this region has to fight for every scrap.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> Because according to our contract, which I did read, if you had the procedure and it was not pre-authorized they would refuse it. Meaning if I paid for it up front and submitted it after they would not pay for it. This is a rather common clause in HMO contracts.
> 
> It must be nice to have a credit card with a $10,000 limit. The hospital also would not do it without guarantee of payment. Credit cards can be rejected, so it would not have worked for this.
> 
> ...


They just can't help it, as much as they try, it seems impossible for them to hold a thought in their heads for long enough to form a response and they haven't figured out yet that they can check back in the text to actually see what you said. <smh>


----------



## shayfaye (May 6, 2011)

lkholcomb - I know what you were going through. I take a specialty medication and am on a program with the pharma company that makes it. When my insurance was switched over, I was told by my former specialty pharmacy, MEDCO, that I had refills remaining and they were sending it out. They said they had approval. When I kept telling them that my insurance had changed and not to send the medication, they said "Don't worry about it." I finally had to say to them that if they sent it I would refuse it. This medication costs $7500 a month. I would have been responsible for the entire amount had I accepted it, regardless of what they were saying. You have to watch them like a hawk and read everything. Big corporations are not on our sides!!!!


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Insurance is a form of gambling. Sometimes I wonder why we still have business that gamble only a certain percentage of their insurees will need the servise included in any insurance policy. Insurance companies make money hand over fist. Health insurance companies rely on the income from younger people who use their services far less than the elderly to take care of the costs of care AND to make a profit.


jelun2 said:


> LOL, please. You are making my ribs hurt.
> How would you prohibit companies from doing business without government intervention?
> And, Joey? Saying that a business is profit driven is not saying that they are bad, it is saying that they are a business. [Of course, it is also not saying that they are good.]


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> I think that we now see what the problem might be with the lack of comprehension. Did you ever participate in an "active listening" workshop?
> I would have to guess that the answer is a resounding "NO".
> 
> This is what the poster had to say.
> ...


I would question what is more important to the poster. To have the teeth pulled under anesthesia or to wait, stay in pain and get sicker ? She claimed she had the money to cover it. Once you are out of pain and healing, then go after the insurance company. Regardless of what is in a policy, it just makes sense to fix the problem first, since they could afford to do so. I'm sorry to hear that she doesn't consider her being in pain and getting sicker worthy of using their emergency funds.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

shayfaye said:


> You ladies are unbelievable. Did you even read my post? This is through my employer. I don't have a choice.
> The ACA has nothing to do with it. And, yes, I am required to have it. It is part of our "package" and I can't opt out.
> Leave Obama out of this one. He has no dog in this race.


So complain to your employer and get the drug part either dropped or make it the employee's choice which to use. You're the one paying for the insurance and not using it. Whether we are OK with that doesn't come into play.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> O.k. say we didn't have insurance companies. But just medicare, we would still have people who need medical care how would we provide for them? i am jsut wondering would there be enough money to cover it all? Would we raise taxes ect. I am just wondering how we would be able to do it all?


Right now, all private insurance is paid for either by the employer or the individual or both. Medicare is paid for as well, by payroll tax or deductions from Social Security. There are also government subsidies for low-income or no-income people, mainly in Medicaid. If these payments were instead paid into a Medicare-for-all plan, we'd probably come out ahead, since the ins. companies make a profit and still cover medical bills, though apparently not all of them.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> So complain to your employer and get the drug part either dropped or make it the employee's choice which to use. You're the one paying for the insurance and not using it. Whether we are OK with that doesn't come into play.


You really don't understand, do you?


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> So complain to your employer and get the drug part either dropped or make it the employee's choice which to use. You're the one paying for the insurance and not using it. Whether we are OK with that doesn't come into play.


soloweygirl
you are dumber than dumb. So sorry for your suffering.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> I would question what is more important to the poster. To have the teeth pulled under anesthesia or to wait, stay in pain and get sicker ? She claimed she had the money to cover it. Once you are out of pain and healing, then go after the insurance company. Regardless of what is in a policy, it just makes sense to fix the problem first, since they could afford to do so. I'm sorry to hear that she doesn't consider her being in pain and getting sicker worthy of using their emergency funds.


In fact, she claimed she did not have the money to pay for it. Not everyone has a spare $10,000 to throw away.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> They just can't help it, as much as they try, it seems impossible for them to hold a thought in their heads for long enough to form a response and they haven't figured out yet that they can check back in the text to actually see what you said. <smh>


Exactly.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> You really don't understand, do you?


Just the opposite. The employer can have the drug coverage changed in their overall plan. It can accommodate the wishes of the employer. When employers look at the different plans offered by the insurance company, they pick the plan(s) that is/are best for their needs. What is not being said, is if the employees got to choose from more than one plan and this was the plan that the poster chose. There is usually more to the story.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> In fact, she claimed she did not have the money to pay for it. Not everyone has a spare $10,000 to throw away.


No, she claimed to have the money in an emergency fund. If her health and amount of pain are not considered an emergency, then so be it - only she can decide that. She's the one suffering. All she mentioned is the cost and if she didn't have the money, the operation wouldn't be done. She doesn't mention trying to figure out another way to get the issue fixed, other than waiting for the insurance company. Arrangements can be made with hospitals and doctors for payment in cash. It happens everyday.


----------



## shayfaye (May 6, 2011)

You obviously don't know where I am or where I work. You really are clueless about how some people have to live their lives, aren't you?


soloweygirl said:


> So complain to your employer and get the drug part either dropped or make it the employee's choice which to use. You're the one paying for the insurance and not using it. Whether we are OK with that doesn't come into play.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> No, she claimed to have the money in an emergency fund. If her health and amount of pain are not considered an emergency, then so be it - only she can decide that. She's the one suffering. All she mentioned is the cost and if she didn't have the money, the operation wouldn't be done. She doesn't mention trying to figure out another way to get the issue fixed, other than waiting for the insurance company. Arrangements can be made with hospitals and doctors for payment in cash. It happens everyday.


I never claimed to have the money in an "emergency fund". I did not have the money for the anesthesia. I had money for the extractions themselves (which under ordinary circumstances could have been done in a dentists office). I stated multiple times I didn't have the money.

Obviously you know little about what happens every day in the health care industry. Yes, some doctors make payment plans. Hospitals make them if they need to AFTER the service has been provided. That is why they want a guarantee of payment up front. If a person without the proper coverage gets a service and then gets the bill and get overwhelmed with the bills (which happens a lot) and files bankruptcy then the hospital doesn't get paid. The hospital still needs to pay their staff, so it's the hospital itself that is out the money. This causes the cost of care to be past down to other consumers by raising of costs.

If you all think it is so easy to get a payment plan for a $10,000 procedure, then please do it. I asked several times, at different places. As for finding other options to pay, we tried, but there were none. Sometimes there really is no way to get money at all.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

And everyday services are refused to people who are in dire need. Parents have been told they need to find a way to guarantee the payment when their child needs surgery for cancer. Then when they can't find it their child doesn't get surgery and dies. Sure they need to treat an emergency, but that means they only need to restart the heart/lungs/ect, and not that the underlying condition needs to be treated. 

It must be nice to live in a world where everybody just gets what they need and "magically" the money appears.

As for being a victim, I laugh. Most people who know me don't even know about this or my other issues unless they happen to see a symptom. I stay home when things get bad so others don't need to know. I seriously laughed at the victim bit.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> I never claimed to have the money in an "emergency fund". I did not have the money for the anesthesia. I had money for the extractions themselves (which under ordinary circumstances could have been done in a dentists office). I stated multiple times I didn't have the money.
> 
> Obviously you know little about what happens every day in the health care industry. Yes, some doctors make payment plans. Hospitals make them if they need to AFTER the service has been provided. That is why they want a guarantee of payment up front. If a person without the proper coverage gets a service and then gets the bill and get overwhelmed with the bills (which happens a lot) and files bankruptcy then the hospital doesn't get paid. The hospital still needs to pay their staff, so it's the hospital itself that is out the money. This causes the cost of care to be past down to other consumers by raising of costs.
> 
> If you all think it is so easy to get a payment plan for a $10,000 procedure, then please do it. I asked several times, at different places. As for finding other options to pay, we tried, but there were none. Sometimes there really is no way to get money at all.


Please, don't feel that you need to explain yourself to these women they thrive on that. 
These people are just plain nasty without a single thought of how what they post affects how other people take it or feel about it. 
I still think borderline personality in at least one.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I would not have prescription insurance if it was not required by law. If you are on Medicare you HAVE to HAVE prescription insurance. At least Wisconsin has a very reasonable substitution for Medicare part D, even if it does not pay to use it.


Where is it required by law? Certainly not in my state.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> I never claimed to have the money in an "emergency fund". I did not have the money for the anesthesia. I had money for the extractions themselves (which under ordinary circumstances could have been done in a dentists office). I stated multiple times I didn't have the money.
> 
> Obviously you know little about what happens every day in the health care industry. Yes, some doctors make payment plans. Hospitals make them if they need to AFTER the service has been provided. That is why they want a guarantee of payment up front. If a person without the proper coverage gets a service and then gets the bill and get overwhelmed with the bills (which happens a lot) and files bankruptcy then the hospital doesn't get paid. The hospital still needs to pay their staff, so it's the hospital itself that is out the money. This causes the cost of care to be past down to other consumers by raising of costs.
> 
> If you all think it is so easy to get a payment plan for a $10,000 procedure, then please do it. I asked several times, at different places. As for finding other options to pay, we tried, but there were none. Sometimes there really is no way to get money at all.


If you have a home, then I would suggest getting a home equity line of credit. I did, just for those types of emergencies. I just try to have as many angles covered as I can. I even have flood insurance $400/yr and earthquake insurance $300/yr just so that I can peace of mind. Didn't take a vacation this year, so used that fund to pay for my added insurance. I just value my self reliance and doing everything I can do to be independent of the Federal Government as possible.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> Because according to our contract, which I did read, if you had the procedure and it was not pre-authorized they would refuse it. Meaning if I paid for it up front and submitted it after they would not pay for it. This is a rather common clause in HMO contracts.
> 
> It must be nice to have a credit card with a $10,000 limit. The hospital also would not do it without guarantee of payment. Credit cards can be rejected, so it would not have worked for this.
> 
> ...


Gee I have an HMO and never had a problem getting referals. Thats a shame. And they have always reinburst me when it was money out of pocket.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> If we didn't have insurance companies, we wouldn't have Medicare either. Insurance companies are the reason the medical costs are so high. I have heard of someone who needed minor surgery. He went to one hospital and using his insurance, he would have paid about $25,000 additional. But at another hospital by paying cash it would only be $3,000.
> 
> The prescription drug insurance is a joke. We have Wisconsin Senior Care. Using the insurance, one prescription is $120 for 3 months. Paying cash it is $50.


Don't you mean "if we didn't have insurance companies we wouldn't *need* Medicare." I don't think that sentence is true in either form. Older people were being wiped out by medical bills. Something had to be done to keep them alive and healthy. And boy, did that work!

As for your other story, a family member of mine who gets med. ins. at work, with no choice of company, was accidentally sent by a doctor to a lab that didn't take his insurance. Nobody said anything, they took his $20 copay, did his tests, and two weeks later sent him a bill for $450. No matter who he spoke to, that amount would not come down, even though they would have paid an insurance company about one third as much. Finally the doctor heard about it (his secy tried to get the amount lowered but finally gave up after 6 months) and threatened the lab with never sending them another referral. They forgave the entire bill.

Not everybody is as stubborn as my relative. Many people would have paid it. It was, after all, not $10,000 but "only" $450. So much for your statement that you can get care cheaper without using insurance.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You must be referring to the ten NEW taxes on medical devices and services posed and written into this law by the Democrats, huh? I KNOW how much you must LOVE all those new taxes so the govt can get more of everyone's money without adding to health care.


You don't understand, do you?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> You don't understand, do you?


She doesn't, Purl. And there's no use trying to explain. Why bother?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Get used to it; because with the ACA, you'll be paying far more for nothing. But that is OK with you being a Liberal and Democrat and all. The ACA is a complete fraud and abuse of the lies told by Obama and his Administration. Drink up!


You really don't understand.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> Just the opposite. The employer can have the drug coverage changed in their overall plan. It can accommodate the wishes of the employer. When employers look at the different plans offered by the insurance company, they pick the plan(s) that is/are best for their needs. What is not being said, is if the employees got to choose from more than one plan and this was the plan that the poster chose. There is usually more to the story.


Most people I know have very little say, if any, in choosing the plan. We don't all work for large corporations that can arrange for a variety of plans.

Besides, Ms. Empathy, since you have to make your choice before you get sick, the only way to be certain that every possible situation would be covered is by choosing the most expensive plan, whose cost could easily be prohibitive. But it's not your problem. Keep lecturing the person who did have the problem. That should make it all better.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> No, she claimed to have the money in an emergency fund. If her health and amount of pain are not considered an emergency, then so be it - only she can decide that. She's the one suffering. All she mentioned is the cost and if she didn't have the money, the operation wouldn't be done. She doesn't mention trying to figure out another way to get the issue fixed, other than waiting for the insurance company. Arrangements can be made with hospitals and doctors for payment in cash. It happens everyday.


Sure. You keep on believing that. That's why insurance companies were making out like bandits. They collect the premiums and don't pay out. The ACA won't allow that.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Sure. You keep on believing that. That's why insurance companies were making out like bandits. They collect the premiums and don't pay out. The ACA won't allow that.


I was the one who mentioned an emergency fund. <smh>


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> I never claimed to have the money in an "emergency fund". I did not have the money for the anesthesia. I had money for the extractions themselves (which under ordinary circumstances could have been done in a dentists office). I stated multiple times I didn't have the money.
> 
> Obviously you know little about what happens every day in the health care industry. Yes, some doctors make payment plans. Hospitals make them if they need to AFTER the service has been provided. That is why they want a guarantee of payment up front. If a person without the proper coverage gets a service and then gets the bill and get overwhelmed with the bills (which happens a lot) and files bankruptcy then the hospital doesn't get paid. The hospital still needs to pay their staff, so it's the hospital itself that is out the money. This causes the cost of care to be past down to other consumers by raising of costs.
> 
> If you all think it is so easy to get a payment plan for a $10,000 procedure, then please do it. I asked several times, at different places. As for finding other options to pay, we tried, but there were none. Sometimes there really is no way to get money at all.


The New York Times recently had an article on payment plans that some doctors and dentists set up for patients who can't pay. The contract is not with the doctor but with a credit card company that can start with a 25% interest rate, but a much higher one if a payment is missed.

Following is just the beginning of an editorial on the subject:

Patients around the nation are being victimized by medical credit cards that can lead to financial calamity. These cards, issued by specialty finance companies as well as commercial banks, carry exorbitant interest rates after an initial period of zero interest expires  with heavy penalties for late payments. They are often pushed on patients with modest incomes by health care providers who want to make sure that they get paid, even if some of their patients end up with huge credit card bills they cant afford. Unless strong regulatory action is taken to curb the abuses, financial companies will continue to gouge consumers at their most vulnerable moments, when they are in pain and need medical attention.

Doctors and dentists whose offices arrange for these credit cards say these kinds of loans help patients pay for the care and procedures they need. But its hard to imagine a situation in which a consumer is more susceptible to financial coercion by a provider with a conflict of interest.

The whole editorial is at 
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/20/opinion/sunday/alarming-abuses-of-medical-credit-cards.html

and the article it refers to is at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/14/business/economy/patients-mired-in-costly-credit-from-doctors.html


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Sure. You keep on believing that. That's why insurance companies were making out like bandits. They collect the premiums and don't pay out. The ACA won't allow that.


Hi Purl
How was your day? 
It is hopeless to try to work this out with any of them. They decide that the wrong person said something, they never go back to double check. If some supplies one set of answers they come up with a different way of expressing their concerns. 
Once you provide all the information they could possible want or need they attack your grammar. 
I guess the poor things have never dealt with anyone who had other things beside prepositions and passive nouns going on during their childhood. 
Personally, I think it is more valuable to be smart than to avoid a misplaced comma. That could just be because I am smarter than the righties around here.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> If you have a home, then I would suggest getting a home equity line of credit. I did, just for those types of emergencies. I just try to have as many angles covered as I can. I even have flood insurance $400/yr and earthquake insurance $300/yr just so that I can peace of mind. Didn't take a vacation this year, so used that fund to pay for my added insurance. I just value my self reliance and doing everything I can do to be independent of the Federal Government as possible.


Well, aren't you special?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> Gee I have an HMO and never had a problem getting referals. Thats a shame. And they have always reinburst me when it was money out of pocket.


Either you've been lucky with your HMO or else you haven't needed expensive treatment. In either case, I'm happy for you.

What HMO do you have? It might help other people to know.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> She doesn't, Purl. And there's no use trying to explain. Why bother?


I didn't bother. And won't.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Maybe not exactly, but if you do not have acceptable prescription insurance from the time you start Medicare. I was told there would be a penalty approximately the same as it you would have paid the premiums for that length of time. If at any time you would try to get Prescription insurance.
> 
> This is info from my supplemental insurance company, and the agent directed me to Wisconsin Senior Care for the prescription coverage. $40 a month from her and $30 a year in WSC. The only difference is the deductible. There was a set deductible for the insurance company. In WSC it depends on your income. $185 + amount of your income over about $45,000. Numbers approximate.


I don't know about your second paragraph, but the first one is true. And each year, if you want to change drug plans, you must do it during the enrollment period (which used to end Dec. 30 but now ends Dec. 7) or pay a penalty.

And if, during the year, your doctor prescribes a med that's not in your plan's formulary, you're stuck. You can't switch to another plan (except under narrow circumstances), though you have to keep paying the premiums in addition to the medicine's costs.

If you don't have drug coverage, some mfrs. of expensive pharmaceuticals may let you have them cheaper, but that's not available to people with Plan D even if the plan isn't paying for the meds. This might be a good reason not to get Plan D. There are some state programs that help with drug costs, and that might be all you need.

To add insult to injury, an expensive drug will get you into the donut hole quickly, even though you're paying for it yourself.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> I was the one who mentioned an emergency fund. <smh>


It's hard to tell the difference between you and Lkholcomb. You both have L's in your names.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Hi Purl
> How was your day?
> It is hopeless to try to work this out with any of them. They decide that the wrong person said something, they never go back to double check. If some supplies one set of answers they come up with a different way of expressing their concerns.
> Once you provide all the information they could possible want or need they attack your grammar.
> ...


Don't make fun of good grammar - I'm a stickler for it. Also punctuation.

But misplaced comma or not, there's no doubt that you're smarter than they are. At least you were able to absorb what Lkholcomb was saying, unlike, well, you know.

Besides, only one of them can spell and write grammatical sentences. And it's not the one who thinks she can.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Don't make fun of good grammar - I'm a stickler for it. Also punctuation.
> 
> But misplaced comma or not, there's no doubt that you're smarter than they are. At least you were able to absorb what Lkholcomb was saying, unlike, well, you know.
> 
> Besides, only one of them can spell and write grammatical sentences. And it's not the one who thinks she can.


Oh, I would never laugh at it. I wish it had stuck, but, I know why it didn't and it is what it is. 
I can't imagine calling anyone on it if I were good at it and another person were not either. I don't know that it isn't partially a gift as spelling is. I find it quite annoying when people who are lucky enough to be able to spell put others down for not being able to.
I wish I understood that whold prescription, donut hole thing. I suppose I will have to ask my group insurance people soon if the prescription portion of my health insurance stays in place after I hit 65. How nice would that be?


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Either you've been lucky with your HMO or else you haven't needed expensive treatment. In either case, I'm happy for you.
> 
> What HMO do you have? It might help other people to know.


Oh I wish that were true. 3 MRI four hospitalizations two operations I am lucky, and very thankful.

I really do wish that everyone will be able to have good insurance.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Oh, I would never laugh at it. I wish it had stuck, but, I know why it didn't and it is what it is.
> I can't imagine calling anyone on it if I were good at it and another person were not either. I don't know that it isn't partially a gift as spelling is. I find it quite annoying when people who are lucky enough to be able to spell put others down for not being able to.
> I wish I understood that whold prescription, donut hole thing. I suppose I will have to ask my group insurance people soon if the prescription portion of my health insurance stays in place after I hit 65. How nice would that be?


I think the ACA is supposed to make changes in the drug plan, including the donut hole, one of our legacies from Bush.

I was one of those people born with good grammar and spelling. My husband wasn't - he's mildly dyslexic, though he hasn't let that stop him from reading ALL DAY LONG. Our son was also born with good grammar. It's just a lucky thing, like perfect pitch or blue eyes. It makes some things a little easier. That's how come I was a copy editor for 10 years after college, which proves that it didn't make it easier to make money.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> Oh I wish that were true. 3 MRI four hospitalizations two operations I am lucky, and very thankful.
> 
> I really do wish that everyone will be able to have good insurance.


That's what we're hoping Obamacare will provide. No other recent administration has managed to pass any kind of medical insurance, so this is our one chance.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

theyarnlady said:


> Oh I wish that were true. 3 MRI four hospitalizations two operations I am lucky, and very thankful.
> 
> I really do wish that everyone will be able to have good insurance.


Oh heck, is that all? :lol:


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> I think that we now see what the problem might be with the lack of comprehension. Did you ever participate in an "active listening" workshop?
> I would have to guess that the answer is a resounding "NO".
> 
> This is what the poster had to say.
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I made the statement to see how you would react. Just as I thought.
> 
> If the insurance companies did not make money, they would not be in business. Then there would be NO health care insurance.
> 
> ...


Let's just get rid of all those insurance companies!


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> The New York Times recently had an article on payment plans that some doctors and dentists set up for patients who can't pay. The contract is not with the doctor but with a credit card company that can start with a 25% interest rate, but a much higher one if a payment is missed.
> 
> Following is just the beginning of an editorial on the subject:
> 
> ...


We got one of those to cover the dental extractions until we got our taxes back. Unfortunately it didn't go up to the full amount for anesthesia. But you are right the interest rates are extreme. My dad found out and offered to pay the full amount after the zero interest period and then we would pay him back at a lower interest rate. These cards can be good in theory, but the doctors and hopitals need to participate in it. But with the onset of these credit cards I've found doctors to be less likely to make a payment plan. I'm guessing it's because if they get paid up front for the service and don't have to worry about the risk of collection costs they end up in a better place. It really puts doctors and nurses in the crappy position of promoting, in a way, these high interest cards. Most doctors and nurses I know (and I've known and worked with many) are disgusted at the current system, especially when a desk jockey at an HMO tells them how to do their job.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> If you have a home, then I would suggest getting a home equity line of credit. I did, just for those types of emergencies. I just try to have as many angles covered as I can. I even have flood insurance $400/yr and earthquake insurance $300/yr just so that I can peace of mind. Didn't take a vacation this year, so used that fund to pay for my added insurance. I just value my self reliance and doing everything I can do to be independent of the Federal Government as possible.


Nope, no house at the time.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

theyarnlady said:


> Gee I have an HMO and never had a problem getting referals. Thats a shame. And they have always reinburst me when it was money out of pocket.


Referrals are different from pre-authorization.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> We got one of those to cover the dental extractions until we got our taxes back. Unfortunately it didn't go up to the full amount for anesthesia. But you are right the interest rates are extreme. My dad found out and offered to pay the full amount after the zero interest period and then we would pay him back at a lower interest rate. These cards can be good in theory, but the doctors and hopitals need to participate in it. But with the onset of these credit cards I've found doctors to be less likely to make a payment plan. I'm guessing it's because if they get paid up front for the service and don't have to worry about the risk of collection costs they end up in a better place. It really puts doctors and nurses in the crappy position of promoting, in a way, these high interest cards. Most doctors and nurses I know (and I've known and worked with many) are disgusted at the current system, especially when a desk jockey at an HMO tells them how to do their job.


I didn't know they existed until 2 weeks ago, but that's prob. because I've never needed one. How can a doctor maintain a good relationship with a patient while putting the patient in the hands of a loan shark?

As the editorial says, it's the most vulnerable who are set up for this. Bless your father for coming through for you. Not everyone has a father with the wherewithal to do that.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Get used to it; because with the ACA, you'll be paying far more for nothing. But that is OK with you being a Liberal and Democrat and all. The ACA is a complete fraud and abuse of the lies told by Obama and his Administration. Drink up!


Oh stop your damned blathering! You have no idea about what you are talking about. You are just pathetic!


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> It wasn't useless, you just did not agree with it. The decision to be made was what was better health choice: keeping rotten teeth in your mouth and wait for money, or getting them removed so that you don't get infections and secondary complications? Nothing more nothing less, and a nurse should know this even more what the decision should be best.
> 
> Just wait for the Death Panels to be up and running, teeth removal will be the least of a person's problems.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: What a fool believes!


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

lovethelake said:


> Just a reason to play the victim. One could always buy supplemental insurance. I would not care what it cost, who I had to borrow money from, or if I had to take out a loan. There is no way I would allow rotting teeth to stay in my mouth. But I value my health more than my money.


Why do you feel the need to be so nasty? Geesh.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

soloweygirl said:


> I would question what is more important to the poster. To have the teeth pulled under anesthesia or to wait, stay in pain and get sicker ? She claimed she had the money to cover it. Once you are out of pain and healing, then go after the insurance company. Regardless of what is in a policy, it just makes sense to fix the problem first, since they could afford to do so. I'm sorry to hear that she doesn't consider her being in pain and getting sicker worthy of using their emergency funds.


Bend over, and keep on going. This is putting it mildly.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Well, aren't you special?


I would say responsible. But thank you for the compliment, it was nice to see so early in the morning.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> Nope, no house at the time.


So this dental emergency happened years and years ago? Would this story have happened the same way today? Or is it like a 60 year old reminiscing about her pregnancy and delivery 40 years ago?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I'm with you Church Lady.



lovethelake said:


> I would say responsible. But thank you for the compliment, it was nice to see so early in the morning.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> So this dental emergency happened years and years ago? Would this story have happened the same way today? Or is it like a 60 year old reminiscing about her pregnancy and delivery 40 years ago?


Honey, I'm not even close to 60 years old. Remember not everyone who is here is older. I'll be 35 in a few weeks. I was 30 when I finally had the surgery.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Lkholcomb said:


> Honey, I'm not even close to 60 years old. Remember not everyone who is here is older. I'll be 35 in a few weeks. I was 30 when I finally had the surgery.


The key word was 'like', did not say you were 60.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> It wasn't useless, you just did not agree with it. The decision to be made was what was better health choice: keeping rotten teeth in your mouth and wait for money, or getting them removed so that you don't get infections and secondary complications? Nothing more nothing less, and a nurse should know this even more what the decision should be best.
> 
> Just wait for the Death Panels to be up and running, teeth removal will be the least of a person's problems.


lovethelake
is there anthing positive in your live? You are so full of doomsday. So glad that future generations don't have crap like yours to put up with. Obamacare will be a normal, Immigration ironed out and fracking a thing of the past as well as Pipelines running across our nation.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You must be referring to the ten NEW taxes on medical devices and services posed and written into this law by the Democrats, huh? I KNOW how much you must LOVE all those new taxes so the govt can get more of everyone's money without adding to health care.


KPG
start burying your green backs before the govenment will come for them. Suffered some traumatic injury in your life?


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> So complain to your employer and get the drug part either dropped or make it the employee's choice which to use. You're the one paying for the insurance and not using it. Whether we are OK with that doesn't come into play.


soloweygirl
you sure know absolutely nothing about insurance and particularly not about group insurance. Oh well, that goes with the territory.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> I would say responsible. But thank you for the compliment, it was nice to see so early in the morning.


You've never seen Saturday Night Live? There was a character called the Church Lady who would say that.

I meant "special" as in "special ed."


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> The key word was 'like', did not say you were 60.


Can't you ever say "Sorry, I guess I was mistaken"?

Besides, if the poster isn't even 35 yet, how could she remember anything that happened to her 40 years ago, "like" or not "like"?


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Lkholcomb said:


> I never claimed to have the money in an "emergency fund". I did not have the money for the anesthesia. I had money for the extractions themselves (which under ordinary circumstances could have been done in a dentists office). I stated multiple times I didn't have the money.
> 
> Obviously you know little about what happens every day in the health care industry. Yes, some doctors make payment plans. Hospitals make them if they need to AFTER the service has been provided. That is why they want a guarantee of payment up front. If a person without the proper coverage gets a service and then gets the bill and get overwhelmed with the bills (which happens a lot) and files bankruptcy then the hospital doesn't get paid. The hospital still needs to pay their staff, so it's the hospital itself that is out the money. This causes the cost of care to be past down to other consumers by raising of costs.
> 
> If you all think it is so easy to get a payment plan for a $10,000 procedure, then please do it. I asked several times, at different places. As for finding other options to pay, we tried, but there were none. Sometimes there really is no way to get money at all.


I know you can make arrangements with doctors and hospitals prior to procedures to lower the costs if you pay cash. I did this for my sister, so it can be done. If you didn't do it, so be it. You did say you had the money but it would wipe out your emergency fund, and the story continues to change...


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> I know you can make arrangements with doctors and hospitals prior to procedures to lower the costs if you pay cash. I did this for my sister, so it can be done. If you didn't do it, so be it. You did say you had the money but it would wipe out your emergency fund, and the story continues to change...


It wasn't she who mentioned an emergency fund, it was I.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> You've never seen Saturday Night Live? There was a character called the Church Lady who would say that.
> 
> I meant "special" as in "special ed."


WOW that is one of the most offensive posts I have seen. So now you are mocking the mentally disabled? You prove my point, libs will use anyone in very cruel and vulgar ways to attack anyone that they are angry with or disagree with on any issue.

What is also appalling is how all the libs remained quiet about the cruel mocking of some of our most vulnerable citizens. Disagree with Obama you are accused of being a racist. But let a lib mock the mentally handicapped the Obamacultists cheer and support their fellow cultists.

At least now there is proof.


----------



## shayfaye (May 6, 2011)

LTL - As Janeway is fond of saying, "Button it!"


lovethelake said:


> WOW that is one of the most offensive posts I have seen. So now you are mocking the mentally disabled? You prove my point, libs will use anyone in very cruel and vulgar ways to attack anyone that they are angry with or disagree with on any issue.
> 
> What is also appalling is how all the libs remained quiet about the cruel mocking of some of our most vulnerable citizens. Disagree with Obama you are accused of being a racist. But let a lib mock the mentally handicapped the Obamacultists cheer and support their fellow cultists.
> 
> At least now there is proof.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> WOW that is one of the most offensive posts I have seen. So now you are mocking the mentally disabled? You prove my point, libs will use anyone in very cruel and vulgar ways to attack anyone that they are angry with or disagree with on any issue.
> 
> What is also appalling is how all the libs remained quiet about the cruel mocking of some of our most vulnerable citizens. Disagree with Obama you are accused of being a racist. But let a lib mock the mentally handicapped the Obamacultists cheer and support their fellow cultists.
> 
> At least now there is proof.


Most of the kids I knew in special ed were there for behavior problems. You can define it as you see it. Go ahead, be offended. But at least admit that I'm only one person and don't speak for anyone else.

Or is that too much for you to understand?


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> Sure. You keep on believing that. That's why insurance companies were making out like bandits. They collect the premiums and don't pay out. The ACA won't allow that.


With all the lies repeatedly being spewed by this administration, your stating that the ACA won't allow that is comical at the very least.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> With all the lies repeatedly being spewed by this administration, your stating that the ACA won't allow that is comical at the very least.


Lies? Document that, please?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> With all the lies repeatedly being spewed by this administration, your stating that the ACA won't allow that is comical at the very least.


You and your friends keep using the word "spewed" in connection with "lies." It loses all meaning when repeated over and over, besides being a little disgusting.

But I wouldn't expect you to understand.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> So this dental emergency happened years and years ago? Would this story have happened the same way today? Or is it like a 60 year old reminiscing about her pregnancy and delivery 40 years ago?


lovethelake
is like reading your posts which never say anything new or relevant. Well I guess that happens when you are so remote from civilization.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Poor Purl said:
 

> You and your friends keep using the word "spewed" in connection with "lies." It loses all meaning when repeated over and over, besides being a little disgusting.
> 
> But I wouldn't expect you to understand.


Poor Purl
spewed is acctually a fairly new word for them.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I'm surprised that she was unable to go to a bank or credit union for a lower interest loan. I have been with my credit union for 45 years. By the rules of the credit union a signature loan is 12% but you can negotiate loans at a much lower rate.
> 
> As far as the insurance company. They could be sued for breach of contract. Sometimes all it takes is a letter from an attorney


And a long wait. Ins. companies have a lot of lawyers, who can help them slither out of a lot of lawsuits.

Besides, the illness under discussion happened 5 years ago, which was the height of the recession, and banks at that time weren't lending money.

So once again you're full of advice even without understanding the facts.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Huckleberry said:


> Poor Purl
> spewed is acctually a fairly new word for them.


I don't know. Lukelucy accused me of spewing lies a while back. Or maybe some other lackey.


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> I don't know. Lukelucy accused me of spewing lies a while back. Or maybe some other lackey.


Spewing is an old favourite word of some here. Lies, hatred and vitriol are the most spewed. I haven't heard anyone actually say it for decades. It paints a lovely picture, doesn't it?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> With all the lies repeatedly being spewed by this administration, your stating that the ACA won't allow that is comical at the very least.


This "lie" has already been proven true. Ins. companies have to pay refunds if they spend less than 80% of their revenue on paying for medical care, and they've already begun paying those refunds.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

aw9358 said:


> Spewing is an old favourite word of some here. Lies, hatred and vitriol are the most spewed. I haven't heard anyone actually say it for decades. It paints a lovely picture, doesn't it?


The visual is why I have used it once or twice in response to the crap they project.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

As a therapist, I only worked with behavior problems and some LD problems. I never had contact with what you call the "mentally challenged." I think in my state it works differently.


joeysomma said:


> There are many types of Special Ed classes. There are different types of mentally challenged children. And there are different types of learning disabilities and then there are behavior problems. The behavior problems can be channeled into a different type of school where they go to school half the day and they need to work the other half, to train them to live in the real world. This is so much better than to have drop outs.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> 5 years ago the interest rates were going down. About that time the high interest rate on a savings account was about 2%, adjustable interest rate on a house was about 5%.


Thank you for the finance lecture. Interest rates may have been dropping; in fact, banks were paying near zero, but they weren't lending money.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

aw9358 said:


> Spewing is an old favourite word of some here. Lies, hatred and vitriol are the most spewed. I haven't heard anyone actually say it for decades. It paints a lovely picture, doesn't it?


It's a creepy word. I don't think people use it in real speech.

On a lighter note, someone in one of the main threads used the word "panoply" (I think she spoke of "a panoply of patterns on Ravelry") and people picked up on it. It was such a nice, new word to see here.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> As a therapist, I only worked with behavior problems and some LD problems. I never had contact with what you call the "mentally challenged." I think in my state it works differently.


Then as a therapist you should get re-certified. But many used to referred to the mentally challenged as 'retarded' :EMR, TMR, PRM.... But anyone with a grain of knowledge or education would NEVER refer to that segment of our wonderful population as 'special ed'. If you agree with that outrageously cruel label, then you need therapy


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Then as a therapist you should get re-certified. But many used to referred to the mentally challenged as 'retarded' :EMR, TMR, PRM.... But anyone with a grain of knowledge or education would NEVER refer to that segment of our wonderful population as 'special ed'. If you agree with that outrageously cruel label, then you need therapy


It's clear you don't understand.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I'm surprised that she was unable to go to a bank or credit union for a lower interest loan. I have been with my credit union for 45 years. By the rules of the credit union a signature loan is 12% but you can negotiate loans at a much lower rate.
> 
> As far as the insurance company. They could be sued for breach of contract. Sometimes all it takes is a letter from an attorney


No, we couldn't get a loan. That's one of the perks of being a "working poor" family (my husband does work). Nobody wants to loan you anything.

Again, the contract states the appeals process. To go to court and prove they violated the contract you need to go through all of the appeals you agree to in the contract (and all have this). And if you read the posts you will see that we did go to an attorney the ATTORNEY GENERAL.

However the entire process takes a lot of time, especially for something that clearly is stated is covered. But technically they haven't violated the contract until all appeals have been denied.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> It's clear you don't understand.


Yes I do, and it is perfectly clear you don't understand. This is an area close and dear to my heart. And any vicious attack on our vulnerable and loved part of our society is cruel, and anyone that does that is ignorant.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Then as a therapist you should get re-certified. But many used to referred to the mentally challenged as 'retarded' :EMR, TMR, PRM.... But anyone with a grain of knowledge or education would NEVER refer to that segment of our wonderful population as 'special ed'. If you agree with that outrageously cruel label, then you need therapy


It is not a cruel label, it continues to be the medical label and the legal label. 
Mentally challenged is one of those politically correct terms you all rail against so often. Get youself a DSM and look it up. 
There is no shame in being involved with special education. If you see it as shameful, there is something wrong with your thinking. 
There are children with immense handicapping situations. Those children grow to adulthood thanks to the wonderful care they receive from physical therapists, occupational therapists, speach therapists, creative therapies, and from wonderfully dedicated teachers and psychologists, social workers, and psychiatrists. 
The individuals you would have be ashamed because they are retarded are some of the very people who need Obamacare because their medical conditions are so profoundly expensive to treat. 
I can think of 4 families right off the top of my head who fund raise non-stop in order to pay the medical expenses involved in the care of one child in their family. Whole communities come together to provide what these kids need. Now the money they raise can be dedicated to research rather than the medical care any person should have a right to. 
So, please, take your stigmatizing, condescending attitude and rework it. While you may have good intentions it is exactly the demeaning thought you express that maintains a negative view of the people you talk about.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> 5 years ago the interest rates were going down. About that time the high interest rate on a savings account was about 2%, adjustable interest rate on a house was about 5%.


Interest rates have been in the .5 and .25 range for some time for an interest bearing "passbook account".


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

I found this really interesting... FOX Noise to the rescue, for one night at least. 

Did someone say that the "liberal" news outlets are now all over the horrific losses of people who currently are policy holders and are losing their health insurance and are going to have to pay a king's ransom in new charges; and IT'S ALL OBAMA'S FAULT"? 

Take a gander at this. ( I am, BTW, not a big Obama fan, he is way to conservative for my taste. 


Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 09:02 PM PDT.

Wow! Fox Corrects CBS News Obamacare Insurance Plan Loss "Horror Story"


You know how all these people are losing their beloved low-priced insurance plans because Obamacare took them away even though the President said "if you like your insurance plan you can keep it"? Sure you do, if you've listened to any media in the last week, and seen the CBS News segment that profiled Diane Barrette whose insurance premium is going from $54 a month to over $500.


A visibly distraught woman who recently lost her health insurance plan because of the new requirements within the Affordable Care Act recently expressed her frustrations to CBS News. In a report about the number of people losing their health plans, in spite of assurances by the president, one Florida woman choked up slightly while revealing that she will have to pay more than $500 monthly for the coverage she previously paid just $50 for.
.



She also noted that the fact that so many are losing their health care plans is directly at odds with repeated assurances by the president.
Many, including Dianne Barrette, a 56-year-old Florida resident, were recently informed that their current health care plans were not comprehensive enough to meet coverage requirements set by the ACA. Barrette was recently informed that her new plan will cost 10 times what she presently pays per month.
CBS' Jan Crawford took that information from Ms. Barrette and repeated it at face value with no investigation or followup. Poor, poor Ms, Barrette her insurance costs are skyrocketing by 10 times their original cost.

Well you will never believe who poked giant holes through this 'report': Fox News' Greta Van Sustern.


Greta teed up the interview using the same setup as Crawfords piece, that Barrette is finding out she will have to pay 10 times as much for health insurance because she is losing her current plan to Obamacare.
I have a copy of your Florida Blue insurance and its about $54 a month, Greta continued, and now I understand that under Obamacare, its going to go up, at least they said that the policy they would offer you under Florida Blue, would be $591; is that correct?

Actually, the plan BCBSFL was only one of many plans Dianne has to choose from, 10 of which are cheaper than that $591, and based on her income, shed only pay around $209 a month, but Greta did cut right to the chase about the quality of her old plan.

Your $54 a month policy is a pretty, you know, bare bones policy, Greta said. Why do you want to keep that one, except for the price? Maybe you can get something better with a subsidy?
Ms. Barrette goes on to say that this 'insurance' is perfect for what she needs: a doctor visit copay and prescription copay, and maybe some outpatient services. It turns out that she actually had that reversed and the insurance company paid a $50 'copay' towards a doctor visit, and $15 for prescriptions, and she herself was responsible for all the rest of the costs. The interviewee acknowledged no hospital stays were covered in response to Greta's question.
Now this is exactly the type of junk insurance Obamacare is meant to do away with, and it is not surprising that people don't know what their insurance covers. But a reporter with a major news outlet should have done some reporting and learned that. So it should be of great embarassment to CBS to be shown up that way by Fox filling in missing facts in their story.

What is funny though is that a subsequent interview that was to take place on Fox News with Ms. Barrette, was cancelled, after Greta poked holes in the story.


Following her chat with Van Susteren, Barrette got word from a network producer that her appointment to appear this morning on Fox News was cancelled, she tells the Erik Wemple Blog.
You can watch the interview here. . (Except that I am probably not going to catch that part, you will have to go to Daily KOS.)


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Yes I do, and it is perfectly clear you don't understand. This is an area close and dear to my heart. And any vicious attack on our vulnerable and loved part of our society is cruel, and anyone that does that is ignorant.


I've been thinking about this all evening, and have to admit that I am sorry for that really cheap, stupid joke I thought I was making (I'll admit it was cheap and stupid; I don't think it was vicious, but clearly you are very sensitive about the subject, and I seem to have caused some hurt). It _is_ cruel to pick on people who don't have our advantages. I apologize for that.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

I deleted my response. Thank you for your apology.

I have spent my entire adult life (including earning my three Undergraduate degrees and Masters) working for this wonderful group of people. They absolutely crack me up and I will become a mama tiger to protect them from any bullying. I also will admit that these skills have helped me with my dad that is suffering from dementia. I can take a deep breath, and accept him where he is at today, not where he was 10 years ago. I consider that a gift to him, and I am honored to be able to be able to do it. Besides that, after we have talked, and he is less agitated, he pokes me in my ribs and tells me all that education he paid for is working.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Blah blah blah.
> 
> Those "labels" were created by the Federal Government in order for schools and agencies to receive money (PL 94-192). Go government makes the label, not the school. Talk to your friend that finds it hilarious to call someone 'special ed'.


There will never be any progress in integrating folks with disabilities into society as long as the families of the individuals insist on hiding from the prejudices. 
It is never easy to stand up to the guilt of the "if only"s. 
As a student of human nature I often see some connection between the folks who want the group they have a soft spot for and the inability to understand that other minorities should not "just get over it". 
Thank goodness for that Civil Rights Movement that broke the barriers for those with handicaps, eh?


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> There will never be any progress in integrating folks with disabilities into society as long as the families of the individuals insist on hiding from the prejudices.
> It is never easy to stand up to the guilt of the "if only"s.
> As a student of human nature I often see some connection between the folks who want the group they have a soft spot for and the inability to understand that other minorities should not "just get over it".
> Thank goodness for that Civil Rights Movement that broke the barriers for those with handicaps, eh?


Again, I am sorry that you read my first post before I deleted it. I missed your apology and went into mama tiger mode.

But I do not understand why the race issue was brought up again.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Again, I am sorry that you read my first post before I deleted it. I missed your apology and went into mama tiger mode.
> 
> But I do not understand why the race issue was brought up again.


Prejudice and discrimination are disgusting exhibitions of fear and loathing felt by all segments of minorities. 
In my view, that includes all people who are oppressed and relegated to the "back of the bus" for whatever reason that fear is the predominant emotion. 
That is the case whether it is race, ethnicity or any other difference. 
I am struggling to find the best way to describe this without going on and on. 
We all know what happens when a post gets too long and scrunched.

As a family member or a staff person we learn to overlook the physical differences in those that we love. Speaking as a (former) staff member, I can speak to the experience of taking people with some very unappealing physical characteristics out in public. 
I was told that it was terrible to take "my guys" out in public because it ruined people's appetite. You can only imagine how strong a reaction I had to have that sort of presentaton. Luckily, I was taught that you catch more flies with honey... so I made some lame joke about it being a diet technique. Some embarassed laughter and it was over. Can I imagine saying such a thing? Of course not, people are more and more self centered and don't think. 
But that is what we do here, we sling arrows sometimes it hits too deep, we cannot always know what is in "the other sides" history. Heck, we don't even know what is in "our sides". 
Hopefully, we can learn to step back, learn that it is 1. anonymous so easier to hurt 2. not meant to be personal.

I do understand that because that official description has been distorted by unthinking and immature people as being a negative that "retard" thing hurts. It hurts all of us, the person who uses it is hurt the most. Intelligent people write the user off.

I doubt that any of us are horrible people irl, it's just [y]our opinions that suck! LOL


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

It's frighteningly and pathetically obvious you don't understand. I can't imaginr you ever will.


lovethelake said:


> Yes I do, and it is perfectly clear you don't understand. This is an area close and dear to my heart. And any vicious attack on our vulnerable and loved part of our society is cruel, and anyone that does that is ignorant.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Deleted    Have to finish coffee so old brain will work.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> I deleted my response. Thank you for your apology.
> 
> I have spent my entire adult life (including earning my three Undergraduate degrees and Masters) working for this wonderful group of people. They absolutely crack me up and I will become a mama tiger to protect them from any bullying. I also will admit that these skills have helped me with my dad that is suffering from dementia. I can take a deep breath, and accept him where he is at today, not where he was 10 years ago. I consider that a gift to him, and I am honored to be able to be able to do it. Besides that, after we have talked, and he is less agitated, he pokes me in my ribs and tells me all that education he paid for is working.


I'm grateful for this open response from you. You're now a real person to me, not just part of an anonymous mass fighting to keep some services from the people who sorely need them. And an admirable person, who's done something I was never able to do.

We do have one important experience in common, in that 3 of my and DH's parents developed dementia. My father escaped it, but he was youngest when he died, still in his seventies. It's so sad to watch our parents - who used to protect us and care for us and give us advice - slip away from us, sometimes even forget who we are. Your message now has me in tears.

I hope that your father keeps poking you in the ribs for years to come and that when he goes, he goes peacefully.

And from now on, when I want to call you stupid, I'll do it outright instead of making a dumb joke out of it.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Prejudice and discrimination are disgusting exhibitions of fear and loathing felt by all segments of minorities.
> In my view, that includes all people who are oppressed and relegated to the "back of the bus" for whatever reason that fear is the predominant emotion.
> That is the case whether it is race, ethnicity or any other difference.
> I am struggling to find the best way to describe this without going on and on.
> ...


This thread has suddenly become very serious. I've never stopped to formulate my thoughts on these matters, but I have no problem adopting yours, because they seem to be clearly reasoned and, in fact, show a lot of love on your part.

You're right that all these outward differences aren't different in what makes us human. You've given me a lot to think about on a day when I have little time for thought. Darn you!

Happy Halloween.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

MaidInBedlam said:


> It's frighteningly and pathetically obvious you don't understand. I can't imaginr you ever will.


Couldn't edit this after reading further about your experiences. I'm sorry.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

*WARNING: THE FOLLOWING IS SATIRE. IF IT SOUNDS BELIEVABLE, BLAME ERIC CANTOR AND THE REPUBLICANS, NOT THE POSTER*

OCTOBER 31, 2013
G.O.P. UNVEILS OWN HEALTH-CARE WEB SITE, EMERGENCYROOM.GOV
POSTED BY ANDY BOROWITZ

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)Saying that the American people are fed up with a disastrous Web site that doesnt work and never will, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) and a phalanx of congressional Republicans today unveiled their own health-care Web site, EmergencyRoom.gov.

At EmergencyRoom.gov, every American can access the one tried-and-true health-care system that has worked in this country for decades, he said.

While Healthcare.gov has frustrated many users with its difficult-to-navigate design, Rep. Cantor said that at EmergencyRoom.gov, Health care is just three easy steps away. One: enter your zip code. Two: see the list of emergency rooms. Three: get to the nearest one before you die.

The Virginia Republican wasted no time touting the cost savings of EmergencyRoom.gov, comparing it favorably with the notoriously expensive Obamacare site: Unlike Healthcare.gov, which private contractors built at a cost running into the hundreds of millions, EmergencyRoom.gov was built for nine hundred dollars by my intern Josh.

And in contrast with Healthcare.govs maze of forms, links, and phone numbers, he said, EmergencyRoom.gov has just one phone number: 9-1-1.

In what may be the strongest selling point for the new site, Rep. Cantor said that the wait time on EmergencyRoom.gov is virtually nonexistent, not counting the twelve to thirty-six hours spent in the actual emergency room.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

I have to admit that I think these petitions do more harm than good. I can't help feeling that the administration keeps track of all left-leaning petitions and makes certain not to comply with them.

That said, this one's for Cruz
........................................................................

Subject: I just signed this petition -- will you?

I just took action to demand Sen. Ted Cruz end his hypocrisy and either give up his own $20,000 health insurance coverage or support access to affordable coverage for all Americans.

I think you should too!

http://www.credomobilize.com/petitions/tell-ted-cruz-give-up-your-20-000-insurance-plan-before-denying-coverage-to-americans?sp_ref=17005468.4.1030.e.0.2&source=mailto_sp


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> And a long wait. Ins. companies have a lot of lawyers, who can help them slither out of a lot of lawsuits.
> 
> Besides, the illness under discussion happened 5 years ago, which was the height of the recession, and banks at that time weren't lending money.
> 
> So once again you're full of advice even without understanding the facts.


No, the surgery happened 5 years ago, the illness began before that, which would be before the recession when the banks were lending to anyone. Obviously it is you that doesn't understand the facts.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> This thread has suddenly become very serious. I've never stopped to formulate my thoughts on these matters, but I have no problem adopting yours, because they seem to be clearly reasoned and, in fact, show a lot of love on your part.
> 
> You're right that all these outward differences aren't different in what makes us human. You've given me a lot to think about on a day when I have little time for thought. Darn you!
> 
> Happy Halloween.


We have a lifetime to think (and feel) things through.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> No, the surgery happened 5 years ago, the illness began before that, which would be before the recession when the banks were lending to anyone. Obviously it is you that doesn't understand the facts.


You got the exact dates? Good for you! (You got the emergency fund wrong, but who cares.)

Enough beating a dead horse. The poster sounds intelligent enough to have tried what was available. The point still remains that insurance companies can, and often will, use whatever measures are available to avoid giving the insured what they've been paying for.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> You got the exact dates? Good for you! (You got the emergency fund wrong, but who cares.)
> 
> Enough beating a dead horse. The poster sounds intelligent enough to have tried what was available. The point still remains that insurance companies can, and often will, use whatever measures are available to avoid giving the insured what they've been paying for.


No kidding, I think that women has been extraordinarily open and helpful in supplying information to people saying "yeah, but...", "yeah, but..." geez.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> No, the surgery happened 5 years ago, the illness began before that, which would be before the recession when the banks were lending to anyone. Obviously it is you that doesn't understand the facts.


It only began about a year and 1/2 before I had the surgery, it progressed rapidly.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> I'm grateful for this open response from you. You're now a real person to me, not just part of an anonymous mass fighting to keep some services from the people who sorely need them. And an admirable person, who's done something I was never able to do.
> 
> We do have one important experience in common, in that 3 of my and DH's parents developed dementia. My father escaped it, but he was youngest when he died, still in his seventies. It's so sad to watch our parents - who used to protect us and care for us and give us advice - slip away from us, sometimes even forget who we are. Your message now has me in tears.
> 
> ...


My dad is the best, he is capable of unconditional love. Bless his big Irish heart and gift of Blarney.

My only question is why would you want to call me or anyone else stupid or any other demeaning name? I do not understand why anyone would plan on doing that. I know sometimes things slip out, but to plan on doing it again is unsettling to me.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> My dad is the best, he is capable of unconditional love. Bless his big Irish heart and gift of Blarney.
> 
> My only question is why would you want to call me or anyone else stupid or any other demeaning name? I do not understand why anyone would plan on doing that. I know sometimes things slip out, but to plan on doing it again is unsettling to me.


Come on - it was just a funny way to end a message that was otherwise quite serious. If you don't say anything stupid, I won't call you stupid.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> My dad is the best, he is capable of unconditional love. Bless his big Irish heart and gift of Blarney.
> 
> My only question is why would you want to call me or anyone else stupid or any other demeaning name? I do not understand why anyone would plan on doing that. I know sometimes things slip out, but to plan on doing it again is unsettling to me.


I'm thinking that if you think about all the hateful things you say and imply and figure out why you do that, you will have the answer to your question.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> I'm thinking that if you think about all the hateful things you say and imply and figure out why you do that, you will have the answer to your question.


I think you are projecting about yourself. I do not say hateful things, and if I do by mistake I try to delete them or apologize. You may not agree with them but that does not make it hateful.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Come on - it was just a funny way to end a message that was otherwise quite serious. If you don't say anything stupid, I won't call you stupid.


My my, now you are judge and jury.

Define stupid.

If your definition of stupid is disagreeing with you, oh well, you are who you are and I will accept that. But that does not mean I have said something 'stupid' or that I will be afraid or bullied into not voicing my comments.


----------



## shayfaye (May 6, 2011)

Who is PC now?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I love words, and I too savor a new word used in our forum.



Poor Purl said:


> It's a creepy word. I don't think people use it in real speech.
> 
> On a lighter note, someone in one of the main threads used the word "panoply" (I think she spoke of "a panoply of patterns on Ravelry") and people picked up on it. It was such a nice, new word to see here.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I love words too, but words are just words. Attitude is more important IMHO than political correctness. Scolding gets us nowhere.



lovethelake said:


> Then as a therapist you should get re-certified. But many used to referred to the mentally challenged as 'retarded' :EMR, TMR, PRM.... But anyone with a grain of knowledge or education would NEVER refer to that segment of our wonderful population as 'special ed'. If you agree with that outrageously cruel label, then you need therapy


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

You are spending time and energy calling people names. Is that what you mean to do?



lovethelake said:


> Yes I do, and it is perfectly clear you don't understand. This is an area close and dear to my heart. And any vicious attack on our vulnerable and loved part of our society is cruel, and anyone that does that is ignorant.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

My thoughts exactly Jelun. Thank you for expressing them so well.



jelun2 said:


> It is not a cruel label, it continues to be the medical label and the legal label.
> Mentally challenged is one of those politically correct terms you all rail against so often. Get youself a DSM and look it up.
> There is no shame in being involved with special education. If you see it as shameful, there is something wrong with your thinking.
> There are children with immense handicapping situations. Those children grow to adulthood thanks to the wonderful care they receive from physical therapists, occupational therapists, speach therapists, creative therapies, and from wonderfully dedicated teachers and psychologists, social workers, and psychiatrists.
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Well, shut my mouth.



jelun2 said:


> I found this really interesting... FOX Noise to the rescue, for one night at least.
> 
> Did someone say that the "liberal" news outlets are now all over the horrific losses of people who currently are policy holders and are losing their health insurance and are going to have to pay a king's ransom in new charges; and IT'S ALL OBAMA'S FAULT"?
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

That's the way I see it. So hard to get rid of the deep-seated attitude than any person is different, better or worse, than any other.



jelun2 said:


> There will never be any progress in integrating folks with disabilities into society as long as the families of the individuals insist on hiding from the prejudices.
> It is never easy to stand up to the guilt of the "if only"s.
> As a student of human nature I often see some connection between the folks who want the group they have a soft spot for and the inability to understand that other minorities should not "just get over it".
> Thank goodness for that Civil Rights Movement that broke the barriers for those with handicaps, eh?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> Prejudice and discrimination are disgusting exhibitions of fear and loathing felt by all segments of minorities.
> In my view, that includes all people who are oppressed and relegated to the "back of the bus" for whatever reason that fear is the predominant emotion.
> That is the case whether it is race, ethnicity or any other difference.
> I am struggling to find the best way to describe this without going on and on.
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Bravo. You have expressed yourself so well. Thank you. You inspire me.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thank you for sharing. I think we can all learn something valuable here.



Poor Purl said:


> I'm grateful for this open response from you. You're now a real person to me, not just part of an anonymous mass fighting to keep some services from the people who sorely need them. And an admirable person, who's done something I was never able to do.
> 
> We do have one important experience in common, in that 3 of my and DH's parents developed dementia. My father escaped it, but he was youngest when he died, still in his seventies. It's so sad to watch our parents - who used to protect us and care for us and give us advice - slip away from us, sometimes even forget who we are. Your message now has me in tears.
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Satire always gets me.



Poor Purl said:


> *WARNING: THE FOLLOWING IS SATIRE. IF IT SOUNDS BELIEVABLE, BLAME ERIC CANTOR AND THE REPUBLICANS, NOT THE POSTER*
> 
> OCTOBER 31, 2013
> G.O.P. UNVEILS OWN HEALTH-CARE WEB SITE, EMERGENCYROOM.GOV
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Look at this one folks. Step right up and sign. At the very least, read the petition. You'll learn something important. And you'll feel better. I did. Maybe you'll feel differently and share your thoughts.



Poor Purl said:


> I have to admit that I think these petitions do more harm than good. I can't help feeling that the administration keeps track of all left-leaning petitions and makes certain not to comply with them.
> 
> That said, this one's for Cruz
> ........................................................................
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

lovethelake said:


> My dad is the best, he is capable of unconditional love. Bless his big Irish heart and gift of Blarney.
> 
> My only question is why would you want to call me or anyone else stupid or any other demeaning name? I do not understand why anyone would plan on doing that. I know sometimes things slip out, but to plan on doing it again is unsettling to me.


Do you ever do the same thing? Is there something in an anon forum that gives rise to expressing frustration rather than falling back on civility?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Sounds fair to me.



Poor Purl said:


> Come on - it was just a funny way to end a message that was otherwise quite serious. If you don't say anything stupid, I won't call you stupid.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And the beat goes on.



lovethelake said:


> My my, now you are judge and jury.
> 
> Define stupid.
> 
> If your definition of stupid is disagreeing with you, oh well, you are who you are and I will accept that. But that does not mean I have said something 'stupid' or that I will be afraid or bullied into not voicing my comments.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> My dad is the best, he is capable of unconditional love. Bless his big Irish heart and gift of Blarney.
> 
> My only question is why would you want to call me or anyone else stupid or any other demeaning name? I do not understand why anyone would plan on doing that. I know sometimes things slip out, but to plan on doing it again is unsettling to me.


lovethelake.
you don't say! I shall follow your unsettling attitude.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> My dad is the best, he is capable of unconditional love. Bless his big Irish heart and gift of Blarney.
> 
> My only question is why would you want to call me or anyone else stupid or any other demeaning name? I do not understand why anyone would plan on doing that. I know sometimes things slip out, but to plan on doing it again is unsettling to me.


And well it should be it is not funny and jokes are not funny when it comes to what has been said. But as I like to tell people the only one with a handicap is the person who makes that statement.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

Haven't been on here for sometime, but can read where the Lefties are ganging up on LTL as usual.

On LLOL they are calling one of themselves Empress--really they can only copy us so not much brains there.

I'm here for you ? Yarnie & LTL.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> My my, now you are judge and jury.


 Since I can't sentence you to stupid-jail, what difference does that make?



> Define stupid.


I'm sure you're capable of looking a word up in the dictionary. It will give you my definition of stupid.



> If your definition of stupid is disagreeing with you, oh well, you are who you are and I will accept that. But that does not mean I have said something 'stupid' or that I will be afraid or bullied into not voicing my comments.


 My definition of stupid involves an inability to even consider viewing anything from another point of view. I don't recall whether you've been guilty of that, but I know several of your cohorts have. Even called people names for disagreeing with them, then disappeared when proved wrong.

And why do you people always whine about being bullied? Wikipedia defines bullying as "the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively to impose domination over others" (and more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying ). I'm not even trying to steal your lunch money.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Janeway said:


> Haven't been on here for sometime, but can read where the Lefties are ganging up on LTL as usual.
> 
> On LLOL they are calling one of themselves Empress--really they can only copy us so not much brains there.
> 
> I'm here for you ? Yarnie & LTL.


More incomprehension, it seems to be a real problem for you.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Then as a therapist you should get re-certified. But many used to referred to the mentally challenged as 'retarded' :EMR, TMR, PRM.... But anyone with a grain of knowledge or education would NEVER refer to that segment of our wonderful population as 'special ed'. If you agree with that outrageously cruel label, then you need therapy


It was nice of you to have removed one of your messages to me but left this one, which is pretty nasty. Kind of gives the impression that I used the word "retarded," which I didn't. And as I said before, there are other reasons for special ed than some kind of developmental disability.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> I love words, and I too savor a new word used in our forum.


There's a whole panoply of new words waiting out there for us. Like "aboulomania," which I think I suffer from.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Bravo. You have expressed yourself so well. Thank you. You inspire me.


I thought jelun2's message was pretty wonderful, too. The PC _soi-disant_ Mama Tiger had - for once - nothing to say.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> Thank you for sharing. I think we can all learn something valuable here.


But not for long. Apparently the only part absorbed by the addressee was the last sentence, which was meant humorously. Maybe I should get more accustomed to attaching smilies when I'm trying to be funny.

:shock: :twisted: :mrgreen: :hunf: :XD:


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> Satire always gets me.


What get me is having to announce that it's satire. The last time I posted a message by Andy Borowitz, a lot of people took it seriously, even though it was clearly absurd.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> And the beat goes on.


And it's so boooorrrring. And with the next message comes the predictable complaint about bullying.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Huckleberry said:


> lovethelake.
> you don't say! I shall follow your unsettling attitude.


Empress Huckleberry, I want to pinch the cheeks of your avatar. It's so cute.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> What get me is having to announce that it's satire. The last time I posted a message by Andy Borowitz, a lot of people took it seriously, even though it was clearly absurd.


Oh heck, Empress Purl, half of what I see is clearly absurd. 
That Elyse whatever, is over on another thread claiming that a post showing that journalists are not doing their jobs when they interview people who should be happy as the dickens that their health insurance is being cancelled is talking about alternative treatments not being covered or something. 
Flakes, and I don't mean snow.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Janeway said:


> Haven't been on here for sometime, but can read where the Lefties are ganging up on LTL as usual.
> 
> On LLOL they are calling one of themselves Empress--really they can only copy us so not much brains there.
> 
> I'm here for you ? Yarnie & LTL.


On LOLL we are all empresses. I have to admit, though, you, Janeway, are much smarter than all of us put together. You must be, since not even LTL thought we were ganging up on her.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Oh heck, Empress Purl, half of what I see is clearly absurd.
> That Elyse whatever, is over on another thread claiming that a post showing that journalists are not doing their jobs when they interview people who should be happy as the dickens that their health insurance is being cancelled is talking about alternative treatments not being covered or something.
> Flakes, and I don't mean snow.


She really is (or has?).


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> She really is (or has?).


Dandruff?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> And it's so boooorrrring. And with the next message comes the predictable complaint about bullying.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> My definition of stupid involves an inability to even consider viewing anything from another point of view. I don't recall whether you've been guilty of that, but I know several of your cohorts have. Even called people names for disagreeing with them, then disappeared when proved wrong.
> 
> And why do you people always whine about being bullied? Wikipedia defines bullying as "the use of force, threat, or coercion to abuse, intimidate, or aggressively to impose domination over others" (and more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying ). I'm not even trying to steal your lunch money.


Yes indeed Purl. No one has managed to intimidate anyone around here. I've been disgusted, and amazed by the lack of manners.....but not intimidated.

The other side keeps coming back too. No intimidation there.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Weakened will-power and crippling indecision? I don't see it in you. Find something else Empress Purl.



Poor Purl said:


> There's a whole panoply of new words waiting out there for us. Like "aboulomania," which I think I suffer from.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

There's only a couple of us who 'get it' but we really appreciate it.



Poor Purl said:


> But not for long. Apparently the only part absorbed by the addressee was the last sentence, which was meant humorously. Maybe I should get more accustomed to attaching smilies when I'm trying to be funny.
> 
> :shock: :twisted: :mrgreen: :hunf: :XD:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Always best to hit them over the head with it before it ends us on all the right-wing blogs.



Poor Purl said:


> What get me is having to announce that it's satire. The last time I posted a message by Andy Borowitz, a lot of people took it seriously, even though it was clearly absurd.


----------



## medusa (Nov 20, 2012)

damemary said:


> Look at this one folks. Step right up and sign. At the very least, read the petition. You'll learn something important. And you'll feel better. I did. Maybe you'll feel differently and share your thoughts.


Signed, sealed and delivered early this AM! :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

One of our AZ senators is named Jeff Flake R. Truth in advertising at least.



jelun2 said:


> Oh heck, Empress Purl, half of what I see is clearly absurd.
> That Elyse whatever, is over on another thread claiming that a post showing that journalists are not doing their jobs when they interview people who should be happy as the dickens that their health insurance is being cancelled is talking about alternative treatments not being covered or something.
> Flakes, and I don't mean snow.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Empress Huckleberry, I want to pinch the cheeks of your avatar. It's so cute.


Poor Purl
Thank you.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Who can possibly believe that Obamawhatevercare will possibly work? If you look at the Obama Administration's failure for the 'Cash For Clunkers' program, it is impossible to believe this administration can handle it.

Oh, and this is from the Brookings Institute, a darling for the NYT's

http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2013/cash-for-clunkers-gayer

Tried to put up the graphic, but it was too small


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Who can possibly believe that Obamawhatevercare will possibly work? If you look at the Obama Administration's failure for the 'Cash For Clunkers' program, it is impossible to believe this administration can handle it.
> 
> Oh, and this is from the Brookings Institute, a darling for the NYT's
> 
> ...


Not sure why that seemed to be too small for you. ;-)


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Not sure why that seemed to be too small for you. ;-)


When I copied the image, it was too small to read on this thread.

That is why I provided the link so you can view it full size. How can they run Obamawhatevercare when they couldn't fulfill their promises for "Cash for Clunkers"

And I doubt the 93,000,000 people that have lost their coverage they chose and were happy with think Obamawhatevercare is good. Where is the fulfillment of the promise if you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage? It was a lie!!!!!!! Obama lied over and over and over and over again. Then he tells the people that lost their coverage, 'go shopping' on the website that is never working. If fact the entire site will be down tonight through tomorrow morning. How can a new $600,000,000.00 be down? Never remembering Amazon or Google shut down for maintenance.

choo choo


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> When I copied the image, it was too small to read on this thread.
> 
> That is why I provided the link so you can view it full size. How can they run Obamawhatevercare when they couldn't fulfill their promises for "Cash for Clunkers"
> 
> ...


So why is it Knitty that you cycle every 2 weeks? Shouldn't you get those meds reassessed?


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> So why is it Knitty that you cycle every 2 weeks? Shouldn't you get those meds reassessed?


Maybe it is you that need to hurry up tonight and sign up for Obamacare, because you seem to be talking to someone that is not there..................OH that's right the Obamawhatevercare website will be down again tonight. Sorry, guess you have to go shopping tomorrow if it is up again.

Did you know that the IRS can not force anyone to pay the penalty for not signing up? I guess the choo choo knock out it's teeth. So there is another loss of Obamawhatevercare revenue.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

http://www.forbes.com/special-report/2013/what-will-obamacare-cost-you-map.html


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> When I copied the image, it was too small to read on this thread.
> 
> That is why I provided the link so you can view it full size. How can they run Obamawhatevercare when they couldn't fulfill their promises for "Cash for Clunkers"
> 
> ...


93,000,000 million? The entire US population is about 315,000,000. Do you really believe that 30% of the population has lost its coverage? Nah, you couldn't be that ...um...deluded.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> the 93,000,000 includes those that will also loose their employer provided insurance before 12/31/2014.


*You* could definitely be that deluded.

And "loose" has nothing to do with "losing" something. It is used in sentences like "You appear to have a screw loose."

I think the word you meant was "lose," though who knows?


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Let us not forget that the Obama administration will fudge (aka lie) the enrollment numbers because they are including the Medicaid newly enrolled.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Let us not forget that the Obama administration will fudge (aka lie) the enrollment numbers because they are including the Medicaid newly enrolled.


So? That wouldn't be a lie, at least not in the same category as "Saddam Hussein has WMD in Iraq and planned 9/11 so we have to stage a 10-year war there and wipe out the surplus Clinton left us."

But I think the original number you meant was 9.3 million (otherwise known as 9,300,000), which would be 3% of the population, and much more credible. Well, all you did was add a zero. That couldn't make a difference.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> And it's so boooorrrring. And with the next message comes the predictable complaint about bullying.


They must have heard about bullying on foxy tv. Yet they don't bully. Oh no, not ever. Lol.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Maybe it is you that need to hurry up tonight and sign up for Obamacare, because you seem to be talking to someone that is not there..................OH that's right the Obamawhatevercare website will be down again tonight. Sorry, guess you have to go shopping tomorrow if it is up again.
> 
> Did you know that the IRS can not force anyone to pay the penalty for not signing up? I guess the choo choo knock out it's teeth. So there is another loss of Obamawhatevercare revenue.


Has she gone in for treatment again? Is there some way I am supposed to know she went away?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> 93,000,000 million? The entire US population is about 315,000,000. Do you really believe that 30% of the population has lost its coverage? Nah, you couldn't be that ...um...deluded.


Yes, Yes. She could. 
You know, 3% or 93,000,000. It is all the same.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> Yes, Yes. She could.
> You know, 3% or 93,000,000. It is all the same.


The new math.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> The new math.


HAHAHAAAA, you got it.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> When I copied the image, it was too small to read on this thread.
> 
> That is why I provided the link so you can view it full size. How can they run Obamawhatevercare when they couldn't fulfill their promises for "Cash for Clunkers"
> 
> ...


choo this. 
I happen to be one of the 80%. My former employer supplies me with my health insurance. When I turn 65 and sign up for Medicare my current policy will become my supplemental. 
I have not had a significant increase in premium or copay/deductible in the three years I have been retired. 
That is probably God watching out for me, I am blessed because I live right. Those who are nasty are being punished with increased costs, I think.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> choo this.
> I happen to be one of the 80%. My former employer supplies me with my health insurance. When I turn 65 and sign up for Medicare my current policy will become my supplemental.
> I have not had a significant increase in premium or copay/deductible in the three years I have been retired.
> That is probably God watching out for me, I am blessed because I live right. Those who are nasty are being punished with increased costs, I think.


If you don't have a righteous objective,eventually you will suffer. When you do the right thing for the right reason,the right result awaits. ― Chin-Ning Chu, _The Art of War for Women: Sun Tzu's Ancient Strategies and Wisdom for Winning at Work_


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> *You* could definitely be that deluded.
> 
> And "loose" has nothing to do with "losing" something. It is used in sentences like "You appear to have a screw loose."
> 
> I think the word you meant was "lose," though who knows?


 :XD: :XD: :XD: Thank you Purl.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> So? That wouldn't be a lie, at least not in the same category as "Saddam Hussein has WMD in Iraq and planned 9/11 so we have to stage a 10-year war there and wipe out the surplus Clinton left us."
> 
> But I think the original number you meant was 9.3 million (otherwise known as 9,300,000), which would be 3% of the population, and much more credible. Well, all you did was add a zero. That couldn't make a difference.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Fuzzy math.



ute4kp said:


> The new math.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Read it for yourself:
> 
> Obama Officials In 2010: 93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/31/obama-officials-in-2010-93-million-americans-will-be-unable-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/


We've seen other bloggers at Forbes get things wrong. If you really know how to do the math, do it. 93 million is an absurdly high number, considering how many people don't need Obamacare. Think for once instead of picking up other people's numbers.

Never mind; I don't think you could do it.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> None is so blind as those who *refuse* to see.


Amen


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> None is so blind as those who *refuse* to see.


 None is so stupid as they who *refuse* to think.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> None is so stupid as they who *refuse* to think.


So very true, Purl--Forbes does the anti-ACA forces no credit whatsoever with these hopelessly outdated projections. There's a reason they dug up statements made by the Administration three years ago--the percentage of Americans enrolled in grandfathered health plans was far higher then than it is today. It was 56% in 2011, 48% in 2012, and just 36% now. I'll give the insurance companies some credit for cleaning up their act in the past three years--in 2011 72% of the health insurance firms offered at least one plan with grandfathered status--by 2012 it had dropped to 58%, and by 2013 it had dropped again to 54%.


----------



## Knitter from Nebraska (Jun 9, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> We've seen other bloggers at Forbes get things wrong. If you really know how to do the math, do it. 93 million is an absurdly high number, considering how many people don't need Obamacare. Think for once instead of picking up other people's numbers.
> 
> Never mind; I don't think you could do it.


Before you go on making it sound like others don't know what they're talking about, YOU should do your own homework! It makes NO difference whether someone "needs" o-care or not! If anyone's plan does not "fit" o-care standards it can no longer be offered! Even 60 year old MEN, MUST have pregnancy and abortion coverage! o LIED!!! he KNEW that most people could NOT keep their plan! And many people will NOT be able to keep their doctors because so many doctors are quitting! Most of the major hospitals will not accept all o-care plans! They have decided to honor only a couple! This whole thing was designed to rob people of their money! It is nothing but redistribution of wealth, from our pockets to theirs! WAKE UP!!!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

A-a-men Amen A-men Amen Amen.



joeysomma said:


> None is so blind as those who *refuse* to see.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> None is so stupid as they who *refuse* to think.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: Beautiful.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Knitter from Nebraska said:


> Before you go on making it sound like others don't know what they're talking about, YOU should do your own homework! It makes NO difference whether someone "needs" o-care or not! If anyone's plan does not "fit" o-care standards it can no longer be offered! Even 60 year old MEN, MUST have pregnancy and abortion coverage! o LIED!!! he KNEW that most people could NOT keep their plan! And many people will NOT be able to keep their doctors because so many doctors are quitting! Most of the major hospitals will not accept all o-care plans! They have decided to honor only a couple! This whole thing was designed to rob people of their money! It is nothing but redistribution of wealth, from our pockets to theirs! WAKE UP!!!


True. The WH knew in 2010 that 93 million would not be able to keep their current coverage, because the plan they chose was 'substandard' according to Obama. But if you provide a link from anywhere other than MSNBC or libsrus you will be mocked. But this is from the group that believed the murders in Benghazi were caused by a YouTube video.

I could go 'shopping' for what the government thinks is a more appropriate policy for me. Oh wait, the website is down, so I can't. Mine is sooo substandard, it doesn't cover my future pregnancies. But wait, I lost those parts to cancer, so why do I need that coverage?

Can you imagine what brilliant person in the WH thought that shutting down the Obamawhatevercare website over a weekend would be a good idea? Oh that's right, Obamacultists are takers not workers so everyday is a weekend


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_OVERHAUL_YOURE_CANCELED?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-11-02-09-44-38


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_OVERHAUL_YOURE_CANCELED?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-11-02-09-44-38


Did you even bother to read the article, LTL? Hard for me to believe--it can't have escaped your notice that the gentleman in question is 64 and will be eligible for Medicaid in the next year.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Did you even bother to read the article, LTL? Hard for me to believe--it can't have escaped your notice that the gentleman in question is 64 and will be eligible for Medicaid in the next year.


That 65 could be next month for all we know. 
The other piece is this deductible craziness. Many of the procedures for preventative care are co-pay free and the deductible is not an issue. 
How many of the people who are so worried and anxious just don't pay attention to the information they are given?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> That 65 could be next month for all we know.
> The other piece is this deductible craziness. Many of the procedures for preventative care are co-pay free and the deductible is not an issue.
> How many of the people who are so worried and anxious just don't pay attention to the information they are given?


The same folks, no doubt, who fail to see that that dandy little credit card that arrived in the mail carries with it a usurious 20% interest rate. I find it incredibly irritating that these ignorant folks are only now waking up to the fact that they've been bilked for years by subscribing to sub-par insurance plans. But instead of doing their research and choosing adequate coverage they moan and complain, pointing the finger of blame at the ACA for waking them from their dream world. It's ridiculous.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> The same folks, no doubt, who fail to see that that dandy little credit card that arrived in the mail carries with it a usurious 20% interest rate. I find it incredibly irritating that these ignorant folks are only now waking up to the fact that they've been bilked for years by subscribing to sub-par insurance plans. But instead of doing their research and choosing adequate coverage they moan and complain, pointing the finger of blame at the ACA for waking them from their dream world. It's ridiculous.


Uh huh, one of the policies I heard described the other day on the Dianne Rehm Show was only $50./month. It was basically a discount plan of $50. per visit. So you had to go the doctor's office 12 times to even get your money back. What is the point in that?
The people with that policy may as well put the money in their checking account.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> It looks like you only read the first paragraph. There were many other examples. But what is he supposed to do until he reaches the age of 65?


Sounds like he's already decided on a course of action--play the martyr and pay the penalty. But of course he fails to mention that it would be for less than a year and he's risking very little as he and his wife are in good health.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Uh huh, one of the policies I heard described the other day on the Dianne Rehm Show was only $50./month. It was basically a discount plan of $50. per visit. So you had to go the doctor's office 12 times to even get your money back. What is the point in that?
> The people with that policy may as well put the money in their checking account.


There's a lot of misinformation and ignorance out there, Jelun. It's amazing how many people can't do the math, are incapable of weighing the benefits of a low premium/high deductible vs high premium/low deductible plan, and refuse to acknowledge that their humpty-dumpty policies are worse than nothing at all. It's tragic enough that so many people are so misinformed and helpless--even worse that the anti-ACA crowd is rushing in to exploit them to their fullest.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> It looks like you only read the first paragraph. There were many other examples. But what is he supposed to do until he reaches the age of 65?


Not many other, TWO. 
Did you see that Cigna announced that 99% of the people who received cancellation notices can opt to keep their substandard plan for one more year? 
Isn't that sweet?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Good question. I have never in my life experienced the lies and exaggerations that have been repeated endlessly about this program. How can we expect people to understand? Terrible.



jelun2 said:


> That 65 could be next month for all we know.
> The other piece is this deductible craziness. Many of the procedures for preventative care are co-pay free and the deductible is not an issue.
> How many of the people who are so worried and anxious just don't pay attention to the information they are given?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> It looks like you only read the first paragraph. There were many other examples. But what is he supposed to do until he reaches the age of 65?


But it leads one to suspect the entire article. Weak try.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

These people were willing to bet they wouldn't need or want a doctor....and if they did, the gummint ( that's you and me ) would have to take care of it. Guess they don't get to choose that option, and it's fine with me.



jelun2 said:


> Uh huh, one of the policies I heard described the other day on the Dianne Rehm Show was only $50./month. It was basically a discount plan of $50. per visit. So you had to go the doctor's office 12 times to even get your money back. What is the point in that?
> The people with that policy may as well put the money in their checking account.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And he's counting on us to help if it doesn't pay off. Wrong.



susanmos2000 said:


> Sounds like he's already decided on a course of action--play the martyr and pay the penalty. But of course he fails to mention that it would be for less than a year and he's risking very little as he and his wife are in good health.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> There's a lot of misinformation and ignorance out there, Jelun. It's amazing how many people can't do the math, are incapable of weighing the benefits of a low premium/high deductible vs high premium/low deductible plan, and refuse to acknowledge that their humpty-dumpty policies are worse than nothing at all. It's tragic enough that so many people are so misinformed and helpless--even worse that the anti-ACA crowd is rushing in to exploit them to their fullest.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_OVERHAUL_YOURE_CANCELED?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-11-02-09-44-38

http://blog.heritage.org/2013/11/02/exclusive-healthcare-gov-users-warn-of-security-risk-breach-of-privacy/


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_OVERHAUL_YOURE_CANCELED?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-11-02-09-44-38
> 
> http://blog.heritage.org/2013/11/02/exclusive-healthcare-gov-users-warn-of-security-risk-breach-of-privacy/


Thanks


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

damemary said:


> These people were willing to bet they wouldn't need or want a doctor....and if they did, the gummint ( that's you and me ) would have to take care of it. Guess they don't get to choose that option, and it's fine with me.


Same--I'm tired of paying for these whiny crybabies who are too lazy and/or ignorant to do the necessary research and choose a plan for themselves. These so-called horror stories have brought my regard for the anti-ACA folks to a new low--it's telling that even Fox has begun to debunk them. Wise move on their part as these heavily-slanted articles don't paint a pretty picture of the folks on the right.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> And he's counting on us to help if it doesn't pay off. Wrong.


Well, I don't know. 
They didn't wipe out that federal law that provides for stablization, did they? 
Aren't we still stuck paying for the most expensive care there is for the most irresponsible among us?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Well, I don't know.
> They didn't wipe out that federal law that provides for stablization, did they?
> Aren't we still stuck paying for the most expensive care there is for the most irresponsible among us?


Unfortunately, yes. And it's maddening to think of paying for folks like Mr. X of the article, who would rather blow the $700 per month he's been paying for insurance on a trip to Tahiti--then point the finger of blame at Obamacare when he winds up in the emergency room. Folks like this are despicable.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

How correct you both are. It is hardly worth posting here as the Obumma sycophants will dismiss everything that isn't spewing adoration for their pretender-to-the-throne. There are no sites, reports, etc. where comments are posted that have any support for this major embarrassing administration failure. I agree, they must have their hands out, hoping for more and bigger bennies.
From : lovethelake and Knitter from Nebraska wrote:
"Before you go on making it sound like others don't know what they're talking about, YOU should do your own homework! It makes NO difference whether someone "needs" o-care or not! If anyone's plan does not "fit" o-care standards it can no longer be offered! Even 60 year old MEN, MUST have pregnancy and abortion coverage! o LIED!!! he KNEW that most people could NOT keep their plan! And many people will NOT be able to keep their doctors because so many doctors are quitting! Most of the major hospitals will not accept all o-care plans! They have decided to honor only a couple! This whole thing was designed to rob people of their money! It is nothing but redistribution of wealth, from our pockets to theirs! WAKE UP!!!

True. The WH knew in 2010 that 93 million would not be able to keep their current coverage, because the plan they chose was 'substandard' according to Obama. But if you provide a link from anywhere other than MSNBC or libsrus you will be mocked. But this is from the group that believed the murders in Benghazi were caused by a YouTube video.

I could go 'shopping' for what the government thinks is a more appropriate policy for me. Oh wait, the website is down, so I can't. Mine is sooo substandard, it doesn't cover my future pregnancies. But wait, I lost those parts to cancer, so why do I need that coverage?

Can you imagine what brilliant person in the WH thought that shutting down the Obamawhatevercare website over a weekend would be a good idea? Oh that's right, Obamacultists are takers not workers so everyday is a weekend"


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

This is interesting
Last Year President Obama Reportedly Told His Aides That He's 'Really Good At Killing People'
By Michael Kelley | Business Insider  12 hours ago
AP
This will not go over well for the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner.

According to the new book Double Down, in which journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann chronicle the 2012 presidential election, President Barack Obama told his aides that hes really good at killing people while discussing drone strikes.
Peter Hamby of The Washington Post reported the moment in his review of the book.
The claim by the commander-in-chief is as indisputable as it is grim.

Obama oversaw the 2009 surge in Afghanistan, 145 Predator drone strikes in NATOs 2011 Libya operations, the May 2011 raid that killed Osama bin Laden, and drone strikes that killed the Pakistani Taliban leader and a senior member of the Somali-based militant group al-Shabab this week.
His administration also expanded the drone war: There have been 326 drone strikes in Pakistan, 93 in Yemen, and several in Somalia, compared to a total of 52 under George Bush.
In 2011 two of those strikes killed American-born al-Qaeda propagandist Anwar al-Awlaki and his American-born, 16-year-old son within two weeks.
Under Obama U.S. drone operators began practicing signature strikes, a tactic in which targets are chosen based on patterns of suspicious behavior and the identities of those to be killed aren't necessarily known. (The administration counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants.)
Furthermore, the disturbing trend of the double tap  bombing the same place in quick succession and often hitting first responders  has become common practice.
Needless to say, a lot of innocent people have been killed along with combatants.
Obama has also embraced the expansion of capture/kill missions by Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) after it developed into the primary counterterrorism tool of the Bush administration.
One JSOC operator told investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill, author of Dirty Wars: The World Is A Battlefield, that operations under Obama became harder, faster, quicker  with the full support of the White House.
Scahill, who also made a Dirty Wars documentary, told NBC News that Obama will go down in history as the president who legitimized and systematized a process by which the United States asserts the right to conduct assassination operations around the world.
So although President Obama has proven to be really good at killing people, the demonstration has not necessarily been noble.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

momeee said:


> This is interesting
> Last Year President Obama Reportedly Told His Aides That He's 'Really Good At Killing People'
> By Michael Kelley | Business Insider  12 hours ago
> AP
> ...


That is just too ridiculous. Are you really trying to put forward the position that the US has just now begun killing people all over the world?

CIA Assassination Training
By Erick Kristian, eHow Contributor

Most CIA assassinations are done covertly with only key government officials knowing.
CIA assassination training refers to the training that is provided by the CIA to recruits who are going to specialize in covert ops and assassinations. This specialized training is not given to all recruits. Students who display a high command of the skills necessary to be an assassin are handpicked for such training. From those who are selected, only a few will finish their training as the dropout and failure rate are high.

Read more: http://www.ehow.com/about_6764862_cia-assassination-training.html#ixzz2jb76TKIJ

http://www.ehow.com/about_6370303_cia-combat-training.html


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Judge Jeanine Rips Obama for Lying About His Healthcare Law

Judge Jeanine gave one of her most passionate, no-nonsense monologues on how Obama lied to the American people and millions are now suffering for it. Definitely worth the watch

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/11/91802-judge-jeanine-rips-obama-lying-healthcare-law/


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> So very true, Purl--Forbes does the anti-ACA forces no credit whatsoever with these hopelessly outdated projections. There's a reason they dug up statements made by the Administration three years ago--the percentage of Americans enrolled in grandfathered health plans was far higher then than it is today. It was 56% in 2011, 48% in 2012, and just 36% now. I'll give the insurance companies some credit for cleaning up their act in the past three years--in 2011 72% of the health insurance firms offered at least one plan with grandfathered status--by 2012 it had dropped to 58%, and by 2013 it had dropped again to 54%.


I've also seen different blogs on Forbes saying contradictory things. There was one about how good the ACA would be for small business.

There was a piece in the NYTimes Business section yesterday on how financial people are lining up to make money off the ACA. So the poor insurance companies, who can't cheat people out of their premiums, will find some new way to hold on to their profits.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_OVERHAUL_YOURE_CANCELED?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-11-02-09-44-38
> 
> http://blog.heritage.org/2013/11/02/exclusive-healthcare-gov-users-warn-of-security-risk-breach-of-privacy/


How many times are you planning to post the first link? And your second link is for Heritage, which recommended the individual mandate until Obama picked up on it, then dropped it, along with several other measures that are in the ACA.

Why is it the anti's never admit to what they themselves proposed before Obama?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I got warning when I attempted to open your links so I overlook then all now. fyi



lovethelake said:


> http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_OVERHAUL_YOURE_CANCELED?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-11-02-09-44-38
> 
> http://blog.heritage.org/2013/11/02/exclusive-healthcare-gov-users-warn-of-security-risk-breach-of-privacy/


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

momeee said:


> Judge Jeanine Rips Obama for Lying About His Healthcare Law
> 
> Judge Jeanine gave one of her most passionate, no-nonsense monologues on how Obama lied to the American people and millions are now suffering for it. Definitely worth the watch
> 
> http://www.ijreview.com/2013/11/91802-judge-jeanine-rips-obama-lying-healthcare-law/


WTH is Judge Jeanine?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> Same--I'm tired of paying for these whiny crybabies who are too lazy and/or ignorant to do the necessary research and choose a plan for themselves. These so-called horror stories have brought my regard for the anti-ACA folks to a new low--it's telling that even Fox has begun to debunk them. Wise move on their part as these heavily-slanted articles don't paint a pretty picture of the folks on the right.


 :-( How true!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I forgot about that. Thanks for the reminder. Will this ever be sorted out? Or do we just learn to live with it?



jelun2 said:


> Well, I don't know.
> They didn't wipe out that federal law that provides for stablization, did they?
> Aren't we still stuck paying for the most expensive care there is for the most irresponsible among us?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

momeee said:


> Judge Jeanine Rips Obama for Lying About His Healthcare Law
> 
> Judge Jeanine gave one of her most passionate, no-nonsense monologues on how Obama lied to the American people and millions are now suffering for it. Definitely worth the watch
> 
> http://www.ijreview.com/2013/11/91802-judge-jeanine-rips-obama-lying-healthcare-law/


Oh, my, another Faux News hater. _Quelle surprise._


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> I forgot about that. Thanks for the reminder. Will this ever be sorted out? Or do we just learn to live with it?


I guess we just live with, like deadbeat dads (parents), as I say to those I know who don't want to pay for undocumented residents to get medical care. What are we going to do let them die in the streets?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Mommee has the most ridiculous rants to add. I used to laugh and occasionally try to point out the inconsistencies, but now I don't bother. Just my approach, of course.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I never doubted it for a moment.



Poor Purl said:


> I've also seen different blogs on Forbes saying contradictory things. There was one about how good the ACA would be for small business.
> 
> There was a piece in the NYTimes Business section yesterday on how financial people are lining up to make money off the ACA. So the poor insurance companies, who can't cheat people out of their premiums, will find some new way to hold on to their profits.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Yeah and I'm Catherine the Great.



 jelun2 said:


> WTH is Judge Jeanine?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

momeee said:


> This is interesting
> Last Year President Obama Reportedly Told His Aides That He's 'Really Good At Killing People'
> By Michael Kelley | Business Insider  12 hours ago
> AP
> ...


What are you complaining about? Isn't this exactly the kind of thing Cheney and Rumsfeld would like?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> I've also seen different blogs on Forbes saying contradictory things. There was one about how good the ACA would be for small business.
> 
> There was a piece in the NYTimes Business section yesterday on how financial people are lining up to make money off the ACA. So the poor insurance companies, who can't cheat people out of their premiums, will find some new way to hold on to their profits.


Right, they are opinions. Worth just as much as we pay for them.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> What are you complaining about? Isn't this exactly the kind of thing Cheney and Rumsfeld would like?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

momeee said:


> How correct you both are. It is hardly worth posting here as the Obumma sycophants will dismiss everything that isn't spewing adoration for their pretender-to-the-throne. There are no sites, reports, etc. where comments are posted that have any support for this major embarrassing administration failure.


We've posted many. They just fly over your head.

And just how does one "spew admiration"? Your talent for using language is, um, never mind.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Great picture, Jelun. And caption.

I keep one picture of Dick Cheney in my files, and it's a dilly. Some day when things are slow I'll post it.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> Yeah and I'm Catherine the Great.


Well, she was an empress, too, and a great dame as well.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> We've posted many. They just fly over your head.
> 
> And just how does one "spew admiration"? Your talent for using language is, um, never mind.


HAHAHAA, someone heard that spew was the word of the week. The trouble is that week is over.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Great picture, Jelun. And caption.
> 
> I keep one picture of Dick Cheney in my files, and it's a dilly. Some day when things are slow I'll post it.


Let me guess... he could have posed for that church aerial shot?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> HAHAHAA, someone heard that spew was the word of the week. The trouble is that week is over.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

2010? Isn't that a bit dated? Please provide support for your post from *this* year.


joeysomma said:


> Read it for yourself:
> 
> Obama Officials In 2010: 93 Million Americans Will Be Unable To Keep Their Health Plans Under Obamacare
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/10/31/obama-officials-in-2010-93-million-americans-will-be-unable-to-keep-their-health-plans-under-obamacare/


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Let me guess... he could have posed for that church aerial shot?


No, but it's a funny idea.

"Dick" by name and "Dick" by nature.

Have you noticed how many Republicans call themselves "Rick"? Santorum, Perry, Scott, at least a half-dozen more. It doesn't disguise the fact that they're all really "Dick"s.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And she knew how to manage men. Ugh. Never mind. I think I'll pass.



Poor Purl said:


> Well, she was an empress, too, and a great dame as well.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> No, but it's a funny idea.
> 
> "Dick" by name and "Dick" by nature.
> 
> Have you noticed how many Republicans call themselves "Rick"? Santorum, Perry, Scott, at least a half-dozen more. It doesn't disguise the fact that they're all really "Dick"s.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: I always think the same thing.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> No, but it's a funny idea.
> 
> "Dick" by name and "Dick" by nature.
> 
> Have you noticed how many Republicans call themselves "Rick"? Santorum, Perry, Scott, at least a half-dozen more. It doesn't disguise the fact that they're all really "Dick"s.


Or that they should really have a "P" preceding their chosen version of Richard.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Or that they should really have a "P" preceding their chosen version of Richard.


I never thought of that. Great suggestion.


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Or that they should really have a "P" preceding their chosen version of Richard.


Tut tut, missis. Vapours will be breaking out all over your country.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

aw9358 said:


> Tut tut, missis. Vapours will be breaking out all over your country.


I certainly hope so.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Arghh. Posted 3 times, and the post was incomplete. It was too long to reconstruct, too.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Arghh. Posted 3 times, and the post was incomplete. It was too long to reconstruct, too.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Arghh. Posted 3 time, and the post was incomplete.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> And she knew how to manage men. Ugh. Never mind. I think I'll pass.


Also horses.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

MaidInBedlam said:


> Just like Congress. They do work a few days now and then but it doesn't seem like they can show any tangible results of their work, and they have lots of "weekends" Maybe if they didn't pay so much attention to lobbyists, they'd have more time to work. No, wait, paying less attention to lobbyists would mean fewer "incentives". This is the one area where bipartisanship is being practiced...


So nice you posted it thrice.

Did you hear the congressman who complained that even though aides made much less money than he did, they could quit their jobs and go to work for a lobbyist for far more, while he's stuck in Congress getting only $174,000 a year?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

And ruby slippers


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Mommee, that sounds like Congress. They do work a few days now and then but it doesn't seem like they can show any tangible results of their work, and they have lots of "weekends" Maybe if they didn't pay so much attention to lobbyists, they'd have more time to work. No, wait, paying less attention to lobbyists would mean fewer "incentives". This is the one area where bipartisanship is being practiced...

I don't have coverage for pregnancy or any fertility services whatsoever in my Kaiser Senior Advantage Plan (that's my Medicare Part B&D plan) and that has had no effect on me. I get to keep the plan I have had for 5 years. This is the case for a couple of dozen people I know who have the same plan I do. Yes, I know that's not a very big samping for statistical purposes but once could extrapolate.

I'm glad Healthcare.gov is down for the weekend. If that means the glitches will be fixed, that's a good deal. Since the enrolment period has been extended, I don't think anyone is desperate today about this shutdown.

I find it ridiculous to believe taht the murders in Benghazi are the result of a Youtube video, even though there seem to be people in the Middle East who are easily offended by sill s--t like Youtube. Benghazi was a bloody mess in more than one way. What was done is now in the past. No one can change it. All I can do is hope a lot of people learn from that horrible incident so something like that won't happen again.

Don't worry, I'm not going to post anything here that shows I approve of everything the current Administration does. I think Obama is a good President, but I don't agree or approve of everything he's done so far. Keep in mind he has another three years in office, so I reserve judging him in absolute terms until I see what he does in the future. I seem to have misplaced my crystal ball.

For some reason the "Quote Reply" option isn't working very well. This is what I'm responding to:
[quote =momeee]How correct you both are. It is hardly worth posting here as the Obumma sycophants will dismiss everything that isn't spewing adoration for their pretender-to-the-throne. There are no sites, reports, etc. where comments are posted that have any support for this major embarrassing administration failure. I agree, they must have their hands out, hoping for more and bigger bennies.
From : lovethelake and Knitter from Nebraska wrote:
"Before you go on making it sound like others don't know what they're talking about, YOU should do your own homework! It makes NO difference whether someone "needs" o-care or not! If anyone's plan does not "fit" o-care standards it can no longer be offered! Even 60 year old MEN, MUST have pregnancy and abortion coverage! o LIED!!! he KNEW that most people could NOT keep their plan! And many people will NOT be able to keep their doctors because so many doctors are quitting! Most of the major hospitals will not accept all o-care plans! They have decided to honor only a couple! This whole thing was designed to rob people of their money! It is nothing but redistribution of wealth, from our pockets to theirs! WAKE UP!!!

True. The WH knew in 2010 that 93 million would not be able to keep their current coverage, because the plan they chose was 'substandard' according to Obama. But if you provide a link from anywhere other than MSNBC or libsrus you will be mocked. But this is from the group that believed the murders in Benghazi were caused by a YouTube video.

I could go 'shopping' for what the government thinks is a more appropriate policy for me. Oh wait, the website is down, so I can't. Mine is sooo substandard, it doesn't cover my future pregnancies. But wait, I lost those parts to cancer, so why do I need that coverage?

Can you imagine what brilliant person in the WH thought that shutting down the Obamawhatevercare website over a weekend would be a good idea? Oh that's right, Obamacultists are takers not workers so everyday is a weekend"[/quote]


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> We've seen other bloggers at Forbes get things wrong. If you really know how to do the math, do it. 93 million is an absurdly high number, considering how many people don't need Obamacare. Think for once instead of picking up other people's numbers.
> 
> Never mind; I don't think you could do it.


The 93M is for the business/corporate mandate, not the individual mandate. The wording for the corporate mandate is extremely limiting. Small changes to any policy will make it available for cancellation. If a company decides to offer a reduction in the deduction to off set the increase in policy, this policy can be cancelled. Of the 160M (give or take) companies that offer health insurance 93M are at risk of cancellation.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> The 93M is for the business/corporate mandate, not the individual mandate. The wording for the corporate mandate is extremely limiting. Small changes to any policy will make it available for cancellation. If a company decides to offer a reduction in the deduction to off set the increase in policy, this policy can be cancelled. Of the 160M (give or take) companies that offer health insurance 93M are at risk of cancellation.


I don't understand the numbers. If there are 160M companies offering insurance in this country, that means there are not even twice as many individuals as there are companies, since not all companies offer health ins. I find this hard to believe.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> I don't understand the numbers. If there are 160M companies offering insurance in this country, that means there are not even twice as many individuals as there are companies, since not all companies offer health ins. I find this hard to believe.


Most companies do offer the health insurance, though, as soon as they can. After all, it is the best way for the owners to procure a group plan and be able to use the business to pay off the expense of it for themselves and to keep employees happy. 
The ridiculous piece of all this whining is that policies are rewritten every year. Most people don't pay any attention to it, but, when open enrollment comes around the reason that they have all those health insurance fairs is because the policies are all different than the year before. 
We are all pretty complacent when it comes to our health insurance. We are glad we have it, it brings security and peace of mind. This is why there is a health care crisis, who has the time or the incentive to read those huge books that come out in inexplicable language to determine which is best?

LOL, 160 million? HAHAHAHAAA, good catch. 
I have been trying to find the correct number. That must be employees.

http://www.rwjf.org/en/about-rwjf/newsroom/newsroom-content/2013/04/number-of-americans-obtaining-health-insurance-through-an-employ.html

Princeton, N.J. The percentage of Americans who receive health insurance through employers has fallen significantly over the last decadefrom 69.7 percent nationwide in 2000 to just 59.5 percent in 2011, according to a report by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF).

In all, 47 states and the District of Columbia saw a statistically significant decline in nonelderly adults with employer-sponsored insurance (ESI), with 22 states experiencing decreases of 10 percentage points or more.

The report finds that in total, 11.5 million fewer Americans receive their health coverage through their job, or a family members job, than did at the start of the century. In 2000, approximately 170.5 million Americans were enrolled in ESI compared with 159 million in 2011.

Employers continue to shoulder about the same percentage of costs for employees health insurance as they did 10 years ago, but everyones costs have increased dramatically, said Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, MD, president and CEO of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Higher costs naturally translate into fewer employers offering insurance coverage, and fewer employees accepting it, even when it is offered. That is why it is so important that people have options for purchasing affordable health insurance that meets their needs.

The report was prepared by researchers at the University of Minnesotas State Health Access Data Assistance Center (SHADAC). Researchers say many factors contributed to ...


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

These numbers make much more sense. Thanks for doing the research. How could the anti's have accepted that absurd number, esp. one who claims to have been a math teacher?



jelun2 said:


> Most companies do offer the health insurance, though, as soon as they can. After all, it is the best way for the owners to procure a group plan and be able to use the business to pay off the expense of it for themselves and to keep employees happy.
> The ridiculous piece of all this whining is that policies are rewritten every year. Most people don't pay any attention to it, but, when open enrollment comes around the reason that they have all those health insurance fairs is because the policies are all different than the year before.
> We are all pretty complacent when it comes to our health insurance. We are glad we have it, it brings security and peace of mind. This is why there is a health care crisis, who has the time or the incentive to read those huge books that come out in inexplicable language to determine which is best?
> 
> ...


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> These numbers make much more sense. Thanks for doing the research. How could the anti's have accepted that absurd number, esp. one who claims to have been a math teacher?


Oh, I am sure that just as with me they see the 160 and think people not businesses. LOL, we would all be business owners.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Oh, I am sure that just as with me they see the 160 and think people not businesses. LOL, we would all be business owners.


She typed the words with her own little fingers: "Of the 160M (give or take) companies that offer health insurance 93M are at risk of cancellation." The 160M couldn't be people that offer health insurance; it has to be businesses.

I think someone distributing the talking points accidentally stuck in an extra zero, and here they are insisting on that absurd number rather than thinking things through and/or looking things up.

I guess thinking is above their pay grade.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

damemary said:


> I got warning when I attempted to open your links so I overlook then all now. fyi


Guess you don't know how to open a link

Worked fine for me again

Guess that is one of the most lame excuses Obamacultists have tried in a long time


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> The 93M is for the business/corporate mandate, not the individual mandate. The wording for the corporate mandate is extremely limiting. Small changes to any policy will make it available for cancellation. If a company decides to offer a reduction in the deduction to off set the increase in policy, this policy can be cancelled. Of the 160M (give or take) companies that offer health insurance 93M are at risk of cancellation.


Did you know that if your copay went up $5 in the past three years, that is considered a major change, so you won't get to keep it?


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> No, but it's a funny idea.
> 
> "Dick" by name and "Dick" by nature.
> 
> Have you noticed how many Republicans call themselves "Rick"? Santorum, Perry, Scott, at least a half-dozen more. It doesn't disguise the fact that they're all really "Dick"s.


<<<<<whispering to my friends......Did you notice how libs lack so much class when on the defensive. Good grief an 11 year old male has more maturity. Bet she snickers at the word underpants too>>>>>>>


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> <<<<<whispering to my friends......Did you notice how libs lack so much class when on the defensive. Good grief an 11 year old male has more maturity. Bet she snickers at the word underpants too>>>>>>>


On the defensive for what? 
Wasn't it you who posted that stupid picture of bloomers as parachutes?
Read my mind.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> <<<<<whispering to my friends......Did you notice how libs lack so much class when on the defensive. Good grief an 11 year old male has more maturity. Bet she snickers at the word underpants too>>>>>>>


Don't you mean "Bet they snicker," since you're unable to distinguish one "lib" from another and think that - like righties - we all say exactly the same thing?

If this is you trying to prove you have a sense of humor, it isn't working. Good grief.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> On the defensive for what?
> Wasn't it you who posted that stupid picture of bloomers as parachutes?
> Read my mind.


That was Janeway, the intellectual of the bunch.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> On the defensive for what?
> Wasn't it you who posted that stupid picture of bloomers as parachutes?
> Read my mind.


Oops, I missed that. Instead of dealing with the obviously wrong numbers in her/their statistics, she's trying to change the subject, saying we're the ones on the defensive.

I don't like using the fem. version of Richard, but if I had to describe her....


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Oops, I missed that. Instead of dealing with the obviously wrong numbers in her/their statistics, she's trying to change the subject, saying we're the ones on the defensive.
> 
> I don't like using the fem. version of Richard, but if I had to describe her....


HAHAHAA, I can see that I need to verify before spouting. Is spouting OK?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> HAHAHAA, I can see that I need to verify before spouting. Is spouting OK?


I don't see anything wrong with it. It's much more pleasant than the spew they keep spouting.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> I don't see anything wrong with it. It's much more pleasant than the spew they keep spouting.


Phew, I was afraid I would have to pout.


----------



## Knitter from Nebraska (Jun 9, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> There's a lot of misinformation and ignorance out there, Jelun. It's amazing how many people can't do the math, are incapable of weighing the benefits of a low premium/high deductible vs high premium/low deductible plan, and refuse to acknowledge that their humpty-dumpty policies are worse than nothing at all. It's tragic enough that so many people are so misinformed and helpless--even worse that the anti-ACA crowd is rushing in to exploit them to their fullest.


The misinformation and ignorance are all yours! On our old policy, our co pay for internist or GP was $15. It was $25 for a specialist and $100 for hospitalization. All tests and chemo were covered 100%! Our new policy costs almost double per month. There are no co pays! We pay 100% of everything upto $3000 with a 20% co pay AFTER that! Now! Can you explain to me, how you figure that I'm better off paying twice as much for very little coverage? This is nothing but theft! A redistribution of wealth! From the middle class to the corporate insurance companies! Keep in mind that all of the fortune 500 companies are owned by the same people! The same people that own all of the politicians!


----------



## Knitter from Nebraska (Jun 9, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> The same folks, no doubt, who fail to see that that dandy little credit card that arrived in the mail carries with it a usurious 20% interest rate. I find it incredibly irritating that these ignorant folks are only now waking up to the fact that they've been bilked for years by subscribing to sub-par insurance plans. But instead of doing their research and choosing adequate coverage they moan and complain, pointing the finger of blame at the ACA for waking them from their dream world. It's ridiculous.


It's quite presumptuous of you to assume that people who don't like to be bilked by o care use credit cards with a 20% rate. First of all, we have one credit card which we use only to reserve hotel rooms. Second of all, if you have good credit, you don't pay 20%. Maybe you do, but we don't!


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Knitter from Nebraska said:


> The misinformation and ignorance are all yours! On our old policy, our co pay for internist or GP was $15. It was $25 for a specialist and $100 for hospitalization. All tests and chemo were covered 100%! Our new policy costs almost double per month. There are no co pays! We pay 100% of everything upto $3000 with a 20% co pay AFTER that! Now! Can you explain to me, how you figure that I'm better off paying twice as much for very little coverage? This is nothing but theft! A redistribution of wealth! From the middle class to the corporate insurance companies! Keep in mind that all of the fortune 500 companies are owned by the same people! The same people that own all of the politicians!


Would you have preferred a single-payer system? Because that's how it sounds.

It also sounds as though you've been screwed by the insurance companies, as most of us have, not by Obamacare. You couldn't possible be better off if that's the only policy you can get. I hope that when that damn dumb website gets fixed you can find something better.

Was yours an individual policy or a group policy?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Knitter from Nebraska said:


> It's quite presumptuous of you to assume that people who don't like to be bilked by o care use credit cards with a 20% rate. First of all, we have one credit card which we use only to reserve hotel rooms. Second of all, if you have good credit, you don't pay 20%. Maybe you do, but we don't!


I think Susan was referring to the "medical credit cards," which really are predatory. If you miss one payment, your interest rate can double or triple. These are not like bank credit cards, which I assume is what you have. (I wish I did enough traveling to make it worthwhile to have a credit card devoted to hotel reservations.)

The cause of most bankruptcies in this country is medical debt, so the people who are getting those cards don't have good credit. And apparently the doctors and dentists who recommend applying for them don't warn their patients about the risks, or maybe don't know the risks themselves.

It's quite presumptuous of you to think that everyone else is in your situation.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

An editorial (and therefore an opinion piece, but an informed one) from today's New York Times:

Insurance Policies Not Worth Keeping
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published: November 2, 2013

Congressional Republicans have stoked consumer fears and confusion with charges that the health care reform law is causing insurers to cancel existing policies and will force many people to pay substantially higher premiums next year for coverage they dont want. That, they say, violates President Obamas pledge that if you like the insurance you have, you can keep it.

Mr. Obama clearly misspoke when he said that. By law, insurers cannot continue to sell policies that dont provide the minimum benefits and consumer protections required as of next year. So theyve sent cancellation notices to hundreds of thousands of people who hold these substandard policies. (At issue here are not the 149 million people covered by employer plans, but the 10 million to 12 million people who buy policies directly on the individual market.)

But insurers are not allowed to abandon enrollees. They must offer consumers options that do comply with the law, and they are scrambling to retain as many of their customers as possible with new policies that are almost certain to be more comprehensive than their old ones.

Indeed, in all the furor, people forget how terrible many of the soon-to-be-abandoned policies were. Some had deductibles as high as $10,000 or $25,000 and required large co-pays after that, and some didnt cover hospital care.

This overblown controversy has also obscured the crux of what health care reform is trying to do, which is to guarantee that everyone can buy insurance without being turned away or charged exorbitant rates for pre-existing conditions and that everyone can receive benefits that really protect them against financial or medical disaster, not illusory benefits that prove inadequate when a crisis strikes.

Starting next year, all plans sold in this country will be required to provide 10 essential benefits, including some, like mental health and substance abuse treatment and maternity and newborn care, that are not now part of many policies. And premiums may well rise, in part because insurance companies must accept all applicants, not just the healthy.

Premiums are apt to come down for older patients and sicker patients with chronic illnesses. Premiums will likely go up for younger, healthier patients. Even so, analysts at the Kaiser Family Foundation believe that most people will actually pay less next year, because those with modest incomes will qualify for federal subsidies and many poor, uninsured people will be eligible for Medicaid.

Many higher-income people who wont qualify for subsidies, however, will have to buy policies providing more benefits than they want. Maternity care for those who will not have children is one sore point. But that is one price of moving toward universal coverage with comprehensive benefits. And some of these higher-income people could suffer a catastrophic accident or illness that would previously have bankrupted them, but will now be paid for by insurance.

People under 30, who might balk at higher premiums, have another option. They can buy a catastrophic plan that provides all the essential benefits but keeps premiums low by making the beneficiaries bear a greater share of the cost. The hitch is that people who buy such plans are not eligible for federal subsidies, so many would probably be better off buying the cheapest plan available on the exchanges. Federal analysts estimated last week that, after subsidies, two-thirds of the uninsured young adults in 34 exchanges around the country could get coverage for less than $100 a month, and almost half could get it for less than $50 a month. That sounds like a bargain for comprehensive coverage.

Some conservative groups, eager to cripple the individual market by deterring enrollment, are urging consumers not to take out insurance and to instead pay the fine, which is cheaper than the cost of insurance but hardly negligible. For individuals, it starts at $95 or 1 percent of applicable yearly income in 2014, whichever is higher, and rises to $695 or 2.5 percent of applicable income in 2016. But why pay the penalty and get nothing when you can pay a reasonable fee and get a good policy?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/03/opinion/sunday/insurance-policies-not-worth-keeping.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0


----------



## Knitter from Nebraska (Jun 9, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Would you have preferred a single-payer system? Because that's how it sounds.
> 
> It also sounds as though you've been screwed by the insurance companies, as most of us have, not by Obamacare. You couldn't possible be better off if that's the only policy you can get. I hope that when that damn dumb website gets fixed you can find something better.
> 
> Was yours an individual policy or a group policy?


NO! I would NOT prefer a single payer system! I would prefer that the government stay OUT of my healthcare and personal business! I am smart enough to decide what's right for me! We have group coverage provided by my husband's employer. We were informed that under o care, they could no longer provide the coverage that we had because the company would be fined for providing a "Cadillac plan". Our new policy complies with o care! Which means it sucks!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Knitter from Nebraska said:


> It's quite presumptuous of you to assume that people who don't like to be bilked by o care use credit cards with a 20% rate. First of all, we have one credit card which we use only to reserve hotel rooms. Second of all, if you have good credit, you don't pay 20%. Maybe you do, but we don't!


If you would take your time in reading a post you would probably be able to understand it.


----------



## Knitter from Nebraska (Jun 9, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> I think Susan was referring to the "medical credit cards," which really are predatory. If you miss one payment, your interest rate can double or triple. These are not like bank credit cards, which I assume is what you have. (I wish I did enough traveling to make it worthwhile to have a credit card devoted to hotel reservations.)
> 
> The cause of most bankruptcies in this country is medical debt, so the people who are getting those cards don't have good credit. And apparently the doctors and dentists who recommend applying for them don't warn their patients about the risks, or maybe don't know the risks themselves.
> 
> It's quite presumptuous of you to think that everyone else is in your situation.


You too, are being presumptuous! You presume that Susan was referring to medical credit cards when she said no such thing! And at NO time did I suggest that "everyone else" was in my situation! She was suggesting that anyone who didn't think that o care was great, probably had credit cards with a 20% rate. I was just setting her straight! I was commenting on what she SAID, not what she was thinking!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Don't you mean "Bet they snicker," since you're unable to distinguish one "lib" from another and think that - like righties - we all say exactly the same thing?
> 
> If this is you trying to prove you have a sense of humor, it isn't working. Good grief.


I outright GUFFAW at the mention of panties. WooHoo.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Knitter from Nebraska said:


> You too, are being presumptuous! You presume that Susan was referring to medical credit cards when she said no such thing! And at NO time did I suggest that "everyone else" was in my situation! She was suggesting that anyone who didn't think that o care was great, probably had credit cards with a 20% rate. I was just setting her straight!


That was NOT what she said. Man, you are unable to read.


----------



## Knitter from Nebraska (Jun 9, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> That was NOT what she said. Man, you are unable to read.


You'd better read it again!


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Knitter from Nebraska said:


> NO! I would NOT prefer a single payer system! I would prefer that the government stay OUT of my healthcare and personal business! I am smart enough to decide what's right for me! We have group coverage provided by my husband's employer. We were informed that under o care, they could no longer provide the coverage that we had because the company would be fined for providing a "Cadillac plan". Our new policy complies with o care! Which means it sucks!


Knitter from Nebraska
what sucks is all of the mis-information being circulated by either very uninformed individuals or ill-meaning groups. We have top-notch Company Health Care and nothing is changing. Some Manager lying to you who wants to cut back on your Health Insurance? Sure sounds like it.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> I guess we just live with, like deadbeat dads (parents), as I say to those I know who don't want to pay for undocumented residents to get medical care. What are we going to do let them die in the streets?


jelun2
well, when you are behind by a Century, it will take perhaps a decade to catch up. I like to think that I am living in a modern Country.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Knitter from Nebraska said:


> You'd better read it again!


Let's try that reading in context, shall we?

jelun2 wrote:
That 65 could be next month for all we know. 
The other piece is this deductible craziness. Many of the procedures for preventative care are co-pay free and the deductible is not an issue. 
How many of the people who are so worried and anxious just don't pay attention to the information they are given?

Susanmos2000 responded... 
The same folks, no doubt, who fail to see that that dandy little credit card that arrived in the mail carries with it a usurious 20% interest rate. I find it incredibly irritating that these ignorant folks are only now waking up to the fact that they've been bilked for years by subscribing to sub-par insurance plans. But instead of doing their research and choosing adequate coverage they moan and complain, pointing the finger of blame at the ACA for waking them from their dream world. It's ridiculous.

So you see, whinebag, if what you are saying about an over the top too good to be true health insurance plan is the case
then your circumstances, and your outrage, have absolutely nothing to do with susanmos2000's post. 
You just want to vent. 
Just admit it and complain. 
You are in the unlucky 3%, sorry. 
When something like that goes wrong why not just be thankful for all the years that you had a really good policy? All of these people that your bad luck is helping are now on the receiving end that you used to be on.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Knitter from Nebraska said:


> You too, are being presumptuous! You presume that Susan was referring to medical credit cards when she said no such thing! And at NO time did I suggest that "everyone else" was in my situation! She was suggesting that anyone who didn't think that o care was great, probably had credit cards with a 20% rate. I was just setting her straight! I was commenting on what she SAID, not what she was thinking!


I don't see where she SAID what you think she SAID. I can presume what S was referring to because there was a recent post on the subject of medical credit cards. You, on the other hand, think you can drop in in the middle of a conversation and tell everybody else what they were talking about.

Geez, all your shouting is getting to me. Never mind.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> If you would take your time in reading a post you would probably be able to understand it.


I would tend to doubt that was possible. She'd have to pay attention in order to understand it.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> I would tend to doubt that was possible. She'd have to pay attention in order to understand it.


It's just like being in the same room. If one's attention is directed toward the response and not what is being said, then the intent and meaning are lost.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> It's just like being in the same room. If one's attention is directed toward the response and not what is being said, then the intent and meaning are lost.


I think also if you're enraged while you're responding, it makes it impossible to concentrate.

I've got Frank Sinatra playing on my computer. I'm so relaxed now I can totally ignore all the whining.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> It's just like being in the same room. If one's attention is directed toward the response and not what is being said, then the intent and meaning are lost.


Come to think of it, could you imagine being in the same room with that?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Come to think of it, could you imagine being in the same room with that?


Um, No. 
I don't think we have to worry about that too much, beside the obvious problems she is definitely one who runs away as soon as she is proven wrong.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> I think also if you're enraged while you're responding, it makes it impossible to concentrate.
> 
> I've got Frank Sinatra playing on my computer. I'm so relaxed now I can totally ignore all the whining.


No doubt about it, my family laughs at me because I began giving my angels that message as early as possible. If you let your anger overtake you then your brain stops working. 
My kids think I am nuts, I figure anything that you start telling them at 2 months has to stick.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> No doubt about it, my family laughs at me because I began giving my angels that message as early as possible. If you let your anger overtake you then your brain stops working.
> My kids think I am nuts, I figure anything that you start telling them at 2 months has to stick.


I wish I'd had you around to advise me to do likewise. All I passed on to my son at that age was a sense of humor, yes, at a couple of months. Not bad, but he gets really angry at times. And so do I.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Um, No.
> I don't think we have to worry about that too much, beside the obvious problems she is definitely one who runs away as soon as she is proven wrong.


There's also the fact that she's in Nebraska and we're on the east coast.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> There's also the fact that she's in Nebraska and we're on the east coast.


HAHAHAHA, oh I want to say it.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> I wish I'd had you around to advise me to do likewise. All I passed on to my son at that age was a sense of humor, yes, at a couple of months. Not bad, but he gets really angry at times. And so do I.


Oh gee, if I had it all to do over again. This grandparenting is such a great deal, way over and above the parenting thing.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Oh gee, if I had it all to do over again. This grandparenting is such a great deal, way over and above the parenting thing.


So I've been told.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Even worse, some citizens in my lovely country might have a case of the fantods.


aw9358 said:


> Tut tut, missis. Vapours will be breaking out all over your country.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

MaidInBedlam said:


> Even worse, some citizens in my lovely country might have a case of the fantods.


Laws a mercy me, Miss Maid.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

I'm a poet and I don't know it. And I have no idea how I managed to post something 3 times. What I actually meant to post is a veritable festival of typos and bad spelling.

I love those stories like the one you tell about a member of Congress. Poor baby, he only gets $174,000. He could quit too, though he'd be publically embarrased. After the dust had settled HE could get a job as a lobbyist himself.


Poor Purl said:


> So nice you posted it thrice.
> 
> Did you hear the congressman who complained that even though aides made much less money than he did, they could quit their jobs and go to work for a lobbyist for far more, while he's stuck in Congress getting only $174,000 a year?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

MaidInBedlam said:


> Even worse, some citizens in my lovely country might have a case of the fantods.


Oh no, is this like that LDS thing? Do I dare ask? WTF is a fantod?

Oh bleep, I have fantods all the time. I have fantods in my sleep.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Oh, how wonderful. Israel is planning to build 1700 homes on the West Bank. Talk about poking a stick in a hornet's nest. I find it difficult to figure out who has the right to claim the West Bank as a part of any country that's arguing over it. It seems politic for all parties to figure out who has the say over the West Bank and THEN decide what to do with it.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

MaidInBedlam said:


> I'm a poet and I don't know it. And I have no idea how I managed to post something 3 times. What I actually meant to post is a veritable festival of typos and bad spelling.
> 
> I love those stories like the one you tell about a member of Congress. Poor baby, he only gets $174,000. He could quit too, though he'd be publically embarrased. After the dust had settled HE could get a job as a lobbyist himself.


Well, I just happen to be in the mood for a veritable festival. Of anything.

But I'd better get back to my pants-shortening.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

MaidInBedlam said:


> Oh, how wonderful. Israel is planning to build 1700 homes on the West Bank. Talk about poking a stick in a hornet's nest. I find it difficult to figure out who has the right to claim the West Bank as a part of any country that's arguing over it. It seems politic for all parties to figure out who has the say over the West Bank and THEN decide what to do with it.


Politic? You expect politic from Israel and Palestine? Geez.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

I guess a lot of people know how to open a link. Just because it worked for you doesn't mean it's safe. Go open it a few more times and then tell us all about your virus ridden PC... Yeah, it's really lame to ignore a message that says a link is unsafe to open.


lovethelake said:


> Guess you don't know how to open a link
> 
> Worked fine for me again
> 
> Guess that is one of the most lame excuses Obamacultists have tried in a long time


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> Oops, I missed that. Instead of dealing with the obviously wrong numbers in her/their statistics, she's trying to change the subject, saying we're the ones on the defensive.
> 
> I don't like using the fem. version of Richard, but if I had to describe her....


I understand the word "bint" is a good substitute for the word the word you didn't want to post. If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will correct me.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

MaidInBedlam said:


> I understand the word "bint" is a good substitute for the word the word you didn't want to post. If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will correct me.


 Well, live and learn. Isn't that a British word? Still sounds nasty.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

MaidInBedlam said:


> Oh, how wonderful. Israel is planning to build 1700 homes on the West Bank. Talk about poking a stick in a hornet's nest. I find it difficult to figure out who has the right to claim the West Bank as a part of any country that's arguing over it. It seems politic for all parties to figure out who has the say over the West Bank and THEN decide what to do with it.


That stick gets to pokin' way too often. Heck, they coud be posting on KP. 
I think I have shared before that my mother managed to pass on a true prejudice for the Israelis. I struggle with that. Her version was that the Israelis were the only ones who wanted that area to be developed and at the time development was good while traditional living was bad.

Nobody is going to ask me for a solution, that's for sure.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

momeee said:


> This is interesting
> Last Year President Obama Reportedly Told His Aides That He's 'Really Good At Killing People'
> By Michael Kelley | Business Insider  12 hours ago
> AP
> ...


No President would say that about killing people. Obama didn't say that. It's so ridiculous you'd write that.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> WTH is Judge Jeanine?


Hahahaha. :lol:


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

ute4kp said:


> No President would say that about killing people. Obama didn't say that. It's so ridiculous you'd write that.


I googled it. It comes from a new book - the only mentions of it refer to that book. The loonies are very good about getting books out that prove that red is green. Well, at least they'll have Mommmeee as an audience. She seems to believe anything.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> I googled it. It comes from a new book - the only mentions of it refer to that book. The loonies are very good about getting books out that prove that red is green. Well, at least they'll have Mommmeee as an audience. She seems to believe anything.


Lots of those "books" are given away by World Net Daily and other RWN type sites. I remember they bought up lots of that failed VP candidate's books to give to new subscribers, that sort of thing. I seem to remember one of them posting "articles" that were really promos for new books.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

ute4kp said:


> No President would say that about killing people. Obama didn't say that. It's so ridiculous you'd write that.


Mommmeee's piece said "According to the new book Double Down, in which journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann chronicle the 2012 presidential election, President Barack Obama told his aides that hes really good at killing people while discussing drone strikes.
Peter Hamby of The Washington Post reported the moment in his review of the book.
The claim by the commander-in-chief is as indisputable as it is grim."

So I checked Peter Hamby's review. He mentions that "really good" quote in the middle of page 2, and then moves on to something else, without discussion. He did not "report the moment," only the fact that that book mentions it.

Sometimes I think they're totally incapable of telling the truth. It's all fakery.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Lots of those "books" are given away by World Net Daily and other RWN type sites. I remember they bought up lots of that failed VP candidate's books to give to new subscribers, that sort of thing. I seem to remember one of them posting "articles" that were really promos for new books.


There was also a story about Ann Coulter's books being bought up by someone (maybe even her) in large numbers.

This book, though, appears to be more straightforward than the others (as I learned when I finally look through the whole review). It's just a sensationalized story of the 2012 election campaigns, and only RWN bloggers would think to pull out that quote and make a big deal of it, if it ever was actually said.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Having the fantods is kind of like having the vapors.


jelun2 said:


> Oh no, is this like that LDS thing? Do I dare ask? WTF is a fantod?
> 
> Oh bleep, I have fantods all the time. I have fantods in my sleep.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> Politic? You expect politic from Israel and Palestine? Geez.


I don't expect it, I hope for it. That's probably not very different, though.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

I think it is, but have only heard if used by a Ukranian who is fluent in German, and frighteningly fluent in English. I think it might be a word we're not supposed to use.


Poor Purl said:


> Well, live and learn. Isn't that a British word? Still sounds nasty.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> There was also a story about Ann Coulter's books being bought up by someone (maybe even her) in large numbers.
> 
> This book, though, appears to be more straightforward than the others (as I learned when I finally look through the whole review). It's just a sensationalized story of the 2012 election campaigns, and only RWN bloggers would think to pull out that quote and make a big deal of it, if it ever was actually said.


Do you remember this?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/58098.html


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Do you remember this?
> 
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/58098.html


Now that you remind me, yes. I wonder whether LOL wrote him to tell him he was like a 9-year-old, or whatever she told me.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Mommmeee's piece said "According to the new book Double Down, in which journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann chronicle the 2012 presidential election, President Barack Obama told his aides that hes really good at killing people while discussing drone strikes.
> Peter Hamby of The Washington Post reported the moment in his review of the book.
> The claim by the commander-in-chief is as indisputable as it is grim."
> 
> ...


I had forgotten these 2 wrote Game Change together. 
I am not too sure how that shook out as far as factual material goes, it was entertaining. It even made me feel some sympathy for Sarah Palin. She was so unprepared for that campaign.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

*SATIRE WARNING*

November 4, 2013
*Obama Has Lied to American People, Says Lying Expert*

Posted by Andy Borowitz

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)President Obama has imperiled his second term by lying to the American people, one of the nations foremost lying experts said Sunday on NBCs Meet the Press.

The accusation carried weight, observers said, coming as it did from a legendary figure in the high-stakes world of competitive lying.

He was harshly critical of Mr. Obamas fibbing, calling it amateurish at best, contrasting the Presidents lack of lying experience with his own half-century of dishonesty.

The American people deserve a President who is a world-class liar, he said. Sadly, they do not have that President.

Speaking from experience, he said that he had learned the hard way just how difficult lying can be: Just when you think youve gotten away with it, theres someone with a hidden camera catching you telling the truth.

He said that it was possible that the President might grow as a liar in the remaining three years of his term, but he was not optimistic.

Lying isnt something you can just pick up on the job, he said. Maybe President Obama would be better off leaving it to us professionals.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Don't remember it at all. Sorry.



jelun2 said:


> Do you remember this?
> 
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/58098.html


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

IMHO what made Mitt a world class liar was that he came to believe everything he said.



Poor Purl said:


> *SATIRE WARNING*
> 
> November 4, 2013
> *Obama Has Lied to American People, Says Lying Expert*
> ...


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> IMHO what made Mitt a world class liar was that he came to believe everything he said.


I think that's true. Even when there was video of him saying it, he'd still deny it. And Romneycare? So proud of it when he signed it into Mass. law, until Obama picked it up, at which point Mitt totally denied it.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

damemary wrote:
IMHO what made Mitt a world class liar was that he came to believe everything he said.
Purl wrote: I think that's true. Even when there was video of him saying it, he'd still deny it. And Romneycare? So proud of it when he signed it into Mass. law, until Obama picked it up, at which point Mitt totally denied it.

Unfortunately you are both in denial...and are confusing Mitt with the liar-in-chier - Obumma.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

momeee said:


> damemary wrote:
> IMHO what made Mitt a world class liar was that he came to believe everything he said.
> Purl wrote: I think that's true. Even when there was video of him saying it, he'd still deny it. And Romneycare? So proud of it when he signed it into Mass. law, until Obama picked it up, at which point Mitt totally denied it.
> 
> Unfortunately you are both in denial...and are confusing Mitt with the liar-in-chier - Obumma.


Why, thank you, Mommeee, for your opinion. I'll give it the attention it deserves. Especially after your post of a book review full of lies.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Knitter from Nebraska said:


> It's quite presumptuous of you to assume that people who don't like to be bilked by o care use credit cards with a 20% rate. First of all, we have one credit card which we use only to reserve hotel rooms. Second of all, if you have good credit, you don't pay 20%. Maybe you do, but we don't!


Susan has proven again and again that she has no understanding of simple math nor any knowledge of investing or the economy.

She probably does pay 20% or higher on her credit cards.

Personally, in over 30 years I've never once paid a nickel of interest on a credit card balance; simply by paying in full every month as they are due. Simple concept for a vehicle of convenience.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Knitter from Nebraska said:


> NO! I would NOT prefer a single payer system! I would prefer that the government stay OUT of my healthcare and personal business! I am smart enough to decide what's right for me! We have group coverage provided by my husband's employer. We were informed that under o care, they could no longer provide the coverage that we had because the company would be fined for providing a "Cadillac plan". Our new policy complies with o care! Which means it sucks!


 :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

There you go. Perfect example.



Poor Purl said:


> I think that's true. Even when there was video of him saying it, he'd still deny it. And Romneycare? So proud of it when he signed it into Mass. law, until Obama picked it up, at which point Mitt totally denied it.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

No proof offered. Go away.



momeee said:


> damemary wrote:
> IMHO what made Mitt a world class liar was that he came to believe everything he said.
> Purl wrote: I think that's true. Even when there was video of him saying it, he'd still deny it. And Romneycare? So proud of it when he signed it into Mass. law, until Obama picked it up, at which point Mitt totally denied it.
> 
> Unfortunately you are both in denial...and are confusing Mitt with the liar-in-chier - Obumma.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Did you hear that the Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic will not be accepting Obamacare for payment? I was in my car and could not remember the LA hospital and the NYC hospital mentioned.

WTG Obama, destroying our best institutions in our country


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Did you hear that the Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic will not be accepting Obamacare for payment? I was in my car and could not remember the LA hospital and the NYC hospital mentioned.
> 
> WTG Obama, destroying our best institutions in our country


Don't worry too much. ObamaCare is in free-fall and won't survive itself. Soon to be history and the end of Obama's reign.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Did you hear that the Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic will not be accepting Obamacare for payment? I was in my car and could not remember the LA hospital and the NYC hospital mentioned.
> 
> WTG Obama, destroying our best institutions in our country


Oh another thing. My best bud called me all upset and needed to talk. She must pay $200 a month for Medicare in order to keep her insurance policy because of Obamacare. She is on a very restricted budget and has no idea how she is going to pay it. Her husband, (who was in the Navy for 30 years as a deep sea recovery diver and is a 100% disabled veteran) had his Medicare payment increase almost 100% because of Obamacare. Isn't that a great example of how Obama respects our veterans?


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Did you hear that the Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic will not be accepting Obamacare for payment? I was in my car and could not remember the LA hospital and the NYC hospital mentioned.
> 
> WTG Obama, destroying our best institutions in our country


Can you substantiate this, please?


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Oh another thing. My best bud called me all upset and needed to talk. She must pay $200 a month for Medicare in order to keep her insurance policy because of Obamacare. She is on a very restricted budget and has no idea how she is going to pay it. Her husband, (who was in the Navy for 30 years as a deep sea recovery diver and is a 100% disabled veteran) had his Medicare payment increase almost 100% because of Obamacare. Isn't that a great example of how Obama respects our veterans?


Medicare cost has not gone up to $200/person. Can you substantiate this please?
Remember, it's the House repubs who have cut veteran payments.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

alcameron said:


> Medicare cost has not gone up to $200/person. Can you substantiate this please?
> Remember, it' she House repubs who have cut veteran payments.


So you are calling my friend a liar?

Substantiate that


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> So you are calling my friend a liar?
> 
> Substantiate that


No, that's called anecdotal. I would like to see some evidence. Furthermore, you have no idea if it has gone up that it's due to Obamacare. Our Medicare premium per person is not that high and we have, to date, received no notice of increase to $200. That's all I'm saying. Do you have a good source for your statement about Mayo Clinic not accepting Obamacare? There are many insurance companies offering plans under Obamacare and it's hard to believe they would not accept any of them. Over half their patients are on Medicare, so I know they accept that.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

alcameron said:


> No, that's called anecdotal. I would like to see some evidence. Furthermore, you have no idea if it has gone up that it's due to Obamacare. Our Medicare premium per person is not that high and we have, to date, received no notice of increase to $200. That's all I'm saying. Do you have a good source for your statement about Mayo Clinic not accepting Obamacare? There are many insurance companies offering plans under Obamacare and it's hard to believe they would not accept any of them. Over half their patients are on Medicare, so I know they accept that.


NO that is FACT

Since it appears you are incapable of using Google, I will try to help. Turn on your computer, try the shiny button that says 'power'. Wait until the little spinning hour glass or a pretty circle stops spinning. Then look for a 4 colored circle on your screen. Click on it. Then type in Cleveland Clinic + not taking Obamacare. And then by the magic of algore's amazing internet you will get a pretty page with pretty blue sentences. Pick one and see what happens. It is truly a miracle


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Oh that was mean to ask you to work.

Try this
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/hospital-of-tomorrow/articles/2013/10/30/top-hospitals-opt-out-of-obamacare

If the vocab is hard for you, I will get you the Cliff Notes


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> NO that is FACT
> 
> Since it appears you are incapable of using Google, I will try to help. Turn on your computer, try the shiny button that says 'power'. Wait until the little spinning hour glass or a pretty circle stops spinning. Then look for a 4 colored circle on your screen. Click on it. Then type in Cleveland Clinic + not taking Obamacare. And then by the magic of algore's amazing internet you will get a pretty page with pretty blue sentences. Pick one and see what happens. It is truly a miracle


I already looked for info on the Mayo Clinic and found nothing saying they don't accept Obamacare.
You needn't be a jerk about it.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> There are some afraid to click on the website, so even if they read it, they still won't believe it. It's like talking to a brick wall.


I like a brick wall better; structural sound, pretty and of good character and adds value in many cases.

Al is having a bad day today so pay her no heed. She told me I made a mistake, she attempted to prove it taking 3 posts to do so, and only proved herself to be an liar as well as wrong about me again.

Looneytunes - all of the Libs.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

alcameron said:


> I already looked for info on the Mayo Clinic and found nothing saying they don't accept Obamacare.


I googled this topic and a minimum of eight links were available to read on the first partial page in my browser. Better luck for you if someone could assist you I guess.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I like a brick wall better; structural sound, pretty and of good character and adds value in many cases.
> 
> Al is having a bad day today so pay her no heed. She told me I made a mistake, she attempted to prove it taking 3 posts to do so, and only proved herself to be an idiot as well as wrong.
> 
> Looneytunes - all of the Libs.


You people are hopeless. Please don't ever claim to be a Christian.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

alcameron said:


> You people are hopeless. Please don't ever claim to be a Christian.


I suggest you give up calling yourself a Christian woman while posting for the sole purpose of insulting, berating and hurting others.

Only then will you begin to live the good life that could be yours.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> NO that is FACT
> 
> Since it appears you are incapable of using Google, I will try to help. Turn on your computer, try the shiny button that says 'power'. Wait until the little spinning hour glass or a pretty circle stops spinning. Then look for a 4 colored circle on your screen. Click on it. Then type in Cleveland Clinic + not taking Obamacare. And then by the magic of algore's amazing internet you will get a pretty page with pretty blue sentences. Pick one and see what happens. It is truly a miracle


You smartass snot-nosed jerk. Have you never learned how to talk to people. You were simply asked to substantiate your claim, and you couldn't, so you got nasty.

Here's the first page of Google I got in response to the search "Mayo clinic obamacare":

t 281,000 results (0.21 seconds) 
Search Results
News for mayo clinic obamacare

Obamacare lacks key cost control: Mayo Clinic CEO
CNBC.com ‎- 2 days ago Obamacare does nothing to link doctors' fees to their performance and reduce health-care costs, the head of the Mayo Clinic told CNBC on ...

'ABSOLUTE INSANITY': Practicing physician slams Obamacare's damaging effects on doctor-patient relationships ...
Daily Caller‎ - 19 hours ago

Minnesota's Mayo Clinic Discusses Flaws in ObamaCare | Steve ...
www.stevecarlsonforcongress2010.com/node/31‎
After the Democrats forced through ObamaCare, the Mayo Clinic, naturally, tried ... on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Mayo Clinic is committed to ...

Mayo Clinic CEO On The Negatives Of Obamacare | Washington ...
freebeacon.com/dr-john-noseworthy-on-the-negatives-of-obamacare/‎
Sep 24, 2013 - Dr. John Noseworthy, the President and
CEO of the Mayo Clinic appeared on MSNBC's Morning Joe to discuss Obamacare. Dr. Noseworthy ...

Mayo Clinic Makes Medicare, Medicaid Cuts | Heartlander Magazine
heartland.org/newspaper.../mayo-clinic-makes-medicare-medicaid-cuts‎ Walmart Uses Obamacare to Shift Costs to Taxpayers ... According to Mayo, Medicare was reimbursing doctors at the Mayo Clinic in Arizona for only about 50 ...

'World-Renowned' Cleveland Clinic Announces Job Cuts Because ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/cleveland-clinic_n_3950640.html‎
Sep 18, 2013 - A 2009 study by the clinic concluded that it accounts for nearly eight percent of the economic output of northeast Ohio. A key part of Obamacare, ...

Mayo Clinic CEO: Obamacare Is Insurance Reform, Not Healthcare ...
www.moneynews.com/Economy/Obamacare-quality-care.../534361‎ 3 days ago - While much of the talk concerning Obamacare now centers on the malfunctioning website, there's a bigger issue  quality of care.

Mayo Clinic CEO: Obamacare Doesn't Address Cost Control ...
https://www.ijreview.com/.../91615-mayo-clinic-ceo-obamacare-doesnt-a...‎
3 days ago - Emily Hulsey | On 01, Nov 2013. It's time to look beyond the glitches at the other ways Obamacare needs to be fixed, says John Noseworthy, ...

Mayo Clinic CEO breaks down Obamacare | MSNBC
www.msnbc.com/.../mayo-clinic-ceo-breaks-down-obamacare‎
by Michele Richinick - in 46 Google+ circles
Sep 24, 2013 - As medical providers deal with complexities resulting from a weakened economy, health care services must be trustworthy and cost-effective.

Countdown to Obamacare: Mayo Clinic weighs in - msnbc
video.msnbc.msn.com/morning-joe/53092066‎
A description for this result is not available because of this site's robots.txt  learn more.

Forget About Providers, What Do Doctors Think of Obamacare ...www.forbes.com/.../forget-about-providers-what-do-doctors-think-of-ob...‎
Sep 17, 2012 - Healthcare providers have long been among Obamacare's most ... integrating the delivery of health care  including the Mayo Clinic, the ...

**********************************************************************************************

There's a lot of criticism, esp. from the CEO of Mayo, but no mention that the hospitals wouldn't accept Obamacare.

In other words, either you misheard, you misunderstood what you heard, or the news you listen to is full of lies. Or you're simply lying.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

alcameron said:


> I already looked for info on the Mayo Clinic and found nothing saying they don't accept Obamacare.
> You needn't be a jerk about it.


Apparently she can't help herself. And then the jerk-in-chief comes on telling _you_ how to behave, insulting you and saying you mustn't insult people.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> There are some afraid to click on the website, so even if they read it, they still won't believe it. It's like talking to a brick wall.


US News... is just another right-wing rag. I wouldn't believe it even if I'd read it, but life's too short.

Have you figured out yet where those 160 million companies offering med. ins. came from? Or are you going to stay with that obvious lie?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

alcameron said:


> You people are hopeless. Please don't ever claim to be a Christian.


I would have said "Please don't claim to be people," only I would have left out the "please."


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I suggest you give up calling yourself a Christian woman while posting for the sole purpose of insulting, berating and hurting others.
> 
> Only then will you begin to live the good life that could be yours.


Oh, is the privilege to insult, berate and hurt others reserved for you and your followers?


----------



## Knitter from Nebraska (Jun 9, 2013)

Home > Health > Hospital of Tomorrow > Which Top Hospitals Take Your Health Insurance Under Obamacare?
Which Top Hospitals Take Your Health Insurance Under Obamacare?
Think having insurance automatically means having access to all the top hospitals? Not necessarily.

By WATCHDOG.ORG
October 30, 2013 RSS Feed Print
Comment (47) 


inShare
22
Americans who sign up for Obamacare will be getting a big surprise if they expect to access premium health care that may have been previously covered under their personal policies. Most of the top hospitals will accept insurance from just one or two companies operating under Obamacare, Watchdog.org reports. The organization looked at the top 18 hospitals nationwide as ranked by U.S. News and World Report for 2013-2014, contacting each hospital to determine their contracts and talking to several insurance companies as well. Here's what they found (for more details, read Top Hospitals Opt Out of Obamacare).

Rank*	Hospital	Insurance Accepted**
1	Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore	All insurance companies, per state law
2	Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston	All insurance companies, per state law
3	Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.	Blue Cross (silver plan only)
4	Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio	Medical Mutual of Ohio
5	UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles	Anthem Blue Cross, Health Net
6	Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago	Land of Lincoln, Blue Cross
7	New York-Presbyterian University Hospital of Columbia and Cornell	UnitedHealthCare, EmblemHealth, Aetna
8	UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco	Anthem Blue Cross
9	Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston	All insurance companies, per state law
10	University of Pittsburgh Medical Center	Highmark Blue Cross Blue Shield, UPMC Health Plan, Health America
11	Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia	Aetna Independence, Blue Cross
12	Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.	Coventry Health Care, Blue Cross
13	Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles	Health Net
14	NYU Langone Medical Center, New York	UnitedHealthCare, Affinity Health System, Fidelis Care
15	Barnes-Jewish Hospital/Washington University, St. Louis	Coventry Health Care
16	Indiana University Health Academic Health Center, Indianapolis	MDWise
17	Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia	Independence Blue Cross, Aetna
18	University Hospitals Case Medical Center, Cleveland	Anthem Blue Cross, HealthSpan, SummaCare, SuperMed
Corrected 11/1/13: No. 16-ranked Indiana University Health Academic Health Center accepts insurance from MDWise, not Indiana University Health Plans, as stated in an earlier version of this article.





There are plenty of sites with articles covering this issue. Of course you would call them "right wing rags". But most assuredly the "left wing rags" won't cover the issue at all. It is their role to obfuscate the truth!


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Joeysoma - thank you for the info on hospitals and what is being accepted.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Oh another thing. My best bud called me all upset and needed to talk. She must pay $200 a month for Medicare in order to keep her insurance policy because of Obamacare. She is on a very restricted budget and has no idea how she is going to pay it. Her husband, (who was in the Navy for 30 years as a deep sea recovery diver and is a 100% disabled veteran) had his Medicare payment increase almost 100% because of Obamacare. Isn't that a great example of how Obama respects our veterans?


Your "best bud" seems to get her information from emails - I'm sure Medicare never informed her of that.

And if you had actually looked it up, you might have been able to reassure her that it wasn't true, rather than rub your Scroogelike hands gleefully and say "See how bad they are."

But I think you'd rather be vengeful than helpful. Please pass the following on to your friend. I would guess she could use a little good news right now.

From http://www.aarp.org/health/medicare-insurance/info-05-2011/medicare-part-b-premiums.html

*Bogus email predicts Part B premiums will increase*
by Patricia Barry, AARP Bulletin, Updated October 2013
_Bogus emails predict Plan B premium hikes._

Will your Medicare Part B premium increase in 2014? 

Q. I just received an email saying that under "Obamacare" our Medicare Part B premiums will rise to $247 a month by 2014. Is this true?
A. No, it is not true. In fact, the 2014 Part B premium will be $104.90 a month  the same amount as in 2013.
A mass email claiming that the premium will rise to $247 a month by 2014 has been circulating since before the 2010 elections  and it still is. *But it's just another attempt to scare older Americans and has never had any basis in fact.* (emphasis added)

Recent versions of this email even carry the official Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Alabama logo and seem to be signed by an employee of that health insurance company.
But Koko Mackin, the company's vice president of corporate communications, has repudiated the message. "It contains incorrect information received by an employee who redistributed it to six others," he told reporters. "We have a longstanding policy against distributing chain emails like this, and actions have been taken to reinforce this policy. We apologize for any confusion or concern this email may have caused."
The official formula for determining Part B premiums was established by Congress decades ago. The standard premium amount for each year is calculated on the level of Medicare health care costs in the previous year  and reflects the fact that the government pays 75 percent of Part B costs and beneficiaries pay 25 percent.

This process is in no way affected by the new health care law, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as "Obamacare."* The law does, however, contain provisions to reduce the rate of Medicare costs over time  without reducing guaranteed benefits. If this plays out as planned, it could hold Part B premiums down or possibly even lower them.*
But while the email makes bogus predictions about increases in the standard Part B premium, the new law did, in fact, make two changes that affect Medicare premiums.
Ever since 2007, under a law passed in 2003, people with Medicare have paid a surcharge on their standard Part B premiums if their modified adjusted gross income, as shown on their latest tax return, is higher than $85,000 for a single person or $170,000 for a married couple filing joint returns. Currently, fewer than 1 in 20 beneficiaries pays higher-income premiums.
But that percentage is likely to grow in coming years  and this development is the result of the new law. The law froze the income brackets at 2010 levels through 2019, which means that more older Americans will become liable for the surcharge  up from 5 percent now to 14 percent by 2019, according to an estimate from the Kaiser Family Foundation.
The new law also required these wealthier beneficiaries to pay for the first time a premium surcharge for Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage. This took effect in January 2011.
For details of these surcharges, see the Social Security publication "Medicare Premiums: Rules for Higher-Income Beneficiaries."


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Oh, is the privilege to insult, berate and hurt others reserved for you and your followers?


Thumbs up. You got in first.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Knitter from Nebraska - good observation about the libs stance regarding news sources. Here is another on the topic...yes probably too rightist for the critics here, but I wonder why they NEVER post anything to support their point of view?

November 3, 2013 
The Silence of the Left
By Clarice Feldman
There is widespread fury at the lies which were used to sell ObamaCare, a more than 2,000-page piece of legislation no one read before it was passed, a law opposed by the majority of voters which was crammed down our throats without a single Republican vote. The law essentially was a mishmash blank slate which left it to the administration's HHS head, Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to write as she pleased and the president to -- by Executive order -- pay off with exemptions and special treatment those cronies and rent seekers not already paid off in the legislative and regulatory process.

Whether this law will continue to pass judicial scrutiny remains to be seen, but what is obvious at this early date is that the press and the public figures who promoted it are lying low as the tsunami of voter rage builds.

If your only source of news is the major media, here are some facts they've kept from you:

1. Since July 2010 the Administration knew that at a minimum 40-67% of private health insurance owners would not be able to keep their insurance.
NBC's Lisa Myers broke the story, but both on air and in its published account NBC went to great lengths to bury her account of events that makes the president's repeated pre-election promise that if you liked your insurance you'd be able to keep it an outrageous bald-faced lie.

Here was her original report:
President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it. But millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years.

Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC NEWS that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a "cancellation" letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don't meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience "sticker shock."

None of this should come as a surprise to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be "grandfathered," meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don't meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered.

Here are the efforts NBC made to diminish that expose:
On air, Myers' report was cut to 21 seconds "buried at the end of the show's fourth story, with no follow up on Today. ABC and CBS completely censored Lisa Myers' discovery with not one single second of coverage on either their morning or evening programs. "

2. There is every reason to believe this expensive, well over $600 million contract for the Obamacare website design was offered to a Canadian Company because of cronyism with the Obamas and Valerie Jarrett, the White House Regent in Fact.
Michelle Obama had a longstanding relationship with a vice-president of the company tapped to create the ObamaCare website.

Michelle Obama's relationship with Princeton classmate Toni McCall Townes-Whitley, whose company earned the no-bid contract to design the disastrous Healthcare.Gov Obamacare website, continued after the Obamas moved into the White House.

Townes-Whitley and her husband even enjoyed Christmas with the Obamas" at the White House in December 2010, according to a Facebook album created by Townes-Whitley.
Although neither Michelle Obama nor Townes-Whitley has discussed their relationship, the Christmas event took place just seven months after Townes-Whitley joined CGI Federal as a senior vice president.

Townes-Whitley and Michelle were more than mere classmates at Princeton -- they worked closely together in pro-PLO activities:
Townes-Whitley, Princeton class of '85, leads CGI Federal's Civilian Agency Programs (CAP) Business Unit, which earned the no-bid contract to build the Obamacare enrollment website Healthcare.gov. CGI Federal is the U.S. arm of a Canadian company. (Related: Michelle Obama's Princeton classmate is executive at company that built Obamacare website)

The Department of Health and Human Services reviewed only CGI's bid for the Obamacare account. CGI was one of 16 companies qualified under the Bush administration to provide certain tech services to the federal government. A senior vice president for the company testified last week before The House Committee on Energy and Commerce that four companies submitted bids, but did not name those companies or explain why only CGI's bid was considered.

Townes-Whitley, who went by her maiden name Toni McCall at the time, and her classmate Michelle Obama, née Michelle LaVaughn Robinson, are both members of the Association of Black Princeton Alumni, and worked together in two different radical student groups on campus. (Related: Michelle Obama and CGI Federal executive belonged to student group at Princeton that hosted pro-terrorist speaker).

Valerie Jarrett's son-in-law is the son of a Canadian member of the Ontario Provincial Parliament. He plays a major role in healthcare issues and it is likely that he vouched for CGI even though that company had already badly botched several large Canadian contracts including medical registration for diabetes sufferers.

3.The Discontent of Voters as they see their Insurance Cancelled and Premiums Sky Rocketing is Growing and Underreported

Some stories cannot be utterly hidden. The Chicago Sun Times finds it impossible to completely disregard the tsunami of anger, reporting on the unhappiness of a Democrat staffer and Obamacare backer Ms. Klinkhamer, which Iowahawk drolly called the "feel good story of the year.

"I spent two years defending Obamacare. I had constituents scream at me, spit at me and call me names that I can't put in print. The congressman was not re-elected in 2010 mainly because of the anti-Obamacare anger. When the congressman was not re-elected, I also (along with the rest of our staff) lost my job. I was upset that because of the health care issue, I didn't have a job anymore but still defended Obamacare because it would make health care available to everyone at, what I assumed, would be an affordable price. I have now learned that I was wrong. Very wrong."

But you have to go elsewhere to get more of the sad stories of unhappy consumers. Most media who headline reports of voter distress when Republican officials and policies are involved (remember the tale we were told of the woman forced by poverty to wear her dead sister's dentures?) are ducking this as much as they can. Go here for a more complete picture:
Each out of reach premium, each cancelled insurance plan, each inability to connect with the ObamaCare web should increase the furor, as this blog suggests.

Even as Secretary Sibelius was testifying before Congress on Wednesday that the Obamacare website never crashed, it crashed.

Interestingly, although the big media are trying to damp down these reports, not many major ObamaCare promoters are openly coming to Obama's defense. That task was left to hacks like Representative Sandor Levin and Jarrett herself, whose defenses are frankly laughable.

Levin says the insurance companies aren't sending out cancellation letters, they're helping people "transition" into ObamaCare. (Sing to the tune of "It isn't raining rain, it's raining violets.")

Jarrett gave no interviews on the subject, she just tweeted: "FACT: Nothing in #Obamacare forces people out of their health plans. No change is required unless insurance companies change existing plans."

Valerie, here's another FACT: As the Administration has known for three years, the insurance companies are forced to change their plans because HHS regulations require that they do so, because geniuses like those who hired CGI for this job are obviously so much smarter than the predicted 16 million Americans who are about to lose their insurance. Men and women who until two weeks ago believed they -- not you -- knew which plans best suited their families' needs.

What does all this mean, you might ask?
I think the blowback is large and growing. Ron Fournier reports the White House is getting incoming from party officials: "Dem Party is F****d." That was the subject line of an email sent to me Sunday by a senior Democratic consultant with strong ties to the White House and Capitol Hill. The body of the email contained a link to this Los Angeles Times story about Obamacare "sticker shock:

"These middle-class consumers are staring at hefty increases on their insurance bills as the overhaul remakes the healthcare market. Their rates are rising in large part to help offset the higher costs of covering sicker, poorer people who have been shut out of the system for years."

"Although recent criticism of the healthcare law has focused on website glitches and early enrollment snags, experts say sharp price increases for individual policies have the greatest potential to erode public support for President Obama's signature legislation."

"In his story, reporter Chad Terhune also quoted a letter sent to a California insurance company executive. "I was all for Obamacare," wrote a young woman complaining about a 50 percent rate hike related to the health care law, "until I found out I was paying for it."

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/11/the_silence_of_the_left.html#ixzz2jeUp40hl 
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

alcameron said:


> I already looked for info on the Mayo Clinic and found nothing saying they don't accept Obamacare.
> You needn't be a jerk about it.


Oh I knew it would be hard for you. You had to click on a link on that page to take you to the chart. But, that's okay I am here to help. I clicked on the link for you.

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/hospital-of-tomorrow/articles/2013/10/30/which-top-hospitals-take-your-health-insurance-under-obamacare

Always happy to help the low information/educated voter


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

aw9358 said:


> Thumbs up. You got in first.


AW, the hypocrisy of these people makes me gag. They are so eager for things to go wrong, they spread disinformation that will prevent someone from getting the help s/he needs. All in the cause of keeping a few million people from getting medical benefits.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Oh I knew it would be hard for you. You had to click on a link on that page to take you to the chart. But, that's okay I am here to help. I clicked on the link for you.
> 
> http://health.usnews.com/health-news/hospital-of-tomorrow/articles/2013/10/30/which-top-hospitals-take-your-health-insurance-under-obamacare
> 
> Always happy to help the low information/educated voter


You really are stupid. Not deluded, not misinformed, not even low information, just plain stupid. You have no conception of how to talk to other people, whether you disagree with them or not.

Did you send your friend the information I dug up for you? Or is AARP too far to the left for you?

And I'm still wondering where those 160 million businesses are that you were so big on yesterday.


----------



## Knitter from Nebraska (Jun 9, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> AW, the hypocrisy of these people makes me gag. They are so eager for things to go wrong, they spread disinformation that will prevent someone from getting the help s/he needs. All in the cause of keeping a few million people from getting medical benefits.


No, we're not really eager for o-care to fail. It was designed to fail! Waiting in the wings is the single payer system that hilary wants! All of it is nothing but a redistribution of wealth! The people will receive sub par healthcare until the entire economic system fails. At that point the 1% will have everything and the rest of us will have nothing! You are being deceived! This is the elimination of the middle class!


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Knitter from Nebraska said:


> No, we're not really eager for o-care to fail. It was designed to fail! Waiting in the wings is the single payer system that hilary wants! All of it is nothing but a redistribution of wealth! The people will receive sub par healthcare until the entire economic system fails. At that point the 1% will have everything and the rest of us will have nothing! You are being deceived! This is the elimination of the middle class!


The majority of the Lib posters are probably on Medicare or Medicaid and are not to be directly affected in a monetary way by ObamaNoCare. Yet, their receive less care and poorer care beside of the $ transferred from Medicare to Medicaid under the ObamaCare law. Besides, who are the Libs to tell another about the insurance she has had and how it was eliminated or changed by ObamaCare.

The Libs are projecting about that which they have no idea. Typical. Predictable. Uninformed. Ridiculous.


----------



## Knitter from Nebraska (Jun 9, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> I think that's true. Even when there was video of him saying it, he'd still deny it. And Romneycare? So proud of it when he signed it into Mass. law, until Obama picked it up, at which point Mitt totally denied it.


On this, I agree with you! romney is just as much a liar as o. They're all in the same "club". You need to realize that there is no difference between the republicans and the democrats! They SAY different things, but they DO the same things. o picked right up on bush's agenda. Nothing has changed. The agenda calls for total control of the people. Our political system has become a false right/left paradigm. You and I aren't really enemies. You just haven't realized it yet. You need to do some IMPARTIAL research. Read both sides of an issue. Follow the links. The real information is in the links!


----------



## Knitter from Nebraska (Jun 9, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> The majority of the Lib posters are probably on Medicare or Medicaid and are not to be affected by ObamaNoCare. Besides, who are they to tell another about the insurance she has had and how it was eliminated or changed by ObamaCare.
> 
> The Libs are projecting about that which they have no idea. Typical. Predictable. Ridiculous.


I personally know someone on Medicare whose prescription drug plan has been cancelled. According to the letter which they read to me, it is due to o care. The least expensive plan they were able to get is $20 more per month. Twenty dollars is a lot to this person. It will cut into their food budget which is also very low.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Knitter from Nebraska said:


> I personally know someone on Medicare whose prescription drug plan has been cancelled. According to the letter which they read to me, it is due to o care. The least expensive plan they were able to get is $20 more per month. Twenty dollars is a lot to this person. It will cut into their food budget which is also very low.


I agree. They will receive less in care and services, just not the drastic changes in care and costs for those paying for private (non govt plans). The ten new taxes that are part of ObamaCare will have an impact on every American citizen regardless of income or health insurance.

I cannot understand why the Libs in these KP threads continue to deny the true effects of the ACA. Even the Liberal media news channels are reporting on Obama's lies and the impact of the ACA to Americans. The dwindling health care and higher costs and taxes will happen to the Libs, too. I guess they prefer to deny and accept rather than to fight for their freedoms and they accept taxation without representation. Perhaps we'll soon see a modern day revolution?


----------



## Knitter from Nebraska (Jun 9, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Um, No.
> I don't think we have to worry about that too much, beside the obvious problems she is definitely one who runs away as soon as she is proven wrong.


Oh, and I'm not running away. I'm leaving to go fix dinner. I have a life.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> You really are stupid. Not deluded, not misinformed, not even low information, just plain stupid. You have no conception of how to talk to other people, whether you disagree with them or not.
> 
> Did you send your friend the information I dug up for you? Or is AARP too far to the left for you?
> 
> And I'm still wondering where those 160 million businesses are that you were so big on yesterday.


tsk tsk again with the name calling sigh

She does not belong to AARP

Because she is a spouse of a Disabled Veteran, she needs to follow those rules, not AARP's. Another example of how Obama does not respect our vets.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Knitter from Nebraska said:


> Oh, and I'm not running away. I'm leaving to go fix dinner. I have a life.


I have what I know will be a delicious quiche in the oven - enjoy your dinner and life as well. Ignore those who wish to ruin both for you! :-D


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> tsk tsk again with the name calling sigh
> 
> She does not belong to AARP
> 
> Because she is a spouse of a Disabled Veteran, she needs to follow those rules, not AARP's. Another example of how Obama does not respect our vets.


I wouldn't join the AARP under any circumstances. AARP represents the Liberal Left and had a major membership loss when the Obamacare debacle began.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Knitter from Nebraska said:


> No, we're not really eager for o-care to fail. It was designed to fail! Waiting in the wings is the single payer system that hilary wants! All of it is nothing but a redistribution of wealth! The people will receive sub par healthcare until the entire economic system fails. At that point the 1% will have everything and the rest of us will have nothing! You are being deceived! This is the elimination of the middle class!


Considering how wealth has been redistributed for the past 20+ years from the middle class to the wealthy, without a national health-care program, you may not be working to stop it. But I'm pleasantly surprised to learn what your motives are. I think you're doing too little, too late, and I also think you're being used by the Koch Bros. and their friends in the 1% to keep all the power - and money - in their hands.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Knitter from Nebraska said:


> On this, I agree with you! romney is just as much a liar as o. They're all in the same "club". You need to realize that there is no difference between the republicans and the democrats! They SAY different things, but they DO the same things. o picked right up on bush's agenda. Nothing has changed. The agenda calls for total control of the people. Our political system has become a false right/left paradigm. You and I aren't really enemies. You just haven't realized it yet. You need to do some IMPARTIAL research. Read both sides of an issue. Follow the links. The real information is in the links!


I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree. As far as I can see, the Dems in Congress are not the same as the GOP - or certainly not to the same degree. On the other hand, I did not vote for Obama the second time around because of the promises he didn't keep. Of course, where I live there was no chance of Romney getting the electoral vote, so my lack of vote made no difference.

I never thought we were enemies. I just get turned off by your tendency to type in all caps - I find it hard to read.

In the end, this country, like every other country in the civilized world, badly needs a national healthcare program, and since the GOP did nothing to forward such a program but instead tried to prevent the Dems' from going forward, I'm behind the Dems on this.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> tsk tsk again with the name calling sigh
> 
> She does not belong to AARP
> 
> Because she is a spouse of a Disabled Veteran, she needs to follow those rules, not AARP's. Another example of how Obama does not respect our vets.


You see? That's what I mean with "the name calling."

I don't belong to AARP either, but that doesn't mean their information is wrong. They're not giving rules to follow; they're explaining why reports of a big rise in Medicare are wrong. You didn't bother to read the piece, did you?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I wouldn't join the AARP under any circumstances. AARP represents the Liberal Left and had a major membership loss when the Obamacare debacle began.


Oh, please. AARP represents United Health Care, which is hardly the "Liberal Left" (as opposed to what? the Conservative Left? the Liberal Right?). But it just may know better than anonymous email senders about the plans for Medicare.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> You smartass snot-nosed jerk. Have you never learned how to talk to people. You were simply asked to substantiate your claim, and you couldn't, so you got nasty.
> 
> Here's the first page of Google I got in response to the search "Mayo clinic obamacare":
> 
> ...


This is just effing stupid. 
There IS NO Obamacare insurance. 
And you know this, My Empress, the ACA uses privated health insurance companies and the already existing Medicaid to provide people with health insurance. 
LOL, privated? WTH is that? private industry health insurance. 
These arguments that wacky bats are making are specious and, well, stupid.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> This is just effing stupid.
> There IS NO Obamacare insurance.
> And you know this, My Empress, the ACA uses privated health insurance companies and the already existing Medicaid to provide people with health insurance.
> LOL, privated? WTH is that? private industry health insurance.
> These arguments that wacky bats are making are specious and, well, stupid.


Hey, no kidding? I hope you enjoyed your dinner. I'm about to get mine.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Knitter from Nebraska said:


> Oh, and I'm not running away. I'm leaving to go fix dinner. I have a life.


You silly XXXXX, that was 2 days ago, wasn't it?
You have posted on several other threads.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Knitter from Nebraska said:


> I personally know someone on Medicare whose prescription drug plan has been cancelled. According to the letter which they read to me, it is due to o care. The least expensive plan they were able to get is $20 more per month. Twenty dollars is a lot to this person. It will cut into their food budget which is also very low.


I guess then that she can go without.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Hey, no kidding? I hope you enjoyed your dinner. I'm about to get mine.


I did, my daughter's leftovers. YUM.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> I guess then that she can go without.


There is a compassionate Obamacultist for you. Supports free Obamaphones but not medicine for our Senior citizens or the most needy

How easily they dismiss the importance of $20 to someone.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Oh, please. AARP represents United Health Care, which is hardly the "Liberal Left" (as opposed to what? the Conservative Left? the Liberal Right?). But it just may know better than anonymous email senders about the plans for Medicare.


Who cares how Liberal - the group *is *Liberal. AARP supported Obama and Obamacare and the person LTL spoke about knows *better* about her insurance and costs than AARP or you do. AARP is one of the biggest lobbyists in D.C. = a group to avoid and not become a member.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I'm wondering if she is on Medicare part C, Medicare part B, what most people call Medicare insurance, premium is determined by income. But the premium for part C is determined by an Advocare plan. It may even include part D, the prescription plan.
> 
> To many unknowns for anyone to be called a liar.


All I know is what she told me today. Since she is retired (and gets $500 retirement from her company a month) and her husband is a retired disabled veteran, I bet their income is extremely modest. She is just getting Medicare for the first time, and whatever plan she is on will cost her $200 a month. So 40% of her income will go to Medicare. That leaves her $300 for food, car expenses and daily expenses a month. Boy is she living the High Life, huh...(And knowing how careful she is with her money, I know she has the most inexpensive plan, if she has a choice.) Her husband's went up over $ 80 a month. And he told me about that a few weeks ago. So all my information is first hand, not anecdotal.

But for the Obamacultist, that does not matter.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> Apparently she can't help herself. And then the jerk-in-chief comes on telling _you_ how to behave, insulting you and saying you mustn't insult people.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I'm wondering if she is on Medicare part C, Medicare part B, what most people call Medicare insurance, premium is determined by income. But the premium for part C is determined by an Advocare plan. It may even include part D, the prescription plan.
> 
> To many unknowns for anyone to be called a liar.


The Libs call anyone a liar with whom they don't agree and usually to this people they don't even know. I think they feel important and powerful that way. :-D At least they have Obama to look up to.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> There is a compassionate Obamacultist for you. Supports free Obamaphones but not medicine for our Senior citizens or the most needy
> 
> How easily they dismiss the importance of $20 to someone.


How do you know she supports free Obamaphones? More mindreading? Besides, what you call "Obamaphones" were first given out under Reagan and under every president since then. You ought to at least call them Reaganphones.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Who cares how Liberal - the group *is *Liberal. AARP supported Obama and Obamacare and the person LTL spoke about knows *better* about her insurance and costs than AARP or you do. AARP is one of the biggest lobbyists in D.C. = a group to avoid and not become a member.


And I'm sure you know *better* about it than anyone in the western world. But if she's getting these misinformation emails, she ought to look into it further, whether via AARP or someone else, and not accept what's in an email at face value.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

Knitter from Nebraska said:


> No, we're not really eager for o-care to fail. It was designed to fail! Waiting in the wings is the single payer system that hilary wants! All of it is nothing but a redistribution of wealth! The people will receive sub par healthcare until the entire economic system fails. At that point the 1% will have everything and the rest of us will have nothing! You are being deceived! This is the elimination of the middle class!


Isn't Romney the poster child for the 1%. Hmmmmmm.
:?: :?:


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> All I know is what she told me today. Since she is retired (and gets $500 retirement from her company a month) and her husband is a retired disabled veteran, I bet their income is extremely modest. She is just getting Medicare for the first time, and whatever plan she is on will cost her $200 a month. So 40% of her income will go to Medicare. That leaves her $300 for food, car expenses and daily expenses a month. Boy is she living the High Life, huh...(And knowing how careful she is with her money, I know she has the most inexpensive plan, if she has a choice.) Her husband's went up over $ 80 a month. And he told me about that a few weeks ago. So all my information is first hand, not anecdotal.
> 
> But for the Obamacultist, that does not matter.


Look, I'm the one who tried to find out where that supposed additional $200 story came from. Medicare doesn't have "plans" the way the ACA has. It's the supplementary, privately sponsored, insurance that has different levels, and they don't have any connection with ACA. It sounds as though she may benefit from getting in touch with someone who knows about this - maybe a social worker at a senior center, so it shouldn't cost anything.

And as for the use of the word "anecdotal," it's not the same as "apocryphal"; it doesn't mean made up. It just means that it's only one story, so may or may not reflect the actual situation. Anecdotal evidence is evidence that comes in via individual stories and is not regarded as useful.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> How do you know she supports free Obamaphones? More mindreading? Besides, what you call "Obamaphones" were first given out under Reagan and under every president since then. You ought to at least call them Reaganphones.


I do support the life saving phones for people on disability and transitional assistance, and SS. 
How awful is she that the she thinks that the elderly should have no help in staying in touch with the outside world. 
It is the lies I can't countenance. If a person is qualified for Medicare then they also qualify for SS payments so that $500. that was mentioned is over and above the SS check. 
The whole story stinks to high heaven, if the man is a disabled vet he gets a check. He also gets his meds from the VA. So to claim that he has all these expenses due to the ACA is ridiculous. 
And yes, I doublechecked with a friend who is a disabled vet before I posted this. The only time he (he is working) goes to a private doc is when he wants to.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Look, I'm the one who tried to find out where that supposed additional $200 story came from. Medicare doesn't have "plans" the way the ACA has. It's the supplementary, privately sponsored, insurance that has different levels, and they don't have any connection with ACA. It sounds as though she may benefit from getting in touch with someone who knows about this - maybe a social worker at a senior center, so it shouldn't cost anything.
> 
> And as for the use of the word "anecdotal," it's not the same as "apocryphal"; it doesn't mean made up. It just means that it's only one story, so may or may not reflect the actual situation. Anecdotal evidence is evidence that comes in via individual stories and is not regarded as useful.


Or substantiated through documentation.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

lovethelake said:


> All I know is what she told me today. Since she is retired (and gets $500 retirement from her company a month) and her husband is a retired disabled veteran, I bet their income is extremely modest. She is just getting Medicare for the first time, and whatever plan she is on will cost her $200 a month. So 40% of her income will go to Medicare. That leaves her $300 for food, car expenses and daily expenses a month. Boy is she living the High Life, huh...(And knowing how careful she is with her money, I know she has the most inexpensive plan, if she has a choice.) Her husband's went up over $ 80 a month. And he told me about that a few weeks ago. So all my information is first hand, not anecdotal.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> There is a compassionate Obamacultist for you. Supports free Obamaphones but not medicine for our Senior citizens or the most needy
> 
> How easily they dismiss the importance of $20 to someone.


You have just hit upon the solution. Tell her to get the gov't to pay for her phone and voila! her $20. plus.


----------



## Knitter from Nebraska (Jun 9, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Considering how wealth has been redistributed for the past 20+ years from the middle class to the wealthy, without a national health-care program, you may not be working to stop it. But I'm pleasantly surprised to learn what your motives are. I think you're doing too little, too late, and I also think you're being used by the Koch Bros. and their friends in the 1% to keep all the power - and money - in their hands.


In my opinion, the issues we have with unaffordable healthcare started when corporations took over the industry. Corporations were formed that started by buying up the previously "not for profit" hospitals. Then they started selling "health insurance" to everyone because after they took over, people could no longer afford their care. Then they set up clinics and made it impossible for doctors to compete and they flooded them with regulations and paperwork. So the majority of doctors were forced to give up their private practices and had to work for "corporate medicine". My mother always told me that when I was born, no one had insurance. She spent five days in the hospital and the bill was $67. When my own children were small, my pediatrician charged $16 for an office visit. Now that corporate America has taken over an office visit is over $200. Healthcare doesn't have to cost what it does. Get the corporations and the government out of healthcare! Give it back to the doctors! The current system and o care are designed to rob people. The corporations win. The people lose!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> Isn't Romney the poster child for the 1%. Hmmmmmm.
> :?: :?:


LOL, it was funny watching the failed presidential candidate talk about who is electable.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I'm wondering if she is on Medicare part C, Medicare part B, what most people call Medicare insurance, premium is determined by income. But the premium for part C is determined by an Advocare plan. It may even include part D, the prescription plan.
> 
> To many unknowns for anyone to be called a liar.


I am wondering if she even exists.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I'm wondering if she is on Medicare part C, Medicare part B, what most people call Medicare insurance, premium is determined by income. But the premium for part C is determined by an Advocare plan. It may even include part D, the prescription plan.
> 
> To many unknowns for anyone to be called a liar.


I am wondering if she even exists.


----------



## Knitter from Nebraska (Jun 9, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> I'm afraid we'll just have to agree to disagree. As far as I can see, the Dems in Congress are not the same as the GOP - or certainly not to the same degree. On the other hand, I did not vote for Obama the second time around because of the promises he didn't keep. Of course, where I live there was no chance of Romney getting the electoral vote, so my lack of vote made no difference.
> 
> I never thought we were enemies. I just get turned off by your tendency to type in all caps - I find it hard to read.
> 
> In the end, this country, like every other country in the civilized world, badly needs a national healthcare program, and since the GOP did nothing to forward such a program but instead tried to prevent the Dems' from going forward, I'm behind the Dems on this.


Don't you see? Both sides want to control the people. The repubs SAID they were against o care. They said they weren't going to fund it. They put on a big show, but in the end it was pure theatre. They were never going to defund. Just like they'll put on a show on the debt ceiling (like they always do) and then they'll pass it. When bush decided to go to war with Iraq, the dems backed him, then didn't. They made a lot of noise but we still stayed in Iraq long after it was necessary. Not that it was ever necessary. The dems went along with bush, stripping us of our constitutional rights with the ndaa and the patriot act. Both sides pass so many laws and regulations that it's impossible to go a day without breaking a law. It's about control and redistribution of wealth. And that doesnt mean sharing with the poor. It's about those who fund the politicians getting all of our money!

And btw, I don't type all in caps. I capitalize "words" that I mean to emphasize. When we speak, we put emphasis on words. When we type it's hard to include emphasis. So I cap those words.


----------



## Knitter from Nebraska (Jun 9, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> You silly XXXXX, that was 2 days ago, wasn't it?
> You have posted on several other threads.


Yes, when I have a few minutes I can mindlessly post little comments on whether I like someone's knitting or talk about a pattern. When I'm posting on a thread that requires a thoughtful response, I don't just vomit out garbage. Your comments are like vomit. You hurl insults without even thinking!


----------



## Knitter from Nebraska (Jun 9, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> I guess then that she can go without.


Really?!? My, that was thoughtful!


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Knitter from Nebraska said:


> In my opinion, the issues we have with unaffordable healthcare started when corporations took over the industry. Corporations were formed that started by buying up the previously "not for profit" hospitals. Then they started selling "health insurance" to everyone because after they took over, people could no longer afford their care. Then they set up clinics and made it impossible for doctors to compete and they flooded them with regulations and paperwork. So the majority of doctors were forced to give up their private practices and had to work for "corporate medicine". My mother always told me that when I was born, no one had insurance. She spent five days in the hospital and the bill was $67. When my own children were small, my pediatrician charged $16 for an office visit. Now that corporate America has taken over an office visit is over $200. Healthcare doesn't have to cost what it does. Get the corporations and the government out of healthcare! Give it back to the doctors! The current system and o care are designed to rob people. The corporations win. The people lose!


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: (with a reservation)

When BC/BS began, it was a non-profit. Back "then" (I must be about the same age as your mother), medical care was not regarded as a profit-making business. Most, maybe all, hospitals were also non-profit. You dealt with your doctor directly. The worst move was to let corporations into the mix. Now there's someone between you and your doctor, most of the time, and that someone is skimming off the money that should go from you to the doc. Medicare, however, works well, from the patients' point of view, or at any rate from mine.

I just realized I'm saying most of the same things you said, so I'll stop. Except to say that with the system as it is now, the only way to change it is if the govt steps in. It's not going to evolve into something more generous and caring. The ACA is far from the best way to do it, but at least it's a step in the right direction, preventing the corporations from refusing exactly the patients who need insurance the most.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Knitter from Nebraska said:


> Really?!? My, that was thoughtful!


There are 2 alternatives. Pay what it costs or go without. 
It has been put forward that she doesn't want to pay what it costs. Do you see another option? 
All this she gets no money crap is just that. 
The man is said to be a 20 year vet with 100% disability. While they are not rich they are doing just fine.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Knitter from Nebraska said:


> Yes, when I have a few minutes I can mindlessly post little comments on whether I like someone's knitting or talk about a pattern. When I'm posting on a thread that requires a thoughtful response, I don't just vomit out garbage. Your comments are like vomit. You hurl insults without even thinking!


Yes, that was a very thoughtful post. 
Pig puke


----------



## Knitter from Nebraska (Jun 9, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Yes, that was a very thoughtful post.
> Pig puke


My comment stands!


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> You have just hit upon the solution. Tell her to get the gov't to pay for her phone and voila! her $20. plus.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Knitter from Nebraska said:


> Don't you see? Both sides want to control the people. The repubs SAID they were against o care. They said they weren't going to fund it. They put on a big show, but in the end it was pure theatre. They were never going to defund. Just like they'll put on a show on the debt ceiling (like they always do) and then they'll pass it. When bush decided to go to war with Iraq, the dems backed him, then didn't. They made a lot of noise but we still stayed in Iraq long after it was necessary. Not that it was ever necessary. The dems went along with bush, stripping us of our constitutional rights with the ndaa and the patriot act. Both sides pass so many laws and regulations that it's impossible to go a day without breaking a law. It's about control and redistribution of wealth. And that doesnt mean sharing with the poor. It's about those who fund the politicians getting all of our money!
> 
> And btw, I don't type all in caps. I capitalize "words" that I mean to emphasize. When we speak, we put emphasis on words. When we type it's hard to include emphasis. So I cap those words.


Okay. I'll accept that. Surprisingly, we think so much alike that I don't understand how we could have gotten on opposite sides. Except that I really have some faith in some Democrats, and hope they'll do the right thing. I think the Repubs did want to damage the ACA but went about it wrong and lost this last time, though we still have that furshluggeneh sequester.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> http://health.usnews.com/health-news/hospital-of-tomorrow/articles/2013/10/30/which-top-hospitals-take-your-health-insurance-under-obamacare
> 
> Americans who sign up for Obamacare will be getting a big surprise if they expect to access premium health care that may have been previously covered under their personal policies. Most of the top hospitals will accept insurance from just one or two companies operating under Obamacare, Watchdog.org reports. The organization looked at the top 18 hospitals nationwide as ranked by U.S. News and World Report for 2013-2014, contacting each hospital to determine their contracts and talking to several insurance companies as well. Here's what they found (for more details, read Top Hospitals Opt Out of Obamacare).
> 
> ...


Those are the insurance companies operating in their states.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> There are 2 alternatives. Pay what it costs or go without.
> It has been put forward that she doesn't want to pay what it costs. Do you see another option?
> All this she gets no money crap is just that.
> The man is said to be a 20 year vet with 100% disability. While they are not rich they are doing just fine.


I don't think that's true. The VA has a huge backlog and isn't keeping up.


----------



## Knitter from Nebraska (Jun 9, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: (with a reservation)
> 
> When BC/BS began, it was a non-profit. Back "then" (I must be about the same age as your mother), medical care was not regarded as a profit-making business. Most, maybe all, hospitals were also non-profit. You dealt with your doctor directly. The worst move was to let corporations into the mix. Now there's someone between you and your doctor, most of the time, and that someone is skimming off the money that should go from you to the doc. Medicare, however, works well, from the patients' point of view, or at any rate from mine.
> 
> I just realized I'm saying most of the same things you said, so I'll stop. Except to say that with the system as it is now, the only way to change it is if the govt steps in. It's not going to evolve into something more generous and caring. The ACA is far from the best way to do it, but at least it's a step in the right direction, preventing the corporations from refusing exactly the patients who need insurance the most.


The only thing I'll add is that it was the government changing regulations that allowed corporate America to take over. In the past, hospitals were required to be non profit and couldn't even buy a new x ray machine without presenting a "need" statement to a regulatory group that was designed to keep costs down.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

SNL got it right

http://screen.yahoo.com/snl/hows-doing-080000446.html


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> I don't think that's true. The VA has a huge backlog and isn't keeping up.


Sheesh, i thought that was NE woman.

The VA has a backlog in taking care of phych issues, surgeries and outpatient stuff for chronic conditions are just fine. 
MY friend found out that he needed a hernia operation. It was scheduled within two weeks.


----------



## Knitter from Nebraska (Jun 9, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Okay. I'll accept that. Surprisingly, we think so much alike that I don't understand how we could have gotten on opposite sides. Except that I really have some faith in some Democrats, and hope they'll do the right thing. I think the Repubs did want to damage the ACA but went about it wrong and lost this last time, though we still have that furshluggeneh sequester.


I think we all want the same thing. We just differ on how to obtain it.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Knitter from Nebraska said:


> The only thing I'll add is that it was the government changing regulations that allowed corporate America to take over. In the past, hospitals were required to be non profit and couldn't even buy a new x ray machine without presenting a "need" statement to a regulatory group that was designed to keep costs down.


Yes. You're right.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Knitter from Nebraska wrote:
You'd better read it again!


Let's try that reading in context, shall we? 

jelun2 wrote:
That 65 could be next month for all we know. 
The other piece is this deductible craziness. Many of the procedures for preventative care are co-pay free and the deductible is not an issue. 
How many of the people who are so worried and anxious just don't pay attention to the information they are given?

Susanmos2000 responded... 
The same folks, no doubt, who fail to see that that dandy little credit card that arrived in the mail carries with it a usurious 20% interest rate. I find it incredibly irritating that these ignorant folks are only now waking up to the fact that they've been bilked for years by subscribing to sub-par insurance plans. But instead of doing their research and choosing adequate coverage they moan and complain, pointing the finger of blame at the ACA for waking them from their dream world. It's ridiculous.


So you see, whinebag, if what you are saying about an over the top too good to be true health insurance plan is the case
then your circumstances, and your outrage, have absolutely nothing to do with susanmos2000's post. 
You just want to vent. 
Just admit it and complain. 
You are in the unlucky 3%, sorry. 
When something like that goes wrong why not just be thankful for all the years that you had a really good policy? All of these people that your bad luck is helping are now on the receiving end that you used to be on.
**********************************************

So what do you say, Knitter in NE, care to admit that Susanmos2000 did not write what you said she did?


----------



## Knitter from Nebraska (Jun 9, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Sheesh, i thought that was NE woman.
> 
> The VA has a backlog in taking care of phych issues, surgeries and outpatient stuff for chronic conditions are just fine.
> MY friend found out that he needed a hernia operation. It was scheduled within two weeks.


Again?
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/veterans-affairs-claims-backlog/2013/10/22/id/532458

If you don't trust the site, it sources The Wall Street Journal.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Knitter from Nebraska wrote:
The only thing I'll add is that it was the government changing regulations that allowed corporate America to take over. In the past, hospitals were required to be non profit and couldn't even buy a new x ray machine without presenting a "need" statement to a regulatory group that was designed to keep costs down.



Poor Purl said:


> Yes. You're right.


What happened to those hospitals, though?
Those hospitals became satellites to the few who had forward thinking BoDs that were willing to spend money. 
Who is going to go to a hospital that cannot supply modern care? Who is going to go to a hospital that cannot attract decent doctors?
The change has not been about regulation. This changing model has been in place for 25 years or more, at least around here. It is about being cost effective and attractive as a business.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Knitter from Nebraska said:


> Again?
> http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/veterans-affairs-claims-backlog/2013/10/22/id/532458
> 
> If you don't trust the site, it sources The Wall Street Journal.


I wouldn't trust the WSJ any more than Newsmax. It's owned by Rupert Murdoch.


----------



## Knitter from Nebraska (Jun 9, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Knitter from Nebraska wrote:
> You'd better read it again!
> 
> Let's try that reading in context, shall we?
> ...


I repeat, you'd better read it again!


----------



## Knitter from Nebraska (Jun 9, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> I wouldn't trust the WSJ any more than Newsmax. It's owned by Rupert Murdoch.


You have a point. But all of the main stream media (newspapers, magazines, tv, radio) are owned by just 8 corporations. So I was trying to tie to a known source. I should have known better.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Knitter from Nebraska said:


> I repeat, you'd better read it agin!


Your roots are showing.


----------



## Knitter from Nebraska (Jun 9, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Your roots are showing.


??? 
More vomit!


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Knitter from Nebraska wrote:
> The only thing I'll add is that it was the government changing regulations that allowed corporate America to take over. In the past, hospitals were required to be non profit and couldn't even buy a new x ray machine without presenting a "need" statement to a regulatory group that was designed to keep costs down.
> 
> What happened to those hospitals, though?
> ...


jelun2
in some areas Veterinary Hospitals are far superior than those for people.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> I wouldn't trust the WSJ any more than Newsmax. It's owned by Rupert Murdoch.


Poor Purl
the spy guy, Rupert Murdoch. Can't wait for his newest Ex to write a book but most likely she will have to sign to remain silent in exchange for a few Billions. The power of money.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Huckleberry said:


> jelun2
> in some areas Veterinary Hospitals are far superior than those for people.


I have been very lucky that I have not had to test out the medical facilities when I have travelled.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Knitter from Nebraska said:


> ???
> More vomit!


FGS, it was a joke. The "agin"?
Get your head away from being nasty for just a minute.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Huckleberry said:


> Poor Purl
> the spy guy, Rupert Murdoch. Can't wait for his newest Ex to write a book but most likely she will have to sign to remain silent in exchange for a few Billions. The power of money.


I think she earned it. Imagine having to spend every night with that guy. (And don't bother to tell me what that makes her. She still earned every penny.)


----------



## Knitter from Nebraska (Jun 9, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> FGS, it was a joke. The "agin"?
> Get your head away from being nasty for just a minute.


It was no indication of my roots. It was a typo. I edited it.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Sheesh, i thought that was NE woman.
> 
> The VA has a backlog in taking care of phych issues, surgeries and outpatient stuff for chronic conditions are just fine.
> MY friend found out that he needed a hernia operation. It was scheduled within two weeks.


The speed with which things are handled may depend on location.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> The speed with which things are handled may depend on location.


Could be. I haven't seen too many senior disabled vets complain of their care. I think my friend is 60, somewhere in that neighborhood anyway. He is very happy with the care. One of the shop owners in the same neighborhood as my shop was was happy. There's anecdotal from 2 states, for what it's worth.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Oh I knew it would be hard for you. You had to click on a link on that page to take you to the chart. But, that's okay I am here to help. I clicked on the link for you.
> 
> http://health.usnews.com/health-news/hospital-of-tomorrow/articles/2013/10/30/which-top-hospitals-take-your-health-insurance-under-obamacare
> 
> Always happy to help the low information/educated voter


I had already read the article that Joey posted. It listed major hospitals and which of the policies under Obamacare are accepted. It did NOT state that these hospitals have opted out of Obamacare. Your bigotry outshines your intellect (if it's in there somewhere). And if you're an example of a good Catholic, I now know why so many people hate Catholics.
You're pathetic.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Huckleberry said:


> jelun2
> in some areas Veterinary Hospitals are far superior than those for people.


Yes, well. We had the SPCA before the SPCC, so why not?


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I suggest you give up calling yourself a Christian woman while posting for the sole purpose of insulting, berating and hurting others.
> 
> Only then will you begin to live the good life that could be yours.


I don't flit around this forum preaching at people and claiming to be a good Christian person like you do. I can't even imagine what kind if a church community would accept a person like you unless it would be a coven. (Sorry for the insult, witches.) I think most people laugh at your officious, supercilious, and vile posts. Oh, and I forgot blissfully ignorant.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> The last article I posted listed one of the 4 policies of a particular insurance company has of Obama care. That means 3/4 of their policies are not accepted, and those that have Obama care from any other company are not accepted. Therefore, only a very few with Obama care can get help at the Mayo Clinic unless they pay cash.


 You so often don't understand what you read, I'm surprised you continue to try to look smart.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> The last article I posted listed one of the 4 policies of a particular insurance company has of Obama care. That means 3/4 of their policies are not accepted, and those that have Obama care from any other company are not accepted. Therefore, only a very few with Obama care can get help at the Mayo Clinic unless they pay cash.


Once again you are making absolutely no sense. What specific health insurance plan is called "Obamacare"?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I'm sad to say that I agree with this. What a sad state of affairs!



Poor Purl said:


> AW, the hypocrisy of these people makes me gag. They are so eager for things to go wrong, they spread disinformation that will prevent someone from getting the help s/he needs. All in the cause of keeping a few million people from getting medical benefits.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> Considering how wealth has been redistributed for the past 20+ years from the middle class to the wealthy, without a national health-care program, you may not be working to stop it. But I'm pleasantly surprised to learn what your motives are. I think you're doing too little, too late, and I also think you're being used by the Koch Bros. and their friends in the 1% to keep all the power - and money - in their hands.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> Oh, please. AARP represents United Health Care, which is hardly the "Liberal Left" (as opposed to what? the Conservative Left? the Liberal Right?). But it just may know better than anonymous email senders about the plans for Medicare.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> This is just effing stupid.
> There IS NO Obamacare insurance.
> And you know this, My Empress, the ACA uses privated health insurance companies and the already existing Medicaid to provide people with health insurance.
> LOL, privated? WTH is that? private industry health insurance.
> These arguments that wacky bats are making are specious and, well, stupid.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

damemary said:


> I'm sad to say that I agree with this. What a sad state of affairs!


It is--and this latest post of Joey's just confirms it. I still don't quite know what she means by Obamacare "insurance"--Medicare? If so, it probably won't come as a surprise to those who now qualify under the expanded program that they're still not welcome at the Mayo and other top-tier clinics and hospitals. Even with the ACA and basic care for most folks we still remain a nation of haves and have nots as far as health care goes...but how disgusting to see the righties gloating over this fact.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Dear Knitter from Nebraska, many, many years have passed since the $67 hospital stay. Many of the corporations you mention are owned and operated by physicians. They are vitally interested in profit. Be careful what you wish for.



Knitter from Nebraska said:


> In my opinion, the issues we have with unaffordable healthcare started when corporations took over the industry. Corporations were formed that started by buying up the previously "not for profit" hospitals. Then they started selling "health insurance" to everyone because after they took over, people could no longer afford their care. Then they set up clinics and made it impossible for doctors to compete and they flooded them with regulations and paperwork. So the majority of doctors were forced to give up their private practices and had to work for "corporate medicine". My mother always told me that when I was born, no one had insurance. She spent five days in the hospital and the bill was $67. When my own children were small, my pediatrician charged $16 for an office visit. Now that corporate America has taken over an office visit is over $200. Healthcare doesn't have to cost what it does. Get the corporations and the government out of healthcare! Give it back to the doctors! The current system and o care are designed to rob people. The corporations win. The people lose!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Perhaps you've noticed the size of this thread. Many have been here long enough to know the usual suspects, and short cuts are taken. Frustration builds when the same lies are repeated endlessly by the same posters. If you dislike the thread, don't read it.



Knitter from Nebraska said:


> Yes, when I have a few minutes I can mindlessly post little comments on whether I like someone's knitting or talk about a pattern. When I'm posting on a thread that requires a thoughtful response, I don't just vomit out garbage. Your comments are like vomit. You hurl insults without even thinking!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

If an apocryphal allegation is made, with dubious information, and without complete information, a flip answer of 'then she can do without (prescription coverage) would be better read in context. IMHO



Knitter from Nebraska said:


> Really?!? My, that was thoughtful!


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Any obamacare plan, remember bronze, silver, gold, platinum.


Sorry, toots--I doubt folks who haven't been able to afford any insurance at all until now are going to be much put out over the fact that they still can't get into the Mayo clinic. It's unfortunately true that our health care system provides far more for folks who can afford top-notch policies--a simple fact that the conservatives seem to be taking a lot of pleasure in.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> I think she earned it. Imagine having to spend every night with that guy. (And don't bother to tell me what that makes her. She still earned every penny.)


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> It is--and this latest post of Joey's just confirms it. I still don't quite know what she means by Obamacare "insurance"--Medicare? If so, it probably won't come as a surprise to those who now qualify under the expanded program that they're still not welcome at the Mayo and other top-tier clinics and hospitals. Even with the ACA and basic care for most folks we still remain a nation of haves and have nots as far as health care goes...but how disgusting to see the righties gloating over this fact.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:  

Shame on the right. Health care is a right....and not just for the right.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

damemary said:


> :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
> 
> Shame on the right. Health care is a right....and not just for the right.


So true. I've seen the term "Obamacare insurance" popping up in the righties' posts these past couple of days, which makes no sense as all the providers listed on the exchange are private companies. Seems an attempt by them to stigmatize those who buy their insurance off the exchange--really revolting that they're attempting to use the fact of having or not having before now as a class marker.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
> 
> Shame on the right. Health care is a right....and not just for the right.


That's right.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> So true. I've seen the term "Obamacare insurance" popping up in the righties' posts these past couple of days, which makes no sense as all the providers listed on the exchange are private companies. Seems an attempt by them to stigmatize those who buy their insurance off the exchange--really revolting that they're attempting to use the fact of having or not having before now as a class marker.


They must all be members of the 1%, which is ironic since they have a lot trouble understanding percentages.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

They live by the mantra, 'mine! All mine!' Easier to understand.



Poor Purl said:


> They must all be members of the 1%, which is ironic since they have a lot trouble understanding percentages.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> They live by the mantra, 'mine! All mine!' Easier to understand.


Like Scrooge McDuck?


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

lovethelake said:


> So you are calling my friend a liar?
> Substantiate that


A friend may be a reliable source to you, but not to the rest of us unless we also are personally acquainted with your friend. I don't know why you feel anyone is calling your friend a liar. your friend is a stranger to everyone else here, as far as I know. Personally, I don't take candy from strangers.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I like a brick wall better; structural sound, pretty and of good character and adds value in many cases.
> 
> Al is having a bad day today so pay her no heed. She told me I made a mistake, she attempted to prove it taking 3 posts to do so, and only proved herself to be an liar as well as wrong about me again.
> 
> Looneytunes - all of the Libs.


I've already said, several times, that it seems to me you are living with a lot of hysteria, anger and fear. It concerns me that you might be living in an abusive relationship. You dont have to live that way. There are alternatives. I mean what Im saying kindly and sincerely. If I'm wrong about your situation, I apologize. If my concern for you is true, even a little bit, I hope you will find a way to change your situation in whatever way your beliefs allow you to do.

We can disagree here on KP, but, if you need someone to talk to, you are welcome to PM me. Sometimes it's easier to talk to a stranger about our problems, if you have any, and if you can stand the idea of communicating with me, of all people.

If you object to what I've said here or if what Ive said is untrue, I'm sorry, and hope you will forgive me for thinking anything negative is happening to you in your personal life.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

MaidInBedlam said:


> A friend may be a reliable source to you, but not to the rest of us unless we also are personally acquainted with your friend. I don't know why you feel anyone is calling your friend a liar. your friend is a stranger to everyone else here, as far as I know. Personally, I don't take candy from strangers.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Huckleberry said:


> jelun2
> in some areas Veterinary Hospitals are far superior than those for people.


And a lot more expensive. I have a diabetic cat and have spent a little over $7300 in the last year and a half. He's been in remission for about 5 months. Hooray! I'm now an experienced cat nurse and dietician!! This month is the first month in all that time that I haven't had to take him in for a check up. Hooray! More $$ for making Christmas presents!!! And what is one cat in the grand scheme of things? Around my house, one cat seems to be worth his weight in saffron.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

MaidInBedlam said:


> I've already said, several times, that it seems to me you are living with a lot of hysteria, anger and fear. It concerns me that you might be living in an abusive relationship. You dont have to live that way. There are alternatives. I mean what Im saying kindly and sincerely. If I'm wrong about your situation, I apologize. If my concern for you is true, even a little bit, I hope you will find a way to change your situation in whatever way your beliefs allow you to do.
> 
> We can disagree here on KP, but, if you need someone to talk to, you are welcome to PM me. Sometimes it's easier to talk to a stranger about our problems, if you have any, and if you can stand the idea of communicating with me, of all people.
> 
> If you object to what I've said here or if what Ive said is untrue, I'm sorry, and hope you will forgive me for thinking anything negative is happening to you in your personal life.


Seattle you appear to be insane. My friend is fine, it is only your perceptions that need adjustments. EVEN and I mean EVEN if kpg was having problems, and if anyone could believe you were sincere, and if anyone could believe you cared, shouldn't that be said in a PM?

Unless you had a sex change, you are no Dr Phil.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

MaidInBedlam said:


> A friend may be a reliable source to you, but not to the rest of us unless we also are personally acquainted with your friend. I don't know why you feel anyone is calling your friend a liar. your friend is a stranger to everyone else here, as far as I know. Personally, I don't take candy from strangers.


No you just drink the Obamacultist's Kool Aid.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Who in their right minds would think that adding more people to insurance plans,with subsidies, would bring down the cost of health care? Answer: Obamacultists

The Cleveland Clinic is only accepting ONE insurance plan and it is not Obamacare

The Mayo Clinic is only accepting ONE insurance plan (Silver) and it is not Obamacare

Cedars-Sinia only accepts ONE insurance plan and it is not Obamacare 

UCLA only accepts TWO insurance plans and they are not Obamacare

So if you are travelling in one of those cities and need emergency care, and that hospital doesn't accept your insurance will you be rushed to a hospital that does, or do you have to pay everything out of pocket and pray you will be reimbursed?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

MaidInBedlam said:


> And a lot more expensive. I have a diabetic cat and have spent a little over $7300 in the last year and a half. He's been in remission for about 5 months. Hooray! I'm now an experienced cat nurse and dietician!! This month is the first month in all that time that I haven't had to take him in for a check up. Hooray! More $$ for making Christmas presents!!! And what is one cat in the grand scheme of things? Around my house, one cat seems to be worth his weight in saffron.


 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

A cat's affection is beyond measure.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

There are many good hospitals in the areas other than the ones you list. Do we think of those hospitals as putting profit before patients? I guess it depends on how you think of it.



lovethelake said:


> Who in their right minds would think that adding more people to insurance plans,with subsidies, would bring down the cost of health care? Answer: Obamacultists
> 
> The Cleveland Clinic is only accepting ONE insurance plan and it is not Obamacare
> 
> ...


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

damemary said:


> There are many good hospitals in the areas other than the ones you list. Do we think of those hospitals as putting profit before patients? I guess it depends on how you think of it.


So if you are bleeding to death, the EMT's are to check your wallet for your insurance card, check a list for which hospital takes your insurance and then drive you there?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> SOWELL: Old thinking disguised as progressive (opinion)
> 
> Obamacare revives the age of despotism


I've agreed with everything I've read written by T. Sowell.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I've agreed with everything I've read written by T. Sowell.


 :thumbup:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> So if you are bleeding to death, the EMT's are to check your wallet for your insurance card, check a list for which hospital takes your insurance and then drive you there?


Only for you, for the rest of us they will take us to the closest hospital just as they do now.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake wrote:
Who in their right minds would think that adding more people to insurance plans,with subsidies, would bring down the cost of health care? Answer: Obamacultists

The Cleveland Clinic is only accepting ONE insurance plan and it is not Obamacare

The Mayo Clinic is only accepting ONE insurance plan (Silver) and it is not Obamacare

Cedars-Sinia only accepts ONE insurance plan and it is not Obamacare 

UCLA only accepts TWO insurance plans and they are not Obamacare

So if you are travelling in one of those cities and need emergency care, and that hospital doesn't accept your insurance will you be rushed to a hospital that does, or do you have to pay everything out of pocket and pray you will be reimbursed?

At least you finally give those "cultists" credit for being in their right minds.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

MaidinBedlam:

This is just my thoughts, but from what you have posted it seems to me that you do not mind spending 7,300 plus for an animal, but feel the goverment should pay for cheaper insurance.

What if you had used that 7,300 plus towards better insusrance plan. Or even better as you seem to have that extra cash, how about what you could have done to help someone who needed insurance you could have used that to help them get it. Or how about giving it to the persons who are in debt because of medical bills. 
Or homeless shelters,or feed the people so many things that could have been used to help. But instead you deem a cat more important.
As you posted before you are trying to make mistakes in spelling am sure you were referring to me as you do like to put others down Donna M comes to mind Jayne and of course KGP and me too. 
Hope my mispelling meets with your approval.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

MaidInBedlam said:


> I've already said, several times, that it seems to me you are living with a lot of hysteria, anger and fear. It concerns me that you might be living in an abusive relationship. You dont have to live that way. There are alternatives. I mean what Im saying kindly and sincerely. If I'm wrong about your situation, I apologize. If my concern for you is true, even a little bit, I hope you will find a way to change your situation in whatever way your beliefs allow you to do.
> 
> We can disagree here on KP, but, if you need someone to talk to, you are welcome to PM me. Sometimes it's easier to talk to a stranger about our problems, if you have any, and if you can stand the idea of communicating with me, of all people.
> 
> If you object to what I've said here or if what Ive said is untrue, I'm sorry, and hope you will forgive me for thinking anything negative is happening to you in your personal life.


You knew not agree with LTL's talking about friend yo do not know yet you seem to think you have an understanding about KGP.
Just a thought no you have no idea about her either.

To thine owen self be true.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> MaidinBedlam:
> 
> This is just my thoughts, but from what you have posted it seems to me that you do not mind spending 7,300 plus for an animal, but feel the goverment should pay for cheaper insurance.
> 
> ...


Frankly Yarnie, you need to mind your own business. How much we choose to spend on our pets is a personal matter.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> SOWELL: Old thinking disguised as progressive (opinion)
> 
> Obamacare revives the age of despotism
> 
> ...


Opinion pieces are worthless. Facts are what matter.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

damemary said:


> :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> A cat's affection is beyond measure.


So it would seem. I got my guy from a shelter when he was 8 weeks old, at a time that was pretty grim for me, and his kittenish antics gave me my first belly laughs in a long time. He's 15 now. Like I said, he's worth his weight in saffron, and I think that's more expensive than gold. I recently watched a PBS program about all about saffron, and if I recall correctly, it was worth more than gold.

Speaking of saffron, have you gotten a chance to check out Lhasa Karnak's website?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> SOWELL: Old thinking disguised as progressive (opinion)
> 
> Obamacare revives the age of despotism


Yet another RWN who thinks giving medical insurance to people who can't afford it is what Ivan the Terrible must have done.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> Only for you, for the rest of us they will take us to the closest hospital just as they do now.


Good morning, jelun2, and :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: for your remarks quoted above.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Don't all you righties keep telling us you can get perfectly good care in ER's and you won't be charged? So wouldn't any ER do?


lovethelake said:


> So if you are bleeding to death, the EMT's are to check your wallet for your insurance card, check a list for which hospital takes your insurance and then drive you there?


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> Frankly Yarnie, you need to mind your own business. How much we choose to spend on our pets is a personal matter.


:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I'd leave it to the EMT's.



lovethelake said:


> So if you are bleeding to death, the EMT's are to check your wallet for your insurance card, check a list for which hospital takes your insurance and then drive you there?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

What have you read by the author?



theyarnlady said:


> :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

MYOB comes to mind.



theyarnlady said:


> MaidinBedlam:
> 
> This is just my thoughts, but from what you have posted it seems to me that you do not mind spending 7,300 plus for an animal, but feel the goverment should pay for cheaper insurance.
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Why are you joining in the conversation? Sometimes when you think you're helping a friend, you're not helping at all. It's clinically referred to as codependency.



theyarnlady said:


> You knew not agree with LTL's talking about friend yo do not know yet you seem to think you have an understanding about KGP.
> Just a thought no you have no idea about her either.
> 
> To thine owen self be true.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Since your statements are just your opinions. They must be worthless too.


That's about right, and, why having a "discussion" with you is worthless. 
Opinions are worth what you pay for them. The facts, if there are facts to base the opinions on, are what matter.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I have....drooling and wondering whether to order favorites or try something new. Why not both? Thanks so much for the referral. Decisions are so difficult when the choices are many.



MaidInBedlam said:


> So it would seem. I got my guy from a shelter when he was 8 weeks old, at a time that was pretty grim for me, and his kittenish antics gave me my first belly laughs in a long time. He's 15 now. Like I said, he's worth his weight in saffron, and I think that's more expensive than gold. I recently watched a PBS program about all about saffron, and if I recall correctly, it was worth more than gold.
> 
> Speaking of saffron, have you gotten a chance to check out Lhasa Karnak's website?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

You're being argumentative. Opinions and facts have a place. Opinions supported by facts are much better.



joeysomma said:


> Since your statements are just your opinions. They must be worthless too.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> That's about right, and, why having a "discussion" with you is worthless.
> Opinions are worth what you pay for them. The facts, if there are facts to base the opinions on, are what matter.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Sounds just like what came to my mind.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

damemary said:


> I have....drooling and wondering whether to order favorites or try something new. Why not both? Thanks so much for the referral. Decisions are so difficult when the choices are many.


I'm sure you know that some herbs and spices are very light weight. For example, an ounce of basil is a lot. When it comes to their teas, Splashdown, Shadyrest and Cold Mountain are popular around my home.

I'd recommend starting out with a few favorites to make sure you like them and then go wild after that. This all reminds me that I have to make a list of things I need to restock. :thumbup:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Sounds just like what came to my mind.


That was what I thought when I saw your post, you could have read my mind.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Have fun! Let me know how you like whatever you get.:-D :thumbup: :thumbup: :-D


jelun2 said:


> That was what I thought when I saw your post, you could have read my mind.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Have fun. Your Mom is a lucky woman to have a great chef around.



MaidInBedlam said:


> I'm sure you know that some herbs and spices are very light weight. For example, an ounce of basil is a lot. When it comes to their teas, Splashdown, Shadyrest and Cold Mountain are popular around my home.
> 
> I'd recommend starting out with a few favorites to make sure you like them and then go wild after that. This all reminds me that I have to make a list of things I need to restock. :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Great minds? Or does it scare you?



jelun2 said:


> That was what I thought when I saw your post, you could have read my mind.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> You're being argumentative. Opinions and facts have a place. Opinions supported by facts are much better.


That's always in my mind when dealing with Joeysomma. She really can't distinguish; nor can she distinguish between things that actually happened and things that are predicted to happen.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> US News... is just another right-wing rag. I wouldn't believe it even if I'd read it, but life's too short.
> 
> Have you figured out yet where those 160 million companies offering med. ins. came from? Or are you going to stay with that obvious lie?


Well you smart ass snot nosed jerk, that was my mistake, not Joey's.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> Well you smart ass snot nosed jerk, that was my mistake, not Joey's.


She picked it up, sweetums, and may still think it's a valid number. I would have expected better from someone who claims to have been a math teacher.

It was indeed a mistake, wasn't it? Nice of you to admit it. Surprising, in fact.

If you didn't like what I called LTL, you ought to read how she spoke to alcameron. Then decide which was worse.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> AW, the hypocrisy of these people makes me gag. They are so eager for things to go wrong, they spread disinformation that will prevent someone from getting the help s/he needs. All in the cause of keeping a few million people from getting medical benefits.


These few million people could have been covered without the 2500+ page monstrosity, aka the ACA.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> These few million people could have been covered without the 2500+ page monstrosity, aka the ACA.


It's only 906 pages, so there's your second mistake.

But I did underestimate the number of people that will be helped. It's more than a few million.

BTW, here's a link to the act - you can download it and count the pages: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/content-detail.html

To save you time, here are a couple of links to pieces by people who actually saw it:

http://www.hillbillyreport.org/diary/4006/2700-pages-wtf-have-you-been-reading-garland-andy-barr (You should feel comfortable with Hillbilly Report.)

http://www.leadertelegram.com/blogs/tom_giffey/article_c9f1fa54-d041-11e1-9d01-0019bb2963f4.html

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_pages_is_obama's_health_care_bill


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Soleweygirl: Beware of the Looney Libs who are never good with numbers! 

The ACA printed document is NOT the # of page SNJ suggested, but you probably know this already. :lol:


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Soleweygirl: Beware of the Looney Libs who are never good with numbers!


Seems like the conservatives aren't too skilled themselves:

Obamacare is fully implemented January 1st, even though the regulations havent been written yet. And Brian, weve got 33,000 pages of regulations that theyve already written. If we stacked it up here, it would be seven feet tall.
 Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), speaking on Fox and Friends, May 13, 2013

Implementation has also become a bureaucratic nightmare, with some 159 new government agencies, boards and programs busily enforcing the roughly 20,000 pages of rules and regulations already associated with this law.
 Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), on the third anniversary of the laws passage, March 22, 2013


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> Great minds? Or does it scare you?


Great minds always scare me. I have to work so hard to try to keep up.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> Frankly Yarnie, you need to mind your own business. How much we choose to spend on our pets is a personal matter.


Wrong, Seattle put it out on a public forum and should expect comments from anyone on the forum.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> So true. I've seen the term "Obamacare insurance" popping up in the righties' posts these past couple of days, which makes no sense as all the providers listed on the exchange are private companies. Seems an attempt by them to stigmatize those who buy their insurance off the exchange--really revolting that they're attempting to use the fact of having or not having before now as a class marker.


The insurance office is right next door to the Oval office.
hahahahahahahaha.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> Wrong, Seattle put it out on a public forum and should expect comments from anyone on the forum.


Wrong. Expressing one's opinions is fine--condemning someone for what they have already done is not.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I wonder how many more surprises (lies) will be uncovered.
> 
> No, Obamacare Might Not Cover Your Preexisting Condition
> 
> ...


This situation, if true, is really sad. Her insurance company could allow her to extend her policy for another year. It is too bad that she has to struggle with this in addition to her treatments, it happens much too much. Of course, those people who have benefitted from the all those payments that she mentioned could do some pro bono work. She could have been trying to work out alternatives for the past nine months. 
There is no reason that her treatment plan cannot be transferred to another facility. Is it optimal? Nope. 
Does she want life or the same caregivers?


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> 54554


br 549.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> br 549.


XER, what's that spell?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> This situation, if true, is really sad. Her insurance company could allow her to extend her policy for another year. It is too bad that she has to struggle with this in addition to her treatments, it happens much too much. Of course, those people who have benefitted from the all those payments that she mentioned could do some pro bono work. She could have been trying to work out alternatives for the past nine months.


I have to admit that I don't quite understand her lack of action either. Sunby and her husband Dale are extremely well off--he used to head the IBM offices in Palo Alto, and now the two are software entrepreneurs. They even had a profile listed in Forbes in 2000. Surely with all that money and prestige it would have been possible to work out some kind of satisfactory arrangement regarding her cancer treatments.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

This scandal has been compelling.

Rand Pauls plagiarism allegations, and why they matter

Over the last week, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has been accused of multiple counts of plagiarism  both in speeches he gave and in a book he wrote.
So what has happened, and what does it mean going forward?
Heres what you need to know.
What is he accused of?
The first accusations of plagiarism came from MSNBCs Rachel Maddow, who noted that Paul recounted the plot of the film Gattaca using the same verbiage used on the films Wikipedia page.
Since then, there have been several other revelations.
1. BuzzFeeds Andrew Kaczynski reported that Paul had also lifted language from Wikipedia while discussing the movie Stand and Deliver in a June 2012 speech.
2. Politicos Alexander Burns reported that Paul, in a 2013 response to President Obamas State of the Union address, used language that was exactly the same as a 2011 Associated Press report. And in a speech at Howard University earlier this year, Paul used language similar to the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family while discussing vouchers.
3. Kazcynski reported Saturday that three pages of Pauls recently published book (more than 1,300 words) borrowed heavily from a 2003 study by the conservative Heritage Foundation, along with another example involving the Cato Institute.
How has Paul responded?
Paul hasnt denied that the language was borrowed. Instead, he has argued that he is the victim of haters out to destroy his political career.
The footnote police have really been dogging me for the last week, Paul said on ABCs This Week on Sunday. I will admit that. And I will admit, sometimes we havent footnoted things properly....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/11/04/rand-pauls-plagiarism-allegations-and-why-they-matter/
and more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/us/politics/senator-rand-paul-faces-new-charges-of-plagiarism.html?_r=0
and more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/us/politics/senator-rand-paul-faces-new-charges-of-plagiarism.html?_r=0

Poor baby, people are being hard on him.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Woman with Type 2 diabetes sees premiums plummet from $500 to $1 under Obamacare

A retired woman in Pittsburgh, who suffers from Type 2 diabetes, is celebrating after she said her monthly health insurance premiums went from over $500 to just over $1 because of President Barack Obamas health care reform law.

Since the October 1 roll-out of the Affordable Care Act, many Republicans and much of the media have been focused on the fact that a small percentage of Americans have been not been able to keep low-quality insurance plans that failed to meet federal standards.

But 57-year-old Gail Roach told WTAE that she found a great deal by completing her application by phone instead of using the broken Healthcare.gov website. Roach said that because of her pre-existing condition, her retirement health care had cost her $509 a month. After spending some time talking to a specialist, she was able to find a plan for just $70 a month.

I couldnt believe it, I just couldnt believe it, Roach recalled. It was within my budget.

However, the savings didnt stop there. After tax credits and something called the Cost Sharing Benefit, Roachs monthly premiums plummeted to just $1.11.

Im telling people that they need to look into this, they need to be patient about it, she advised. If you go on the website and you cant get through the website, call the number thats on the website and just be very patient because its very much worth it.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/05/woman-with-type-2-diabetes-sees-premiums-plummet-from-500-to-1-under-obamacare/


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> XER, what's that spell?


I thought it was from an old TV show, Hee Haw. I sort of recall it being a phone number.

What is 54554? Is it swearing, but written with numbers?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> I thought it was from an old TV show, Hee Haw. I sort of recall it being a phone number.
> 
> What is 54554? Is it swearing, but written with numbers?


Hahahahaaa, generally if I feel the need to swear I say "read my mind".

The numbers are just mimicking the "others". 
XER, what's that spell. Is actually from a story my mother told us, OFTEN, about the creativity of the less fortunate and being kind.

This young kid in her neighborhood who had some developmental issues was often teased by the other kids in the neighborhood. You know, "Johnny spell this" Eddy add 6 numbers listed. 
Finally he came up with the XER thing and, of course, these kids didn't know if it was actually a word or not. So it shut them up for a bit. <smh> she loved that story and we got the message.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> I have to admit that I don't quite understand her lack of action either. Sunby and her husband Dale are extremely well off--he used to head the IBM offices in Palo Alto, and now the two are software entrepreneurs. They even had a profile listed in Forbes in 2000. Surely with all that money and prestige it would have been possible to work out some kind of satisfactory arrangement regarding her cancer treatments.


This is very interesting. I don't think there's anything to stop a person from paying for their own treatment if they want it done in a particular way and can afford it.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> This is very interesting. I don't think there's anything to stop a person from paying for their own treatment if they want it done in a particular way and can afford it.


I think I said this before, what the hell...

Why can't her current docs give the accepted practice her medical plan and the new team can continue her treatment plan?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> I think I said this before, what the hell...
> 
> Why can't her current docs give the accepted practice her medical plan and the new team can continue her treatment plan?


You did ask that: does she want to live or just hold on to the same people? There are equally good doctors elsewhere who could continue the treatment. I think people are fearful of change, which is why there are all these scary ACA stories that turn out to be no big deal.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> This is very interesting. I don't think there's anything to stop a person from paying for their own treatment if they want it done in a particular way and can afford it.


Well, the whole case is hard to figure out as Sundby told the AARP last year that she had a catastrophic coverage policy, then changed it to a United Healthcare PPO when she wrote her piece for the Wall Street Journal. My guess is that this poor lady is so depleted by her illness that she no longer is sure exactly what's going on, which makes her putty in the hands of the anti-ACA folks. I've said it before and I'll say it again--they're despicable!


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Well, the whole case is hard to figure out as Sundby told the AARP last year that she had a catastrophic coverage policy, then changed it to a United Healthcare PPO when she wrote her piece for the Wall Street Journal. My guess is that this poor lady is so depleted by her illness that she no longer is sure exactly what's going on, which makes her putty in the hands of the anti-ACA folks. I've said it before and I'll say it again--they're despicable!


Well, they're so invested in keeping Obama from accomplishing anything. They won't even try to find a solution to some of the problems that their friends have, or spend a minute to check to see whether they really are problems. Just "well, that's obamacare."

Your guess about the woman with cancer is probably right. She must spend a lot of time wondering whether she'll die soon; not to mention that as soon as she feels secure with one set of providers, she has to find another set. This may turn out to be a blessing, but change really is scary, and she doesn't have an awful lot to hold onto.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Well, they're so invested in keeping Obama from accomplishing anything. They won't even try to find a solution to some of the problems that their friends have, or spend a minute to check to see whether they really are problems. Just "well, that's obamacare."
> 
> Your guess about the woman with cancer is probably right. She must spend a lot of time wondering whether she'll die soon; not to mention that as soon as she feels secure with one set of providers, she has to find another set. This may turn out to be a blessing, but change really is scary, and she doesn't have an awful lot to hold onto.


You're right, of course. She's survived seven years with this horrible cancer and I'm sure feels her future depends on whatever complicated arrangement of doctors and treatments she's been able to work out. Goodness knows I'm familiar with that sort of thing--my brother has Stage 4 esophageal cancer and depends on UCLA for his treatments. Nothing has changed for him insurance-wise, but if his health care provider suddenly packed up and left the state I'm sure he wouldn't like it a bit.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

How "ObamaCare Cancelled Your Plan" is really an Insurance Co Scam to Rip You Off
byVyanFollow

We're all now quite familiar with the reported claims by hundreds of people that they've received letters from their health insurance company that their plans have been "Cancelled Due to ObamaCare". We all know that this wasn't supposed to happen, that the President promised it wouldn't happen and even though many of these plans are only cancelled because they're essentially useless due to their exorbitant co-pays and deductibles that argument hasn't yet been entirely convincing.

As I've previously diaried GOP Reps like Marsha Blackburn have gone ballistic arguing that ObamaCare has taken away people's "freedom" to buy the plan they want, even if it's cheap (and defective).

Presidential Loser Mitt Romney was on Meet the Press this weekend haughtily proclaiming that the President Obama's Failure to the Tell The American People the Truth about the ACA is now rotting his Second Term.

However, Talking Points Memo has a story up today that all of us need to see, bookmark and start forwarding to each and every media outlet that continues to claim that the ACA has "Cancelled" anyones Insurance Plan.

Because it hasn't, that is A LIE - Obamacare didn't Cancel their plan.

Plans that were in place since March of 2010 (prior to the Affordable Care Act) were "Grandfathered" and excluded from many of the laws requirements so that they wouldn't be cancelled. ObamaCare doesn't FORCE those plans to remain, but it doesn't FORCE them to be cancelled either. TPM reports now that the Insurance Companies themselves have deliberately sent out these cancellation notices, along with automatic renewals into higher rate plans before Oct 1st as a means of preventing people from Shopping on the Exchange and finding better, cheaper plans.

In short, this is all an Insurance Industry Scam to gouge their customers, blame Obamacare for it, and prevent them from taking advantage of improved coverage and savings that the ACA actually provides.

And so far, you have to admit, this Scam has worked beautifully. The White House has been rocked back on their heels not just by the rollout problems of HealthCare.gov (which is now actually working), but also by these Scammy "Cancellation Letters".

But now the charlatans behind the curtain are finally being revealed.

Donna received the letter canceling her insurance plan on Sept. 16. Her insurance company, LifeWise of Washington, told her that they'd identified a new plan for her. If she did nothing, she'd be covered. A 56-year-old Seattle resident with a 57-year-old husband and 15-year-old daughter, Donna had been looking forward to the savings that the Affordable Care Act had to offer.
But that's not what she found. Instead, she'd be paying an additional $300 a month for coverage. The letter made no mention of the health insurance marketplace that would soon open in Washington, where she could shop for competitive plans, and only an oblique reference to financial help that she might qualify for, if she made the effort to call and find out. Otherwise, she'd be automatically rolled over to a new plan -- and, as the letter said, "If you're happy with this plan, do nothing."

If Donna had done nothing, she would have ended up spending about $1,000 more a month for insurance than she will now that she went to the marketplace, picked the best plan for her family and accessed tax credits at the heart of the health care reform law.

"The info that we were sent by LifeWise was totally bogus. Why the heck did they try to screw us?" Donna said. "People who are afraid of the ACA should be much more afraid of the insurance companies who will exploit their fear and end up overcharging them."

Donna is not alone.

No, she's not alone. It's not clear how widespread this practice has been, but some State insurance commissioners are starting to notice.
In Kentucky, Insurance Provider Humana was fined $65,000 for sending out misleading letters.

The Kentucky Department of Insurance has fined Humana $65,430 because it offered policyholders an unapproved opportunity to amend their insurance as part of a letter that regulators have called misleading.
The department investigated letters sent in August to 6,543 individual plan policyholders in Kentucky. The letters said they needed to renew their plans for 2014 within 30 days or choose a more expensive option that complies with the Affordable Care Act.

But regulators last month called the letters misleading, arguing they did not make sufficiently clear that policyholders could compare and choose competing plans on the states health insurance exchanges, which open on Oct. 1, and for which they could be eligible for federal subsidies.

Let's follow this logically, if the letters were sent in August and required a response within 30 days - it essentially forced the policy holders to choose the worse possible option before the Oct 1st launch of their State Exchange.
That is a classic "High Pressure" sales tactic. "Buy NOW or you'll miss out. SALE ENDING SOON" - when in fact, there was no legitimate reason to push people make a decision in that 30 day window other than to prevent them from shopping on the Exchange.

2,200 people actually did respond within that 30 period, but Kentucy regulators after finding they had been deceived by Humana released them from that agreement and allowed them to go ahead and shop for a better plan on the marketplace. Then they fined Humana for their attempted Scam.

[Kentucky Insurance Commissioner Sharon] Clark gave the example of a single mother with children who was urged to sign up for a Humana plan with a monthly premium of $719.86. That price is higher than any comparable plan for sale on the state's insurance marketplace, Clark said -- not to mention that the mother might have qualified for tax subsidies to help pay for it if she went through the marketplace, as Donna did.
So the next time you hear or read about how ObamaCare has caused someone to lose their inexpensive plan only to be forced to choose a much more expensive one. Don't Believe It.
As Adm. Akbar would say: It's. A. Trap!

Vyan

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/04/1252957/-How-ObamaCare-Cancelled-Your-Plan-is-really-an-Insurance-Co-Scam-to-Rip-You-Off?detail=email


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

But wait, there's more:


All health plans must:

.End lifetime limits on coverage

.End arbitrary cancellations of health coverage

.Cover adult children up to age 26

.Provide a Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC), a short, easy-to-understand summary of what a plan covers and costs

.Hold insurance companies accountable to spend your premiums on health care, not administrative costs and bonuses
Grandfathered plans DON'T have to:

.Cover preventive care for free

.Guarantee your right to appeal

.Protect your choice of doctors and access to emergency care

.Be held accountable through Rate Review for excessive premium increases

In addition to the above, grandfathered individual health insurance plans (the kind you buy yourself, not the kind you get from an employer) don't have to:

.End yearly limits on coverage

.Cover you if you have a pre-existing health condition

So if you had a plan that had a lifetime cap, didn't cover your children until they were 26, could be arbitrarily cancelled and didn't spend 80-85% of your premiums on your care - that plan would have to be updated or replaced. If you had a plan like that, and for some reason liked it then you were always going to have to make an adjustment to a plan that doesn't suck anymore. The question is, would you be able to shop for the best possible option or would you stay with the options given by your current provider? These letters show that some providers tried to corral their clients into staying and accepting a much higher rate - blaming the ACA for it - and therefore scaring them away from the Exchange Marketplace.
We've been hearing that the reason these plans were more expensive is because they had to cover preventive care (Limbaugh had a field-day with that one last week), but as shown above the Grandfathered Plans Didn't.

It's a scam, it's all a scam.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

And still more:


One more issue on Grandfathered Plans via the Comments

Plans could acquire grandfathered status by adding those features to the existing ones, they did not have to already have them in place. Some of the elements, like the "no lifetime cap" one, were phased in over time, and therefore explicitly allowed adjustment of benefits in an existing plan. Coverage of children under 26 is not likely to be a feature that many plans had in early 2010, yet clearly insurance plans have added this feature. My current coverage has grandfathered status. It had some of these features, like no lifetime cap, other benefits have been added or modified to comply with the grandfathering requirements.
So, you got that? Grandfathered Plans are not written in unbendable, unbreakable Adamantium, they can and have been amended since 2010. They don't have to meet all the requirements of the ACA, just a few of them and have to have existed since before the law was passed and signed - That's All.
So let's go back and revisit "If you like your plan, you can keep it" as being flawed or wrong. It's NOT. Instead of amending the plans to meet minimum grandfather requirements they are being Shutdown By the Insurance Industries Choice, not by ObamaCare.

1:34 PM PT: One final point that puts the LIE to the claim that these plans couldn't meet the Grandfathered requirements is the fact that There's Nothing New Required of Grandfathered Plans This Year.

The Lifting of the Lifetime Spending Cap has been phased in since 2010.

The law restricts and phases out the annual dollar limits that all job-related plans, and individual health insurance plans issued after March 23, 2010, can put on most covered health benefits. Specifically, the law says that none of these plans can set an annual dollar limit lower than:

$750,000: for a plan year or policy year starting on or after September 23, 2010 but before September 23, 2011.

$1.25 million: for a plan year or policy year starting on or after September 23, 2011 but before September 23, 2012.

$2 million: for a plan year or policy year starting on or after September 23, 2012 but before January 1, 2014.
No annual dollar limits are allowed on most covered benefits beginning January 1, 2014.
It's not like the ACA suddenly requires old insurance plans to do something this year, that they weren't essentially required to do last year - other than PAY peoples claims.
Similarly the ability to keep your children on your family plan isn't new, that was established in 2010.

ffective for Plan or Policy Years Beginning On or After September 23, 2010. Secretary Kathleen Sebelius called on leading insurance companies to begin covering young adults voluntarily before the implementation date required by the Affordable Care Act (which is plan or policy years beginning on or after September 23rd). Early implementation would avoid gaps in coverage for new college graduates and other young adults and save on insurance company administrative costs of dis-enrolling and re-enrolling them between May 2010 and September 23, 2010. Over 65 companies have responded to this call saying they will voluntarily continue coverage for young adults who graduate or age off their parents' insurance before the implementation deadline.
Lastly the requirement to spend at least 80% of your premiums on care and not administrative costs has already been in effect, that's why people have been getting rebate checks.
A new provision of the Affordable Care Act  called the Medical Loss Ratio, or the 80/20&#8243; provision  could mean some Americans will see a rebate from their health insurance companies tomorrow.
The provision is aimed at holding health insurance companies accountable for how they spend the money collected through premiums. It compares the dollars they spend on health care costs vs. other overhead costs  like marketing, salaries and administrative expenses.

Grandfathered plans don't have to cover pre-existing conditions. Grandfathered plans don't have to provide free preventive care services. (High Co-Pays and Deductibles can remain) Grandfathered plans can still limit yearly coverage (in the individual market).
In short, there is no New Special Expensive OBAMACARE Requirement on existing Grandfathered plans other the fact that the lifetime cap has gone from $2 Million to Infinite and they can't arbitrarily CANCEL your insurance between renewal periods. They can only do it at the end of you plan year, which is exactly what they're doing - simply because they can, not because Obamacare put some onerous expensive requirement on them.

Just about everything they were required by the ACA to do this year, they had to do LAST YEAR, and the year before that. Even more than when I first wrote this diary now believe these "ObamaCare Cancellations" are a SCAM.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Empress Purl, thank you for these postings. The bad thing is that the people who need to read this material won't.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> You did ask that: does she want to live or just hold on to the same people? There are equally good doctors elsewhere who could continue the treatment. I think people are fearful of change, which is why there are all these scary ACA stories that turn out to be no big deal.


Oh there is no doubt about it, change is difficult at the best of times. To be dealing with a great possibility of terminal cancer wears down the strength and spirit to have this kind of crap on top of it seems like just too much, I am sure. It is not like it is a surprise, however. She has known about this for 10 months. 
Your post about her PPO v catastrophic is interesting. 
Once upon a time we had an offering that was an indemnity plan with a catastrophic plan as a rider. That may have been what she meant. It would be the catastrophic piece that would be taking care of the treatments for her gallbladder, of course.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

alcameron said:


> Empress Purl, thank you for these postings. The bad thing is that the people who need to read this material won't.


Of course not. They made all kinds of excuses for not reading a piece from AARP saying that emails threatening $200 premium increases were phony. "My friend isn't a member of AARP, so she can't follow their rules" (there were no rules; it was just a useful bit of news). Also the best: "AARP is a Left-Liberal organization, so I don't trust it." AARP? As my mother would say, "Oy vey!"

The stuff I posted today did come from a leftward-leaning source, Daily Kos, but there could still be something useful in it. But better to kill the messenger than to read the message.

Oh, there was another Kos piece about how large drugstore chains were setting up to help people through the ACA process. CVS, Walgreen's, and RiteAid, all commie pinko organizations.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Oh there is no doubt about it, change is difficult at the best of times. To be dealing with a great possibility of terminal cancer wears down the strength and spirit to have this kind of crap on top of it seems like just too much, I am sure. It is not like it is a surprise, however. She has known about this for 10 months.
> Your post about her PPO v catastrophic is interesting.
> Once upon a time we had an offering that was an indemnity plan with a catastrophic plan as a rider. That may have been what she meant. It would be the catastrophic piece that would be taking care of the treatments for her gallbladder, of course.


Hard to figure out. This is what she wrote for the Wall Street Journal:

"Two things have been essential in my fight to survive stage-4 cancer. The first are doctors and health teams in California and Texas: at the medical center of the University of California, San Diego, and its Moores Cancer Center; Stanford University's Cancer Institute; and the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

The second element essential to my fight is a United Healthcare PPO (preferred provider organization) health-insurance policy.

Since March 2007 United Healthcare has paid $1.2 million to help keep me alive, and it has never once questioned any treatment or procedure recommended by my medical team."

And as reported by the AARP last year:

"In July 2007, [a surgeon] cut a 14-inch incision from Edie's breast to her pelvic bone and removed her gallbladder, a substantial portion of her liver and several lymph nodes....
For nearly four more years -- while technically in remission -- Edie continued to receive chemotherapy (79 treatments in total, 836,000 milligrams of chemicals pumped into her body). She was able to do this in part thanks to her insurance, a catastrophic medical policy that covered 80 percent of the cost of her treatment. (Being self-employed, she and Dale had opted for this plan, which is generally less expensive than overall health coverage.) Even so, the 20 percent out-of-pocket copayments amounted to tens of thousands of dollars."

However she managed it, though, that was one nifty little policy. Imagine being treated by THREE different medical centers--it's a cancer patient's dream.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Hard to figure out. This is what she wrote for the Wall Street Journal:
> 
> "Two things have been essential in my fight to survive stage-4 cancer. The first are doctors and health teams in California and Texas: at the medical center of the University of California, San Diego, and its Moores Cancer Center; Stanford University's Cancer Institute; and the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.
> 
> ...


Nice for her that United Health Care didn't shut her off after a million dollars in benefit. I wonder if they are shareholders, on the board?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Nice for her that United Health Care didn't shut her off after a million dollars in benefit. I wonder if they are shareholders, on the board?


Wouldn't surprise me--these folks seem to have a lot of pull. But apparently not enough to keep United Health Care from pulling up stakes and leaving California.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

What a ridiculous thing to say! Don't you ever think first? Of course not.



soloweygirl said:


> Well you smart ass snot nosed jerk, that was my mistake, not Joey's.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I find myself hoping for the death squads.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

You're an inspiration.



jelun2 said:


> Great minds always scare me. I have to work so hard to try to keep up.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> Woman with Type 2 diabetes sees premiums plummet from $500 to $1 under Obamacare
> 
> A retired woman in Pittsburgh, who suffers from Type 2 diabetes, is celebrating after she said her monthly health insurance premiums went from over $500 to just over $1 because of President Barack Obamas health care reform law.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Look behind the curtain. Don't be a dumbbell.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Love your Mom's story.



jelun2 said:


> Hahahahaaa, generally if I feel the need to swear I say "read my mind".
> 
> The numbers are just mimicking the "others".
> XER, what's that spell. Is actually from a story my mother told us, OFTEN, about the creativity of the less fortunate and being kind.
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> This is very interesting. I don't think there's anything to stop a person from paying for their own treatment if they want it done in a particular way and can afford it.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> I think I said this before, what the hell...
> 
> Why can't her current docs give the accepted practice her medical plan and the new team can continue her treatment plan?


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> Well, the whole case is hard to figure out as Sundby told the AARP last year that she had a catastrophic coverage policy, then changed it to a United Healthcare PPO when she wrote her piece for the Wall Street Journal. My guess is that this poor lady is so depleted by her illness that she no longer is sure exactly what's going on, which makes her putty in the hands of the anti-ACA folks. I've said it before and I'll say it again--they're despicable!


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

OMG. It's worse than I dreamed. This information needs to be spread ASAP.



Poor Purl said:


> How "ObamaCare Cancelled Your Plan" is really an Insurance Co Scam to Rip You Off
> byVyanFollow
> 
> We're all now quite familiar with the reported claims by hundreds of people that they've received letters from their health insurance company that their plans have been "Cancelled Due to ObamaCare". We all know that this wasn't supposed to happen, that the President promised it wouldn't happen and even though many of these plans are only cancelled because they're essentially useless due to their exorbitant co-pays and deductibles that argument hasn't yet been entirely convincing.
> ...


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Only for you would I give such an answer. And only because I'm in the middle of shortening 3 pairs of pants and hate doing it.



damemary said:


> What a ridiculous thing to say! Don't you ever think first? Of course not.


Wait, Dame. I said it first - she was quoting me back to myself. I had a reason:



lovethelake said:


> Did you hear that the Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic will not be accepting Obamacare for payment? I was in my car and could not remember the LA hospital and the NYC hospital mentioned.
> 
> WTG Obama, destroying our best institutions in our country





alcameron said:


> Can you substantiate this, please?





lovethelake said:


> Oh another thing. My best bud called me all upset and needed to talk. She must pay $200 a month for Medicare in order to keep her insurance policy because of Obamacare. She is on a very restricted budget and has no idea how she is going to pay it. Her husband, (who was in the Navy for 30 years as a deep sea recovery diver and is a 100% disabled veteran) had his Medicare payment increase almost 100% because of Obamacare. Isn't that a great example of how Obama respects our veterans?





alcameron said:


> Medicare cost has not gone up to $200/person. Can you substantiate this please?
> Remember, it's the House repubs who have cut veteran payments.





lovethelake said:


> So you are calling my friend a liar?
> 
> Substantiate that





alcameron said:


> No, that's called anecdotal. I would like to see some evidence. Furthermore, you have no idea if it has gone up that it's due to Obamacare. Our Medicare premium per person is not that high and we have, to date, received no notice of increase to $200. That's all I'm saying. Do you have a good source for your statement about Mayo Clinic not accepting Obamacare? There are many insurance companies offering plans under Obamacare and it's hard to believe they would not accept any of them. Over half their patients are on Medicare, so I know they accept that.





lovethelake said:


> NO that is FACT
> 
> Since it appears you are incapable of using Google, I will try to help. Turn on your computer, try the shiny button that says 'power'. Wait until the little spinning hour glass or a pretty circle stops spinning. Then look for a 4 colored circle on your screen. Click on it. Then type in Cleveland Clinic + not taking Obamacare. And then by the magic of algore's amazing internet you will get a pretty page with pretty blue sentences. Pick one and see what happens. It is truly a miracle


Note the smartassiness.


lovethelake said:


> Oh that was mean to ask you to work.
> 
> Try this
> http://health.usnews.com/health-news/hospital-of-tomorrow/articles/2013/10/30/top-hospita...
> ...


Herewith the snotnosiness.



alcameron said:


> I already looked for info on the Mayo Clinic and found nothing saying they don't accept Obamacare.
> You needn't be a jerk about it.





Poor Purl said:


> You smartass snot-nosed jerk. Have you never learned how to talk to people. You were simply asked to substantiate your claim, and you couldn't, so you got nasty.
> 
> Here's the first page of Google I got in response to the search "Mayo clinic obamacare":
> <snip>
> ...


If you look at what LTL wrote, you'll see that she didn't know what "anecdotal" meant, thought it was an insult, and responded in kind.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thanks Purl.



Poor Purl said:


> Only for you would I give such an answer. And only because I'm in the middle of shortening 3 pairs of pants and hate doing it.
> 
> If you look at what LTL wrote, you'll see that she didn't know what "anecdotal" meant, thought it was an insult, and responded in kind.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

soloweygirl said:


> Wrong, Seattle put it out on a public forum and should expect comments from anyone on the forum.


That's MIB to you, and I posted the info in response to what someone said about vets (the animal docs, not the former soldies...). If someone wants to remari, please feel free. I actually am aware this a public forum, unlike some people around here.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

*The Real Reason That The Cancer Patient Writing In Todays Wall Street Journal Lost Her Insurance*
BY IGOR VOLSKY	ON NOVEMBER 4, 2013 AT 9:08 AM

Mondays Wall Street Journal features an op-ed from Edie Littlefield Sundby, a stage-4 gallbladder cancer survivor who wont be able to keep the coverage she currently has. Her insurer, United Healthcare, is pulling out of the individual health care market, forcing Sundby to find new coverage in Californias health care exchange.

But the plans available through Cover California dont offer in-network coverage for all of the care Sundby needs. As a result, she has to choose between her two health care providers if she wishes to remain in-network. Stanford has kept me alivebut UCSD has provided emergency and local treatment support during wretched periods of this disease, and it is where my primary-care doctors are, she writes:
What happened to the presidents promise, You can keep your health plan? Or to the promise that You can keep your doctor? Thanks to the law, I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan. The exchange would force me to give up a world-class physician.
But Sundby shouldnt blame reform  United Healthcare dropped her coverage because theyve struggled to compete in Californias individual health care market for years and didnt want to pay for sicker patients like Sundby.

The company, which only had 8,000 individual policy holders in California out of the two million who participate in the market, announced (along with a second insurer, Aetna) that it would be pulling out of the individual market in May. The company could not compete with Anthem Blue Cross, Blue Shield of California and Kaiser Permanente, who control more than 80 percent of the individual market. Over the years, it has become more difficult to administer these plans in a cost-effective way for our members, UnitedHealth spokeswoman Cheryl Randolph explained. We will continue to keep a major presence in California, focusing instead on large and small employers.

The two insurers were also operating at a tax disadvantage in the state. As California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones explained, One of the factors I believe contributed to this decision.is the special tax break that California law gives to Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, which has allowed and continues to allow those two companies to avoid paying $100 million in state taxes a year. Aetna and United Healthcare dont get the special tax break provided to Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and so they faced a major competitive disadvantage in California.

And then there is the companys own justification for leaving. The companys plans reflect its concern that the first wave of newly insured customers under the law may be the costliest, UHC Chief Executive Officer Stephen Helmsley told investors last October. UnitedHealth will watch and see how the exchanges evolve and expects the first enrollees will have a pent-up appetite for medical care. We are approaching them with some degree of caution because of that.

Get that? The company packed its bags and dumped its beneficiaries because it wants its competitors to swallow the first wave of sicker enrollees only to re-enter the market later and profit from the healthy people who still havent signed up for coverage.

Sundby is losing her coverage and her doctors because of a business decision her insurer made within the competitive dynamics of Californias health care market. Shell now have to enroll in a new plan that offers tighter networks of providers as a way to control health care costs and offer lower premiums. Eleven insurers are participating in Covered California and for the first time they wont be able to deny coverage to Sundby or any other cancer patients.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And I will explain to the dense, this is due to the insurance companies, not ACA. Send your complaints in the right direction.



Poor Purl said:


> *The Real Reason That The Cancer Patient Writing In Todays Wall Street Journal Lost Her Insurance*
> BY IGOR VOLSKY	ON NOVEMBER 4, 2013 AT 9:08 AM
> 
> Mondays Wall Street Journal features an op-ed from Edie Littlefield Sundby, a stage-4 gallbladder cancer survivor who wont be able to keep the coverage she currently has. Her insurer, United Healthcare, is pulling out of the individual health care market, forcing Sundby to find new coverage in Californias health care exchange.
> ...


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

damemary said:


> And I will explain to the dense, this is due to the insurance companies, not ACA. Send your complaints in the right direction.


Then they would have nothing to complain about, Empress Dame! I guess LTL is PO'd because her beloved Virginia now has a Democratic governor. :XD: :XD:


----------



## bonbf3 (Dec 20, 2011)

damemary said:


> :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


Her catastrophic coverage was through a United HealthCare PPO.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> And I will explain to the dense, this is due to the insurance companies, not ACA. Send your complaints in the right direction.


Surely you jest. There is only one right direction for them, straight down.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Then they would have nothing to complain about, Empress Dame! I guess LTL is PO'd because her beloved Virginia now has a Democratic governor. :XD: :XD:


And Empress Brynn says Hurray!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> And I will explain to the dense, this is due to the insurance companies, not ACA. Send your complaints in the right direction.


It's all about money, AGAIN. 
What is that little riff about corporations have a moral obligation to provide healthy dividends to their shareholders?


----------



## annamatilda (Aug 10, 2012)

Letter to Obama

This young man is good with words and could grab even a lefty into reading and agreeing with him; without them knowing what hit em.

He is in Kentucky on a small radio station, but this kid has promise and I see bigger things in his future. 
10.4.13 -- The Huffington Post describes Matt Walsh this way: Matt Walsh is a 27-year-old blogger, talk radio host, husband, and father of twins. In fact, Matt Walsh has his own talk radio program called The Matt Walsh Show, live, 3  6 P. M. (EST) on 630 WLAP.

Dear President Obama,

You strike me as the sort of man who spends a lot of time staring at his own reflection. I wonder, what do you see when you gaze so admiringly at yourself? What image do you find in that mirror of yours? Let me guess: a graceful Greek god with a golden crown, draped in luxurious robes, perched on a giant, magnificent throne atop a mountain in the sky? You see a throng of angels singing your praises and masses of subservient peasants prostrated before you, trembling with fear and awe? You see a man who is more than a man, and a president who transcends the presidency; you see a historic figure of immortal importance?

Yeah, thats what I thought, and I cant blame you, Mr. President. By all accounts, youve always been an arrogant, haughty narcissist  and that was before you became president. Your supporters and your enemies may argue over whether you descended from heaven on the back of a Pegasus, or were birthed from the bowels of Hell to bring about a Biblical apocalypse, but they both agree on one thing: you are a figure of great significance and immense power. You are either the anti-Christ or the Second Coming, with no room for anything in-between. Surely, this talk might cause even a humble man to slip into a state of vanity and pride, so I can only imagine what it must do to a man such as yourself, already so aloof and so conceited.

Thats why Im writing this letter. My impression of you is quite different, and it has only been solidified by your performance during this shutdown/Obamacare debate. I find you to be a very small man, Mr. President. Far from larger than life, you are petty, frivolous, pathetic; sneering and pompous but also trifling and narrow. I dont mean to dismiss or underestimate the damage you have done to this nation  it has certainly been profound and lasting  but I want you to know that your legacy will not be one of grandeur and brilliance; it will be the legacy of a shameless, desperate bully. Both your opponents and your proponents hoist you up as a world leader with a grand vision, whether benevolent or malevolent. I, on the other hand, believe you have the vision of a temperamental two year old. You simply want to feel like youre in control; you want to win, you want everybody in the room to pay attention to you, and youll stomp your feet and whine until you get your way. You govern like a coddled toddler; its inappropriate to pejoratively refer to you as a dictator, but only because it lends you a certain unwarranted credibility. I think you wish to be a dictator, but instead youre just a bumbling bureaucrat; easily replaced and even more easily forgotten. You have the ethics of Genghis Khan, but the leadership skills of Michael Scott. This is why we are forced to witness the spectacle of, for instance, our president brazenly threatening to invade another nation for no reason, only to clumsily abandon the idea after being publicly spanked by Putin.

Your legacy, Mr. President, will be defined by small, shameful things, as your presidency has been primarily a succession of small, shameful things. The platitudes you spouted during your campaign  the theatrics, the pomp, the hype  have all faded. Replaced by the scheming partisan machinations that have come to define your tenure.

Every president has a moment that encapsulates their time in office; your moment, Mr. President, happened this week. Sure, future generations will look at you with mockery and scorn because of bigger scandals  Benghazi, the IRS targeting conservatives, Obamacare, the birth control mandate and your attacks on religious liberty, spying on journalists, arming terrorists overseas, Fast and Furious, the green energy scams, the bailouts, your support for infanticide, the billions youve given to the abortion industry, your cowardice in refusing to address the Gosnell murders, your reckless exploitation of the Zimmerman trial, the out of control deficit spending, your refusal to enforce immigration laws, the massive expansion of the Welfare State, the lies, the broken promises, etc  but I think, in an understated way, what youve done this week is a better microcosm of your entire reign.

Im not just referring to the fact that you are peddling the lie that Republicans have shutdown the government, when, in fact, they have attempted to pass several bills that would fund the government. Mr. President, you tell these fables to the trained seals in the media and your voting base, but you know damn well that any American with a capacity for critical thought will roundly reject this absurd narrative. YOU have chosen to shut down the government because you have made Obamacare the ultimate priority. You have said, Obamacare or nothing, and then accused Republicans of being the hostage takers. They are holding the government hostage by trying to fund it? What a silly idea. But then, you are a silly, ridiculous president. Speaking of which, this takes us right to your defining moment: barricading memorials and monuments in a ploy to win an argument.

Comparatively insignificant when stacked up against your war crimes and constitutional infringements, but it is nonetheless an apt illustration. The Lincoln Memorial is just a giant statue. There isnt any reason why people shouldnt be able to look at a statue during a government shutdown. In past shutdowns, the memorials were open, with only the information centers closing down. The Lincoln Memorial has never been completely closed off from the public until now. You have decided to spend money to block and guard open-air monuments, when it would be cheaper, require less staff, and be less onerous to simply leave them be. Is this some sort of bizarre punitive measure against the American taxpayer?

Infamously, you even attempted to stop WW 2 veterans from visiting the WW 2 memorial. That memorial is mostly privately funded, and is open 24 hours a day. You SPENT MONEY to physically guard the monument from a group of elderly war veterans. This is truly unprecedented. We have had horrible presidents in the past, but none quite so shallow, cheap and contemptible. You tried to close down Mt. Vernon, which is privately funded, but had to settle for closing its parking lot  even though the parking lot requires no immediate on-going maintenance or surveillance from any federal workers. Did you have to shut down the Normandy cemetery and memorial? Are we saving money that way? I doubt it.

Its the same game you played during the sequester, and it comes as no surprise to those of us who pay attention (which means it came as a surprise to a large number of people). Rather than leading like a statesman, you hide in the shadows; scheming, conniving, exploiting. You emerge only to make hyper-partisan speeches, with rhetoric best left to Democratic talking heads on afternoon cable news shows. Far from being a new kind of politician (as you were advertised), you are the most political politician this country has ever seen. You are political to your core, in your essence, at an atomic level, and so you are unable to offer any direction or clarity when the nation needs it most. Sometimes, Mr. President, the affairs of this nation require a man, not a politician, and it is during those times that you are especially useless. You dont have any interest in fixing our present crisis because youre too busy finding ways to keep a busload of 90 year old war veterans from looking at a memorial.

Closing down parks, monuments and memorials just to score political points is hardly your most insidious deed, but its certainly one of your pettiest. Thats why it stands, ironically, as a monument of its own. If we ever build a statue of you, Mr. President, you wont be triumphantly holding a flaming torch like Lady Liberty, or standing authoritatively with a look of determination, like the MILK memorial. No, it will be a statue of you pulling the wings off of a fly, or spitting in someones orange juice. It will show you in your essence, as monuments are meant to do. It will show you as a petulant, skulking, juvenile bully. It will you show you as you are. And well make sure its always open, especially during a government shut down.

Sincerely,

Matt Walsh


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Sounds like someone feels Obama has become rather "uppity". I don't have to ask what you see when you look at our President--I already know.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Sounds like someone feels Obama has become rather "uppity". I don't have to ask what you see when you look at our President--I already know.


Is Matt Walsh a KP member or just some half baked blogger with a nasty attitude? 
Blogger and DJ with a narcissistic diagnosis of his own, perhaps?
I wonder who imagines that a person who is ambitious enough to decide to run for POTUS is NOT a bit of a narcissist? 
Does this mouth piece think that people don't know that presidents are full of themselves and arrogant?

What exactly does this piece have to do with Obamacare?


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

annamatilda said:


> Letter to Obama
> 
> This young man is good with words and could grab even a lefty into reading and agreeing with him; without them knowing what hit em.
> 
> ...


Amen!


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Is Matt Walsh a KP member or just some half baked blogger with a nasty attitude?
> Blogger and DJ with a narcissistic diagnosis of his own, perhaps?
> I wonder who imagines that a person who is ambitious enough to decide to run for POTUS is NOT a bit of a narcissist?
> Does this mouth piece think that people don't know that presidents are full of themselves and arrogant?
> ...


I looked him up--he's a self-proclaimed "27-year-old blogger, talk radio host, husband, and father of twins." Seems to be a misogynist too--can't help noticing he likes to write about women in public places who, in his opinion, aren't behaving in a seemly fashion--the cranky woman in the fast food line, the salesclerk who commented on his spouse being a stay-at-home mom etc.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

annamatilda said:


> Letter to Obama
> 
> This young man is good with words and could grab even a lefty into reading and agreeing with him; without them knowing what hit em.
> 
> ...


Matt knows exactly what he is talking about. Thanks for posting this piece, Anna! :thumbup:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> I looked him up--he's a self-proclaimed "27-year-old blogger, talk radio host, husband, and father of twins." Seems to be a misogynist too--can't help noticing he likes to write about women in public places who, in his opinion, aren't behaving in a seemly fashion--the cranky woman in the fast food line, the salesclerk who commented on his spouse being a stay-at-home mom etc.


Yes, I noted this about him as well. 
I liked this response to one of his blogs.

ear Matt Walsh, Take Your Pedestal And Shove It
October 11, 2013 by Lyzl 75 Comments
Hey ladies, you know that whole stay-at-home vs. working thing youve been trying to figure out for a while? Well step aside. Matt Walsh, blogger, radio host, father and more importantly, MAN, has come to our rescue to help us figure it all out.
Matt Walsh, the author of the Matt Walsh blog, went viral with a post that puts stay-at-home moms everywhere on a pedestal. He supposedly had a conversation or two where a woman was vaguely condescending about his wifes choice to stay at home. And you guys, he was shocked. How dare anyone judge anyone. So, hes going to judge you and take a stand. A brave stand. Much like saying cancer is bad or being illiterate isnt ideal, Matt Walsh is bravely staying that stay-at-home moms are awesome and they should be put on a pedestal. A huge pedestal. And well, lets let him tell it:
The people who completely immerse themselves in the tiring, thankless, profoundly important job of raising children ought to be put on a pedestal. We ought to revere them and admire them like we admire rocket scientists and war heroes. These women are doing something beautiful and complicated and challenging and terrifying and painful and joyous and essential. Whatever they are doing, they ARE doing something, and our civilization DEPENDS on them doing it well. Who else can say such a thing? What other job carries with it such consequences?
Thanks, but no thanks, Matt Walsh. I really dont want your pedestal. And frankly, it doesnt help.
This stay-at-home v. working mom issue has been tackled for decades in more thoughtful less reactionary ways. It doesnt help the conversation to stymie in this place of female/mother worship. Do you know why? Its the Madonna/Whore complex. Because when you elevate women to a pedestal you put them in a place where they cant fall. Because this elevated position means that with all the glory comes all the blame. Because this sets up the dichotomy where mothers are highly valued until they make a mistake. Then, they are the problem with everything.
And what do we gain by belitting the work of others in order to raise mothers up? There are many people who have impacted my life in a profound way, who are not mothers, nor will they ever be. I think of the surgeons who saved my sisters life. My friend who is a lobbyist, my friend the teacher, my friend the seminary student. Each has a vital role in society and in shaping the woman I am today. Regardless of the status of her uterus, no woman is an island.
But ultimately, I (as a stay-at-home mom) reject the pedestal because pedestals are for idols and icons, not for people. It seems almost ridiculous to have to say this, but women (stay-at-home, work-at-home or otherwise) dont need a pedestal and pandering, we need the space to be peopleflawed people. Needy people. People who cant hack it. People who are just finding their way. We need help. We need more equal pay so we can hang onto our jobs. We need better maternity leave policies so we dont have to make the choices that men do not have to make. We need to be asked about usyou know, the people who we are outside of child rearing. It benefits no one if a woman drowns herself in the role of a mother without the ability and the space to be something more, even if that something more is just a wife, or a lady with a glass of wine and Downton Abby on her DVR. The space to be fully human.
Walsh also writes:
Of course not all women can be at home full time. Its one thing to acknowledge that; its quite another to paint it as the ideal. To call it the ideal, is to claim that children IDEALLY would spend LESS time around their mothers. This is madness. Pure madness. It isnt ideal, and it isnt neutral. The more time a mother can spend raising her kids, the better. The better for them, the better for their souls, the better for the community, the better for humanity. Period.
This is a bit of a strawman. What about being around a father? Is it ideal for Walsh to be cavorting around coffee shops instead of at home with his children? Where is the role of the co-parent in this argument? And why does the mother bear the sole responsibility for the raising of her children and as Walsh puts it, their souls and humanity? And honestly, its a fallacy to think that mothers themselves are entirely responsible for life and the raising and managing of it. Truthfully, raising and managing children, is more than just the mothers calling and glory. It belongs to a cohort of people. Teachers. Doctors. Extended family. Friends. Neighbors. Fathers. It takes everyone to help raise a child and to put all the responsibility on the shoulders of the mother is exhausting and a burden no woman wants to bear alone.
Frankly, I doubt that these coffee shop harpies were being condescening. I think Walsh misinterpreted their questions. I personally love it when people ask me about what Im doing and if Im working, because it gives me something to talk about besides how much poop I had to wipe off the floor in a given day. Its not condescending when I hear a working friends say, I couldnt do what you do. I understand where they are coming from. I respect their ability to know their limits to know their personalities and their ability to seek a path that works for them and their families.
Society does treat mothers horribly, but not because of the judging. (And for the record, the way to combat judging isnt with more judging.) It treats mothers horribly by forcing them into a position where many women often have to chose between the careers theyve built and the children they love. The problem is that women still earn less then men. The problem is affordable heath care and birth control. The problem is maternity leave. The problem is expecting women to bear the weight of humanity with no real help. The problem is that we exonerate men because, well, women are AWESOME. HOORAY! And deny them the ability to be people beyond just mom. The problem is that we totally ignore the role of the co-parent
The problem is the pedestal.
Thanks to my friend KT for her help clarifying my thoughts for this post. And for the phrase coffee shop harpies. KT shapes and influences more lives as a teacher than I could ever hope to as a mom. Id be honored if my daughter grew into half the woman she is.
You might also like:


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Beautiful! I couldn't have put it better myself.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Yes, I noted this about him as well.
> I liked this response to one of his blogs.
> 
> ear Matt Walsh, Take Your Pedestal And Shove It
> ...


I agree but also disagree with what was written. But that is the way I am made and brought up.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

Isn't it the truth? Then the messenger get attacked for his opinion.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Is Matt Walsh a KP member or just some half baked blogger with a nasty attitude?
> Blogger and DJ with a narcissistic diagnosis of his own, perhaps?
> I wonder who imagines that a person who is ambitious enough to decide to run for POTUS is NOT a bit of a narcissist?
> Does this mouth piece think that people don't know that presidents are full of themselves and arrogant?
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: My sentiments, exactly!


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Isn't it the truth? Then the messenger get attacked for his opinion.


Key word--HIS. Perhaps you feel it's appropriate for a male to dictate a woman's place in society--I sure don't.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Key word--HIS. Perhaps you feel it's appropriate for a male to dictate a woman's place in society--I sure don't.


I didn't read that post. I just read what he said about the liar.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Key word--HIS. Perhaps you feel it's appropriate for a male to dictate a woman's place in society--I sure don't.


Not to mention that there was NO attack. I am getting darned sick of the sloppy language around here.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attack


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Country Bumpkins said:


> I didn't read that post. I just read what he said about the liar.


Same with me. The Libs cannot listen to or accept the truth, so rather than discuss the original post, Jelun searched to dig up something written by another author to discuss.

Pathetic  and just like Matt wrote about in so many ways.

The original article by Matt discussed Obama and Obamacare so, was a letter to Obama, so of course, Jelun posted 'what does the post have to do with Obamacare?'

The second article has NOTHING to do at all with Obamacare or Obama. I began reading it, and it is all about criticizing Matt.

Typical Lib tactic - avoid the truth and the issue and change the subject instead.

Never works but the Libs keep on trying. That is what is truly pathetic.

Now to get back to discussing ObamaNoCare presented and created by our Liar-In-Chief.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Sounds like someone feels Obama has become rather "uppity". I don't have to ask what you see when you look at our President--I already know.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: Just another snotty jerk.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Is Matt Walsh a KP member or just some half baked blogger with a nasty attitude?
> Blogger and DJ with a narcissistic diagnosis of his own, perhaps?
> I wonder who imagines that a person who is ambitious enough to decide to run for POTUS is NOT a bit of a narcissist?
> Does this mouth piece think that people don't know that presidents are full of themselves and arrogant?
> ...


I never thought about it before, but you,re right: who else would want to do it?


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

To knitpresentgifts, annamatilda, theyarnlady, Country Bumpkins regarding your posts...

"Same with me. The Libs cannot listen to or accept the truth, so rather than discuss the original post, Jelun searched to dig up something written by another author to discuss.

Now to get back to discussing ObamaNoCare presented and created by our Liar-In-Chief."

All pertinent responses. Thank you for posting. In typical fashion Obumma's supporters cannot allow a dissenting opinion, cannot rebut it, but must sink to vulgarity, and attacking the messenger...says something about their intellect and lac of class.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

momeee said:


> To knitpresentgifts, annamatilda, theyarnlady, Country Bumpkins regarding your posts...
> 
> "Same with me. The Libs cannot listen to or accept the truth, so rather than discuss the original post, Jelun searched to dig up something written by another author to discuss.
> 
> ...


Nice to hear from you Momeee. I'm pleased the Liberal media is finally thinking about doing their job and reporting on the Liar-in-Chief, well, some of them anyway. Obama's 'halo' has finally been knocked to the ground, and we'll begin to hear some truths about what is to be the worst public failure of this Administration to date. Not the worst thing he is responsible for, but the most public failure he is responsible for.

As far as discussing opposing opinions on this website - "Forget about it." :-D


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Momentum is gathering. Did you see, watch, or hear this one?
Cannot wait to see libs response....

The crowd at the CMA Awards erupted in applause after hosts Brad Paisley and Carrie Underwood turned a country hit into an ObamaCare parody.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151762054451336&set=a.184044921335.134777.15704546335&type=1&theater or https://www.facebook.com/


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

momeee said:


> Momentum is gathering. Did you see, watch, or hear this one?
> Cannot wait to see libs response....
> 
> The crowd at the CMA Awards erupted in applause after hosts Brad Paisley and Carrie Underwood turned a country hit into an ObamaCare parody.
> ...


I saw and heard that last night! So perfect and truthful! It should go viral on UTube. (I made your links clickable for ease of use).


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

momeee said:


> To knitpresentgifts, annamatilda, theyarnlady, Country Bumpkins regarding your posts...
> 
> "Same with me. The Libs cannot listen to or accept the truth, so rather than discuss the original post, Jelun searched to dig up something written by another author to discuss.
> 
> ...


Momee, when did you realize the president was a liar? Was it something he did or said? I.'m curious.

I'm also curious about how you know all about his supporters and their lac (sic) of class.

By the way, do you know what comments to a blog post are? Because that's what Jelun2 posted.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

momeee said:


> To knitpresentgifts, annamatilda, theyarnlady, Country Bumpkins regarding your posts...
> 
> "Same with me. The Libs cannot listen to or accept the truth, so rather than discuss the original post, Jelun searched to dig up something written by another author to discuss.
> 
> ...


Someone has a serious case of "potandkettleitis".


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Does anyone here have serious health issues? see this :

http://therightscoop.com/boom-edie-sundby-fires-back-at-white-house-the-biggest-loser-is-trust-and-respect-in-government-leaders/


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

momeee said:


> Does anyone here have serious health issues? see this :
> 
> http://therightscoop.com/boom-edie-sundby-fires-back-at-white-house-the-biggest-loser-is-trust-and-respect-in-government-leaders/


The one bit of sympathy that this rich and powerful woman had going for her was that she was having to use all of her energies in finding a new policy and, perhaps, depleting her monetary resources on staying alive. 
One has to wonder just how she feels that repeatedly going on television over a lost cause helps her health.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

momeee said:


> Does anyone here have serious health issues? see this :
> 
> http://therightscoop.com/boom-edie-sundby-fires-back-at-white-house-the-biggest-loser-is-trust-and-respect-in-government-leaders/


I saw her last night on Megyn's news. So terrible! Poor lady. Hope she overs come her cancer.


----------



## shayfaye (May 6, 2011)

Amen!


susanmos2000 said:


> Key word--HIS. Perhaps you feel it's appropriate for a male to dictate a woman's place in society--I sure don't.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Matt Walsh's language was pretty effusive, and I don't agree with everything he said, but I do believe we should see the stay-at-home mom as someone who does have a job, a 24/7 job that's just as respectable as any high level, well-paying job you could name. Single moms who work and parent their children well deserve the same respect. I'll step off my soab box now.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Same with me. The Libs cannot listen to or accept the truth, so rather than discuss the original post, Jelun searched to dig up something written by another author to discuss.
> 
> Pathetic  and just like Matt wrote about in so many ways.
> 
> ...


There were many truths in that article. You are right, it's the typical lib tactic to attack and then slough off the problem as though it was a bothersome fly buzzing around. Typical response of "what scandals" when there are so many. Now Obama is changing his tune on his selling points for the ACA. His using the same selling point strongly at least 2 dozen times is now not what he said. You misspoke - over 2 dozen times - really Mr. Obama? Maybe your base of low information/intelligent voters will buy that one, but not the majority of the American people. To say he has a credibility issue is an understatement.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

solowegirl wrote:There were many truths in that article. You are right, it's the typical lib tactic to attack and then slough off the problem as though it was a bothersome fly buzzing around. Typical response of "what scandals" when there are so many. Now Obama is changing his tune on his selling points for the ACA. His using the same selling point strongly at least 2 dozen times is now not what he said. You misspoke - over 2 dozen times - really Mr. Obama? Maybe your base of low information/intelligent voters will buy that one, but not the majority of the American people. To say he has a credibility issue is an understatement.

Now "misspoke" is another word for lied?
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

momeee said:


> Now "misspoke" is another word for lied?
> :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


Not for me. I will call it what it actually is/was.

Obama *lied* repeatedly; period.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

momeee said:


> solowegirl wrote:There were many truths in that article. You are right, it's the typical lib tactic to attack and then slough off the problem as though it was a bothersome fly buzzing around. Typical response of "what scandals" when there are so many. Now Obama is changing his tune on his selling points for the ACA. His using the same selling point strongly at least 2 dozen times is now not what he said. You misspoke - over 2 dozen times - really Mr. Obama? Maybe your base of low information/intelligent voters will buy that one, but not the majority of the American people. To say he has a credibility issue is an understatement.
> 
> Now "misspoke" is another word for lied?
> :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


That's what the liberals/Democrats want you to believe. Hillary did it also. Misspeaking gets them away from the lie. Neither misspoke. They both lied. Period.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Yesterday Obama lied about what he lied about prior. Period.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> That's what the liberals/Democrats want you to believe. Hillary did it also. Misspeaking gets them away from the lie. Neither misspoke. They both lied. Period.


Ya, right. Obama misspoke about Obamacare 36 times? I don't think so.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

Foxy parroting.


----------



## galinipper (Apr 30, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> Foxy parroting.


Fox verses MSNBC Your Welcome.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Sincerely Matt Walsh?



susanmos2000 said:


> Sounds like someone feels Obama has become rather "uppity". I don't have to ask what you see when you look at our President--I already know.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And he can't write a concise essay, that's for sure. And it gets to be reprinted endlessly here by people who can't write but they sure can cut and paste. Curses. Where's my Spellbook?



susanmos2000 said:


> I looked him up--he's a self-proclaimed "27-year-old blogger, talk radio host, husband, and father of twins." Seems to be a misogynist too--can't help noticing he likes to write about women in public places who, in his opinion, aren't behaving in a seemly fashion--the cranky woman in the fast food line, the salesclerk who commented on his spouse being a stay-at-home mom etc.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Somehow we thought you'd like it.



knitpresentgifts said:


> Matt knows exactly what he is talking about. Thanks for posting this piece, Anna! :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Somehow we thought you'd like it.

Ps. Your Photoshop abilities aren't very good.



knitpresentgifts said:


> Matt knows exactly what he is talking about. Thanks for posting this piece, Anna! :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Bravo Lizl....and jelun for posting this. IMHO it would also help if spouses would do a fair share around the house and raising the kids.



jelun2 said:


> Yes, I noted this about him as well.
> I liked this response to one of his blogs.
> 
> ear Matt Walsh, Take Your Pedestal And Shove It
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Ah, stuff it.



knitpresentgifts said:


> Same with me. The Libs cannot listen to or accept the truth, so rather than discuss the original post, Jelun searched to dig up something written by another author to discuss.
> 
> Pathetic  and just like Matt wrote about in so many ways.
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Have you heard that more people every day see the Tea Party as ineffectual?



momeee said:


> Momentum is gathering. Did you see, watch, or hear this one?
> Cannot wait to see libs response....
> 
> The crowd at the CMA Awards erupted in applause after hosts Brad Paisley and Carrie Underwood turned a country hit into an ObamaCare parody.
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> The one bit of sympathy that this rich and powerful woman had going for her was that she was having to use all of her energies in finding a new policy and, perhaps, depleting her monetary resources on staying alive.
> One has to wonder just how she feels that repeatedly going on television over a lost cause helps her health.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

This is the usual lies. I'm not going to explain it to you. Doggie doo.



joeysomma said:


> Why would insurance companies cancel policies if they didn't have a reason?
> 
> Do they hire agents to sell their policies?
> 
> ...


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Not for me. I will call it what it actually is/was.
> 
> Obama *lied* repeatedly; period.


Well then, you and Obama have a lot in common.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Proves you know nothing about economics or capitalism.
> 
> But then you want socialism not capitalism.


Do you think capitalism is a perfect system?


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> November 6, 2013
> 
> When is a lie not a lie?
> 
> ...


Thank you for this article, had not seen it


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Nice to hear from you Momeee. I'm pleased the Liberal media is finally thinking about doing their job and reporting on the Liar-in-Chief, well, some of them anyway. Obama's 'halo' has finally been knocked to the ground, and we'll begin to hear some truths about what is to be the worst public failure of this Administration to date. Not the worst thing he is responsible for, but the most public failure he is responsible for.
> 
> As far as discussing opposing opinions on this website - "Forget about it." :-D


I am pleased that the LIBERAL MEDIA who tried to trap President Obama and then Sec'y of State Hillary Clinton in a Benghazi Trap is having to drive that bandwagon that the cons all jumped onto right off a cliff.

Lara Logan apologizes for '60 Minutes' Benghazi report

By David Simpson, CNN

updated 7:41 AM EST, Fri November 8, 2013

(CNN) -- [Breaking news alert, 7:39 a.m.]

CBS correspondent Lara Logan apologized Friday for a report on "60 Minutes" that raised questions about the Obama administration's response to the attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, last year. "In this case, we were wrong. We made a mistake," she said on "CBS This Morning."

[Previous story, 4:52 a.m.]

Benghazi attack: CBS investigates whether source of "60 Minutes" report "misled us"

CBS News says it is investigating whether a key source "misled us" in a report that raised doubts about the Obama administration's response to the attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya.

The CBS newsmagazine show "60 Minutes" on October 27 featured a security contractor using the pseudonym "Morgan Jones." He said he was able to reach the Benghazi compound on the night of September 11, 2012, scale a wall and even fight off a militant.

"Jones" gives the same account in a new book and also has said he acted in violation of his employer's orders to stay away from the compound.

That story could cast doubt on whether the Obama administration sent all possible help to try to save the lives of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans. The "60 Minutes" story was cited by congressional Republicans who have demanded to know why a military rescue was not attempted.

But CBS issued a statement Thursday saying, "60 Minutes has learned of new information that undercuts the account told to us by Morgan Jones of his actions on the night of the attack on the Benghazi compound. We are currently looking into this serious matter to determine if he misled us, and if so, we will make a correction.

Did witness lie about Benghazi attacks? 
A U.S. official told CNN Thursday there are discrepancies between the contractor's accounts to the FBI and CBS, although the official did not specify them.

The New York Times, citing two senior government officials, reported Thursday that the contractor told the FBI he did not go the Benghazi compound on the night of the attack.

Incident report raised questions

The CBS story first came into question because of an incident report filed by the contractor's employer, the Blue Mountain security company. The incident report, obtained by CNN and first reported in The Washington Post, said the contractor never reached the Benghazi compound.

The incident report also revealed the real name of "Morgan Jones" to be Dylan Davies.

CBS initially stood by the story after the incident report came to light. Davies said he never saw the incident report. But he said it matched a false account he gave his Blue Mountain supervisor to cover up that he had disobeyed the supervisor's order not to go to the compound.

In a statement to CNN this week, Davies said, "The account in my book is consistent with what I gave to the FBI and U.S. authorities about what happened in Benghazi."

Hearing next week on what happened


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

momeee said:


> To knitpresentgifts, annamatilda, theyarnlady, Country Bumpkins regarding your posts...
> 
> "Same with me. The Libs cannot listen to or accept the truth, so rather than discuss the original post, Jelun searched to dig up something written by another author to discuss.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Why would insurance companies cancel policies if they didn't have a reason?
> 
> Do they hire agents to sell their policies?
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: You're correct Joey. Imagine all the insurance companies all of a sudden, decided to cancel 40+ million PAYING customers of their policies. That's what the Libs want to believe.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Proves you know nothing about economics or capitalism.
> 
> But then you want socialism not capitalism.


 :thumbup: She isn't the only one! :-D


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Thank you for this article, had not seen it


Wouldn't want to miss something by the erudite Peter Lemiska.
LTL, have you recovered from the election results yet?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

When is a lie not a lie?

*Barack Obama's words come, not from the heart, but from political calculations. It didn't work when he tried it on Monday.  many are now wondering if our President is a pathological liar.*

I don't wonder - I've know for a long time!

*Obama will certainly be remembered as the most dishonest President in history,  * :thumbup: I've been saying this for awhile now, too. Couldn't happen to a better guy.

In the meantime, Jay Carney, the New York Times, and all those defenders of the President offer this joke on the American people:

* 
"When is a lie not a lie?" The punch-line is not nearly as funny as they think: "When it's told by Barack Obama....period"*

Perfect!
:thumbup: Well, said, Peter.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> When is a lie not a lie?
> 
> *Barack Obama's words come, not from the heart, but from political calculations. It didn't work when he tried it on Monday.  many are now wondering if our President is a pathological liar.*
> 
> ...


Hysteria and doggie doo


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

alcameron said:


> Hysteria and doggie doo


I find it interesting that Joey complains about socialism. I do believe that Joey claims that he was a teacher, who is paying his pension? 
The people of his state? or the municipality where he worked?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I don't have one.


Violated the morals clause, did you?


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> November 6, 2013
> 
> When is a lie not a lie?
> 
> ...


I like this, especially the punch line. Thanks Joey.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

It would have been nice if Mr. Obama actually apologized to the American people and not an NBC correspondent. Mr. Obama should have faced the camera and looked Americans in the "eye" and apologized to us for the way he sold the ACA. We the people deserve at least this much. Mr. Obama did not apologize for lying to Americans. Being sorry for/regretting is not the same as saying I AM SORRY. 

It is apparent that Mr. Obama regrets the way things turned out as they did only because he was caught in his lie. As "apologies go, I rate this one F-.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

alcameron said:


> Do you think capitalism is a perfect system?


How's this for an inflammatory remark? I want to see this country become a social welfare state. Once upon a time, we were,and IMO we made a mistake in changing into a country that seems committed to social darwinism.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> It would have been nice if Mr. Obama actually apologized to the American people and not an NBC correspondent. Mr. Obama should have faced the camera and looked Americans in the "eye" and apologized to us for the way he sold the ACA. We the people deserve at least this much. Mr. Obama did not apologize for lying to Americans. Being sorry for/regretting is not the same as saying I AM SORRY.
> 
> It is apparent that Mr. Obama regrets the way things turned out as they did only because he was caught in his lie. As "apologies go, I rate this one F-.


Why would he apologize to you, have you lost your health insurance?


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> It is not perfect. It is what our country is founded on.
> Remember, Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
> 
> The right to make decisions for ourselves and to be responsible for our actions.
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> Why would he apologize to you, have you lost your health insurance?


Not yet, but expect my letter any day now. He should apologize because he lied over and over again. Period.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> Not yet, but expect my letter any day now. He should apologize because he lied over and over again. Period.


When can we expect your apology?


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> When can we expect your apology?


I have nothing to apologize for. I wasn't the one lying since 2009 about the ACA.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> I have nothing to apologize for. I wasn't the one lying since 2009 about the ACA.


You have lied (you call it making a mistake when you do it) for as long as I have been reading the site this time around. That is probably since May this year.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> When is a lie not a lie?
> 
> *Barack Obama's words come, not from the heart, but from political calculations. It didn't work when he tried it on Monday.  many are now wondering if our President is a pathological liar.*
> 
> ...


You are so right. I thought he was so pathetic. What a lame apology. How many times can he do that. America is so losing respect for him!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Seems strange. Most teachers have a pension. What kind of teaching did you do again?



joeysomma said:


> I don't have one.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I understand your comment. Don't think the USA will ever turn in that direction. We must find something that works fairly for all, or I believe there will be a revolt.



MaidInBedlam said:


> How's this for an inflammatory remark? I want to see this country become a social welfare state. Once upon a time, we were,and IMO we made a mistake in changing into a country that seems committed to social darwinism.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> Seems strange. Most teachers have a pension. What kind of teaching did you do again?


Probably some deficient place that doesn't need certification.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

No other politician ever did. And they lied deliberately, WOMD for instance.



soloweygirl said:


> Not yet, but expect my letter any day now. He should apologize because he lied over and over again. Period.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I beg to differ. I don't know the exact year you started, but you have been quite consistent in lying about ACA and President Obama in general. Waiting for your apology.



soloweygirl said:


> I have nothing to apologize for. I wasn't the one lying since 2009 about the ACA.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

The dog's dinner.



Lukelucy said:


> You are so right. I thought he was so pathetic. What a lame apology. How many times can he do that. America is so losing respect for him!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> The dog's dinner.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> :thumbup: You're correct Joey. Imagine all the insurance companies all of a sudden, decided to cancel 40+ million PAYING customers of their policies. That's what the Libs want to believe.


What?? Are you hitting the bottle again? 
Don't speak for Libs. You look like a fool!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> What?? Are you hitting the bottle again?
> Don't speak for Libs. You look like a fool!


It's what panic and fury do to people.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

MaidInBedlam said:


> How's this for an inflammatory remark? I want to see this country become a social welfare state. Once upon a time, we were,and IMO we made a mistake in changing into a country that seems committed to social darwinism.


MIB, I was waiting for you to join in!


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Violated the morals clause, did you?


No she did not. What made you ask such a slanderous question?


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

MaidInBedlam said:


> How's this for an inflammatory remark? I want to see this country become a social welfare state. Once upon a time, we were,and IMO we made a mistake in changing into a country that seems committed to social darwinism.


When in our history were we a socialist welfare state?


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> No she did not. What made you ask such a slanderous question?


But she is getting close to being slanderous. May want to back off that statement.

Oops meant the other one. Ju know who


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> But she is getting close to being slanderous. May want to back off that statement.


Nah--frankly I'd love to see one of you gals file a lawsuit alleging slander. It would laughed out of court, of course--but not before everyone got a chance to see what lurks beneath those prim ladylike Christian exteriors of yours.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Nah--frankly I'd love to see one of you gals file a lawsuit alleging slander. It would laughed out of court, of course--but not before everyone got a chance to see what lurks beneath those prim ladylike Christian exteriors of yours.


I know you don't mean that, but don't think any one would be laughing.

I do not have a problem with any one looking at my life or being a Christian .It is inside that Jesus looks at the heart not the mind or body. Forgiveness is there for all of us, he does not hold it like a carrot dangling over your head. He is there, for all of us not just me but you Susan and all who are on this site.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> I know you don't mean that, but don't think any one would be laughing.


Oh, I think they would. It's a given that people take on new and unusual identities in the strange world of the Internet--but no where is the contrast as stark as with the so-called Christian crowd. I've been involved with the political threads for about a year, and sometimes I still can't believe my eyes. You gals supposedly spend your mornings knitting for charity, visiting infirm family members, cooking cozy homemade meals, and engaging in other commendable activities--then jump online to indulge in hours of gossip, name-calling, squabbling, and intense discussions about how many times Ambassador Stevens was raped and who President Obama's partners were and are. It's bizarre beyond belief.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> No she did not. What made you ask such a slanderous question?


A slanderous question? What made you ask such an idiotic question?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

theyarnlady said:


> I know you don't mean that, but don't think any one would be laughing.
> 
> I do not have a problem with any one looking at my life or being a Christian .It is inside that Jesus looks at the heart not the mind or body. Forgiveness is there for all of us, he does not hold it like a carrot dangling over your head. He is there, for all of us not just me but you Susan and all who are on this site.


blah blah blah blah blah blah


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

lovethelake said:


> When in our history were we a socialist welfare state?


I said *"SOCIAL WELFARE STATE"*. It has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. I see education never did you any good. You can't even read. :hunf: :hunf: :hunf:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

MaidInBedlam said:


> I said *"SOCIAL WELFARE STATE"*. It has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. I see education never did you any good. You can't even read. :hunf: :hunf: :hunf:


It's that same old thing, MIB, so anxious to get an answer down in print that no attention is paid to the statement. Don't you think?


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> No she did not. What made you ask such a slanderous question?


She is a bully and has a mental problem - that's why.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> It's that same old thing, MIB, so anxious to get an answer down in print that no attention is paid to the statement. Don't you think?


I sure do think so.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

MaidInBedlam said:


> I said *"SOCIAL WELFARE STATE"*. It has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism. I see education never did you any good. You can't even read. :hunf: :hunf: :hunf:


You still did not answer the intent of the question. When were we a social welfare state?

I would say ask a Shaker, but can't, they no longer exist.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

It seems illogical. You don't have to be Spock to see that.



susanmos2000 said:


> Oh, I think they would. It's a given that people take on new and unusual identities in the strange world of the Internet--but no where is the contrast as stark as with the so-called Christian crowd. I've been involved with the political threads for about a year, and sometimes I still can't believe my eyes. You gals supposedly spend your mornings knitting for charity, visiting infirm family members, cooking cozy homemade meals, and engaging in other commendable activities--then jump online to indulge in hours of gossip, name-calling, squabbling, and intense discussions about how many times Ambassador Stevens was raped and who President Obama's partners were and are. It's bizarre beyond belief.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

That's a setup, right?



jelun2 said:


> A slanderous question? What made you ask such an idiotic question?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Slanderous question?



Lukelucy said:


> She is a bully and has a mental problem - that's why.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

http://entertainment.time.com/2013/11/07/watch-carrie-underwood-and-brad-paisley-rip-obamacare-apart-at-the-cmas/

A lovely song at the CMA's


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

I am interested in Dr. Milton Wolf's comments that supporting Obamacare will violate his Hippocratic Oath (First do no harm). Obamacare has hurt people, by losing their preferred coverage and all the additional taxation it brings. So if a doctor supports Obamacare is he/she harming his/hers patients? Harm comes in many forms.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> I am interested in Dr. Milton Wolf's comments that supporting Obamacare will violate his Hippocratic Oath (First do no harm). Obamacare has hurt people, by losing their preferred coverage and all the additional taxation it brings. So if a doctor supports Obamacare is he/she harming his/hers patients? Harm comes in many forms.


Dr.Wolf---just another RWN.
Have you recovered from the election already, LTL?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

damemary said:


> It seems illogical. You don't have to be Spock to see that.


Or Freud--he'd have a field day with these types. KPG's current avatar screams out for a decade of analysis on the couch.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"--who believes that one?


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

lovethelake said:


> You still did not answer the intent of the question. When were we a social welfare state?
> I would say ask a Shaker, but can't, they no longer exist.


I'm not going to do your homework for you. Answer your own questions. Oh, wait, you can't do any homework because you can't read. Bummer.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"--who believes that one?


LOL, not since the avatar came at the same time as those "Obama as teen prostitute" stories.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> That's a setup, right?


jelun2 wrote:
A slanderous question? What made you ask such an idiotic question?

Remember that trap? When did you stop beating your partner?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> You still did not answer the intent of the question. When were we a social welfare state?
> 
> I would say ask a Shaker, but can't, they no longer exist.


One of these days you will learn to do some research before you post.

http://www.shaker.lib.me.us/about.html


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Couldn't help it, I got a kick out of this...

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/11/sarah-palin-war-christmas-book-good-tidings-great-joy.html

Yesterday at 3:14 PM 277Comments
The Sarah Palin War-on-Christmas Soundboard

For religious conservatives, howling over the so-called "war on Christmas" has become an annual holiday tradition almost as enjoyable as Christmas itself. On Tuesday, Sarah Palin seeks to capitalize on the phenomenon with the release of her newest book, Good Tidings and Great Joy: Protecting the Heart of Christmas. Daily Intelligencer purchased the Palin-narrated audiobook from a local bookstore, where it was on sale early, and listened to all four-and-a-half hours, which is technically not a violation of the Geneva Convention if you're getting paid to do it, New York's legal team insists.
The book is part tribute to the joys of Christmas, part how-to guide for oppressed Christians looking for ways to fight back against whiny and litigious secularists, and part manifesto on the general superiority of Christianity over atheism. Palin, throughout, appears incapable of fathoming why a business catering to people from all walks of life may prefer to use inclusive holiday-season language in promotional items, or why a non-Christian may not appreciate a government institution expressing a preference for Christianity over other religions. To hear her tell it, such attitudes imperil America's dedication to religious freedom itself. Click around on the Christmas tree below to hear some of the book's more memorable lines. 
******
The best part is really only available by going to the site. It has the author reading excerpts.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Not this non-smoker.

Now the question is.....drum roll......Will the avatar change without notice, or will KPG pretend she doesn't read our postings? Of course she could just send one of her minions to try to answer. Stay tuned.



susanmos2000 said:


> "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"--who believes that one?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

That's what you get for skipping pre-school.



 MaidInBedlam said:


> I'm not going to do your homework for you. Answer your own questions. Oh, wait, you can't do any homework because you can't read. Bummer.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And the answer to the trap is......drum roll.....she asked an idiotic question because she is an idiot.

I feel better. Thanks jelun. You're a great straight man.



jelun2 said:


> jelun2 wrote:
> A slanderous question? What made you ask such an idiotic question?
> 
> Remember that trap? When did you stop beating your partner?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thank you jelun. Your research is impeccable. The Shakers inspirational to all.



jelun2 said:


> One of these days you will learn to do some research before you post.
> 
> http://www.shaker.lib.me.us/about.html


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

ROFL



jelun2 said:


> Couldn't help it, I got a kick out of this...
> 
> http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/11/sarah-palin-war-christmas-book-good-tidings-great-joy.html
> 
> ...


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

The Shakers

Ohenewaa Larbi

The Shakers were idealistic and uncompromising people whose success eventually became their undoing. Shakers formed celibate and communistic communities with a lifestyle that was strictly controlled through a system of regulations implemented by Elders. Under such rigorous governance, Shaker communities evolved into highly ordered, productive, and efficient societies. These qualities attracted people to Shakerism, but, once they became Shakers, many of them found their lives too structured and controlled to bear. This led to the eventual decline of Shakerism. This paper explores Shakerism from its inception to the height of its popularity in the early to mid 19th centuries, and its eventual decline in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The story of the Shakers begins with a former Quaker couple by the name of James and Jane Wardley in South Lancashire (England) and the formation of the Wardley Group. Jane Wardley announced to her husband one day that she had received a message from God telling her to go about her town teaching the truth about the end of the world: that Christ was about to return, and that His Second Appearance would be in the form of a woman, as is written in the book of Psalms in the Bible. Her first convert was her husband. Together with a few people- including her husband and former Anglicans and Methodists- Jane Wardley formed the Wardley Group, popularly called the Shaking Quakers. The mode of worship of the Wardley Group was influenced by the French Prophets who were living in England at that time . These prophets, known as the Camisards in France, were persecuted Protestants who fled to England in the early 18th century to gain freedom of religious worship. Shaker worship began with a silence similar to Quaker worship, which progressed into dancing, shaking and shouting, at which point they believed the spirit of God possessed them. Bolton-on-the-Moors, the place where the Wardleys lived, was a poor town with a populace that, Jane believed, lived in moral decadence. She therefore went about urging men and women to be celibate in order to qualify to live in God's New Kingdom.

Ann Lee became a follower of the Wardleys in 1758 at the age of twenty-two years. She was born in 1736 in Manchester, in England. Her father was a blacksmith and her mother, a housewife. Ann was the second of eight children; she had five brothers and two sisters. The Lees were a poor family that lived in the slums of Manchester. The Lee children were taught to work instead of attending school, as was common with poor families in manufacturing towns. They worked in factories to earn money for the upkeep of the family. It is through this that Ann Lee acquired the habit of industry. Before joining the Wardley Group, she worked fourteen hours a day in a cotton factory preparing cotton for the looms and cutting velvet. Ann Lee joined the Wardley group because she was attracted by the teachings of Jane Wardley about sexual morality and celibacy.

Ann Lee had a complex with her sexuality, and sex in general. From an early age she was firmly against sexual relationships between men and women because she saw sex as a sinful act. She believed that celibacy was the only way to attain perfect spiritual saintliness. However, Ann's moral conviction did not win enough support from the people around her to strengthen her and enable her to pursue the holiness that she longed for. Her mother, who could have provided her with some support, died when she was still young, and her father was strongly opposed to her views. In spite of her moral convictions, Ann was forced by her father to marry Abraham Standley in 1762. Ann's marriage was fraught with problems; she had four children all of whom died, and she constantly felt remorse for having sex with her husband. Torn between her marital obligations and her desire to serve God with her whole life, Ann approached Jane Wardley for help. Jane Wardley advised her to live with her husband as brother and sister without any physical intimacy. Although Ann did as she was told, she continued to battle between what was she believed to be right and wrong. This made her seriously ill but eventually she regained her health. Ann believed that she had been reborn because she had finally overcome her problems about morality . She became actively involved in the Wardley Group and their message about celibacy.

The Wardley Group became the United Society of the Society of Believers in Christ's Second Appearing in the 1770s, with Ann Lee as their Leader. Police often raided the meetings of the Wardley group (which consisted of six to seven people) because their neighbors complained about their incessant loud church services. The members of the group were therefore often arrested and jailed for being a nuisance to the public. In 1773, Ann Lee was arrested for a similar offense in Manchester and her life took a dramatic turn during the time she spent in jail. According to her, while in prison, the Lord Jesus came into her cell and united with her in body and spirit. She therefore became the Female Christ whom Jane Wardley was preaching about. After her release, Ann Lee was raised to the rank of Mother, to replace Jane Wardley as the leader.

The Shakers moved to New England in 1774 and began to spread Shakerism in the eastern United States. In England, the Shaking Quakers faced a lot of persecution, which led to their eventual exodus to America. According to Mother Ann Lee, she had a vision one day in which she saw a large tree so bright that it shone like a huge torch. This, according to Mother Ann, represented the church that God wanted her to establish in America . The Shakers, eight in number, arrived in New York on 6th August 1774, just before the Civil War. They went separate ways for two years. Their first meeting was in September 1776 in Watervliet near Niskeyuna, about seven miles northwest of Albany. They settled in Watervliet and began to make farms and build houses. They worked very hard at building their new settlement, and they held regular meetings until their first testimony to the outside world in 1780. From 1781 to 1783, Mother Ann and some other Elders embarked on a missionary journey through the north eastern region of the United States. They visited many places including Harvard and Petersham, in Massachusetts, where they faced a lot of persecution. They eventually returned to Watervliet in 1783. Mother Ann died on September 8th, 1784 at the age of forty-eight. By the time of Mother Ann's death, Shakerism had spread through New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine. This was certainly a very rapid spread and several reasons can be attributed to this.

Shakerism gained a large following in the late 18th century and the early half of the 19th century as result of the Shaker offer of an alternative lifestyle to the lifestyle and practices of the American society at that time. American society in this period was in transition . There was a disparity between moral ideals and the actual moral practices of the general populace. The trend in popular morality was towards non-reproductive sexuality . There were increased pornography, prostitution, abortions, birth control, and divorce. Corruption and deceit were also on a rapid rise. In public, old moral values were as the norm, but in private people ignored them and did whatever they pleased. This was all happening during the period of the Civil War, so many people were in distress about what was happening to their society. The problem was where to draw the line between right and wrong. Some people tried to ignore what was happening by simply going along with the societal changes. Others clung to their old moral beliefs and ideals, because they believed that the only way of remedying the situation was to return to old moral values.

The emergence of utopian communities in this period was an attempt to either return society to the way it was, or to offer an alternative "better" lifestyle. These communities chose the practices in society that they thought were pure, and practiced it. Most of the utopian communities of this period, such as the Mormons, the Oneida Perfectionists, and the Shakers, were based on different aspects of the sexual practices that were occurring in the American society in this period. In terms of sexuality, there were four alternatives to choose from. The first was total sexual freedom, which has never been totally accepted by any community. Monogamy was the second choice, and by far the most popular. Total rejection of sexuality (celibacy) was the third option, and the fourth choice was some form of regulated sexual behavior . The Shakers opted for total celibacy as the way to return the world to its former state and also to attain complete saintliness. The Oneidas and the Mormons, on the other hand, chose the fourth option of some form of sexual regulation as the true mode of worshipping God. Many of the people who still believed in moral ideals became disillusioned with life and sought a haven where they could continue to practice the old morally decent' lifestyle that they longed for. Others were emotionally and physically tired of the Civil War, and they longed for a peaceful existence. Such people found such a safe haven in Shaker communities.

The Shakers were Millenialists, which accounts for their religious, social, and economic structure. Millenialists are people who believed that Christ's Second Coming has occurred, and that they are living as saints in God's Kingdom. As saints, the Shakers believed that one important quality they possessed was perfection, which, to them, was a dynamic process . Therefore, although they considered themselves to be free from sin, they were constantly perfecting themselves. The Shaker society was thus divided into three hierarchies. The lowest hierarchy was the Novitiate, with the least perfection. The next higher level of perfection was the Junior hierarchy. The Senior hierarchy had the highest perfection, and it is to this group that the Elders and Members of the Ministry belonged. A new member of a Shaker community could therefore move up in rank as he or she attained a higher perfection. The challenge, however, was how to ensure the highest possible standard of perfection for the whole community while preventing those of a lower perfection from having a negative influence on the more perfect people .

The answer to this problem was to have a social structure that was built on a system of rules and regulations for community living. The solution was to have complete segregation of the sexes (including children) to ensure that no lust was present between men and women. A highly authoritarian body of male and female Elders and Members of the Ministry governed each Shaker community. They believed if the sexes were not completely segregated, some people would be tempted to break their celibacy vows, and what they stood for would be destroyed. As a result, the segregation laws were strictly enforced. Men and women became brethren and sisters once they joined the Shaker community. This applied to married couples as well. Men and women were forbidden to have any form of physical contact with each other. They were forbidden to talk to each other in private, go out together, or visit each other. In Mount Lebanon (New York), for example, men and women had separate stairways . In communities where there were no separate stairways, men and women were not allowed to pass each other on the stairs. Although males and females shared the same living quarters, their sleeping areas were kept apart. The only times that men and women came in close contact was during worship and visiting meetings. (Visiting meetings were made up of about ten people, mostly women). Even in these situations they were forbidden to touch each other. Segregation was so strictly enforced that there was a system of informers who reported any one seen to be breaking the law. Offenders of the laws were excommunicated and usually expelled.

The Shakers were communists. As such, they had a highly organized society in which everyone did their part to make their system a viable one by working long hours. This social structure accounts for their economic prosperity. The first aim of Shakers in any kind of production was to supply their own needs . This was to make them self-supporting and independent of the outside world of non-believers. Mother Ann's advocacy for labor and her divine authority inspired her followers to establish a true Christian community that was able to sustain itself without assistance from the outside world. They manufactured many different kinds of things to ensure their independence from society. Their second aim was directly related to their belief in Millenialism and perfection. Since they were perfectionists living in God's Kingdom, everything that they did also had to be as perfect as possible. They were building God's Kingdom and they could in no way fill it with inferior quality items. They worshipped God through their handiwork. The Shakers did not make items or build houses for ornamental reasons. Everything that they made served a practical purpose. They built their houses to last, tended their farms and animals with the utmost care, made excellent quality furniture, and wore good quality, yet simple, clothes. When the Shakers had excess produce or products, they applied the same strict standards to the goods that they sold to the outside world. This was to ensure that the Shaker name was not disrespected in any way. This is the reason why they were reputed for excellent quality products.

The Shakers are credited with a long list of innovations and improvements. They invented the flat broom, the common clothespin, the metal pen, and the first packaged garden seeds. They also invented a threshing machine, a pea sheller, an apple parer and corer, a revolving oven, a wood-burning stove, and an improved washing machine. They produced their own flax, wool, and silk, which they spun and wove in their own factories. They also made water-repellent cloth and iron-free fabric. Some of their products were even exported to England, including baskets, confectionery, boxes, and pincushions. They invented a lot of machinery, much of which was ahead of their time. In the Shaker laundry and dairy at Canterbury (New Hampshire) in 1868, there was a stationary steam engine that washed, spun, dried, and ironed clothes. Very few of the Shaker inventions were ever patented. None-the-less, their products certainly had (and still have) a rare and lasting beauty to them.

Shakerism began to decline from the 1860s. In the 1860s there was an ideological challenge that threatened to change Shaker views on celibacy and to destroy the structure of the Shaker community . This outbreak of discontent was as a result of the advent of the Spiritualist Movement and their belief that there could be reconciliation between the physical world, which is the flesh, and the spiritual world, which is worshipping God. In 1864, a group of young believers at Mount Lebanon began to advocate for this union between flesh and spirit. However, the Shaker Leaders stood firm, bent on their resolve that it was impossible to reconcile the two and still maintain saintliness. At Hancock, Massachusetts, the Leaders were accused of being old-fashioned. As a result of similar uprisings across the eastern United States, there were many expulsions from Shaker communities in the 1860s. The number of apostates also grew. Others remained in the Shaker communities. However, some who stayed were unable to withstand the pressure of living in complete celibacy and constant perfection. As a result of a guilty conscience and a sense of failure they went insane, became demented or committed suicide. The 1830s and 1870s were the periods of highest suicide and insanity . Compared to the annual suicide rates for New England, the Shaker communities had a higher suicide rate. From 1833 to 1880, the annual suicide rate for Mt. Lebanon was 0.125/492, which is higher than the annual rate for New England in 1856 to 1880, which was 6.85/100,000 . More men attempted suicide than did women.

The Shakers lost their appeal for several reasons. Shakerism died down because some people could not survive under the stringent rules in Shaker communities. Also the number of people converting to Shakerism dwindled because the Civil War was over, and people in general had moved more towards an acceptance of the changes in society instead of dwelling on the past and trying to achieve a perfect society. The generation of people at the inception of Shakerism was dying, and the new generation did not have any first hand experience about life in the past to want to return to the way things were before their time. The fourth reason why Shakerism died down is due to the lack of procreation in Shaker communities. The Shakers had hoped to gain an eternally large following by conversion. This certainly failed. The only surviving Shaker community, made up of a handful of people, is in Sabbathday Lake, Maine.

The qualities of Shaker communities that initially attracted a large following eventually repelled many people, leading to the decline in Shakerism. Many people who joined Shaker communities realized that life as a Shaker was not as peaceful and fulfilling as it had appeared at first. To be a Shaker was to forgo all freedom of choice and opinion, and live in complete celibacy in a community where there was no compromise between sexuality and spirituality. This was certainly a difficult life to lead, especially at a time when society was becoming more liberal in terms of personal choice and opinion.

The Shaker Communities

Watervliet, New York: 1787-1938
Mount Lebanon, New York: 1787-1947
Hancock, Massachusetts: 1790-1960
Harvard, Massachusetts: 1791-1918
Enfield, Connecticut: 1790-1917
Tyringham, Massachusetts: 1792-1875
Alfred, Maine: 1793-1932
Canterbury, New Hampshire: 1792 -? 
Enfield, New Hampshire: 1793-1923
Sabbathday Lake, Maine: 1794-Present
Shirley, Massachusetts: 1793-1908
Gorham, Maine: 1808-1819
West Union (Busro), Indiana: 1810-1827
South Union, Kentucky: 1807-1922
Union Village, Ohio: 1806-1912
Watervliet, Ohio:1806-1910
Pleasant Hill, Kentucky: 1806-1910
Savoy, Massachusetts: 1817-1825
Whitewater, Ohio: 1824-1916
Sodus Bay, New York: 1826-1836
Groveland, New York: 1836-1895
North Union, Ohio: 1822-1889
Narcoossee, Florida: 1896-1911
White Oak, Georgia: 1896-1902

Back to Silk Circa 1840

Silk in Northampton |

NSP |

Events |

Home

This page was last modified on Friday, April 12, 2002.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Dr. Milton Wolf is Obama's cousin


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> Not this non-smoker.
> 
> Now the question is.....drum roll......Will the avatar change without notice, or will KPG pretend she doesn't read our postings? Of course she could just send one of her minions to try to answer. Stay tuned.


No doubt she will disappear for a few days.
What can she do? Come back as a turkey?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> The Shakers
> 
> Too little, too late.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> lovethelake said:
> 
> 
> > The Shakers
> ...


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

April 25, 2009: Obama's weekly address

"......But we must also recognize that we cannot meet the challenges of today with old habits and stale thinking. So much of our government was built to deal with different challenges from a different era. Too often, the result is wasteful spending, bloated programs, and inefficient results.

Its time to fundamentally change the way that we do business in Washington. To help build a new foundation for the 21st century, we need to reform our government so that it is more efficient, more transparent, and more creative. That will demand new thinking and a new sense of responsibility for every dollar that is spent......"

Sounds like Obama is behaving like a Stockholm Victim. He has been held hostage by the Washington insiders and acts just like them. No new thinking, no more transparency, no new responsibility for every dollar spent (too many examples of fraud and waste to list), still have wasteful spending, (more) bloated programs, and inefficient results (dare I say Obamacare). 

We are a country with no positive change and little hope. Obama's Misery Index numbers are still higher than Bush's. But the Obamacultists still won't admit there is anything wrong.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> April 25, 2009: Obama's weekly address
> 
> "......But we must also recognize that we cannot meet the challenges of today with old habits and stale thinking. So much of our government was built to deal with different challenges from a different era. Too often, the result is wasteful spending, bloated programs, and inefficient results.
> 
> ...


He is a frightening man. Dangerous.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I'm sorry. I judge by the usual quality of your postings so I'll skip this.



lovethelake said:


> The Shakers
> 
> Ohenewaa Larbi
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

It's dangerous for a turkey this time of year.



jelun2 said:


> No doubt she will disappear for a few days.
> What can she do? Come back as a turkey?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Could you please publish a local weather report so we'll know when you will be posting? I didn't know it was so simple.



lovethelake said:


> That is the reason for my Shaker reference, which only reinforces the knowledge I learned while visiting a few of their farms. Sorry that I was out having fun and wasn't tied to my computer all day. Too pretty of a day to be sitting in front of a computer lurking; praying for an opportunity to go after someone's opinions or thoughts.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Boo. (Oh, that was the last holiday.)



Lukelucy said:


> He is a frightening man. Dangerous.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

damemary said:


> I'm sorry. I judge by the usual quality of your postings so I'll skip this.


that is probably a good thing why learn something.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

damemary said:


> I understand your comment. Don't think the USA will ever turn in that direction. We must find something that works fairly for all, or I believe there will be a revolt.


BS. This country has already "turned in that direction". There was a time when this country spent enough to take care of the people who, for many *valid* reasons, needed help. If you think we can find something that works fairly for all, you're smoking rope. You must be under 40 and have gotten the garbage that passes for a good public school education. Geez, read some history. Tell me. do you even know what a social welfare state is, or the what this country was like 40 years ago?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> He is a frightening man. Dangerous.


One could say the same about you, though given your name, it's hard to know whether you're a frightening man or a frightening woman. And I suspect you're not so much dangerous as ludicrous.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

One of the things Larbi fails to mention is that the Shakers took in orphans and unwanted children as a way of increasing their numbers. Of course, some of these children didn't join the sect, but some certainly did, and helped to increase the number of Shaker settlements. Larbi states that "Shakers formed celibate and communistic communities..." Does that bother you?

While I find it very hard to believe, I wonder if you think might find something objectionable about the Shakers, a group of people who formed an idealistic Christian sect here where we have freedom of religion. While their idealism may seem exaggerated, and their views about celibacy somewhat unusual, all in all, they were a good and kindly group of people.

When I googled Larbi, all I found was his article that you quoted verbatim here. Do you know anything about him? I'm just curious. And, tell me, why did you post Larbi's article and what is your opinion of the Shakers?


lovethelake said:


> The Shakers
> 
> Ohenewaa Larbi
> 
> ...


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Jelun2, thanks for the link about the Shakers. It's interestig reading. :thumbup:


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> that is probably a good thing why learn something.


What makes you think damemary doesn't already know something about the Shakers? We don't all get our information from overly long posts on KP.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Lots of you may already be familiar with the Shakers and their beliefs, but I thouth this from http://www.shaker.lib.me.us/index.html was quite interesting.

Sabbathday Lake Shaker Village
New Gloucester, Maine ~ A National Historic Landmark 
------------------------------------------------------------------Historical Background

The United Society of Believers, commonly called Shakers, was founded in 1747, in Manchester, England. They were called in derision, "Shaking Quakers," because of their ecstatic and violent bodily agitation in worship. To this group of separatists came a remarkable young woman named Ann Lee (1736-1784). In 1770, she was imprisoned for her religious views. During this time she experienced a series of visions. From that date on Ann Lee was acknowledged as their leader and known as Mother Ann.

In 1774, a decision was made to remove to America. Mother Ann and eight of her followers boarded The Mariah in Liverpool. They landed in New York City on August 6, and immediately set to work and found employment. Several went up river to a place outside Albany then called Niskayuna. They began to clear the land and erect buildings. In 1776, the little band of Believers began Community life together.

Having arrived on the eve of the American Revolution, and being not only British, but pacifists, the Shakers kept a low profile. However, the events of May 19, 1780, the famous "Dark Day," brought their testimony to the public. Soon, hundreds of people from New York and Massachusetts were coming to see this peculiar people.

This new awareness brought not only converts, but persecution as well. The Shakers were harassed, beaten, stoned, driven out of towns and imprisoned all for religious reasons. This bitter persecution brought about the early deaths of the three English leaders, Father William, Mother Ann and Father James.

By 1787, the Church was headed by the American converts. Under the able leadership of Father Joseph Meacham and Mother Lucy Wright, the Shakers began to gather into "Gospel Order." The first Community was at New Lebanon in New York. Eventually eighteen Communities were established in Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Georgia and Florida. The Community reached its numerical height of some five thousand souls, during the decade preceding the Civil War.

The Sabbathday Lake Shaker Community was founded in 1783, in what was then called Thompson's Pond Plantation, by a group of Shaker missionaries. In less than a year's time nearly two hundred people gathered together in this place that previously had only been the home of some five farming families. The new influx of people initially made do with the existing homes and out-buildings.

On April 19, 1794, those residing here made an oral covenant with each other to consecrate their all to God and formally organized as a Community. To mark this event they began to build a house for public worship. The raising of the Meeting House was their first united venture. The next year saw the construction of the first communal Dwelling House and the next decade saw the addition of worships, mills, barns and other related buildings necessary for laying permanent foundations.

Always referred to as, "the least of Mother's children in the east," Sabbathday Lake was one of the numerically smallest and poorest of the eastern Shaker Communities. For decades the Community struggled to pay off debts contracted by dishonest business agents. This struggle also brought forth a very strong spiritual gift that saw the Believers through even the most difficult times.

Generally poorer and more isolated than the other Shaker Communities, this spiritual gift has ever been maintained. Today Sabbathday Lake is the only active Shaker Community. We still strive to live a life of work and worship, fulfilling the motto of our founder, Mother Ann, to "put our hands to work and hearts to God."

The Community presently consists of eighteen buildings located on 1,800 acres of land. We maintain a tree farm, apple orchard, vegetable gardens, commercial herb garden, hay fields, pastures, a flock of sheep, and a variety of livestock. Other occupations include manufacturing of fancy goods, basket making, weaving, printing, and the manufacturing of some small woodenware.

Daily Schedule

We all rise as duty dictates.

7:30 a.m. - The Great Bell on the Dwelling House rings to summon all to breakfast. 
8:00 - Morning Prayers. We read (responsively) two Psalms, followed by Bible readings, prayer, silent prayer and ending with the singing of a Shaker song. 
8:30 - Work begins. 
11:30 - Mid-day Prayers 
12:00 p.m. - Dinner. This is the main meal of the day. 
1:00 - Work begins. 
6:00 - Supper.

Prayer Meeting is held on Wednesday at 5:00 p.m., followed by a class on Shaker Studies.

Sunday Meeting is held at 10:00 am. During the summer months Meeting is held in the Meeting House. The remainder of the year we meet in the Chapel in the Dwelling House. This is the only service open to the general public.

BASIC PRINCIPLES AND BELIEFS
Christian Vocation

The Shaker is called to reveal by his life our Lord to the world, a world in which the will and purpose of God are largely forgotten. God calls by many ways, but all men and women, whatever their occupation, whatever their profession, are called to that holiness without which no man shall see the Lord. To anyone who knows the history of Shakerism it is extraordinary to what fruitful and manifold purpose God has used the very small groups of humble men and women who have constituted our order. Truly, He has "chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things that are mighty."

The Godhead

To Believers God is the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent Great First Cause. It is He who called into being all things visible and invisible. He has existed from the very beginning of time and will exist into all eternity. God is pure spirit and as such quite naturally incorporeal. Having no body, God has no sex in our human understanding of the term; yet being pure spirit He may best be thought of by man with his limited power of comprehension as having the attributes of both maleness and femaleness. This duality of attributes within God's oneness is one of the Shaker theological concepts most misunderstood by the world, yet it is not a Shaker concept, but rather one as old as the Judaeo-Christian tradition itself. We find it again and again in the Old Testament. It is to the writer of Genesis that we may attribute the first written record of the idea. In the 27th verse of the first chapter of Genesis he writes: "So God created he him; male and female created he them." The Shaker emphasis upon God's dual nature was never intended to convey anything but the fact that God, being pure spirit is possessed, within the terms of our human power of discernment, of the characteristics, of strength, power, compassion and mercy.

Christology

We have already alluded to a marked degree of misunderstanding of Shaker views about the duality of the Godhead. Certainly there is no area in which there is greater, more fundamental misunderstanding, than Shaker Christology. If we may engage for a moment in the odious practice of labeling, we might say that mainstream Shaker Christological thought is adoptionist of the view that Jesus was not the Christ or the anointed of God from his birth, but rather from the occasion of his baptism by John in the Jordan. To the early Shakers as well as to other Christians before them the descent of the dove at Jesus' baptism symbolized the anointing spirit of God whose voice is heard to say: "Thou art my beloved son in whom I am well pleased." The divine nature of Jesus, the Christ, was freely recognized by Believers. The adoptionist theory affected in no way their attitudes towards his birth or earlier life. We find in Shaker thoughts no attempt to challenge the virgin birth or any of the other miraculous occurrences surrounding Jesus' beginnings. These were to Believers a sign of God's prior choice of Jesus as the recipient of the anointing spirit. Jesus' life and ministry, his teaching, his sacrificial death became for Believers their holy rule. Unlike most of their contemporaries, they did not look for the return of Jesus Christ in the flesh. They sought his return in the spirit--the Christ Spirit--the anointing spirit of God, the spirit of love and truth. To Mother Ann Lee was given the inner realization that Christ's Second Coming was a quiet, almost unheralded one within individuals open to the anointed of His spirit.

Mother Ann was not Christ, nor did she claim to be. She was simply the first of many Believers wholly embued by His spirit, wholly consumed by His love. Mother's attitude toward her own role is related more than once in her own recording sayings, "It is not I that speaks; it is Christ who dwells in me," she says, testifying both to the indwelling of Christ and her subservience to Him. The closeness of her bond to Him whom she ever called her Lord and Savior is reflected by her having said, "I have been walking with Christ in heavenly union. Christ is ever with me, both in sitting down and in rising up; in going out and in coming in. If I walk in groves and valleys, there He is with me and I converse with Him as one friend converses with another, face to face." She solves conclusively the question of her own role when she remarks at Ashfield, "The second appearing of Christ is in His Church."

Community of Goods

The desire to die to self leads the Shaker quite naturally to the pooling of goods. The Christian's task is to live in the present moment and not to store for tomorrow the bread that comes from heaven. Those who give up all material things for the sake of the Gospel learn by that same Gospel that they may learn to live without assurance of the morrow in joyous confidence that they will lack nothing. The spirit of Christian poverty is more than the absence of wealth. The New Testament never condemns wealth as such, only when a person's possessions come between him and God is there any real danger. A Christian who wishes with all his heart for money to use selfishly is violating the spirit of community; a man who regards all that he has as a trust from God, and uses it for His glory is living in the true spirit of Christian poverty.

Pacifism

We strive daily to put into practical terms, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." The central teaching of the New Testament is quite simply love, the love of God for man and that of man for God as evidenced in the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth. This same love was always and is today the very cornerstone of Shakerism. For us as followers of the Christ we feel we show that peace as pacifists. This does not mean merely refusing to bear arms against another, it also requires us to never feel bitterness, never to feel any desire for revenge, but always to seek only the highest good of every person no matter what they may do to us. We further believe in the practice of universal Brotherhood as well as equality for all, the Shakers being forerunners in applying this to our daily life over two hundred years ago.

A Faith for Today

Shakerism is not, as many would claim, an anachronism; nor can it be dismissed as the final sad flowering of nineteenth century liberal utopian fervor. Shakerism has a message for the this present age--a message as valid today as when it was first expressed. It teaches above all else that God is Love and that our most solemn duty is to show forth that God who is love in the World. Shakerism teaches God's immanence through the common life shared in Christ's mystical body. It values human fulfillment highly and believes that we fulfill ourselves best by being nothing more nor less than ourselves. It believes that Christian love is a love beyond disillusionment, for we cannot be disillusioned with people being themselves. Surely God would not have it otherwise for it is in being ourselves--our real selves--that we are most like Christ in his sacred oneness.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Thanks for posting the Shaker info. I'm reading with my morning coffee.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

alcameron said:


> Thanks for posting the Shaker info. I'm reading with my morning coffee.


It was quite an interesting system.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

NOVEMBER 12, 2013
ISSA ACCUSES OBAMA OF TRYING TO MAKE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WORK
POSTED BY ANDY BOROWITZ

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)In an explosive accusation, the House Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa (R-California) today charged President Obama with using all the resources at his disposal to make the Affordable Care Act work.

Accusing the President of participating in a wide-ranging conspiracy, Mr. Issa told reporters that behind closed doors, the President has quietly assembled a high-tech brain trust that is working around the clock to fix the Healthcare.gov Web siteat government expense.

Rep. Issa said that he would call for a new round of hearings and would subpoena all those persons suspected of being involved in the ongoing plot to fix Obamacare.

This is a conspiracy, if you will, that goes all the way to the top, Rep. Issa said. If there is a plan to fix Obamacare, what did the President know about that plan and when did he know it?

Rep. Issa concluded his remarks on a defiant note, drawing a line in the sand: If the President thinks he is going to repair that Web site so that it works when anyone tries to access it, Ive got news for him: not on my watch.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> NOVEMBER 12, 2013
> ISSA ACCUSES OBAMA OF TRYING TO MAKE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WORK
> POSTED BY ANDY BOROWITZ
> 
> ...


His site is so funny, isn't it? I think some of the posts from fans are as funny as his are.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> His site is so funny, isn't it? I think some of the posts from fans are as funny as his are.


You really are smart. I thought people would take it seriously, since I left the satire warning off.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> You really are smart. I thought people would take it seriously, since I left the satire warning off.


LOL, not so smart, I already saw it on FB. Sh, don't tell.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

I get Andy in my mailbox everyday. The second time I posted one of them I had to post the "satire caveat" because the first one was taken seriously.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> You really are smart. I thought people would take it seriously, since I left the satire warning off.


The funny thing is that some people don't see that it is about the satire, that while the humor makes a point it is about the humor in the point. Isn't that what satire is? 
Ah well. Different strokes, I guess.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

Obama's Approval Rating Drops To Lowest Point Ever

The Huffington Post | By Ariel Edwards-Levy	Posted: 11/12/2013 5:24 pm EST | Updated: 11/12/2013 5:51 pm EST
Share on Google+
obama approval rating
523
89
96
3123
Get Politics Newsletters:
Subscribe
Follow:
Barack Obama , HuffPolitics Blog, Obama Poll, Obama Approval, Quinnipiac Poll, Obama Quinnipiac Poll, Obama Approval Drops, Obama Approval Rating, Politics News

President Barack Obama's approval rating is down to its "lowest point ever," according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Tuesday.

Just 39 percent of American voters approve of Obama's job performance, down from 45 percent at the beginning of October. Fifty-four percent now disapprove.

For the first time, a majority thinks Obama is not "honest and trustworthy" -- just 44 percent say he is, while 52 percent say he is not. Voters are about evenly split as to whether he has strong leadership qualities, and as to whether he "cares about the needs and problems of people like you."

Trust in the federal government as a whole is also tied for a record low, with just 15 percent saying they trust politicians in Washington to do what is right most of the time or almost all of the time.

Though HuffPost's polling average puts the GOP's favorable rating at just 28 percent, Qunnipiac found that congressional Republicans had a slight edge over Obama on a number of issues. Voters are now slightly more likely to trust congressional Republicans than Obama on the economy and the budget, and about as likely to trust them on health care and immigration.

While a majority of respondents approve of Obama's handling of terrorism, fewer than 40 percent approve of his handling of foreign policy, the economy, health care, immigration or the budget. Support for his signature health care law is at 39 percent, down 6 points from the beginning of October. Survey respondents were about equally split on whether the president "knowingly deceived the public" when he said people who liked their health care plans could keep them once the Affordable Care Act went into effect. In fact, certain plans will be canceled because they don't meet the law's requirements.

The Quinnipiac survey is just the latest of several to show Obama's ratings declining in the past few weeks. A Pew Research survey found Obama's approval rating at 41 percent, with record low ratings on the economy and health care, while an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll put his overall rating at a record low 42 percent, due to what the pollsters described as "the accumulation of setbacks since the summer."

HuffPost Pollster's average, which includes all publicly available polling, puts Obama's approval at just under 43 percent.

Quinnipiac surveyed 2,545 registered voters by phone between Nov. 6 and Nov. 11.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Hmmmmm. There are some interesting hints in this satire.

What is wrong with the President using all the resources at his disposal?

Is there any truth to the rumor that GOP programmers deep sixed the site?

If the President is wasting money, what did the GOP do when they shut down the government for two weeks? How much will a new round of hearings cost (mainly for the purpose of getting Issa's face on the news. ) and the fun of the subpoena.

Ah, and ending with the 'not on my watch' cliché.



Poor Purl said:


> NOVEMBER 12, 2013
> ISSA ACCUSES OBAMA OF TRYING TO MAKE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT WORK
> POSTED BY ANDY BOROWITZ
> 
> ...


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Obama's Approval Rating Drops To Lowest Point Ever
> 
> The Huffington Post | By Ariel Edwards-Levy	Posted: 11/12/2013 5:24 pm EST | Updated: 11/12/2013 5:51 pm EST
> Share on Google+
> ...


Unfortunately with Obamacare I fear the Misery Index will skyrocket when people have sticker shock from Obamacare and try to buy Christmas and other holiday presents. Maybe some will think of him as the Grinch that stole Christmas.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Unfortunately with Obamacare I fear the Misery Index will skyrocket when people have sticker shock from Obamacare and try to buy Christmas and other holiday presents. Maybe some will think of him as the Grinch that stole Christmas.


Perhaps Christians will be reminded of the real reason behind their holiday if they can't go out spending hundreds of dollars to observe Santa Day.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Obama's Approval Rating Drops To Lowest Point Ever
> 
> The Huffington Post | By Ariel Edwards-Levy	Posted: 11/12/2013 5:24 pm EST | Updated: 11/12/2013 5:51 pm EST
> Share on Google+
> ...


Now Bill Clinton is on TV giving pressure for Obama to honor what he said - to let Americans keep their health care. Good for him!


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Unfortunately with Obamacare I fear the Misery Index will skyrocket when people have sticker shock from Obamacare and try to buy Christmas and other holiday presents. Maybe some will think of him as the Grinch that stole Christmas.


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> Now Bill Clinton is on TV giving pressure for Obama to honor what he said - to let Americans keep their health care. Good for him!


The Dems are on the run, far from Obama, with the big dog leading the charge. If Obamacare keeps going off the train track likes it is, this could be the beginning of the end of Liberalism.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> The Dems are on the run, far from Obama, with the big dog leading the charge. If Obamacare keeps going off the train track likes it is, this could be the beginning of the end of Liberalism.


If that all happens, I'll pop the cork on a bottle of champagne. You are all invited. 
I think that Bill is setting Hilary up for an election. It makes her look like she is good for her word - indirectly from Bill.

Obama must hate Bill right now.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> If that all happens, I'll pop the cork on a bottle of champagne. You are all invited.
> I think that Bill is setting Hilary up for an election. It makes her look like she is good for her word - indirectly from Bill.
> 
> Obama must hate Bill right now.


 . I think you meant to say 'still' rather than 'right now'?' PayBack is a "B" as Obama is learning.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> . I think you meant to say 'still' rather than 'right now'?' PayBack is a "B" as Obama is learning.


Yes, still. Obama has always disliked Bill. Now it's worse.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> Yes, still. Obama has always disliked Bill. Now it's worse.


Obama went to Bill on bended knee where an agreement was made for Bill to be the keynote speaker at the Dem Convention to get Obama re-elected. Now Obama must honor his word (wonder if that will _ever_ happen; it will be a first if it does) and Obama must stump for Hillary as payback. Keep in mind Bill just threw Obama under the bus over ObamaCare and will continue to separate Hill from Barack while watching in pleasure as Obama squirms and stumps for Hill as promised.

What a show!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

When is the last time you saw a president campaign in the election for his replacement?



knitpresentgifts said:


> Obama went to Bill on bended knee where an agreement was made for Bill to be the keynote speaker at the Dem Convention to get Obama re-elected. Now Obama must honor his word (wonder if that will _ever_ happen; it will be a first if it does) and Obama must stump for Hillary as payback. Keep in mind Bill just threw Obama under the bus over ObamaCare and will continue to separate Hill from Barack while watching in pleasure as Obama squirms and stumps for Hill as promised.
> 
> What a show!


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

damemary said:


> I'm sorry. I judge by the usual quality of your postings so I'll skip this.


LTL's post by Ohenewaa Larbi"s about the Shakers was inaccurate to say the least about what he said. I hope you read the post I made further down on page 85 which actually was written by a Shaker and does what I feel is a good job at telling what they believe and, to some extent, how the tiny remaining remnant of the sect lives. while we may think some of their practices are odd, they are idealistic and I admire that.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> If that all happens, I'll pop the cork on a bottle of champagne. You are all invited.
> I think that Bill is setting Hilary up for an election. It makes her look like she is good for her word - indirectly from Bill.
> 
> Obama must hate Bill right now.


I don't drink but in this case. Toast! :XD:


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Obama's Approval Rating Drops To Lowest Point Ever
> 
> The Huffington Post | By Ariel Edwards-Levy	Posted: 11/12/2013 5:24 pm EST | Updated: 11/12/2013 5:51 pm EST
> Share on Google+
> ...


Now that the MSM is actually covering the dismal Obamacare rollout, people are actually seeing Obama in a new light. It is about time they woke up. It was either that or the cancellation letter they might have received.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> Perhaps Christians will be reminded of the real reason behind their holiday if they can't go out spending hundreds of dollars to observe Santa Day.


They are reminded every year and not much changes, other than shopping starts earlier and earlier. Why should this year be any different?


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Obama went to Bill on bended knee where an agreement was made for Bill to be the keynote speaker at the Dem Convention to get Obama re-elected. Now Obama must honor his word (wonder if that will _ever_ happen; it will be a first if it does) and Obama must stump for Hillary as payback. Keep in mind Bill just threw Obama under the bus over ObamaCare and will continue to separate Hill from Barack while watching in pleasure as Obama squirms and stumps for Hill as promised.
> 
> What a show!


I love it. Let it continue and bring an end to Obama's policies and whatever.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> I don't drink but in this case. Toast! :XD:


 :lol: :lol:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Country Bumpkins said:


> I don't drink but in this case. Toast! :XD:


More like Obamacare is toast!


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> More like Obamacare is toast!


I sure hope so! Can't wait! He will be toast when that happens!


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

FROM TODAY'S WALL STREET JOURNAL

Please read!


Business World 

ObamaCare Questions Nobody Asked

Why have insurance stocks been on a tear, if the law was a triumph over special interests?

By 
Holman W. Jenkins, Jr. 

Nov. 12, 2013 6:39 p.m. ET

'If we had to do it all over again . . . there would have been a whole lot more questions that were asked," President Obama told NBC last week.

In this now-famous TV interview, Mr. Obama was referring to his health-care rollout, but there are plenty of other questions somebody should have asked. Here are a few: During the 2008 primary race, Mr. Obama, you rejected Hillary Clinton's proposed individual mandate. You said if health insurance were a good deal, nobody would have to be forced to buy it. 

OK, anybody can change his mind, but why implement the mandate in a way that forces many people to buy insurance at inflated prices (a bad deal) in order to subsidize others? Isn't a universal principle of good governance that subsidies should be funded openly and honestly with tax dollars rather than disguised taxes on disfavored individuals?

At your 2010 health-care summit, you dismissed what you called "house insurance"cheap, high-deductible policies that protect people from serious illness or injury but otherwise leave them to fund routine medical care out of pocket. How do you reconcile this with your oft-stated promise that people can keep their existing insurance?

More important, how do you reconcile it with the fact that virtually all progress on cost control in the past 20 years has come from cost-sharing to make users more sensitive to the price and value of the care they consume? Are we just going to throw this progress away?

Your ObamaCare program is supposed to be financed with the mandate-cum-tax on the young plus Medicare cuts, but the mandate is weak and Congress won't deliver the Medicare cuts. Haven't you created another unfunded government program destined to be starved for money in the future as the reality of our fiscal situation begins to bite?

You tout the Affordable Care Act as a triumph over special interests, but the stock prices of the insurance industry have enjoyed a huge run-up. Isn't this because your program, boiled down, just throws more tax dollars at an unreformed health-care system that every analyst, including you, says spends resources inefficiently? 

You cite RomneyCare as a model, but RomneyCare was enacted by a GOP governor and Democratic legislature with overwhelming public support. Wouldn't there be greater buy-in now from the public if your plan actually had been bipartisan, not to mention greater buy-in from the opposition party, aka Republicans, who are certain to become a governing party at some point in the future and responsible for carrying ObamaCare forward?

Your Affordable Care Act is a nice break with precedent in one wayit reserves its visible subsidies for the poor. Shouldn't we apply this excellent principle to Medicare and the giant tax benefit for employer-provided insurance? Isn't our problem that too many middle-class Americans are programmed to treat health care as a free lunch?

You and many Democrats secretly favor a single-payer system, so why didn't you run on a single-payer system? Why didn't John Kerry or Al Gore ? Wouldn't it be a patriotic act to put the idea in front of the American people even if they reject it? This at least would clear the air and let us proceed with sensible, limited reforms aimed at improving incentives.

What? You think single payer will work in America? Two anecdotes: In 1997, a Danish couple were arrested in New York City for parking their baby stroller, complete with baby, outside a restaurant while they dined inside (a common practice in Copenhagen apparently). This year, Disney DIS +1.77% stopped letting families with disabled members skip to the head of its theme-park queues because too many were cheating by hiring a disabled person to join their party. 

Big, diverse, rambunctious societies have a lot of virtues, but one of them is not high levels of what economists call "social trust." This quality, noticeably absent in America, allows small, wealthy, homogenous societies to run giant redistributive schemes without intolerable levels of chiseling or taxpayers feeling like suckers.

Your feelings are hurt because the press is dwelling on those left worse off by ObamaCare, but the Affordable Care Act, in truth, makes care more affordable only for some and then only by shifting the cost to others. For society as a whole, health care will only consume a bigger share of national incomean additional $10 trillion in the next eight years, according to the Medicare actuary. The chances of health care becoming more affordable are nil and whether the act will even improve the health of the uninsured is doubtful. Your Federal Trade Commission exists to punish consumer fraud. Shouldn't you turn yourself in?


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Obama went to Bill on bended knee where an agreement was made for Bill to be the keynote speaker at the Dem Convention to get Obama re-elected. Now Obama must honor his word (wonder if that will _ever_ happen; it will be a first if it does) and Obama must stump for Hillary as payback. Keep in mind Bill just threw Obama under the bus over ObamaCare and will continue to separate Hill from Barack while watching in pleasure as Obama squirms and stumps for Hill as promised.
> 
> What a show!


OMG I am blinded by that visualization. Thought the idea of Monica on bended knee, but Obama,yuck


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> OMG I am blinded by that visualization. Thought the idea of Monica on bended knee, but Obama,yuck


Doggie Dinner and Pig Puke. 
What is it with conservatives and sex?


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> OMG I am blinded by that visualization. Thought the idea of Monica on bended knee, but Obama,yuck


 :wink: :lol:


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

UH Ohhttp://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/11/13/cornered-dems-give-obama-72-hours-to-fix-obamacare-or-else-87053


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Doggie Dinner and Pig Puke.
> What is it with conservatives and sex?


Aren't you curious about things that are unfamiliar to you?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Aren't you curious about things that are unfamiliar to you?


HAHAHAAA, if I had forgotten what sex was all about I think I would refresh my memory in a more entertaining way than to think about someone else's sex life; especially if I were going to claim (as they do) that it was offensive.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Country Bumpkins said:


> UH Ohhttp://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/11/13/cornered-dems-give-obama-72-hours-to-fix-obamacare-or-else-87053


I heard this news last night. The Dems are in panic mode - deservedly so.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I heard this news last night. The Dems are in panic mode - deservedly so.


 Maybe they are waking up.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Thanks for putting up with my intro full of typos. My old fingers have been having a party with arthritis lately. Please keep in mind that what Larbi had to say about the Shakers, while accurate about when certain things happened, did not accurately portray their beliefs or society.


alcameron said:


> Thanks for posting the Shaker info. I'm reading with my morning coffee.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Like most of what you post, your Shaker reference left out the meat of the what the Shaker sect believes. You might like to consider getting a GED.


lovethelake said:


> That is the reason for my Shaker reference, which only reinforces the knowledge I learned while visiting a few of their farms. Sorry that I was out having fun and wasn't tied to my computer all day. Too pretty of a day to be sitting in front of a computer lurking; praying for an opportunity to go after someone's opinions or thoughts.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

MaidInBedlam said:


> Like most of what you post, your Shaker reference left out the meat of the what the Shaker sect believes. You might like to consider getting a GED.


Empress MIB, at least she admits that on a day of bad weather she sits around " praying for an opportunity to go after someone's opinions or thoughts."

A bit of honesty is always refreshing.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Your 'logic' is flawed.



knitpresentgifts said:


> Obama went to Bill on bended knee where an agreement was made for Bill to be the keynote speaker at the Dem Convention to get Obama re-elected. Now Obama must honor his word (wonder if that will _ever_ happen; it will be a first if it does) and Obama must stump for Hillary as payback. Keep in mind Bill just threw Obama under the bus over ObamaCare and will continue to separate Hill from Barack while watching in pleasure as Obama squirms and stumps for Hill as promised.
> 
> What a show!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Why do they feel compelled to share the details from their twisted imaginations?



jelun2 said:


> Doggie Dinner and Pig Puke.
> What is it with conservatives and sex?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

As usual, our Purl comes through. Bravo.



Poor Purl said:


> Aren't you curious about things that are unfamiliar to you?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Hope you get help for arthritis.



MaidInBedlam said:


> Thanks for putting up with my intro full of typos. My old fingers have been having a party with arthritis lately. Please keep in mind that what Larbi had to say about the Shakers, while accurate about when certain things happened, did not accurately portray their beliefs or society.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> FROM TODAY'S WALL STREET JOURNAL
> 
> Please read!
> 
> ...


Great post. Thanks for sharing. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

So, KPG, just how good does it feel when you sit on that cob of corn?


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Maybe they are waking up.


Too little too late

It is their train wreck, hope they enjoy the ride


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> My Mom would stop talking to me whenever I said or did something she disapproved of. I bet she's not talking to me.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Too little too late
> 
> It is their train wreck, hope they enjoy the ride


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

*The Obama Pledge on Keeping Your Insurance*
Monday, 11 November 2013 09:42
By Dean Baker, Truthout | News Analysis

President Obama has been getting a lot of grief in the last few weeks over his pledge that with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in place, people would be able to keep their insurance if they like it. The media have been filled with stories about people across the country who are having their insurance policies terminated, ostensibly because they did not meet the requirements of the ACA. While this has led many to say that Obama was lying, *there is much less here than meets the eye.*

First, it is important to note that the ACA grand-fathered all the individual policies that were in place at the time the law was enacted. This means that the plans in effect at the time that President Obama was pushing the bill could still be offered even if they did not meet all the standards laid out in the ACA.

The plans being terminated because they don't meet the minimal standards were all plans that insurers introduced after the passage of the ACA. Insurers introduced these plans knowing that they would not meet the standards that would come into effect in 2014. Insurers may not have informed their clients at the time they sold these plans that they would not be available after 2014 because they had designed a plan that did not comply with the ACA.

However if the insurers didnt tell their clients that the new plans would only be available for a short period of time, *the blame would seem to rest with the insurance companies,* not the ACA. After all, President Obama did not promise people that he would keep insurers from developing new plans that will not comply with the provisions of the ACA.

In addition to the new plans that were created that did not comply with the terms of the ACA, there have been complaints that the grandfathering was too strict. For example, _insurers can only raise their premiums or deductibles by a small amount above the rate of medical inflation._ As a result, many of the plans in existence at the time of the ACA are losing their grandfathered status.

In this case also it is wrong to view the insurers as passive actors who are being forced to stop offering plans because of the ACA. The price increases charged by insurers are not events outside of the control of insurers. If an insurer offers a plan which has many committed buyers, then presumably it would be able to structure its changes in ways that are consistent with the ACA. If it decides not to do so, this is presumably because the insurer has decided that it is not interested in continuing to offer the plan.

As a practical matter there are many plans that insurers will opt to drop for market reasons that may or may not have anything to do with the ACA. Its hard to see how this could be viewed as a violation of President Obamas pledge. *After all, insurers change and drop plans all the time. Did people who heard Obamas pledge understand it to mean that insurers would no longer have this option once the ACA passed?*

If Obamas pledge was understood as ensuring that every plan that was in existence in 2010 would remain in existence, then it would imply a complete federal takeover of the insurance industry. This would require the government to tell insurers that they must continue to offer plans even if they are losing money on them and even if the plans had lost most of their customers. This would at the least be a strange policy. It would be surprising if many people thought this was the meaning of President Obamas pledge.

Finally, there will be many plans that insurers will stop offering in large part because of the changed market conditions created by the ACA. For example, last week the Washington Post highlighted a plan for the hardest to insure that was being cancelled by Pathmark Blue Cross of Pennsylvania.

This plan is likely being cancelled because it is unable to compete with the insurance being offered through the exchanges. The exchanges charge everyone the same rate regardless of their pre-existing health conditions. A plan that is especially designed for people who have serious health conditions would almost certainly charge a far higher rate. If these high-priced plans no longer exist because they cannot compete with the exchanges would this mean that President Obama had broken his pledge?

On closer inspection, the claim that President Obama lied in saying that people could keep their insurance looks like another Fox News special. *In the only way that the pledge could be interpreted as being meaningful, the pledge is true. The ACA does not eliminate plans that were in existence at the time the bill was approved.*

If we want to play Fox News, President Obama also promised people they could keep their doctor. Since 2010 tens of thousands of doctors have retired or even died. Guess the pledge that people could keep their doctor was yet another lie from the Obama administration.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/19955-the-obama-pledge-on-keeping-your-insurance


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Obama's "fix" for Obamacare's current problems:


To allow the sale of cancelled individual health insurance policies to existing customers for another year. This would allow insurers to offer plans that have been cancelled because they are considered "crap" policies under the ACA.

Hmmmm - sounds like a bandaid to get the Dems through 2014 elections.

Pelosi wants the the change to be administrative rather than legislative - because she says it needs to be addressed right away. I know, why wait for Congress to make and approve any changes to Obamacare just because that is the way the Constitution says it is to happen. Just bypass the constitution again. No big deal.

According to John Tuttle, pushing back the individual mandate will affect the ACA and further affect rates in 2015. It will also affect the pool needed to fund Obamacare.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> *The Obama Pledge on Keeping Your Insurance*
> Monday, 11 November 2013 09:42
> By Dean Baker, Truthout | News Analysis
> 
> ...


I just posted a different article saying the same thing on another thread. The reception was not great. 
This POTUS just can't win. I guess he is supposed to be omniscient.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

From the WALL STREET JOURNAL

Here's another problem with Obama:

Nobody's Home at Homeland Security

The man running the inspector general's office is under investigation; so is the man nominated to replace him.

President Obama recently announced the long-overdue nomination of Jeh Johnson, the former general counsel of the Defense Department, as the fourth secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. If confirmed, Mr. Johnson will immediately face a major obstacle: Over 40% of the department's senior leadership positions are either vacant or have an "acting" placeholder. This means that nearly half of the top positions at the third-largest agency in the U.S. government aren't filleda problem that has impaired its operations and speaks volumes about this administration's commitment to homeland security. 

The positions didn't become vacant all at once. The problem has snowballed as the Obama administration has failed to fill open spots in various parts of the department for many months, and in some cases for years. 

Jeh Johnson, former Pentagon general counsel and U.S. President Barack Obama's nominee as secretary of Homeland Security, right, shakes hands with Obama during a nomination announcement in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Friday, Oct. 18, 2013. Agence France-Presse/Getty Images 

Despite the president's claims that the "border is secure," Customs and Border Protectionthe DHS agency responsible for securing the border, regulating international trade and immigrationhas not had a Senate-confirmed commissioner during the entire Obama presidency. After a recess appointment expired at the end of 2011, the president waited more than a year and a half before nominating someone in August. Customs and Border Protection now has its fourth acting leader of the Obama presidency. 

The situation at Immigration and Customs Enforcement is not much better. When Director John Morton resigned this summer, he was replaced by John Sandweg on an acting basis. Mr. Sandweg is a former political operative with no law-enforcement experience. Since his installment, the administration has not announced a nominee, leaving one of the largest federal law-enforcement agencies without credible, confirmed leadership. 

Perhaps the most dire leadership vacuum at DHS is the lack of steady, long-term management in cyber and national security. While rogue nations continue to target everything from Wall Street to our energy industry, and terrorist groups continue to plot against the U.S., both the assistant secretary for cybersecurity and communications and the undersecretary for intelligence and analysis have been under acting leadership for nearly a year. 

The vacancies extend to DHS financial management. Undersecretary for Management Rafael Borras, who is now acting deputy secretary, is currently without a chief financial officer. Earlier this month, Chief Financial Officer Peggy Sherry left DHS for the IRS. The department's antiquated financial systems need modernization, and this turnover will hamper progress and waste more money.

There is also no watchdog on the premises, as Homeland Security has been without a confirmed inspector general since February 2011. Deputy Inspector General Charles Edwards, who is currently running the IG's office, faces allegations of misconduct from a bipartisan Senate panel, including misusing official resources and exerting undue influence on investigations. Sens. Claire McCaskill and Ron Johnson are currently investigating these claims, raised by several whistleblowers.

To complicate matters even further, the nominee for deputy secretary of DHS, Alejandro Mayorkas, is being held up by Senate Republicans. They're doing so because the inspector general's office is investigating Mr. Mayorkas for allegations of misusing the Immigrant Investor Visa program, which he oversees and continues to lead, while he continues to run U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. In other words, the nominee for the No. 2 position at DHS is currently under investigation by the DHS Inspector General's office, which itself does not have anyone in its top post and whose current leader is also under investigation. You read that right.

Some claim that Senate gridlock has played a role in delaying nominations, including the efforts of some Republican senators to delay nominations until survivors of the 2012 Benghazi attack are allowed to appear before Congress. But this has not been a major factor. For many of these positions, including the inspector general and the commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, the president has taken many months or years to nominate someone. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama has shown a complete disregard for the Federal Vacancy Reform Act of 1998, a law passed by Congress that limits the amount of time someone can be in an acting position. 

Anyone who has ever worked for a company knows that leadership deficits and turnover don't help an organization run smoothly. For DHS to carry out its core mission of protecting the American people, the department needs consistent management and a strong leader who understands how to handle a sprawling agency, and who has a commitment to enforcing the law and protecting the American people. 

As Jeh Johnson goes through the nomination process, he must commit to filling the gaping holes in the department's top ranks. While DHS is the newest department in the executive branch, it carries out arguably its most essential function. It deserves real leadership, not empty chairs.

Mr. McCaul, a Republican congressman from Texas, is the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> From the WALL STREET JOURNAL
> 
> Here's another problem with Obama:
> 
> ...


Maybe if the GOP weren't working so hard to prevent Obama's nominees from going through, there'd be people in charge. But, unlike any previous president, this one is never given a break. I wonder why.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Maybe if the GOP weren't working so hard to prevent Obama's nominees from going through, there'd be people in charge. But, unlike any previous president, this one is never given a break. I wonder why.


We can be pretty sure why. 
Maybe Mr. Boehner should go over to the airport for his breakfast.

http://www.politicususa.com/2013/11/13/heartless-john-boehner-cold-confronted-child-immigration-activists.html


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Maybe if the GOP weren't working so hard to prevent Obama's nominees from going through, there'd be people in charge. But, unlike any previous president, this one is never given a break. I wonder why.


It's not the GOP's fault. Dems own it.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> Maybe if the GOP weren't working so hard to prevent Obama's nominees from going through, there'd be people in charge. But, unlike any previous president, this one is never given a break. I wonder why.


It's called the vetting process. The GOP are doing their job making sure the person nominated is actually capable of doing the job. This is something that is lacking in the current administration, too many do not have the experience in the field or qualifications for the position they hold.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Maybe if the GOP weren't working so hard to prevent Obama's nominees from going through, there'd be people in charge. But, unlike any previous president, this one is never given a break. I wonder why.


Maybe if he would be transparent about Benghazi and why he allowed those four men to be murdered without lifting a finger to help them, maybe a finger would be lifted to get the nominees vetted.

See that was an easy question to answer.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Maybe if the GOP weren't working so hard to prevent Obama's nominees from going through, there'd be people in charge. But, unlike any previous president, this one is never given a break. I wonder why.


I think it is because he is just not a leader. If he was, he wouldn't have the problems he has. It's really very simple.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> It's not the GOP's fault. Dems own it.


Our "President" is not presidential. He can talk pretty, but can't do the job.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> I just posted a different article saying the same thing on another thread. The reception was not great.
> This POTUS just can't win. I guess he is supposed to be omniscient.


No just not a liar


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> No just not a liar


He is weak, lying and should not be president. He cannot do his job successfully.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> He is weak, lying and should not be president. He cannot do his job successfully.


I thought he sounded and looked weak today during his talk. He could only sound somewhat strong when he was out of DC and had no reporters to ask him questions.

Guess he was hightailing it out of Dodge because he could not handle the pressure that his lies bought him and now with Benghazi resurfacing, life is not good in Obamaville. Wonder if ObamaIdonotcare will cover his migraines. Oh that is right, it isn't good enough for him


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> I thought he sounded and looked weak today during his talk. He could only sound somewhat strong when he was out of DC and had no reporters to ask him questions.
> 
> Guess he was hightailing it out of Dodge because he could not handle the pressure that his lies bought him and now with Benghazi resurfacing, life is not good in Obamaville. Wonder if ObamaIdonotcare will cover his migraines. Oh that is right, it isn't good enough for him


You hit the nail on the head. He is so pitifully weak it makes me sick. I hope this Obamacare dies a quick death with the people of this country waking up to the sweet=talking liar.

No Obamacare for him. He thinks he's too good for it.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> We can be pretty sure why.
> Maybe Mr. Boehner should go over to the airport for his breakfast.
> 
> http://www.politicususa.com/2013/11/13/heartless-john-boehner-cold-confronted-child-immigration-activists.html


I watched the video, and I don't think he was all that bad. I don't like him, and he's totally ineffectual, but his behavior to the girls was no worse than if he had been a private citizen interrupted at breakfast.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> It's called the vetting process. The GOP are doing their job making sure the person nominated is actually capable of doing the job. This is something that is lacking in the current administration, too many do not have the experience in the field or qualifications for the position they hold.


 :hunf: :hunf: :hunf: :hunf: :hunf: :hunf: :hunf: :hunf: *BS* :hunf: :hunf: :hunf: :hunf: :hunf: :hunf: :hunf:


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Maybe if he would be transparent about Benghazi and why he allowed those four men to be murdered without lifting a finger to help them, maybe a finger would be lifted to get the nominees vetted.
> 
> See that was an easy question to answer.


Maybe if you read less biased newspapers, you would see that Benghazi is not the issue you think it is.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> I think it is because he is just not a leader. If he was, he wouldn't have the problems he has. It's really very simple.


Wait! You mean he's not Satan or Lucifer, he's not the world's biggest liar, he's not the anti-Christ??? He's just not a leader?

Wow, that really is very simple.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> He is weak, lying and should not be president. He cannot do his job successfully.


The time to post this was before the 2012 elections. There isn't going to be a do-over. Deal with it.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> I watched the video, and I don't think he was all that bad. I don't like him, and he's totally ineffectual, but his behavior to the girls was no worse than if he had been a private citizen interrupted at breakfast.


But he is NOT a private citizen, he is the Speaker of OUR House of Representatives. He is at his worksite less than 150 days per year for people to talk to him. He takes home $200K for that part time job.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> But he is NOT a private citizen, he is the Speaker of OUR House of Representatives. He is at his worksite less than 150 days per year for people to talk to him. He takes home $200K for that part time job.


I know. Still, it just didn't look that bad to me. But I'm in the minority on this. There's plenty of other stuff to dislike about him.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> I know. Still, it just didn't look that bad to me. But I'm in the minority on this. There's plenty of other stuff to dislike about him.


You got that right. I guess it is the lie that gets me ticked off. 
He didn't have the courage to tell two teenaged girls that he had no intention of bringing their issue to the floor even though he has the votes.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> You got that right. I guess it is the lie that gets me ticked off.
> He didn't have the courage to tell two teenaged girls that he had no intention of bringing their issue to the floor even though he has the votes.


Do you know of any politician with that kind of courage? At least he didn't have his bodyguards or whoever get rid of them.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Do you know of any politician with that kind of courage? At least he didn't have his bodyguards or whoever get rid of them.


Well, yes. I do know three who are that honest. 
When a number of us were trying to get the Reagan era backstab concerning Social Security cutbacks for people with pensions reversed people in the Massachusetts delegation had to make it clear on an annual basis that the House leadership was not going to give our concerns a chance to be heard. 
US Reps give people bad news all the time. 
You're right, though, I suppose it is a good thing that Speaker Boehner didn't pull a Cheney and have the young girls arrested for being in a public place.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Well, yes. I do know three who are that honest.
> When a number of us were trying to get the Reagan era backstab concerning Social Security cutbacks for people with pensions reversed people in the Massachusetts delegation had to make it clear on an annual basis that the House leadership was not going to give our concerns a chance to be heard.
> US Reps give people bad news all the time.
> You're right, though, I suppose it is a good thing that Speaker Boehner didn't pull a Cheney and have the young girls arrested for being in a public place.


I've learned something important. Thank you.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thanks Purl. I think of this as an honest man trying to help the American people who need help most....and underestimating the power of the insurance and medical communities.....and he plays too fair.



Poor Purl said:


> *The Obama Pledge on Keeping Your Insurance*
> Monday, 11 November 2013 09:42
> By Dean Baker, Truthout | News Analysis
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Too honest and trusting. I say call in the lawyers and take off the gloves.



jelun2 said:


> I just posted a different article saying the same thing on another thread. The reception was not great.
> This POTUS just can't win. I guess he is supposed to be omniscient.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Wrong ethnicity for some. Damn the bigots.



Poor Purl said:


> Maybe if the GOP weren't working so hard to prevent Obama's nominees from going through, there'd be people in charge. But, unlike any previous president, this one is never given a break. I wonder why.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Country Bumpkins said:


> It's not the GOP's fault. Dems own it.


 :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Blah blah blah.



lovethelake said:


> Maybe if he would be transparent about Benghazi and why he allowed those four men to be murdered without lifting a finger to help them, maybe a finger would be lifted to get the nominees vetted.
> 
> See that was an easy question to answer.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> Blah blah blah.


Some people haven't figured out yet that the fake Benghazi scandal is done. Stick a fork in it.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Private citizens aren't elected. He lost votes on this one.



Poor Purl said:


> I watched the video, and I don't think he was all that bad. I don't like him, and he's totally ineffectual, but his behavior to the girls was no worse than if he had been a private citizen interrupted at breakfast.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> It's not the GOP's fault. Dems own it.





damemary said:


> :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:


Nothing is ever the GOP's fault. Not the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not the collapse of the economy, not the childish way they behave to this president. Everything is somebody else's fault. In other words, they want to run everything and be accountable for nothing.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Some people haven't figured out yet that the fake Benghazi scandal is done. Stick a fork in it.


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Nothing is ever the GOP's fault. Not the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not the collapse of the economy, not the childish way they behave to this president. Everything is somebody else's fault. In other words, they want to run everything and be accountable for nothing.


Very well put, Empress Purl.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> It's called the vetting process. The GOP are doing their job making sure the person nominated is actually capable of doing the job. This is something that is lacking in the current administration, too many do not have the experience in the field or qualifications for the position they hold.


It's called harassment. While it is true that all cabinet members go through a vetting process, the Repubs have been flat out stonewalling them.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

It's worked for them in the past.



Poor Purl said:


> Nothing is ever the GOP's fault. Not the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not the collapse of the economy, not the childish way they behave to this president. Everything is somebody else's fault. In other words, they want to run everything and be accountable for nothing.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> OMG I am blinded by that visualization. Thought the idea of Monica on bended knee, but Obama,yuck


Leave it to this sick, perverted pig to bring this up. You should really get some councelling, LTL, or charge your batteries. One or the other. I have never seen one so obsessed with other people's sex lives than you. Some would call you a voyeur. I would call you plain disgusting.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Nothing is ever the GOP's fault. Not the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not the collapse of the economy, not the childish way they behave to this president. Everything is somebody else's fault. In other words, they want to run everything and be accountable for nothing.


Sounds like Adult Child issues to me.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> It's worked for them in the past.


This made me think about something I've wanted to look up for a long time: the growth in government spending. Remember how Reagan used to downplay the role of government? Guess who had the largest growth in government spending since Eisenhower? In fact, Forbes has a list (see below). Also the smallest growth in spending happened under (wait for it) Obama, by a mile.

This is from Forbes, mind you. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

It's well worth looking at, and at the end is this: "NOTE: Some of the comments to this piece have gotten well out of control, involving threats and obscenity to other commenters and myself. While I welcome and encourage comments from all points of view, obscene remarks are removed and not tolerated. Ill be happy to jump back into the conversation and reply to some comments when those who are misusing the forum settle down."


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Leave it to this sick, perverted pig to bring this up. You should really get some councelling, LTL, or charge your batteries. One or the other. I have never seen one so obsessed with other people's sex lives than you. Some would call you a voyeur. I would call you plain disgusting.


Yuck. You're absolutely right.

How's the fabric going, Empress Bratty? I am currently inundated by yarn and don't know where I'm going to put it.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Yuck. You're absolutely right.
> 
> How's the fabric going, Empress Bratty? I am currently inundated by yarn and don't know where I'm going to put it.


We are back on pigs again? I thought we had switched to dog dinner.

I am back on my not reading the dd posts. We are obsessing over others' sex lives again, are we? Or is Empress BP (not that's obscene) just playing catch up?

I have yarn decorating my entertainment center, in vases... under the bed... unlike the other Empress I have very little fabric.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> We are back on pigs again? I thought we had switched to dog dinner.
> 
> I am back on my not reading the dd posts. We are obsessing over others' sex lives again, are we? Or is Empress BP (not that's obscene) just playing catch up?
> 
> I have yarn decorating my entertainment center, in vases... under the bed... unlike the other Empress I have very little fabric.


BP is a day behind. So she gets to see that obscene message from the saintly LOL.


----------



## cynthia627 (Sep 15, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> *The Obama Pledge on Keeping Your Insurance*
> Monday, 11 November 2013 09:42
> By Dean Baker, Truthout | News Analysis
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: Today I was a little upset that Pres. Obama caved to the wing nuts by allowing those who were cancelled to keep their 'junk' policies if they chose to. It was a smart political move though.


----------



## cynthia627 (Sep 15, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Some people haven't figured out yet that the fake Benghazi scandal is done. Stick a fork in it.


But I blame the news media who jumped all over the non-story and caused all of this. They negated all the good Hillary did over her years a Secy of State and just focused on one terrible event of which she had no knowledge of and could not prevent from happening. It just goes to show just how afraid of a Hillary candidacy the right wing is that they want to muddy her sterling reputation as Secy of State.

Oh, and BTW, for all of you conservatives who will say that she could have provided more security. More money for security for embassies throughout the world was asked for, and Congress DENIED to increase funding!!!


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

cynthia627 said:


> But I blame the news media who jumped all over the non-story and caused all of this. They negated all the good Hillary did over her years a Secy of State and just focused on one terrible event of which she had no knowledge of and could not prevent from happening. It just goes to show just how afraid of a Hillary candidacy the right wing is that they want to muddy her sterling reputation as Secy of State.
> 
> Oh, and BTW, for all of you conservatives who will say that she could have provided more security. More money for security for embassies throughout the world was asked for, and Congress DENIED to increase funding!!!


Tell me 10 concrete accomplishments she did as Secretary of State other than rack up air miles.

I am sure that the State Department had money to add more security if it were necessary because they had information that could not share with Congress. But she and Obama did not care. I am sure Obama could have told the CIA to provide more security or sent in more Marines if it were necessary, but they did not care. It did not fit into his Magical Apology Tour philosophy. That Arab Spring that Obama and Hilary supported really worked out well for the world, didn't it?

But no they blamed it on a YouTube video. It was not two attacks, with a 7 hour lull, it was a continuous vicious attack. It was an attack that had had intel that they shouldn't have known (Where the gasoline was stored, where the safe room was....) It was criminal that there was no rescue team sent in, no air support, only Obama taking a nap to get ready for a fund raiser.

Continue to drink the Obamacultist Kool Aid. Believe that this is the most transparent administration ever. Believe the lies that Obama made about ObamaIdonotcare and the ability to keep the insurance you liked and could afford. Believe that the IRS is honest and will do a great job overseeing the information for Obamacare. Believe that Obama did not know that the website was not working for Obamacare. Believe that when the employer mandate is enforced in a year that all will be wonderful in Obamaville's Obamacare program. Believe that the HSA did not take away Religious Freedom. Believe that the only possible reason that someone could oppose his policies is because he is of mixed race and not because they oppose his Socialist view for America.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And these guys have to agree on the debt ceiling and budget... This sort of info should be plastered everywhere.



Poor Purl said:


> This made me think about something I've wanted to look up for a long time: the growth in government spending. Remember how Reagan used to downplay the role of government? Guess who had the largest growth in government spending since Eisenhower? In fact, Forbes has a list (see below). Also the smallest growth in spending happened under (wait for it) Obama, by a mile.
> 
> This is from Forbes, mind you. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/
> 
> It's well worth looking at, and at the end is this: "NOTE: Some of the comments to this piece have gotten well out of control, involving threats and obscenity to other commenters and myself. While I welcome and encourage comments from all points of view, obscene remarks are removed and not tolerated. Ill be happy to jump back into the conversation and reply to some comments when those who are misusing the forum settle down."


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I'm with you. I've got to focus. Loved needlepoint, but can't do everything, and I'm slow. No quilting, although I love the look of it. Now, if I'd just finish what I start.



jelun2 said:


> We are back on pigs again? I thought we had switched to dog dinner.
> 
> I am back on my not reading the dd posts. We are obsessing over others' sex lives again, are we? Or is Empress BP (not that's obscene) just playing catch up?
> 
> I have yarn decorating my entertainment center, in vases... under the bed... unlike the other Empress I have very little fabric.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I think it was well-meaning but dumb. Will the insurance companies go along? If they don't it will be 'President Obama's fault.'



cynthia627 said:


> :thumbup: :thumbup: Today I was a little upset that Pres. Obama caved to the wing nuts by allowing those who were cancelled to keep their 'junk' policies if they chose to. It was a smart political move though.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

If I never see or hear that word again, I'll be happy. For the layperson, it should have been the usual few days of news, then forgotten. The diplomatic community should have evaluated procedures. End.



cynthia627 said:


> But I blame the news media who jumped all over the non-story and caused all of this. They negated all the good Hillary did over her years a Secy of State and just focused on one terrible event of which she had no knowledge of and could not prevent from happening. It just goes to show just how afraid of a Hillary candidacy the right wing is that they want to muddy her sterling reputation as Secy of State.
> 
> Oh, and BTW, for all of you conservatives who will say that she could have provided more security. More money for security for embassies throughout the world was asked for, and Congress DENIED to increase funding!!!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Ignored.



lovethelake said:


> Tell me 10 concrete accomplishments she did as Secretary of State other than rack up air miles.
> 
> I am sure that the State Department had money to add more security if it were necessary because they had information that could not share with Congress. But she and Obama did not care. I am sure Obama could have told the CIA to provide more security or sent in more Marines if it were necessary, but they did not care. It did not fit into his Magical Apology Tour philosophy. That Arab Spring that Obama and Hilary supported really worked out well for the world, didn't it?
> 
> ...


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

cynthia627 said:


> But I blame the news media who jumped all over the non-story and caused all of this. They negated all the good Hillary did over her years a Secy of State and just focused on one terrible event of which she had no knowledge of and could not prevent from happening. It just goes to show just how afraid of a Hillary candidacy the right wing is that they want to muddy her sterling reputation as Secy of State.
> 
> Oh, and BTW, for all of you conservatives who will say that she could have provided more security. More money for security for embassies throughout the world was asked for, and Congress DENIED to increase funding!!!


Lack of money didn't kill anyone in Benghazi, the combo of Hillary and Obama did. The Congressional hearings and reports PROVED that fact.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Look at the rest of the report: It was written in May 2012, before Obama's first term was over. His spending numbers were incomplete. Then if you read the small graph, the spending was a percent of GDP, not the amount of dollars.
> 
> As Poor Purl knows with her PHD in Math, you can make a graph say whatever you want it to say by hiding what ever the source of your information in small print.
> 
> I wonder where the amount of debt he accumulated in those years, was calculated in these graphs.


We all know Poor Purl as well as all the other Libs who post endlessly on this started-by-a-Conservative thread, cannot do simple Math or Arithmetic nor understand the simple facts and principles of economics.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> We all know Poor Purl as well as all the other Libs who post endlessly on this started by a Conservative thread, cannot do simple Math or Arithmetic nor understand the simple facts and principles of economics.


Hey, have a question friend. Is a person ignored if they are told they are ignored?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Hey, have a question friend. Is a person ignored if they are told they are ignored?


Sounds like a Liberal ? and ruse to me! I vote, "No!" :XD:

Don't but too much pressure on those Libs posting on this thread to you, they are all in panic mode and deeply worried after the one they call their leader stepped in it oh so recently, and again.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Perhaps Christians will be reminded of the real reason behind their holiday if they can't go out spending hundreds of dollars to observe Santa Day.


Because people are saying they aren't spending much this year has nothing to do with Obamacare. Perhaps they used to belong to the middle class and have been squeezed to death by the inequality of wealth and opportunity In this country. More reason for raising the minimum wage and providing low cost healthcare. And while we're at it, let's raise revenue by raising taxes on the wealthy and closing a few loopholes here and there.
It's totally naive and down right stupid to blame Obamacare for people not having money for Christmas spending. I'm sure Obamacare is responsible for global warming, too. And for the government shutdown. And for the mayor of Toronto going off his rocker. And for the shortage of angora goat production. And for the laying off of policemen in Oakland, CA.
Surely I've forgotten something.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Tell me 10 concrete accomplishments she did as Secretary of State other than rack up air miles.
> 
> I am sure that the State Department had money to add more security if it were necessary because they had information that could not share with Congress. But she and Obama did not care. I am sure Obama could have told the CIA to provide more security or sent in more Marines if it were necessary, but they did not care. It did not fit into his Magical Apology Tour philosophy. That Arab Spring that Obama and Hilary supported really worked out well for the world, didn't it?
> 
> ...


Tell me ONE positive thing the repubs in Congress have done.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Let's all remember, today, that *not one Republican* in either the House or the Senate ever voted *for *ObamaCare. Not one!

The Democrats put ObamaCare in place (illegally at that) and now even the Dems, who were the ONLY people in Congress to vote FOR Obamacare, don't even like it. 
:XD:

ObamaCare is 100% on the Dems - hope they, at least, like it. Wonder why the Dems are supporting it then? Hmmmm .


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Did your little graph come from the same article as I quoted from? Someone at Forbes doesn't know how to spell _deficit_.

And someone doesn't know how to read graphs (though she probably was supposed to teach her students how to do that when she was in the school system).

Spending is never compared in total dollars, which would be irrelevant, since a dollar is not worth the same now as it was in 1970 or whenever. I thought a "tax consultant" would have understood that. Percentage of GDP is how they always measure it. And May 2012 was not that long ago when it comes to gathering statistics. And what economists have been saying is that the debt has been going down, not up, since Obama took office.

And I think I've wasted enough time pointing out your ignorance.



joeysomma said:


> Look at the rest of the report: It was written in May 2012, before Obama's first term was over. His spending numbers were incomplete. Then if you read the small graph, the spending was a percent of GDP, not the amount of dollars.
> 
> As Poor Purl knows with her PHD in Math, you can make a graph say whatever you want it to say by hiding what ever the source of your information in small print.
> 
> I wonder where the amount of debt he accumulated in those years, was calculated in these graphs.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> I think it was well-meaning but dumb. Will the insurance companies go along? If they don't it will be 'President Obama's fault.'


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

alcameron said:


> Because people are saying they aren't spending much this year has nothing to do with Obamacare. Perhaps they used to belong to the middle class and have been squeezed to death by the inequality of wealth and opportunity In this country. More reason for raising the minimum wage and providing low cost healthcare. And while we're at it, let's raise revenue by raising taxes on the wealthy and closing a few loopholes here and there.
> It's totally naive and down right stupid to blame Obamacare for people not having money for Christmas spending. I'm sure Obamacare is responsible for global warming, too. And for the government shutdown. And for the mayor of Toronto going off his rocker. And for the shortage of angora goat production. And for the laying off of policemen in Oakland, CA.
> Surely I've forgotten something.


Is there a shortage of angora goat production? What is this world coming to?


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

this is an opinion piece and as such is worthless. Hust because it came from he Wall Street Journal doesn't change that.


Lukelucy said:


> From the WALL STREET JOURNAL
> 
> Here's another problem with Obama:
> 
> ...


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

News analyses and opinion pieces are worthless, as I already said to LL. I understand that you want to post something informative, but this isn't the way to do so.


Poor Purl said:


> *The Obama Pledge on Keeping Your Insurance*
> Monday, 11 November 2013 09:42
> By Dean Baker, Truthout | News Analysis
> 
> ...


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

MaidInBedlam said:


> News analyses and opinion pieces are worthless, as I already said to LL. I understand that you want to post something informative, but this isn't the way to do so.


This was written by an economist, Dean Baker, and has more behind it than an opinion piece by a reporter.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Gee, I thought that the compound was attacked by terrorists and they did the killing. This is a dead horse and you keep beating it. Sorry you have nothing better in your life.



knitpresentgifts said:


> Lack of money didn't kill anyone in Benghazi, the combo of Hillary and Obama did. The Congressional hearings and reports PROVED that fact.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Does it make you feel better if we just say we're laughing at your nonsense? Try writing an essay instead of cut and paste and give proof. Love to see it.



lovethelake said:


> Hey, have a question friend. Is a person ignored if they are told they are ignored?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Love your sarcastic logic.



alcameron said:


> Because people are saying they aren't spending much this year has nothing to do with Obamacare. Perhaps they used to belong to the middle class and have been squeezed to death by the inequality of wealth and opportunity In this country. More reason for raising the minimum wage and providing low cost healthcare. And while we're at it, let's raise revenue by raising taxes on the wealthy and closing a few loopholes here and there.
> It's totally naive and down right stupid to blame Obamacare for people not having money for Christmas spending. I'm sure Obamacare is responsible for global warming, too. And for the government shutdown. And for the mayor of Toronto going off his rocker. And for the shortage of angora goat production. And for the laying off of policemen in Oakland, CA.
> Surely I've forgotten something.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thank you Purl.



Poor Purl said:


> Did your little graph come from the same article as I quoted from? Someone at Forbes doesn't know how to spell _deficit_.
> 
> And someone doesn't know how to read graphs (though she probably was supposed to teach her students how to do that when she was in the school system).
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Now this radical liberal knitter is panicking. YAARNNNNNNN!



Poor Purl said:


> Is there a shortage of angora goat production? What is this world coming to?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thank you MIB. You are completely correct.



MaidInBedlam said:


> this is an opinion piece and as such is worthless. Hust because it came from he Wall Street Journal doesn't change that.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I trust Purl's research.



Poor Purl said:


> This was written by an economist, Dean Baker, and has more behind it than an opinion piece by a reporter.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> It was the same article. You didn't read all of it. Of course you had to enlarge it to read it. How many people read the small print, to see how they are comparing?


But I didn't see where the graph contradicted the text. My eyes are fine. I don't think you understood what was on the graph.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

alcameron said:


> Tell me ONE positive thing the repubs in Congress have done.


Just voted to get people their insurance back that Obama lied about their ability to keep it


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> The time to post this was before the 2012 elections. There isn't going to be a do-over. Deal with it.


Unfortunately we have no choice but to deal with it, one shovel full at a time.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

lovethelake said:


> Tell me 10 concrete accomplishments she did as Secretary of State other than rack up air miles.
> 
> I am sure that the State Department had money to add more security if it were necessary because they had information that could not share with Congress. But she and Obama did not care. I am sure Obama could have told the CIA to provide more security or sent in more Marines if it were necessary, but they did not care. It did not fit into his Magical Apology Tour philosophy. That Arab Spring that Obama and Hilary supported really worked out well for the world, didn't it?
> 
> ...


Unfortunately for her, she will go on believing all of his lies.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

cynthia627 said:


> :thumbup: :thumbup: Today I was a little upset that Pres. Obama caved to the wing nuts by allowing those who were cancelled to keep their 'junk' policies if they chose to. It was a smart political move though.


Obama did not cave to the "wing nuts". He changed his tune because many Democrats in the House were about to join with the Republicans to craft a bill to change and possibly repeal Obamacare. Smarten up, all of those cancelled policies were not "junk". Most were policies that people spent a lot of time deciding what they/their families needed and wanted in an insurance policy. These policyholders would not have a reason to switch to the exchanges, so Obama considered the policies "junk". Another lie to get people into the program.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> Obama did not cave to the "wing nuts". He changed his tune because many Democrats in the House were about to join with the Republicans to craft a bill to change and possibly repeal Obamacare. Smarten up, all of those cancelled policies were not "junk". Most were policies that people spent a lot of time deciding what they/their families needed and wanted in an insurance policy. These policyholders would not have a reason to switch to the exchanges, so Obama considered the policies "junk". Another lie to get people into the program.


40 did


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> Unfortunately we have no choice but to deal with it, one shovel full at a time.


How delicately you put that. The good thing is, at least we don't have to deal with Mitt Romney.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

MaidInBedlam said:


> News analyses and opinion pieces are worthless, as I already said to LL. I understand that you want to post something informative, but this isn't the way to do so.


Not all opinion pieces or analyses are worthless. It depends on who's doing the analysis and what you want to get out of the article. Not all of us are capable of reading or watching news and putting all the parts together, esp. if they appear over a period of time. I find it helpful to read what an informed person can get out of the news.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Not all opinion pieces or analyses are worthless. It depends on who's doing the analysis and what you want to get out of the article. Not all of us are capable of reading or watching news and putting all the parts together, esp. if they appear over a period of time. I find it helpful to read what an informed person can get out of the news.


 :thumbup: :thumbup:
I think that the validity of those pieces lies in the recognition that they are opinion or news alalysis. 
Just like when watching MSNBC one must realize that while the basis may be there they are leaning "forward". LOL


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> How delicately you put that. The good thing is, at least we don't have to deal with Mitt Romney.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: Thank you Purl.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> Not all opinion pieces or analyses are worthless. It depends on who's doing the analysis and what you want to get out of the article. Not all of us are capable of reading or watching news and putting all the parts together, esp. if they appear over a period of time. I find it helpful to read what an informed person can get out of the news.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Yuck. You're absolutely right.
> 
> How's the fabric going, Empress Bratty? I am currently inundated by yarn and don't know where I'm going to put it.


Empress Purl, I figure another week and it will all be washed, ironed and stored. I have a ton of scraps to deal with. But I have really moved the "mountain".


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Lack of money didn't kill anyone in Benghazi, the combo of Hillary and Obama did. The Congressional hearings and reports PROVED that fact.


No they did not prove that Hilary and Obama killed the 4 in Benghazi. It was proven that *terrorists* killed them. 
And again I will ask why did Stevens turn down extra security when it was suggested that he have it?

I truly believe that you can't distinguish a lie from the truth.
Look up the meaning of truth in the dictionary, then practice speaking it.

The thought of the Clintons back in the White House must scare the hell out of you. Oh wait, you are hell.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I suggest you listen to the congressional committees report of the interviews of the survivors. Then you may hear the truth. They are the ones who were there.


They are afraid of the truth. It also reports another lie, a lie about signing another gag order when it was not needed. To make matters worse, they were given this order during a memorial service for the murdered CIA men at Langley.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I suggest you get a life and put this one to rest.



joeysomma said:


> I suggest you listen to the congressional committees report of the interviews of the survivors. Then you may hear the truth. They are the ones who were there.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

damemary said:


> I suggest you get a life and put this one to rest.


I would suggest that you would honor the memory of the 4 murdered Americans and want to know the truth. But then again, that might not be possible for an Obamacultists that believes the murders were caused by a YouTube video.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Benghazi was a tragic incident that took the lives of four good men serving in a CIA outpost. I honor their sacrifice.

Extra support was refused, for whatever reason. There was no intent to harm these good men by our government. They were highly trained operatives who understood the risks they were taking.

I find it tragic that their sacrifice is being exploited for political gain by the GOP. So stuff a sock in it and stop bringing it up.

If you don't you are proving that you are exploiting the incident for political purposes.



lovethelake said:


> I would suggest that you would honor the memory of the 4 murdered Americans and want to know the truth. But then again, that might not be possible for an Obamacultists that believes the murders were caused by a YouTube video.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I suggest you listen to the congressional committees report of the interviews of the survivors. Then you may hear the truth. They are the ones who were there.


She probably doesn't listen to much of anybody and denies and despises all truth. Her gig is to post an insulting comment and then leave.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> I would suggest that you would honor the memory of the 4 murdered Americans and want to know the truth. But then again, that might not be possible for an Obamacultists that believes the murders were caused by a YouTube video.


 :thumbup:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> Benghazi was a tragic incident that took the lives of four good men serving in a CIA outpost. I honor their sacrifice.
> 
> Extra support was refused, for whatever reason. There was no intent to harm these good men by our government. They were highly trained operatives who understood the risks they were taking.
> 
> ...


You would think that after "liberal" media outlet (CBS) had to backtrack on the report they orchestrated on 60 Minutes in order to disguise their author's book tour stop on the show as reliable information the people who want to continue to scream the lies of Obama Administration responsibility would at least hold off until the American public has had time to forget that series of lies. 
Yup, that is correct. You know how that communication business works. CBS owns Simon and Schuster publisher not just of Mr. Davies' fantasy but for Glenn Beck.

Odder still is that "Dylan Davies" was not some special ops man acting as mercenary when he was supposedly smashing people in the head at Benghazi, his background is at Faux Noise.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/177082/60-minutes-benghazi-scandal-fox-news-connection

What a coincidence.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

MaidInBedlam said:


> News analyses and opinion pieces are worthless, as I already said to LL. I understand that you want to post something informative, but this isn't the way to do so.


Poor Purl, I must have needed a nap when I said the above. While some opinion pieces, editorials and news analyses aren't worth the paper they're printed on, the cn indeed bring together a range of reportage, synthesize and analyse them in a way that's very useful.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

MaidInBedlam said:


> I must have needed a nap when I said the above. While some opinion pieces, editorials and news analyses aren't worth the paper they're printed on, the cn indeed bring together a range of reportage, synthesize and analyse them in a way that's very useful.


I have said essentially the same thing, Empress MIB, when shortcutting a post. 
It does, naturally, depend on the source. 
Very often what the rightwingers post is one blog culling ficticious iinfo from another blogger and it follows that ol' Nazi truism "if you tell a lie big enough often enough..."


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

alcameron said:


> And for the laying off of policemen in Oakland, CA.
> Surely I've forgotten something.


I only wanted to address the laying off of Oakland, CA police officers. It's my hope that, while a shortage of police officers is doing Oakland no good in the short term, maybe it will do some good in the long term. I can remember 50 years of the public's opinion of the OPD, and it was always very negative. The OPD continues to be the home of police officers who resort to violence much sooner than many other police officers in many other places.

No, I'm not ignoring the fact that the residents of some Oakland neighborhoods are pooling funds to hire private security to patrol their neighborhoods because the OPD doesn't have enough officers to go around. I am also not ignoring the fact that Oakland has an incompetent mayor. What I do hope, as the economy improves, new officers who wnat to serve in the OPD will get better training, do their jobs better and change the longstanding fact that the OPD is home to officers who prefer to use violence rather than act as "peace officers" as many police in many places consider themselves to be.

Oh, I almost forgot. I am also not ignoring the huge increase in criminals pulling their guns out and shooting at the police in Oakland (and many other big cities). It's hard to be a peace officer when the violence against them starts the second the police arrive on the scene of a crime.

My greatest hope is that people will realize that if they want more and better service from police, firefighters, teachers, nurses and a whole list of people whose jobs directly affect our society as a whole, we will all have to pay for those increased and improved services. There's no getting around it. We will all have to pay higher taxes, period, or live with what we have now.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> I have said essentially the same thing, Empress MIB, when shortcutting a post.
> It does, naturally, depend on the source.
> Very often what the rightwingers post is one blog culling ficticious iinfo from another blogger and it follows that ol' Nazi truism "if you tell a lie big enough often enough..."


Thanks! :thumbup:


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Extra support was not refused, in fact the response team was told to stand down. 

Until the whole truth is known, I and others will not stop bringing it up. In fact it appears only Hilary, Obama and Obamacultists want it not brought up, wonder why that is? Could it be politically damaging? If the administration would be open and transparent all the questions would have been answered. Now the administration says it has a $10 million dollar reward for the attackers. Well there is a waste of money.............give a reporter money to cover their lunches as the terrorists give an interview and they will know where to pick them up.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> Benghazi was a tragic incident that took the lives of four good men serving in a CIA outpost. I honor their sacrifice.
> 
> Extra support was refused, for whatever reason. There was no intent to harm these good men by our government. They were highly trained operatives who understood the risks they were taking.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

MaidInBedlam said:


> Poor Purl, I must have needed a nap when I said the above. While some opinion pieces, editorials and news analyses aren't worth the paper they're printed on, the cn indeed bring together a range of reportage, synthesize and analyse them in a way that's very useful.


No biggie. But get a good night's sleep tonight; who knows what I'm going to post tomorrow?


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Director of CIA, John Brennan lied about Non-Disclosure Agreements on 9/3/2013


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

NYT's headline

UnitedHealth Culls Doctors From Medicare Advantage Plans
Physicians in 10 States Notified; Insurer Cites 'Funding Pressure' From Federal Government

By MELINDA BECK CONNECT
Updated Nov. 16, 2013 8:00 p.m. ETe:

Now I find the word 'CULLS' unsettling. Here is the definition of cull from Webster's:
: 1 to select from a group : choose <culled the best passages from the poet's work>

: 2 to reduce or control the size of (as a herd) by removal (as by hunting) of especially weaker animals; also : to hunt or kill (animals) as a means of population control
 cull·er noun

So now Obamacare considers doctors as animals, in a large herd that needs to be thinned out.

Sounds like the beginning of Death Panels for our Seniors.


----------



## Lkholcomb (Aug 25, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> NYT's headline
> 
> UnitedHealth Culls Doctors From Medicare Advantage Plans
> Physicians in 10 States Notified; Insurer Cites 'Funding Pressure' From Federal Government
> ...


I am not a huge fan of the ACA, but you cannot blame it for all of this. Insurance has been culling doctors, and other organizations all along. I know because I worked for a doctors office and they told me that he insurance company can refuse to work with the doctors (not have a contract and view them as out of network). This was confirmed later by another docor's office when I was a patient. We had problems with insurance not wanting to cover something. The office told us that we needed to fight it because they couldn't really because then the insurance could (and most likely would) pull their contract or not renew.

The insurance companies may SAY it's because of the ACA but they are notorious for lying and underhanded dealings. Like the issue Humana got in trouble for lately.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lkholcomb said:


> I am not a huge fan of the ACA, but you cannot blame it for all of this. Insurance has been culling doctors, and other organizations all along. I know because I worked for a doctors office and they told me that he insurance company can refuse to work with the doctors (not have a contract and view them as out of network). This was confirmed later by another docor's office when I was a patient. We had problems with insurance not wanting to cover something. The office told us that we needed to fight it because they couldn't really because then the insurance could (and most likely would) pull their contract or not renew.
> 
> The insurance companies may SAY it's because of the ACA but they are notorious for lying and underhanded dealings. Like the issue Humana got in trouble for lately.


And the suit against Anthem Blue Cross:
http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/title/anthem-blue-cross-faces-lawsuit-over-illegal-cancellations


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Extra support was not refused, in fact the response team was told to stand down.
> 
> Until the whole truth is known, I and others will not stop bringing it up. In fact it appears only Hilary, Obama and Obamacultists want it not brought up, wonder why that is? Could it be politically damaging? If the administration would be open and transparent all the questions would have been answered. Now the administration says it has a $10 million dollar reward for the attackers. Well there is a waste of money.............give a reporter money to cover their lunches as the terrorists give an interview and they will know where to pick them up.


The truth of Benghazi, while we know already some, might just come out sooner than the end of Obama's term. Since Obama is in such hot water now because of the ACA, there may be some turncoats to out the truth sooner than expected. Then, too, perhaps the truth will prevail to stop Hillary in her run for the Oval Office. Her role in Benghazi was nearly as deplorable as Obama's.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> The truth of Benghazi, while we know already some, might just come out sooner than the end of Obama's term. Since Obama is in such hot water now because of the ACA, there may be some turncoats to out the truth sooner than expected. Then, too, perhaps the truth will prevail to stop Hillary in her run for the Oval Office. Her role in Benghazi was nearly as deplorable as Obama's.


Did you see the SNL skit on Obamacare?

http://www.hitfix.com/comedy/saturday-night-live-takes-on-obamacare-in-a-mock-paxil-ad


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> Did you see the SNL skit on Obamacare?
> 
> http://www.hitfix.com/comedy/saturday-night-live-takes-on-obamacare-in-a-mock-paxil-ad


No, sorry.

I'm wondering how many of the Dems will split from their Party position and NOT stand with Obama on ObamaNoCare.

Will be interesting.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> .


Thanks for that, gave me a chuckle.

Now where can I get me one of them rainbow poopin' unicorns?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Thanks for that, gave me a chuckle.
> 
> Now where can I get me one of them rainbow poopin' unicorns?


In Neverland. Like everything else the GOP promises.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> The truth of Benghazi, while we know already some, might just come out sooner than the end of Obama's term. Since Obama is in such hot water now because of the ACA, there may be some turncoats to out the truth sooner than expected. Then, too, perhaps the truth will prevail to stop Hillary in her run for the Oval Office. Her role in Benghazi was nearly as deplorable as Obama's.


Blah blah blah. Same old same old sh....


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> The truth of Benghazi, while we know already some, might just come out sooner than the end of Obama's term. Since Obama is in such hot water now because of the ACA, there may be some turncoats to out the truth sooner than expected. Then, too, perhaps the truth will prevail to stop Hillary in her run for the Oval Office. Her role in Benghazi was nearly as deplorable as Obama's.


I don't believe she has announced her intentions as to whether she will run for office or not. Sounds like someone is making things up again. Tsk tsk. I can't believe how good she looked in camo. Most women would complain that it makes their hips look too big. But not Hillary! She threw them on and flew with Obama on Air Force1 and killed the ambassador and staff, just the 2 of them! 
Terrorists had nothing to do woth it at all.
That is what you want to hear, but you won't. It's been a year since that tragedy and still the congresional commitee is nowhere.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> They are afraid of the truth. It also reports another lie, a lie about signing another gag order when it was not needed. To make matters worse, they were given this order during a memorial service for the murdered CIA men at Langley.


I'm sure that gave you a horrendous case of the vapors!


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> No, sorry.
> 
> I'm wondering how many of the Dems will split from their Party position and NOT stand with Obama on ObamaNoCare.
> 
> Will be interesting.


What will be even more interesting is to hear the"plan" that the repubs don't have have to fix it.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> What will be even more interesting is to hear the"plan" that the repubs don't have have to fix it.


The Pubbie plan is posted on one of the threads, Ms Empress. 
It is quite fun.
Well, what do you know? It is right up there over our heads. 
Quite a plan, you know how they are. Get sick, die.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> She probably doesn't listen to much of anybody and denies and despises all truth. Her gig is to post an insulting comment and then leave.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: I haven't gone anywhere, and if I do not take what you say as truth, there is a good reason. Pathological liars like yourself can't speak the truth.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> No, sorry.
> 
> I'm wondering how many of the Dems will split from their Party position and NOT stand with Obama on ObamaNoCare.
> 
> Will be interesting.


Once again, the Democratic Party will never be the mess the opposing party and it's spinoff party already are. Time to visit your shrink again, KPG. You are projecting again.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> The Pubbie plan is posted on one of the threads, Ms Empress.
> It is quite fun.
> Well, what do you know? It is right up there over our heads.
> Quite a plan, you know how they are. Get sick, die.


Well maybe if they they like that plan, they can make sure that all republicans get that plan!


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: I haven't gone anywhere, and if I do not take what you say as truth, there is a good reason. Pathological liars like yourself can't speak the truth.


No Obama is the pathological liar like all of the Obamacults.

Wonder if he will be starting his new apology tour again or just send a letter to the terrorists?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> No Obama is the pathological liar like all of the Obamacults.
> 
> Wonder if he will be starting his new apology tour again or just send a letter to the terrorists?


Do you think that just repeating something _ad infinitum_ makes it true? Or even amusing?

BTW, when you wrote "Obamacults," did you mean "Obamacultists"? Don't you have that as a macro yet?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Do you think that just repeating something _ad infinitum_ makes it true? Or even amusing?
> 
> BTW, when you wrote "Obamacults," did you mean "Obamacultists"? Don't you have that as a macro yet?


Yes, Empress, LTL does think that constant repetition makes it so. Her Nazi friends have taught her that, that was the official origin, the Nazis, correct?
It certainly doesn't make it amusing.

Thanks for the smile.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Yes, Empress, LTL does think that constant repetition makes it so. Her Nazi friends have taught her that, that was the official origin, the Nazis, correct?
> It certainly doesn't make it amusing.
> 
> Thanks for the smile.


Yes - make the lie big enough and it will be believed. At least the Nazis at the top knew they were lying; our small-n nazis certainly don't.

Your message made me wonder what a Nazi stand-up comic would be like. Maybe

Two Jews go into a bar, and neither of them comes out alive. Hmm, I think the act needs work.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> Do you think that just repeating something _ad infinitum_ makes it true? Or even amusing?
> 
> BTW, when you wrote "Obamacults," did you mean "Obamacultists"? Don't you have that as a macro yet?


 Obama did until he was recently proven wrong. Another lie that was repeated was the attack on the Consulate was because of a video, how many times did that get repeated? That too was proven wrong. Then there was the lie about he only found out about the IRS scandal from what he heard on the news. It's quite a list, definitely a work in progress.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> Obama did until he was recently proven wrong. Another lie that was repeated was the attack on the Consulate was because of a video, how many times did that get repeated? That too was proven wrong. Then there was the lie about he only found out about the IRS scandal from what he heard on the news. It's quite a list, definitely a work in progress.


Back it up with something other than the Washington Times.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> Obama did until he was recently proven wrong. Another lie that was repeated was the attack on the Consulate was because of a video, how many times did that get repeated? That too was proven wrong. Then there was the lie about he only found out about the IRS scandal from what he heard on the news. It's quite a list, definitely a work in progress.


1. Working backwards, the IRS "scandal" was no such thing. It wasn't only conservative organizations that were investigated; liberal ones were, too. Who cares when he "found out" about something that didn't happen? 2. It didn't get repeated by the administration but by news media. The administration moved to a terrorist attack the following day. 3. He's generally a liar? You may be right, but he's no worse a liar than his predecessor, who has never admitted the fact that there were no WMD in Iraq at the time we invaded.

At what point in his presidency did you come to see him as a liar? (I realized it when it became clear that he was not going to close down Guantanamo; I was convinced when the ACA went through without a public option.) I'd love to see your answer.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> 1. Working backwards, the IRS "scandal" was no such thing. It wasn't only conservative organizations that were investigated; liberal ones were, too. Who cares when he "found out" about something that didn't happen? 2. It didn't get repeated by the administration but by news media. The administration moved to a terrorist attack the following day. 3. He's generally a liar? You may be right, but he's no worse a liar than his predecessor, who has never admitted the fact that there were no WMD in Iraq at the time we invaded.
> 
> At what point in his presidency did you come to see him as a liar? (I realized it when it became clear that he was not going to close down Guantanamo; I was convinced when the ACA went through without a public option.) I'd love to see your answer.


Are we going to have a pool, I am thinking it was 'round the end of 2007.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Are we going to have a pool, I am thinking it was 'round the end of 2007.


Exactly what I was thinking. Or maybe earlier.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Exactly what I was thinking. Or maybe earlier.


Could be, I can't remember when Sen. McCain had things wrapped up.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> 1. Working backwards, the IRS "scandal" was no such thing. It wasn't only conservative organizations that were investigated; liberal ones were, too. Who cares when he "found out" about something that didn't happen? 2. It didn't get repeated by the administration but by news media. The administration moved to a terrorist attack the following day. 3. He's generally a liar? You may be right, but he's no worse a liar than his predecessor, who has never admitted the fact that there were no WMD in Iraq at the time we invaded.
> 
> At what point in his presidency did you come to see him as a liar? (I realized it when it became clear that he was not going to close down Guantanamo; I was convinced when the ACA went through without a public option.) I'd love to see your answer.


Yes, liberal groups were also investigated, but not to the same extent as the Tea Party groups. Many of those groups didn't receive their status for years, not so with the liberal groups that received it within a reasonable amount of time. That was mentioned in the hearings.

The administration might have said the words that it was a terrorist attack the next day, but Susan Rice repeated the lie on the Sunday morning talk shows and some time afterward. Obama and Hillary both went on for at least 2 weeks blaming the video, up to the speech at the UN. They even made their own video about it. After all that repeating, it certainly wasn't the truth.

I know all politicians lie. When Obama said he wanted to "fundamentally transform America" that phrase did it for me.
If he cared about America, he wouldn't need to transform her into something else. After that, the rest were lies to me. In his speeches he told America what he would do, so if you listened you knew what was on the horizon if he was elected. I didn't have to wait for him to become President to know he was lying. And yes Jelun, it was before 2007.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> Yes, liberal groups were also investigated, but not to the same extent as the Tea Party groups. Many of those groups didn't receive their status for years, not so with the liberal groups that received it within a reasonable amount of time. That was mentioned in the hearings.
> 
> The administration might have said the words that it was a terrorist attack the next day, but Susan Rice repeated the lie on the Sunday morning talk shows and some time afterward. Obama and Hillary both went on for at least 2 weeks blaming the video, up to the speech at the UN. They even made their own video about it. After all that repeating, it certainly wasn't the truth.
> 
> ...


Nope, you didn't have to wait. All you needed was one look.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> Yes, liberal groups were also investigated, but not to the same extent as the Tea Party groups. Many of those groups didn't receive their status for years, not so with the liberal groups that received it within a reasonable amount of time. That was mentioned in the hearings.
> 
> The administration might have said the words that it was a terrorist attack the next day, but Susan Rice repeated the lie on the Sunday morning talk shows and some time afterward. Obama and Hillary both went on for at least 2 weeks blaming the video, up to the speech at the UN. They even made their own video about it. After all that repeating, it certainly wasn't the truth.
> 
> ...


Your allegation about the video story being used for 2 weeks after 15th or 16th is just not true. The problem for the media was that the administration stopped talking while investigating. 
I am not sure why you don't understand that having a world wide reaction to that video would not preclude terrorist attacks. 
I know it is very difficult to understand that a glider and a rocket can function at the same time. They do, however.
Your allegation about all politicians lying says much more about you than it does pols.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

For those of you who credit the ACA with causing the rise in health insurance premiums, I recommend the following video:

https://www.markfiore.com/mark-fior...sage-from-the-health-insurers-of-america.html


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> This is exactly 2 weeks after 9/11/2012 She did not say 15 or 16.
> 
> Transcript: President Obama Talks to the U.N. about Mideast Peace, Iran
> 
> ...


So you believe that because several separate and unique events are all mentioned in the same speech that there is an assumption of cause and effect?
Is there something about the plural that you don't understand or are you trying to pretend that there were not several attacks on embassies on 9/11 and the days around that date?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> So you believe that because several separate and unique events are all mentioned in the same speech that there is an assumption of cause and effect?
> Is there something about the plural that you don't understand or are you trying to pretend that there were not several attacks on embassies on 9/11 and the days around that date?


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> The statements I posted were just to tell you what you said after soloweygirl's quoted statement was wrong.
> 
> I am just correcting you. She said 2 weeks not 15 or 16 days. Also it was exactly two weeks and they were still talking about the video.


Thank you Joey. There are some people out there that are so enamored with Obama that they will not admit when he is wrong. In the end, Hilllary's answer was what difference does it make if it was a terrorist attack or a video (paraphrased) kind of says it all. Just lie, the people of this country do not matter.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> The statements I posted were just to tell you what you said after soloweygirl's quoted statement was wrong.
> 
> I am just correcting you. She said 2 weeks not 15 or 16 days. Also it was exactly two weeks and they were still talking about the video.


They? That "they" you refer to is the President of The United States. They is a plural pronoun, who else?
He gave a speech to the UN, that speech was not about the murders in Benghazi, it was about historical events in the Middle East and Africa over the course of a year. 
I hope that rope doesn't fray as you twist and spin. 
No more.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> She was right and you were wrong.
> 
> It goes back to you said 15 or 16 days and sowleygirl said 2 weeks. You could not even copy what she said.


Isn't that always the case? Yep, 'they' are wrong as usual.

Good for you, Joey, for setting jelun straight.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pittsburgh-and-erie-dioceses-win-injunction-in-key-hhs-case?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register#When:2013-11-25%2007:08:01

Hope this link goes through. Pray that this is a step in the right direction, and Religious Freedom is honored.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

lovethelake said:


> http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pittsburgh-and-erie-dioceses-win-injunction-in-key-hhs-case?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register#When:2013-11-25%2007:08:01
> 
> Hope this link goes through. Pray that this is a step in the right direction, and Religious Freedom is honored.


Didn't read the entire article - but happy things are starting to be done correctly and shut down the stupid law called Obamacare.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> They? That "they" you refer to is the President of The United States. They is a plural pronoun, who else?
> He gave a speech to the UN, that speech was not about the murders in Benghazi, it was about historical events in the Middle East and Africa over the course of a year.
> I hope that rope doesn't fray as you twist and spin.
> No more.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

How many angels dance on the head of a pin? Not interested.



joeysomma said:


> She was right and you were wrong.
> 
> It goes back to you said 15 or 16 days and sowleygirl said 2 weeks. You could not even copy what she said.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


No answer yet, you'll notice. 
Just a bunch of "guess you told her" doggie dinner style.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Isn't that always the case? Yep, 'they' are wrong as usual.
> 
> Good for you, Joey, for setting jelun straight.


Impossible because Joey, like yourself, have no logical thought process. But you always claim victory.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I honor separation of church and state.



lovethelake said:


> http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/pittsburgh-and-erie-dioceses-win-injunction-in-key-hhs-case?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NCRegisterDailyBlog+National+Catholic+Register#When:2013-11-25%2007:08:01
> 
> Hope this link goes through. Pray that this is a step in the right direction, and Religious Freedom is honored.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> I honor separation of church and state.


Wouldn't it be nice if everyone had their wishes about their personal beliefs respected?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Here's someone whose understanding of the Constitution is on a par with Joeysomma's:

Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 03:04 PM PST
*Christian Militia Claims 'Authority' To Shoot And Kill Obama*

by Leslie SalzilloFollow

So now, Right-Wing 'Christian' extremists are making death threats against President Obama, and on Facebook. The administrator, 'Everest,' for the Facebook group Christian American Patriots Militia begins his post on November 19th, with:

We now have the authority to shoot Obama, i.e., to kill him."

Well, its a federal crime, i.e. a felony to make threats against any president.

A large number of people on Facebook have claim they reported the post and site. Some folks even say they contacted the FBI and Secret Service. Apparently, the authorities are fully aware, watching, and waiting. The penalty for a someone making a threat is far less, than if someone attempts to make good on that threat. And the authorities will be right there waiting for them, ready to snap them up.

Here is the Facebook status:

18 USC § 871  Threats against President and successors to the Presidency

(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(b) The terms President-elect and Vice President-elect as used in this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the offices of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2. The phrase other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President as used in this section shall mean the person next in the order of succession to act as President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 19 and 20.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Then you are honoring something that is not in the Constitution. The words "wall of separation" do not appear, and have never appeared in the Constitution.
> 
> Amendment I
> 
> _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._


I am so sick of this broken record. There is no vote for women in the US Constitution either as it was written by the Founding FATHERS, as there was no vote for poor landless males, or for anyone other than that tiny 6% of the population. 
So is that how voting should be because the US Constitution didn't address it?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Interesting, from Media Matters:

Fox News blamed Obamacare for layoffs at the Cleveland Clinic. Just one problem: there aren't any layoffs. A spokeswoman for the Clinic explained the real story to Tyler Hansen - and noted that they've been trying to get Fox to correct the record. http://mm4a.org/1bPRbeV Related: Economists agree the ACA is already successful in controlling health care costs. So why is the media ignoring that? http://mm4a.org/1a4EKL2


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

The Secret Service is tense enough without this nonsense.......



Poor Purl said:


> Here's someone whose understanding of the Constitution is on a par with Joeysomma's:
> 
> Sat Nov 23, 2013 at 03:04 PM PST
> *Christian Militia Claims 'Authority' To Shoot And Kill Obama*
> ...


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Important news from Andy Borowitz:

DECEMBER 1, 2013
G.O.P.: HEALTHCARE.GOV TOO FAST NOW
POSTED BY ANDY BOROWITZ

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)Republican critics of Obamacare rose up in anger today, claiming that, after two months of fixes, the healthcare.gov Web site is now unacceptably fast.

Leading the howls of protest was the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who accused President Obama of designing a Web site that operates at a blistering, breakneck speed.

With pages loading in milliseconds, this Web site is insuring people before they know what hit them, Rep. Issa charged. Clearly, this is what the President and his team had in mind.

Additionally, Rep. Issa said, at such high speeds it is questionable whether this Web site is even safe for consumers to use, particularly the elderly.

The California Republican said he would call for hearings this week to investigate the dangerous new velocity of healthcare.gov, telling reporters, If anyone can slow this thing down, its me.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> They are reducing the employees at the Cleveland Clinic by 3000, but they want to do it by early retirements and not replacing those that do quit or retire.


Source, please.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> FOX news


If you had understood the piece I posted, you would have seen that Fox news made up the story in the first place. Most people would recognize that in such a case you can't use it as a source, but that would involve the use of logic.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> It is in the Constitution just like the freedom of religion. Both are in Amendments.
> 
> AMENDMENT XIX
> Passed by Congress June 4, 1919. Ratified August 18, 1920.
> ...


Finish reading. ....as written by founding fathers. Not how it is now. Did you ever graduate 3rd grade?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

ute4kp said:


> Finish reading. ....as written by founding fathers. Not how it is now. Did you ever graduate 3rd grade?


Ute, I think you're expecting too much.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

To counter your three September 18 pieces, including one by Faux News, here's something from Media Matters from the end of November. Note the boldface text at the end:

Fox News reported that the Cleveland Clinic was instituting "massive layoffs" due to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, but when asked about the reports, a Clinic spokesperson told Media Matters, "We're not."

On November 25, The Daily Caller published an article titled, "Top U.S. hospital laying off staff due to Obamacare." On Fox Business' Markets Now, host Connell McShane reported on the "massive layoffs." America's Newsroom host Bill Hemmer claimed that the Cleveland Clinic was going to "shed workers." Later, during the America's News HQ, Fox reporter Chris Stirewalt claimed that the layoffs "rocked the community there in northeastern Ohio."

But there's one problem: the Cleveland Clinic is not laying off any employees. Eileen Sheil, Cleveland Clinic's Executive Director of Corporate Communications, said in an e-mail to Media Matters, "There have been several mis-reports and they keep mentioning that we're laying off 3,000 employees. We're not." Sheil explained that Cleveland Clinic is offering voluntary retirement to 3,000 eligible employees and that the Clinic is also "working on many initiatives to lower costs, drive efficiencies, reduce duplication of services across our system and provide quality care to our patients." Sheil continued, "Many of these initiatives do not impact our employees."

Sheil told Media Matters that Fox had been notified of its error and that the Cleveland Clinic requested Fox's future reporting on the issue more accurately present the Clinic's plans. According to a Media Matters search, Fox had not corrected its mistake by the time of publication.

Despite Fox's reporting, Sheil reiterated the Clinic's support for the Affordable Care Act, stating:

We believe reform is necessary because the current state is unsustainable. The ACA is a step toward that change and we believe more changes will come/evolve as there are still many uncertainties. Hospitals must be responsible and do what we can to prepare and support the law.

Fox's continued focus on the Cleveland Clinic is due, presumably, to President Obama's frequent praise of the hospital. *In September, host Greta Van Susteren acknowledged the network's flawed reporting on the Cleveland Clinic after it was cited by U.S. Sen. John Barasso (R-WY) on her program.*



joeysomma said:


> Citing Obamacare, Cleveland Clinic to Cut $300M, Warns of Layoff
> 
> Spokesperson says aim is to 'keep care affordable.'
> 
> ...


http://www.wkyc.com/news/article/314788/33/Cleveland-Clinic-layoffs-coming-as-part-of-cost-reductions

http://fox8.com/2013/09/18/cleveland-clinic-employees-react-to-big-budget-cuts/[/quote]


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

The need for healthcare reform has been an issue long before the ACA was conceived and written. Currently healthcare costs represent 17% of the GDP, projected to rise to 20% by 2021. This rapid rise is unsustainable. Clinics and medical centers across the country have recognized this and have been trying to streamline services and cut costs by instituting practices and standards designed to do that without harming the quality of delivery of patient services. We as patients may have to get used to new delivery models. To say that the ACA is responsible for all the job layoffs, reduction in ability of healthcare needs being met, and other accusations is just not correct.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/10/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries.html


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

alcameron said:


> The need for healthcare reform has been an issue long before the ACA was conceived and written. Currently healthcare costs represent 17% of the GDP, projected to rise to 20% by 2021. This rapid rise is unsustainable. Clinics and medical centers across the country have recognized this and have been trying to streamline services and cut costs by instituting practices and standards designed to do that without harming the quality of delivery of patient services. We as patients may have to get used to new delivery models. To say that the ACA is responsible for all the job layoffs, reduction in ability of healthcare needs being met, and other accusations is just not correct.
> 
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/10/health-costs-how-the-us-compares-with-other-countries.html


Hilarious, you quote PBS, the company that fired Juan Williams as a reputable source.

Considering my Source of information is the Cleveland Plain Dealer, and the Cleveland Clinics laying people off has a tremendous detrimental economic impact on the area. Also you should be aware, that the Clinic has narrowed what insurance plans it will accept, which limits access to the Clinic.

What is sad is that the Obamacultists refuse to admit that there are any problems. They are ostriches with their heads in the Obama ashes of the Obamacare train wreck. Though the purpose of improving health care is admirable, the bill was hastily and poorly written to the point it is impossible to implement. The web site is a horror that lacks security. If only he had stayed on top of it's progress and admitted that Obamacare was not ready for Prime Time. But his arrogance would not allow it. A true leader would have admitted his error and try to fix it before it ruins millions of people's lives.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Hilarious, you quote PBS, the company that fired Juan Williams as a reputable source.
> 
> Considering my Source of information is the Cleveland Plain Dealer, and the Cleveland Clinics laying people off has a tremendous detrimental economic impact on the area. Also you should be aware, that the Clinic has narrowed what insurance plans it will accept, which limits access to the Clinic.
> 
> What is sad is that the Obamacultists refuse to admit that there are any problems. They are ostriches with their heads in the Obama ashes of the Obamacare train wreck. Though the purpose of improving health care is admirable, the bill was hastily and poorly written to the point it is impossible to implement. The web site is a horror that lacks security. If only he had stayed on top of it's progress and admitted that Obamacare was not ready for Prime Time. But his arrogance would not allow it. A true leader would have admitted his error and try to fix it before it ruins millions of people's lives.


Gee, you had no comment when I cited someone at the Cleveland Clinic saying that there are no layoffs and that Fox had been asked to correct their statement but wouldn't.

You'd be taken a lot more seriously if you didn't simply repeat the same thing again and again. Especially if you didn't use the term "Obamacultists," over and over and over.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Hilarious, you quote PBS, the company that fired Juan Williams as a reputable source.
> 
> Considering my Source of information is the Cleveland Plain Dealer, and the Cleveland Clinics laying people off has a tremendous detrimental economic impact on the area. Also you should be aware, that the Clinic has narrowed what insurance plans it will accept, which limits access to the Clinic.
> 
> What is sad is that the Obamacultists refuse to admit that there are any problems. They are ostriches with their heads in the Obama ashes of the Obamacare train wreck. Though the purpose of improving health care is admirable, the bill was hastily and poorly written to the point it is impossible to implement. The web site is a horror that lacks security. If only he had stayed on top of it's progress and admitted that Obamacare was not ready for Prime Time. But his arrogance would not allow it. A true leader would have admitted his error and try to fix it before it ruins millions of people's lives.


So pathetic. Can I help it if righties and Teabaggers refuse to believe facts but search out the lies that agree with their point of view?
Still waiting for your rationalization of the message of Pope Francis. I'm sure you're avoiding reading it. Still searching your conscience? Oh, wait---do you have one that's morally based?


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

momeee said:


> Oh, dear, o is losing more big $$$ supporters...wonder why?
> 
> Oprah Tells Obama 'No' for Obamacare Help
> Sunday, 20 Oct 2013
> ...


momeee
having taken lots of time to observe he ugliness coming from the Obama haters, it is becoming oh so obvious that they are losing big time and keep bringing up lies and twist and turn the truth trying to convince others of things which never happened and never will.
Joined a group to check on ill-meaning folks trying to immensely undermine Obamacare. It is amazing what they will do to keep fellow citizens from getting affordable health care. Oh such Christian bunch of Devils we are dealing with right now.
Back to checking on the devilish behavior. See you sometime
soon again. Thanks for computers, it makes it easy to discover the scoundrels.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Not surprising, only Obamacultist would think that a reduction of force through 'retirement' and not being replaced is not a loss of jobs. But, maybe they must parse their words, layoff vs urged retirement without replacing those people so 3000 less people will work at the Clinic as more palatable.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Not surprising, only Obamacultist would think that a reduction of force through 'retirement' and not being replaced is not a loss of jobs. But, maybe they must parse their words, layoff vs urged retirement without replacing those people so 3000 less people will work at the Clinic as more palatable.


And only an Obamaphobe would take a 2-month-old item that was shown to be false as more believable than a 1-week-old item by a hospital spokesperson.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> And only an Obamaphobe would take a 2-month-old item that was shown to be false as more believable than a 1-week-old item by a hospital spokesperson.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> And only an Obamaphobe would take a 2-month-old item that was shown to be false as more believable than a 1-week-old item by a hospital spokesperson.


And only an Obamacultist would believe there was not tremendous pressure by the Administration to "explain" the truth to match Obama's lies. How embarrassing for Obama to have touted the Cleveland Clinic as a shining star in his Obamacare and have them unmask the lie. Guess you can't not keep your policy, your doctor or your hospital. Another Obama lie


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> And only an Obamacultist would believe there was not tremendous pressure by the Administration to "explain" the truth to match Obama's lies. How embarrassing for Obama to have touted the Cleveland Clinic as a shining star in his Obamacare and have them unmask the lie. Guess you can't not keep your policy, your doctor or your hospital. Another Obama lie


You're so far off base that nobody can begin to care what you say.
I would, however, be very interested in your view of what rhe pope said recently. I'm still waiting for you to blast him because his views are so far from yours. How do you think he feels about the ACA? Did you read his statement about inequality? Trickle-down economics? Redistribution of wealth? I'm sure even most of the American bishops are appalled by his views on poverty. I suppose poor Francis is now being labeled a socialist, communist, and every other kind of "-ist" by every right wing conservative in the US. Rush and Bill are going nuts over this pope.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Liberal Nightmare: 462 Examples Of Obamas Lying, Lawbreaking & Corruption
Posted by: Brandon Walker Posted date: December 04, 2013 In: Economics, News, Videos

http://freepatriot.org/2013/12/04/liberal-nightmare-462-examples-obamas-lying-lawbreaking-corruption/


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Wha???? The Cleveland Clinic's spokesperson said it was Fox that was lying and she couldn't convince them to change their story. I guess you couldn't comprehend what you (presumably, though I'm not so sure) read. How embarrassing for you, who have to repeat the same tired lies and dumb insults.

Your take on things is interesting, and I should start using it. If things turn out as you would like (e.g., the ACA website not working), you dance around saying neener neener, not even realizing that some people actually need this health insurance now. If, however, you're shown to be supporting a lie, you blame the Obama admin. for putting pressure on the very people who know best. If Jesus were to return in the next few months, decide that the ACA was a good thing, and take Obama up to heaven, you'd probably say the administration pressured Jesus to do what they wanted.


lovethelake said:


> And only an Obamacultist would believe there was not tremendous pressure by the Administration to "explain" the truth to match Obama's lies. How embarrassing for Obama to have touted the Cleveland Clinic as a shining star in his Obamacare and have them unmask the lie. Guess you can't not keep your policy, your doctor or your hospital. Another Obama lie


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

momeee said:


> Liberal Nightmare: 462 Examples Of Obamas Lying, Lawbreaking & Corruption
> Posted by: Brandon Walker Posted date: December 04, 2013 In: Economics, News, Videos
> 
> http://freepatriot.org/2013/12/04/liberal-nightmare-462-examples-obamas-lying-lawbreaking-corruption/


Actually, my worst nightmare is to have you posting untrue items day after day after day. Actually, even if they were - by some stretch of the imagination - true, I'd still have bad dreams about you.


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Actually, my worst nightmare is to have you posting untrue items day after day after day. Actually, even if they were - by some stretch of the imagination - true, I'd still have bad dreams about you.


Wow, you dream about me. You do need to get out of the city more, drink super sized Cokes and breathe clean air instead of living in a 'nanny state'. If I lose power due to the ice storm, my generator is ready, soups in the crockpots, firewood stacked by the fireplace and wood burning stoves, plenty of water...........life is so good.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Wow, you dream about me. You do need to get out of the city more, drink super sized Cokes and breathe clean air instead of living in a 'nanny state'. If I lose power due to the ice storm, my generator is ready, soups in the crockpots, firewood stacked by the fireplace and wood burning stoves, plenty of water...........life is so good.


My message was not to you; you must really think a lot of yourself. But if I did dream about you, it would be something like you actually answering a question seriously, without calling anyone names. You know, the impossible dream.

Enjoy your wonderful, self-made life. Just keep off the government-maintained roads, don't ever call the police, and if your insurance company drops you because you've gotten too sick - well, tough noogies. Oh, and when they start fracking in your area, or doing mountain-top removal, you can forget about the clean air and water, too.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

I want to know what happen to all the money that was set aside to repair our roads ect. ? 

Seem goverment body raided that too for other projects just like they did with SS.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> I want to know what happen to all the money that was set aside to repair our roads ect. ?
> 
> Seem goverment body raided that too for other projects just like they did with SS.


I think you need to ask your state government about the roads - they're the ones who decide where the money goes. But since they're mainly Republicans, don't expect an answer.

And the SS money is still there. The people who told you it's gone are lying to you. But I think you believe them because they pretend to be good Christians, even though they don't seem to believe in anything Jesus said.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

I have never seen as many God and Christian haters as on this topic. Never!


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> I have never seen as many God and Christian haters as on this topic. Never!


Really? Could you name a few?


----------



## lovethelake (Apr 6, 2011)

Hey Mommee, PP dreams about both of us. Yarny and Country, maybe someday you can join us. Are you holding your breath?


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> I think you need to ask your state government about the roads - they're the ones who decide where the money goes. But since they're mainly Republicans, don't expect an answer.
> 
> And the SS money is still there. The people who told you it's gone are lying to you. But I think you believe them because they pretend to be good Christians, even though they don't seem to believe in anything Jesus said.


Now lets see the money that is put aside by the government was from our taxes, which the Federal goverment has I think you know that much. It is them doled out to the states for road repairs ect. Now a dear Democrats wants to have more money and higher taxes.

I still want to know where that money went too. The congress all of them looted SS funds not a lie you may want to check this out for yourself. They now the whole congress seem to have empty the highway funding too.

Remember the bridge to no where in Alaska????

As to your mention my faith, what did I say to you that gave you the right to attack me .

You always claim the right attacks you well may be you should check your post too.

I did not attack I ask a question???


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Really? Could you name a few?


You seem to love to do that but then you did it before the name change too.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> Now lets see the money that is put aside by the government was from our taxes, which the Federal goverment has I think you know that much. It is them doled out to the states for road repairs ect. Now a dear Democrats wants to have more money and higher taxes.
> 
> I still want to know where that money went too. The congress all of them looted SS funds not a lie you may want to check this out for yourself. They now the whole congress seem to have empty the highway funding too.
> 
> ...


You have a lot of questions here, but I have no real time to look for answers. I will take your last question: If you read what I wrote, I said nothing about *your* faith. I have no doubt that you are a good and sincere Christian, and I have a lot of respect for that. What I was criticizing (I deny I was "attacking" ) was people who *claim* to be Christian when they are not.

The money collected for SS is invested in U.S. Treasury bills, as it always has been, so it will still be there when needed. I think you have read something different, but I believe the people who wrote it were lying, or at least not being entirely truthful. I don't understand how the people who want to cut down on food stamps or Medicaid can be called Christians, since they would rather take care of the rich than the poor. It is these false Christians that I was criticizing.

I apologize for such a long message, but I wanted to be clear about what I was saying, since you seemed to misunderstand me the first time.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Huh? I don't understand that. I love to do what? And what name change?


theyarnlady said:


> You seem to love to do that but then you did it before the name change too.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

@ LTL: Hey Mommee, PP dreams about both of us. Yarny and Country, maybe someday you can join us. Are you holding your breath?
She is certainly not worth holding one's breath over...unless she were getting close. Now that would be a nightmare, don't you think?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> Wha???? The Cleveland Clinic's spokesperson said it was Fox that was lying and she couldn't convince them to change their story. I guess you couldn't comprehend what you (presumably, though I'm not so sure) read. How embarrassing for you, who have to repeat the same tired lies and dumb insults.
> 
> Your take on things is interesting, and I should start using it. If things turn out as you would like (e.g., the ACA website not working), you dance around saying neener neener, not even realizing that some people actually need this health insurance now. If, however, you're shown to be supporting a lie, you blame the Obama admin. for putting pressure on the very people who know best. If Jesus were to return in the next few months, decide that the ACA was a good thing, and take Obama up to heaven, you'd probably say the administration pressured Jesus to do what they wanted.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Wouldn't it be a step in the right direction if people would fact-check before posting instead of just finding something that agrees with their philosophy and shouting it from the rooftop?

I know. I'm dreaming. Their was a time when nearly everyone did that for their own self-respect.



Poor Purl said:


> Actually, my worst nightmare is to have you posting untrue items day after day after day. Actually, even if they were - by some stretch of the imagination - true, I'd still have bad dreams about you.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Ah. I see you have difficulty understanding the written word. "Dream" is not the same as a "nightmare." Glad you're enjoying your day.



lovethelake said:


> Wow, you dream about me. You do need to get out of the city more, drink super sized Cokes and breathe clean air instead of living in a 'nanny state'. If I lose power due to the ice storm, my generator is ready, soups in the crockpots, firewood stacked by the fireplace and wood burning stoves, plenty of water...........life is so good.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> My message was not to you; you must really think a lot of yourself. But if I did dream about you, it would be something like you actually answering a question seriously, without calling anyone names. You know, the impossible dream.
> 
> Enjoy your wonderful, self-made life. Just keep off the government-maintained roads, don't ever call the police, and if your insurance company drops you because you've gotten too sick - well, tough noogies. Oh, and when they start fracking in your area, or doing mountain-top removal, you can forget about the clean air and water, too.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Some people make a career out of misunderstanding. It's a game to them, a way of irritating others. I think it just makes them look like fools.



Poor Purl said:


> Huh? I don't understand that. I love to do what? And what name change?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

lovethelake said:


> Hey Mommee, PP dreams about both of us. Yarny and Country, maybe someday you can join us. Are you holding your breath?


If it excites you to think I dream about you, be my guest. The pleasure's all yours.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

It is my hope that in this Season any God of Love and Mercy will get into the Hearts of those who pretend to be his followers but spread nothing but hatred, bigotry and racism.

Season's Geetings and Peace on Earth.
Huck


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Huckleberry said:


> It is my hope that in this Season any God of Love and Mercy will get into the Hearts of those who pretend to be his followers but spread nothing but hatred, bigotry and racism.
> 
> Season's Geetings and Peace on Earth.
> Huck


Well spoken, Huck.

Amen.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Actually, my worst nightmare is to have you posting untrue items day after day after day. Actually, even if they were - by some stretch of the imagination - true, I'd still have bad dreams about you.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> My message was not to you; you must really think a lot of yourself. But if I did dream about you, it would be something like you actually answering a question seriously, without calling anyone names. You know, the impossible dream.
> 
> Enjoy your wonderful, self-made life. Just keep off the government-maintained roads, don't ever call the police, and if your insurance company drops you because you've gotten too sick - well, tough noogies. Oh, and when they start fracking in your area, or doing mountain-top removal, you can forget about the clean air and water, too.


Or maybe it was to her, LTL and momeee may be one and the same?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> I think you need to ask your state government about the roads - they're the ones who decide where the money goes. But since they're mainly Republicans, don't expect an answer.
> 
> And the SS money is still there. The people who told you it's gone are lying to you. But I think you believe them because they pretend to be good Christians, even though they don't seem to believe in anything Jesus said.


We had lots of road work done here in Mass in 2009 and 2010. It was great, got us right through the toughest part of the recession and now all the work that is being done is not catch up work it is what has been scheduled and appropriated.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> If it excites you to think I dream about you, be my guest. The pleasure's all yours.


LOL, more of those sick pleasures.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Or maybe it was to her, LTL and momeee may be one and the same?


Nah. Momeee never speaks; she just posts long, insane articles. LTL, on the other hand, talks a lot but rarely if ever gives a source.

Come to think of it, they complement each other; together they might add up to a human being. Except it's clear that they don't.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> LOL, more of those sick pleasures.


 :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> We had lots of road work done here in Mass in 2009 and 2010. It was great, got us right through the toughest part of the recession and now all the work that is being done is not catch up work it is what has been scheduled and appropriated.


It's a pity such work wasn't done everywhere. Bridges collapse, roads get flooded, but so few states are making permanent repairs because they refuse to take money from the federal government. Chris Christie, 2 or 3 years ago, vetoed construction of a new tunnel (sorely needed) between NY and NJ, saying NJ couldn't afford it, *even though most of the cost would have been picked up by the feds.* They're so short-sighted.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> It's a pity such work wasn't done everywhere. Bridges collapse, roads get flooded, but so few states are making permanent repairs because they refuse to take money from the federal government. Chris Christie, 2 or 3 years ago, vetoed construction of a new tunnel (sorely needed) between NY and NJ, saying NJ couldn't afford it, *even though most of the cost would have been picked up by the feds.* They're so short-sighted.


And now Governor Christie has that possible scandal building, right? Isn't that connected somehow to highways? 
It seemed pretty simple to me, Mass just used the projects that would have had to sit and wait due to the economic issues and used stim money. 
But then, we have another talented man as Governor now that Mitt Romney has gone away. 
Which reminds me of a little cartoon I saw today...


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> And now Governor Christie has that possible scandal building, right? Isn't that connected somehow to highways?
> It seemed pretty simple to me, Mass just used the projects that would have had to sit and wait due to the economic issues and used stim money.
> But then, we have another talented man as Governor now that Mitt Romney has gone away.
> Which reminds me of a little cartoon I saw today...


Caption is very funny.

Christie's new problem is also very funny. Rachel Maddow has been on it for over a week and gives all details. It has to do with a slowdown on the NJ side of the George Washington Bridge, which Maddow says is the busiest bridge in the world. The entrance to the bridge is in a town called Fort Lee, NJ, whose Democratic mayor declined to support Christie in his run for re-election.

Shortly after he declined, state police and I don't know who else closed 3 of the 4 lanes leading from Fort Lee to the bridge, tying up traffic and causing multi-hour delays. The man who ordered the shutdown was an old friend of Christie's, but now he has resigned, so have a few other people, and Christie claims it's no big deal. He should know, being quite a large deal himself.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Caption is very funny.
> 
> Christie's new problem is also very funny. Rachel Maddow has been on it for over a week and gives all details. It has to do with a slowdown on the NJ side of the George Washington Bridge, which Maddow says is the busiest bridge in the world. The entrance to the bridge is in a town called Fort Lee, NJ, whose Democratic mayor declined to support Christie in his run for re-election.
> 
> Shortly after he declined, state police and I don't know who else closed 3 of the 4 lanes leading from Fort Lee to the bridge, tying up traffic and causing multi-hour delays. The man who ordered the shutdown was an old friend of Christie's, but now he has resigned, so have a few other people, and Christie claims it's no big deal. He should know, being quite a large deal himself.


I think that whole traffic thing is pretty amusing, too local and too early to have much impact but funny. I cringe to think about that man running for the presidential offices. 
I think he could fool way too many people. I can only hope that those who would not see that he is as much a booster of the multimillionaires and billionaires as any other candidate in the GOP are the same shallow folks who would not vote for him because he is so grossly overweight. I use the term gross as there are many times that he does look really gross. I would worry that he would not survive campaigning never mind the grind of the office.

And yes, I enjoy the snark that is Mrs. Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> I think that whole traffic thing is pretty amusing, too local and too early to have much impact but funny. I cringe to think about that man running for the presidential offices.
> I think he could fool way too many people. I can only hope that those who would not see that he is as much a booster of the multimillionaires and billionaires as any other candidate in the GOP are the same shallow folks who would not vote for him because he is so grossly overweight. I use the term gross as there are many times that he does look really gross. I would worry that he would not survive campaigning never mind the grind of the office.
> 
> And yes, I enjoy the snark that is Mrs. Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian.


My first view of Christie, on TV, was at a press conference where he was trying to make the Teachers' Union sound like the Mafia. He took a question from one teacher, who clearly wasn't on his side, and while she spoke he turned his back to her, removed his jacket, and bent over so that his rear was practically in her face while he draped his jacket over the back of a chair. It looked so choreographed, so carefully planned, that I knew immediately this was not a good guy. It's not his weight; it the way he throws it around that's unpleasant.

I've seen funny stuff about Romney's tendency to laugh at fat people. I think at one point Christie was hoping to be Mittens's running mate, but that could never have happened, even if the Koch bros. liked him.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

You're scaring me. I'm not ready to think about this candidate stuff yet. 2012 was too painful. I'm getting too old for this. Maybe it's time to think about packing up and doing the expat thing. I hear Costa Rica is nice.



Poor Purl said:


> My first view of Christie, on TV, was at a press conference where he was trying to make the Teachers' Union sound like the Mafia. He took a question from one teacher, who clearly wasn't on his side, and while she spoke he turned his back to her, removed his jacket, and bent over so that his rear was practically in her face while he draped his jacket over the back of a chair. It looked so choreographed, so carefully planned, that I knew immediately this was not a good guy. It's not his weight; it the way he throws it around that's unpleasant.
> 
> I've seen funny stuff about Romney's tendency to laugh at fat people. I think at one point Christie was hoping to be Mittens's running mate, but that could never have happened, even if the Koch bros. liked him.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> My first view of Christie, on TV, was at a press conference where he was trying to make the Teachers' Union sound like the Mafia. He took a question from one teacher, who clearly wasn't on his side, and while she spoke he turned his back to her, removed his jacket, and bent over so that his rear was practically in her face while he draped his jacket over the back of a chair. It looked so choreographed, so carefully planned, that I knew immediately this was not a good guy. It's not his weight; it the way he throws it around that's unpleasant.
> 
> I've seen funny stuff about Romney's tendency to laugh at fat people. I think at one point Christie was hoping to be Mittens's running mate, but that could never have happened, even if the Koch bros. liked him.


If not NJ's gov I think that Mr. Christie could have been a wonderful addition to the cast of Jersey Shore. That was the name, right? Snooki and the other drunks playing wannabe mobsters or something? Not that I am suggesting that he is a drunk, only that his personality would meld with the others. 
And yes, he is definitely a bully. 
I didn't mean, Empress, that thinking people couldn't overlook his weight. There are times that he looks decidedly unhealthy. I was thinking about those who, in some huge percentage, said that they could never vote for anyone but a Christian for president. That is the last semi-acceptable "affliction" to be prejudiced against.

I do like this turn of phrase, " It's not his weight; it the way he throws it around that's unpleasant."


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> You're scaring me. I'm not ready to think about this candidate stuff yet. 2012 was too painful. I'm getting too old for this. Maybe it's time to think about packing up and doing the expat thing. I hear Costa Rica is nice.


I found most of the 2012 political antics really amusing. 
It was only when President Obama really flubbed appearances and I was frightened that my former boss might actually win that I was scared. 
I thought about Costa Rica for a while. I am not sure that it is really all that nice these days, too many Americans.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> If not NJ's gov I think that Mr. Christie could have been a wonderful addition to the cast of Jersey Shore. That was the name, right? Snooki and the other drunks playing wannabe mobsters or something? Not that I am suggesting that he is a drunk, only that his personality would meld with the others.
> And yes, he is definitely a bully.
> I didn't mean, Empress, that thinking people couldn't overlook his weight. There are times that he looks decidedly unhealthy. I was thinking about those who, in some huge percentage, said that they could never vote for anyone but a Christian for president. That is the last semi-acceptable "affliction" to be prejudiced against.
> 
> I do like this turn of phrase, " It's not his weight; it the way he throws it around that's unpleasant."


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: Good assessment.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> I found most of the 2012 political antics really amusing.
> It was only when President Obama really flubbed appearances and I was frightened that my former boss might actually win that I was scared.
> I thought about Costa Rica for a while. I am not sure that it is really all that nice these days, too many Americans.


I'm afraid Americans may be the problem. And I'm also afraid when the crowd smells blood. I fear that President Obama is too open to consensus.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

More Issa, the man oinks.

http://www.occupydemocrats.com/watch-darrell-issa-caught-red-handed-cherry-picking-obamacare-leaks/

Once again, political attack-dog and Republican Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Darrell Issa, has been caught selectively cherry-picking leaks in order to push a false political narrative.

As MSNBCs Rachel Maddow points out in this informative segment, he has now been caught attempting a political hit job against Obamacare and its supposedly huge security vulnerabilities.

Unfortunately for Chairman Issa, ABC News has obtained the entire transcript of the briefing, which proves that these security risks were detected, identified, and fixed very early in the implementation process.

In their desperation to distort Pres. Obamas many legislative achievements, cherry picking leaks that further their false political narratives has become a reoccurring theme within the Republican Party and their cohorts in the mainstream media.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

And more doggie dinner... who are those Republicans and Independents (koff koff) going to vote for since they HATE HATE HATE lying chief execs? 
Just when was Ted Cruz' last trip to Iowa?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/12/29/abc-reporter-calls-out-ted-cruz-come-on-the-shutdown-was-your-fault/

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) continued this week to be in denial for his role in the 2013 government shutdown even after ABCs Jonathan Karl told him that this claims to the contrary were unbelievable.

This is a city where its all politics all the time, Cruz told Karl in an interview that aired on Sunday. And Im trying to do my best not to pay attention to the politics, to focus on fixing the problems.

Really? Karl exclaimed, clearly not buying that the Texas Republican was not paying attention to politics.

I know thats hard to believe because no one in this town does that, Cruz explained. This is a time for people to step up and do the right thing. And thats what Im trying to do.

And when it came to the government shutdown over President Barack Obamas health care reform law  that even House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) blamed on tea party-backed Republicans  Cruz insisted that his hands were clean.


----------



## peacegoddess (Jan 28, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> And now Governor Christie has that possible scandal building, right? Isn't that connected somehow to highways?
> It seemed pretty simple to me, Mass just used the projects that would have had to sit and wait due to the economic issues and used stim money.
> But then, we have another talented man as Governor now that Mitt Romney has gone away.
> Which reminds me of a little cartoon I saw today...


I heard on KPFA the other day that Mass in an effort to reduce landfill is aiming for a statewide effort to compost all food waste etc. Wow such a great idea and positive effect.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

peacegoddess said:


> I heard on KPFA the other day that Mass in an effort to reduce landfill is aiming for a statewide effort to compost all food waste etc. Wow such a great idea and positive effect.


It's starting, of course, many of us who are lucky enough to have the space in our yards have been composting for some time.

http://news.yahoo.com/massachusetts-first-state-scrap-food-waste-171338387.html


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

damemary said:


> I'm afraid Americans may be the problem. And I'm also afraid when the crowd smells blood. I fear that President Obama is too open to consensus.


Well, if you not "like" American's, then leave America! What a crock!


----------

