|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Oct 30, 2013 20:29:37 GMT -5
Hi Mike,
I have a little problem with that link you posted about Obamacare. It says:
In fact, the author keeps repeating that the administration announced in 2010 that people would not be able to keep their original insurance. Let's ignore for the moment that the author does not give a reference to that announcement. The problem is this:
The problem is why is Obama saying that in 2012 when according to the link you posted, his administration knew this was false back in 2010?
Bob
|
|
mike
Member
Posts: 54 
|
Post by mike on Nov 1, 2013 22:39:55 GMT -5
I can't deny that Obama's claim was a bit too broad. I think Politifacts ruling gets it about right:
"Our ruling
Obama has a reasonable point: His health care law does take pains to allow Americans to keep their health plan if they want to remain on it. But Obama suggests that keeping the insurance you like is guaranteed.
In reality, Americans are not simply able to keep their insurance through thick and thin. Even before the law has taken effect, the rate of forced plan-switching among policyholders every year is substantial, and the CBO figures suggest that the law could increase that rate, at least modestly, even if Americans on balance benefit from the law’s provisions. We rate Obama’s claim Half True."
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Nov 2, 2013 12:08:58 GMT -5
I can't deny that Obama's claim was a bit too broad. Please say you're joking here. Obama promised in 2009 that people (meaning everyone) would be able to keep their present insurance, their present doctors, and would not have their premiums increase. In 2010, his own administration did a study which said that this wasn't going to happen. In fact, YOU POSTED IT! In 2012, right after the Supreme Court okayed Obamacare, the president again said that people could keep their present policies. Now there are only 3 possibilities here: 1) The president wasn't told about the 2010 study by his own administration. 2) He was told about it but he forgot. Or... 3) He knew about it but he deliberately lied. The first shows bad administration. The second shows incompetence. The third, well, he lied. Can you think of any other explanation? Are they kidding? What are these "reasonable pains" that Obamacare is taking? The reason they don't list them is that there are none. People in their 50's and 60's are being forced to pay for plans that cover maternity care! Why? Does that make any sense at all? This is definitely not a case of normal plan-switching. Up to 93 million people are being forced from their plans. This is not plan-switching Mike. It is bait-and-switch. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2013 13:41:49 GMT -5
Why are you blaming the President, Bob? It was the planets and stars that did it, right? Or were you just blowing smoke?
|
|
mike
Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by mike on Nov 2, 2013 13:48:26 GMT -5
Bob, the Politifacts quote was from your link. I assumed this meant that particular site was fair and balanced.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Nov 2, 2013 16:36:31 GMT -5
Why are you blaming the President, Bob? It was the planets and stars that did it, right? Or were you just blowing smoke? There stars impel. They don't compel. He still had free will. Bob |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Nov 2, 2013 16:39:44 GMT -5
Bob, the Politifacts quote was from your link. I assumed this meant that particular site was fair and balanced. It's a left-wing website. I quoted it only to verify that Obama was still promising in 2012 that we could keep our insurance. How could he claim that when his own administration issued a report in 2010 saying that people would not be able to keep their policies? Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2013 19:23:09 GMT -5
Why are you blaming the President, Bob? It was the planets and stars that did it, right? Or were you just blowing smoke? There stars impel. They don't compel. He still had free will. Bob Oh. that's convenient. So, if a horoscope proves inaccurate, it's because of free will. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Nov 2, 2013 20:30:14 GMT -5
There stars impel. They don't compel. He still had free will. Bob Oh. that's convenient. So, if a horoscope proves inaccurate, it's because of free will. No, of course not. Astrology is based on probabilities. The eclipse and the transit of Pluto mean that this country is going through a rough time. But, depending on who is in charge, it could be a moderately rough time or a very rough time. What we cannot have right now is smooth sailing. I think the headlines in the next few months will bear this out. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2013 20:35:02 GMT -5
Oh. that's convenient. So, if a horoscope proves inaccurate, it's because of free will. No, of course not. Astrology is based on probabilities. The eclipse and the transit of Pluto mean that this country is going through a rough time. But, depending on who is in charge, it could be a moderately rough time or a very rough time. What we cannot have right now is smooth sailing. I think the headlines in the next few months will bear this out. Bob Astrology is based on probabilites? So, might as well roll some dice, huh? So when does one have the confidence to believe your predictions? It may or may not come to be. So if it doesn't come to be it's because of some other variables. What a gimmick! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2013 20:39:52 GMT -5
I wouldn't be so upset with you, if you didn't use your astrology to come here and make it political. I think it is despicable!!!! Stop doing that!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Nov 2, 2013 21:08:03 GMT -5
No, of course not. Astrology is based on probabilities. The eclipse and the transit of Pluto mean that this country is going through a rough time. But, depending on who is in charge, it could be a moderately rough time or a very rough time. What we cannot have right now is smooth sailing. I think the headlines in the next few months will bear this out. Bob Astrology is based on probabilites? So, might as well roll some dice, huh? So when does one have the confidence to believe your predictions? It may or may not come to be. So if it doesn't come to be it's because of some other variables. What a gimmick! Gimmick? Weather forecasting does it all the time, don't they? So does life insurance. Probabilities are a legitimate scientific tool. Bob Marks |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2013 21:12:51 GMT -5
Astrology is based on probabilites? So, might as well roll some dice, huh? So when does one have the confidence to believe your predictions? It may or may not come to be. So if it doesn't come to be it's because of some other variables. What a gimmick! Gimmick? Weather forecasting does it all the time, don't they? So does life insurance. Probabilities are a legitimate scientific tool. Bob Marks Are you actually being serious? On what scientific tools do you base your astrological predictions? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Nov 2, 2013 21:13:46 GMT -5
I wouldn't be so upset with you, if you didn't use your astrology to come here and make it political. I think it is despicable!!!! Stop doing that!!! Astrology is used to make predictions. Using Astrology to make political predictions is perfectly legitimate. In fact, I'm writing a book on it. The only danger is when the astrologer lets their political views interfere with their predictions. In 1988, I attended a meeting of astrologers that were discussing the election. There wasn't a Republican in the house. Everyone on the panel picked Dukakis to win! Bob Marks |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Nov 2, 2013 21:15:08 GMT -5
Gimmick? Weather forecasting does it all the time, don't they? So does life insurance. Probabilities are a legitimate scientific tool. Bob Marks Are you actually being serious? On what scientific tools do you base your astrological predictions? I said Astrology is based on probabilities. Doing so is valid scientific procedure. Bob Marks |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2013 21:16:11 GMT -5
I wouldn't be so upset with you, if you didn't use your astrology to come here and make it political. I think it is despicable!!!! Stop doing that!!! Astrology is used to make predictions. Using Astrology to make political predictions is perfectly legitimate. In fact, I'm writing a book on it. The only danger is when the astrologer lets their political views interfere with their predictions. In 1988, I attended a meeting of astrologers that were discussing the election. There wasn't a Republican in the house. Everyone on the panel picked Dukakis to win! Bob Marks Everyone of the astrologers picked Dukakis to win. I rest my case. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2013 21:38:52 GMT -5
Are you actually being serious? On what scientific tools do you base your astrological predictions? I said Astrology is based on probabilities. Doing so is valid scientific procedure. Bob Marks What scientific procedures are you using to base your astrological probabilites on? I really resent the fact that you think me a light-weight thinker! You do it all the time. stop f--ing with me! I did not ask you to post your astrology on FACTS. You did it yourself. And now you think we should just ignore it on a skeptic board? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 2, 2013 22:40:14 GMT -5
Astrology is used to make predictions. Using Astrology to make political predictions is perfectly legitimate. Fine. But Don't ever, ever ever, do that again here! I will be on your back like a tick on a dog!!! |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Nov 3, 2013 10:14:47 GMT -5
Astrology is used to make predictions. Using Astrology to make political predictions is perfectly legitimate. In fact, I'm writing a book on it. The only danger is when the astrologer lets their political views interfere with their predictions. In 1988, I attended a meeting of astrologers that were discussing the election. There wasn't a Republican in the house. Everyone on the panel picked Dukakis to win! Bob Marks Everyone of the astrologers picked Dukakis to win. I rest my case. The were all liberal democrats and they let their personal politics affect their predictions. I rest my case. Bob |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Nov 3, 2013 10:18:15 GMT -5
I said Astrology is based on probabilities. Doing so is valid scientific procedure. Bob Marks What scientific procedures are you using to base your astrological probabilites on? I really resent the fact that you think me a light-weight thinker! You do it all the time. stop f--ing with me! I did not ask you to post your astrology on FACTS. You did it yourself. And now you think we should just ignore it on a skeptic board? Huh? Where did I ever say you are a light-weight thinker? I never did. As for posting Astrology, that was one of the original reasons for the FACTS board, to have discussions about the paranormal. Bob Marks |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Nov 3, 2013 10:21:24 GMT -5
Astrology is used to make predictions. Using Astrology to make political predictions is perfectly legitimate. Fine. But Don't ever, ever ever, do that again here! I will be on your back like a tick on a dog!!! Uh Lily, the board rules permit it. And I am going to make an astrological political prediction right now. According to the election charts, the winner of the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections will be a Democrat. Bob Marks |
|
