Affordable Care Act
- Thread starter 57Brave
- Start date
lolz, I just don't see how anyone could look at Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, or Rick Santorum and say, "That is modern conservatism." And then expect to have any sort of meaningful debate. Long hanging fruits are the easiest to pick, but the liberals on this board need to up the ante.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
I don't think they represent the entirety of the modern conservative but they certainly represent various points of the fringe. They certainly represent the Fox News conservative as well. Personally I think the better representative of the modern conservative is somewhere between Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. Pick and choose attributes from the 2 and you can find yourself.
To me, Huckabee and Ron Paul are fringy too. I see the people's brand of active conservatism championed by guys like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Scott Walker, Jeb Bush.
57Brave
Well-known member
Remember Julie Boonstra, the cancer patient who claimed in a Koch Brothers-funded ad that Obamacare got her good insurance plan cancelled and now her new insurance plan's "out-of-pocket costs are so high, it's unaffordable?"
It turns out that she's actually saving at least $1,200 a year with her new "unaffordable" insurance plan.
Boonstra's ad has come under fire before, with Sen. Harry Reid saying it (and other anti-Obamacare ads) was "untrue" last week. (Boonstra has called Reid's statement hurtful and demanded an apology.) Today, the Detroit News did even more digging and found that Boonstra's old plan cost her $13,200 a year in premiums alone. That's not including what she spent on out-of-pocket expenses, like co-pays and deductibles.
Boonstra's new "unaffordable" plan, on the other hand, will cost her $11,952 in premiums and out-of-pocket costs, which means she's saving at least $1,200 a year -- probably a lot more than that, as out-of-pocket maximums are usually several thousand dollars.
There was also the matter of a prescription drug that was covered by Boonstra's old plan but not her new one, which she has to buy with a separate prescription drug savings card. This would not be part of her out-of-pocket maximum and thus inflate her medical costs ... except that her new insurance company told the Detroit News that all of her prescriptions are covered by her plan. And that she should probably use her plan to pay for them instead of the discount card so it would apply to her out-of-pocket maximum.
When informed that she was saving money on this new unaffordable plan, Boonstra was thrilled and apologized for being mistaken earlier. Just kidding! She said it "can't be true," and "I personally do not believe that."
http://www.thewire.com/politics/201...unaffordable-saving-over-1000-year-it/359029/
It turns out that she's actually saving at least $1,200 a year with her new "unaffordable" insurance plan.
Boonstra's ad has come under fire before, with Sen. Harry Reid saying it (and other anti-Obamacare ads) was "untrue" last week. (Boonstra has called Reid's statement hurtful and demanded an apology.) Today, the Detroit News did even more digging and found that Boonstra's old plan cost her $13,200 a year in premiums alone. That's not including what she spent on out-of-pocket expenses, like co-pays and deductibles.
Boonstra's new "unaffordable" plan, on the other hand, will cost her $11,952 in premiums and out-of-pocket costs, which means she's saving at least $1,200 a year -- probably a lot more than that, as out-of-pocket maximums are usually several thousand dollars.
There was also the matter of a prescription drug that was covered by Boonstra's old plan but not her new one, which she has to buy with a separate prescription drug savings card. This would not be part of her out-of-pocket maximum and thus inflate her medical costs ... except that her new insurance company told the Detroit News that all of her prescriptions are covered by her plan. And that she should probably use her plan to pay for them instead of the discount card so it would apply to her out-of-pocket maximum.
When informed that she was saving money on this new unaffordable plan, Boonstra was thrilled and apologized for being mistaken earlier. Just kidding! She said it "can't be true," and "I personally do not believe that."
http://www.thewire.com/politics/201...unaffordable-saving-over-1000-year-it/359029/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/10/obamacare-attack-ad_n_4937650.html
Errr oops 57 posted it above me.
Errr oops 57 posted it above me.
In what political realm is Ted Cruz in the same boat as Christie and Jeb Bush??
Jeb Bush openly said we need immigration reform.
Man you have a lot of faith in the clowns you typed up.
57Brave
Well-known member
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
Oh, joy, I found another one!
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
seems like your comment is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" moment
if i was to say so
57Brave
Well-known member
Wondering you thoughts on Julie Boonstrada
weso1
<B>Clique Leader</B>
It's not a complaint, just an observation. I doubt I would say anything if he didn't do it.
Lol, Keith, just because I defend conservatives doesn't mean that I am one -- or necessarily support any of those candidates.
Partisanship is so 2008. It's almost as dated as liberals who still ignorantly defend Obama.
That being said, politics evolve. Lots of studies out recently indicate that young Republicans support abortion, immigration reform, etc. Democrats don't 'own' these positions.
How young is young?
Don't thinkt here are enough young republicans right now to nominate their candidate. The middle aged whites and seniors are still the big GOP voting block.
From yesterday's New York Times: Young Republicans Find Fault With Elders on List of Social Issues
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/11/u...young-republicans-from-their-elders.html?_r=0
I think Obama has managed to disenchant a large portion of his 'young' (let's say millenials, 18 to ~33) base with the healthcare snafu and continued job stagnation. It doesn't look like the Republicans are going to have to work very hard to poach swing voters in that demographic.
Highly doubtful.
I think millenials (most of them) see how awful and hypocritical the Republican Party is. Most would've voted for Ron Paul, but there won't be any Ron Paul-like candidates on the ticket anytime soon.
You really really really underestimate just how much the Republican Party alienated the youth vote the last 2 elections.
When someone like Santorum says "What a snob" in reference to Obama saying he wishes all kids could go to college, how does one interpret that other than Santorum is an idiot.
Or when the GOP continues to deny climate change is real, gay marriage, etc. I think millenials also see the value in alternative energies, and the fact the GOP has no leadership on this because they don't care or the stigma that the GOP has plenty of oil companies in their pockets.
The last two elections, the moderates who were ridiculed were the ones nominated because they were the most electable. McCain and Romney aren't that bad when you look at the rest of what the GOP is throwing out there, but clearly they won the noms because people looked at them and said ok they're not as crazy.
Most of the youth has seen just how disrespectful the Republican Party has been to OBama just in the first term alone not the second. Not many take kindly to the nazi socialist muslim dictator comments, unless you're a teenager in the south that loves going to church.
If you want to ignore the realities of the shift that is occurring in this country, at this moment, it's really fine by me.
Your attacks against Republicans are counterintuitive.
It's the same old liberal tripe: "Oh, let's bring up Bachman and Santorum and other fringe elements to try and label the whole party!" or "So I can avoid talking about the crippling failures of the Obama administration, let's talk about the 2008 and 2012 election cycles!" "Yes we can!"
It's psychopathy.
If that's all your belief group can muster, it's little wonder why the Democrats stand to lose Congress and the Presidency in 2016.
I mean, do you actually think people are going to vote Democrat in 2016 because the Republicans were mean to Obama? That's ludicrous.
The youth of this country are being CRUSHED. They want results, and are going to go with the group that offers them -- the Democrats had their shot, and are blowing it. Four more years of the same? I think (and beg) not.
Your attacks against Republicans are counterintuitive.
It's the same old liberal tripe: "Oh, let's bring up Bachman and Santorum and other fringe elements to try and label the whole party!" or "So I can avoid talking about the crippling failures of the Obama administration, let's talk about the 2008 and 2012 election cycles!" "Yes we can!"
It's psychopathy.
If that's all your belief group can muster, it's little wonder why the Democrats stand to lose Congress and the Presidency in 2016.
I mean, do you actually think people are going to vote Democrat in 2016 because the Republicans were mean to Obama? That's ludicrous.
The youth of this country are being CRUSHED. They want results, and are going to go with the group that offers them -- the Democrats had their shot, and are blowing it. Four more years of the same? I think (and beg) not.