• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dr. Carson: Obamacare The Worst Thing That Has Happened Since Slavery

Do you remember what I was saying about leftist emotionalism? : )

Yeah man. We're just saying those liberals are basically like Hitler because they support a $695 tax penalty for not having insurance. Not sure why anyone would get so mad.

(tone fallacy)
 
You literally quoted the post explaining why they were removed. Here it is again.

Because in politics, appearance is more important than reality. Delusional people thought there were death panels, so the not-actually-death-panels clause was removed.

If they weren't really death panels, it wouldn't have been removed. I mean, for **** sake, the Libbos have let the government shutdown, to protect the Asshole Care Act, but they didn't hesitate to remove the death panel section.
 
Being elected President of the USA is not a business, but if it was Barack Obama is pretty good at it.

Obama's the biggest joke that's ever been elected to office.
 
If they weren't really death panels, it wouldn't have been removed. I mean, for **** sake, the Libbos have let the government shutdown, to protect the Asshole Care Act, but they didn't hesitate to remove the death panel section.

If CO2 weren't a pollutant, the EPA wouldn't be regulating it.
 
Actually, those that are low income and don't have insurance are subject to the same tax penalty. They are required to get insurance, even if it is free and even if they don't earn any money.

These liberal lies needs to stop now.

Yes, low-income wage earners are required to have health insurance as well. But as I said, if they meet federal-poverty limit guidelines, they can apply for health insurance credits and if eligible, avoid the penalty.

Unless they choose not to apply. Try again.

Stop trying to convolute the issue. Failure to apply for the tax credit to avoid paying the tax penalty isn't smart. But, it's up to the individual to test making themselves subject to the law accordingly. All I'm saying is there is a way for people to avoid the penalty if they so choose. One way is for low-income individuals/families to apply for the health care tax credit. The other is to apply for a waiver. Either way, it's up to the individual to decide for himself whether or not to place themselves between that proverbial rock and a hard place. Still, if you qualify for the credit, it means you intend to comply with the law and, thus, you will avoid the tax penalty. Otherwise, you make yourself subject to the punitive side of the law.
 
Last edited:
It may be seen as a bit of hyperbole by you or I, but that is a statement of opinion. Last I checked he is still entitled to his opinion in the good ol USA, isn't he comrade?

Not if you don't agree with Party doctrine...
 
If CO2 weren't a pollutant, the EPA wouldn't be regulating it.

It's not a pollutant! :lamo

Plants--plants that produce friggin' oxygen--live off CO2.

Only the idiotic Libbos in the government would classify CO2 as a pollutant.
 
Best things about Dr. Carson are that he is super articulate, he is absolutely fearless, he cannot be called a racist credibly and he is, in fact, an actual brain surgeon...so his intellectual abilities are beyond question.

Doesn't mean he can't be a wingnut.
 
But his motive is greed. He knows very well that he wont be able to exploit people like he has been doing under the current system for very long. People are realizing that doctors, hospitals and insurance companies are the main cost problem and many are exploiting people in need for massive profits.
Yes, I am absolutely sure you can look into his heart and mind and know those to be his motives... care to give us all some details of how you did that, what appears to be, incisive investigative reporting, Sherlock? Know something we don't?

Inquiring minds want to know.
 
Reality is not. An opinion can, in fact, be wrong.

no.

Definition of Objective and Subjective
Objective is a statement that is completely unbiased. It is not touched by the speaker’s previous experiences or tastes. It is verifiable by looking up facts or performing mathematical calculations.
Subjective is a statement that has been colored by the character of the speaker or writer. It often has a basis in reality, but reflects the perspective through with the speaker views reality. It cannot be verified using concrete facts and figures.

Read more: Difference Between Objective and Subjective | Difference Between | Objective vs Subjective Difference Between Objective and Subjective | Difference Between | Objective vs Subjective
 
Yes, low-income wage earners are required to have health insurance as well. But as I said, if they meet federal-poverty limit guidelines, they can apply for health insurance credits and if eligible, avoid the penalty.

Aren't those same people already getting medicare?

Why call it, "Affordable Health Care"? It's nothing but me paying someone else's way. My premiums are going up, so some porch perched lazy ass can get something for free.
 
Yet, you can't even post a few of those facts that blow his talking points out of the water.

well i didnt address any of his talking points actually but thats a good straw man, its fails but its a good try.
Good move backing off the telling "libbos" statement though

Im very familiar with Him and his views on equal rights, gays, muslims etc are enough to know he is a political cartoon.
ANd while I myself am not a sold fan on ACA, equating it to slavery is politically, logically, honestly and objectively mentally obtuse.

That statement/comparison is the height of hyperbolic fodder and brushing over that is dishonest.

Tomorrow he could make the best factually accurate statement about politics or ACA ever, or he may even have many points about ACA i agree with RIGHT now, that doesn't erase the lunacy of his views on gays, muslims and hyperbolic comparison of ACA to slavery.
 
Last edited:
The Democrats sure as hell removed that part quick enough, once the word got out. If they're so much smarter than those of us who a part of the swinish masses, then they should have been able to explain to us how there were no death panels.

Have you paid any attention what either I or Duce have said? If you understood the provision, you know that silliness actually will lead to harming people. Your side did harm, not good.
 
It's not a pollutant! :lamo

Plants--plants that produce friggin' oxygen--live off CO2.

Only the idiotic Libbos in the government would classify CO2 as a pollutant.

So, what you're saying is that changes to regulations aren't always made in a rational manner with strong grounding in reality? Interesting...
 
If CO2 weren't a pollutant, the EPA wouldn't be regulating it.

:roll: :doh

Because they couldn't just regulate anything they felt like it and call it a pollutant.
 
Have you paid any attention what either I or Duce have said? If you understood the provision, you know that silliness actually will lead to harming people. Your side did harm, not good.

Yeah? How's that?
 
So, what you're saying is that changes to regulations aren't always made in a rational manner with strong grounding in reality? Interesting...

You oughta know, the Libbos do it all the time.
 
Yes, low-income wage earners are required to have health insurance as well. But as I said, if they meet federal-poverty limit guidelines, they can apply for health insurance credits and if eligible, avoid the penalty.

If not them, Does the work of the slaves pay for that avoidance and the care that they actually receive? IDK let's ask the good Dr.
 
:roll: :doh

Because they couldn't just regulate anything they felt like it and call it a pollutant.

Apdst's premise relies on the assumption that a change to a regulation must have been made logically. I gave him an example in which he believes this not to be the case. However, he doesn't seem to grasp that it's possible that the Not Death Panels clause was removed even though it was harmless. He literally thinks it's impossible for a helpful clause to be removed, because if it was helpful, it wouldn't be removed. Circular logic I've tried to help him out of. To no avail.
 
Yes, but that doesn't make his assessment of the state of our nation accurate.

I've heard this stupid analogy being made by many people - mostly from those who don't like ObamaCare - and I think to myself, "These folks can't be serious!?!"

Slavery held only certain people in bondage due to the color of their skin. Not everyone was held back from having an opportunity to progress in life or within this country because of the color of their skin. So, that's the first problem with Dr. Carson's slavery analogy.

Second, slavery was a socio-economic way of life for country, but only those who lived in the south benefitted the most from it. If you lived in the north, you only benefitted from the indirect revenue the slave trade brought in, i.e., slave imports and subsequent sales (but only by the slave traders and shipping merchants themselves); molasses, rum, tobacco, tea exports. The south benefited from the direct revenues slavery brought in mostly in agriculture, but also in their domestication and in some cases the local sales of slaves. It was the reciprocal earnings from crops that drew the biggest ire from those on the side of pro-slavery. They worried their entire economy (not to mention their entire way of life) would be severely disrupted if slavery were abolished. No slaves, no farming. No slaves, no carriage drivers for wealthy plantation owners. No slaves, no domestic hands to clean their homes, cook their meals, wash their clothes, or babysit their children. And that's just naming those tasks the history books showcase for the typical "house nigga".

To suggest that the health care law is anything like the fight to preserve slavery in any way is so ridiculous even calling such an analogy "ridiculous" doesn't quite explain the ridiculousness of it all. Now, if you want to say this country hasn't had an issue so deeply divide both sides of our political system nor the country so widely, then I can certainly see the argument. But to compare ObamaCare to slavery is just ignorant.
No one is oppressing you because you have to have health insurance.




Anyone who is not happy in the USA can always leave. The entrance to the exit is wide open.




"Better days are coming." ~ But not for today's out of touch, running out of time, GOP."
 
Apdst's premise relies on the assumption that a change to a regulation must have been made logically. I gave him an example in which he believes this not to be the case. However, he doesn't seem to grasp that it's possible that the Not Death Panels clause was removed even though it was harmless. He literally thinks it's impossible for a helpful clause to be removed, because if it was helpful, it wouldn't be removed. Circular logic I've tried to help him out of. To no avail.

My point is, if section 1233 was such an important part of the Acrid Care Act, why did the Democrats so willingly remove it from the bill?

They didn't put up much of a fight. Care to explain that?
 
Back
Top Bottom