• 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!

Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263:617]

Re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

Where did I say six months?
You didn't...six months is how long it's been since the exchanges opened (October, November, December, January, February, March).

And because people were told that they could keep their health care if they liked it
Which was done with the idea people would have chosen to keep their plans in the first place. That was the point of the grandfather clause.

then were told that the health care they wanted to keep was inferior, then others were granted rights not available to other groups.
Had the rollout gone seamlessly, the individual mandate extensions would not likely have been granted.

That' why the majority of Americans of always opposed Obamacare and those who do support it tend to support the ideology, not whether its is working or will work.
Most people who play team politics don't care if it succeeds or fails, they'll latch on to whatever makes their party stronger. Republicans will always latch on to negative news and Democrats will always latch on to positive news.
 
Re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

Most people who play team politics don't care if it succeeds or fails, they'll latch on to whatever makes their party stronger. Republicans will always latch on to negative news and Democrats will always latch on to positive news.

What's the good news for Democrats?
 
Re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

What's the good news for Democrats?
They surpassed their revised goal of 6 million signups and hit their original goal of 7 million.
 
Re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

Do you believe CBO reports that 24 million will have signed up by 2017?
CBO is often cited by GOPs when it's convenient
Shouldn't both sides of the ACA debate demand transparency from their side as well, to get to the bottom of the numbers ?
 
Re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

Do you believe CBO reports that 24 million will have signed up by 2017?
I can believe that. Most people will continue to get employer based healthcare coverage. Some people will absolutely refuse coverage and prefer the tax. I can believe 24 million, though there's no way to tell what will happen in the meantime to affect that number.

Shouldn't both sides of the ACA debate demand transparency from their side as well, to get to the bottom of the numbers ?
Of course not, because if you demand transparency from yourself, how can you continue to brainwash the followers?
 
Re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

They surpassed their revised goal of 6 million signups and hit their original goal of 7 million.

I understood their goal was to sign up all those people who were previously uninsured. Why is it good news that they have just 6 or 7 million people?
 
Re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

Do you believe CBO reports that 24 million will have signed up by 2017?
CBO is often cited by GOPs when it's convenient
Shouldn't both sides of the ACA debate demand transparency from their side as well, to get to the bottom of the numbers ?

The present administration, despite their many promises of transparency, has shown in interest at all in 'getting to the bottom of things'.
 
Re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

They surpassed their revised goal of 6 million signups and hit their original goal of 7 million.

As I understand it, it wasn't a goal of 6 million signups, or even 7 million signups, it was 7.5 million PAYING signups by April 1 in order for the program to be self-sufficient. They failed completely, they never hit their 7.5 million PAYING signups by the deadline, in fact, evidence suggests they're nowhere close, they're just counting anyone who typed any information whatsoever into the website. Actual paying signups are likely much, much, much lower.

Obamacare failed, yet again.
 
Re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

So you only respond to one side of the two-sided transparency problem.
Where is the replace for ACA, an actual bill in committee?
And when a normal GOP Chair like Camp, retiring, puts out a Tax Reform Bill, it gets smeared by TEAs and Sen. McConnell .
The present administration, despite their many promises of transparency, has shown in interest at all in 'getting to the bottom of things'.
 
Re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

I understood their goal was to sign up all those people who were previously uninsured. Why is it good news that they have just 6 or 7 million people?

You understood wrong.
 
Re: Obamacare tops 6 million signups [W:263]

I understood their goal was to sign up all those people who were previously uninsured. Why is it good news that they have just 6 or 7 million people?
Are you intentionally being obtuse?
As I understand it, it wasn't a goal of 6 million signups, or even 7 million signups, it was 7.5 million PAYING signups by April 1 in order for the program to be self-sufficient.
I've only heard signups and the goal was in line with the CBO projections. Could you please source your statement here?
 
Perhaps rather than just remaining in denial you can actually point to where there are any errors in the part of racism. Did you even watch the video or are so so firmly entrenched in your beliefs that you need constantly protect them?

The only one in denial is you, Grant... as usual. This issue was settled and you were shown to be wrong. Now, if you want to keep beating the dead horse that is your position on this, go ahead. I'll just keep showing that you don't know what you are talking about.
 
The only one in denial is you, Grant... as usual. This issue was settled and you were shown to be wrong. Now, if you want to keep beating the dead horse that is your position on this, go ahead. I'll just keep showing that you don't know what you are talking about.

Settled??? Since when??

There is every bit of evidence to demonstrate I am correct, and you apparently ignored a link I sent demonstrating you are wrong.

Your sole argument here is to keep repeating that I, and millions of others, are wrong without offering any evidence to the contrary. Why did you even get involved in this if you can't support your position?
 
Settled??? Since when??

There is every bit of evidence to demonstrate I am correct, and you apparently ignored a link I sent demonstrating you are wrong.

Your sole argument here is to keep repeating that I, and millions of others, are wrong without offering any evidence to the contrary. Why did you even get involved in this if you can't support your position?

I presented the evidence, clearly and completely. I've done it in this thread and I did it in a discussion with you months ago. You were in denial then as you are now. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was divided along regional lines, NOT partisan lines. However, if one actually breaks down the division along partisan lines, Republicans were more against the Act than Democrats. This is clear in the Congressional record. It's only conservative lying and revisionism that takes a different position.
 
I presented the evidence, clearly and completely. I've done it in this thread and I did it in a discussion with you months ago. You were in denial then as you are now. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was divided along regional lines, NOT partisan lines. However, if one actually breaks down the division along partisan lines, Republicans were more against the Act than Democrats. This is clear in the Congressional record. It's only conservative lying and revisionism that takes a different position.

You supplied no evidence and if you are relying solely on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 you would be wrong again. You apparently deliberately overlook the success of racist Democrats like George Wallace in the Northern States. And have you really looked closely at that 1964 Act? I think not.

The original House version:[19]

Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[20]

Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:[19]

Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[19]

Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)


“I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years. [Touting his underlying intentions for the "Great Society" programs, LBJ confided with two like-minded governors on Air Force One]”
 
You supplied no evidence and if you are relying solely on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 you would be wrong again. You apparently deliberately overlook the success of racist Democrats like George Wallace in the Northern States. And have you really looked closely at that 1964 Act? I think not.

The evidence is right there. I showed it and explained it completely. And this is the SECOND time you have been completely unable to refute what I explained. Give it up, Grant. You have shown that your ridiculous and illogical anti-liberal bias has prevented you from understanding the facts in this situation. As far as George Wallace goes, why don't you show us just how much Northern support he had.
 
The only one in denial is you, Grant... as usual. This issue was settled and you were shown to be wrong. Now, if you want to keep beating the dead horse that is your position on this, go ahead. I'll just keep showing that you don't know what you are talking about.

If your idea of debate is 'the issue is settled" then please remove yourself from any debate.
 
I presented the evidence, clearly and completely. I've done it in this thread and I did it in a discussion with you months ago. You were in denial then as you are now. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was divided along regional lines, NOT partisan lines. However, if one actually breaks down the division along partisan lines, Republicans were more against the Act than Democrats. This is clear in the Congressional record. It's only conservative lying and revisionism that takes a different position.

Weasel words cannot hide the fact that the greatest percentage of those for the ACT were Republicans, the greatest percentage of those against the ACT were Democrats. There is no doubt that Lyndon Johnson was another racist Southern Democrat and we can see now his intention behind his "Great Society" initiative which worked out, so far, just like he predicted it would.

You really should do more reading on the subject rather than using adjectives to bolster your pathetic responses.
 
Weasel words cannot hide the fact that the greatest percentage of those for the ACT were Republicans, the greatest percentage of those against the ACT were Democrats. There is no doubt that Lyndon Johnson was another racist Southern Democrat and we can see now his intention behind his "Great Society" initiative which worked out, so far, just like he predicted it would.

You really should do more reading on the subject rather than using adjectives to bolster your pathetic responses.

To a sophisticated political observer, its a bit silly to consider this a Democrat vs. Republican issue.... it was a Conservative vs. Liberal issue. In 1964, the liberals included northern republicans and the conservatives included southern democrats. The vote, rather than being draw on party lines, was drawn on geographic lines...

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Johnson made the political calculation that the south would be lost to the Democrats for 100 years because of this vote. The cons abandoned the Democratic party for the Republican party.
 
To a sophisticated political observer, its a bit silly to consider this a Democrat vs. Republican issue.... it was a Conservative vs. Liberal issue. In 1964, the liberals included northern republicans and the conservatives included southern democrats. The vote, rather than being draw on party lines, was drawn on geographic lines...

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Johnson made the political calculation that the south would be lost to the Democrats for 100 years because of this vote. The cons abandoned the Democratic party for the Republican party.

So despite the history of Republicans supporting Blacks for over a century, including fighting and dying for their freedom, and the Democrats fighting against Black rights, in 1964 it was decided that everyone switch sides and the Democrats would henceforth become pro civil rights and the Republicans anti Black. Is that the sophisticated political observation?
 
So despite the history of Republicans supporting Blacks for over a century, including fighting and dying for their freedom, and the Democrats fighting against Black rights, in 1964 it was decided that everyone switch sides and the Democrats would henceforth become pro civil rights and the Republicans anti Black. Is that the sophisticated political observation?

It's sort of like how the republicans supported individual mandates until one day (a day that happened to be when a democrat supported individual mandates) they decided they didn't like it.
 
It's sort of like how the republicans supported individual mandates until one day (a day that happened to be when a democrat supported individual mandates) they decided they didn't like it.

In fact it's not like that at all, but you had your say.
 
So despite the history of Republicans supporting Blacks for over a century, including fighting and dying for their freedom, and the Democrats fighting against Black rights, in 1964 it was decided that everyone switch sides and the Democrats would henceforth become pro civil rights and the Republicans anti Black. Is that the sophisticated political observation?

I don't think you could be more utterly obstinate if you tried.

Support for civil rights was largely based on geographic lines, not party lines, as has been illustrated to you numerous times by the regional voting for the CRA. Northern Democrats and Republicans voted overwhelmingly for it; Southern Democrats and Republicans voted overwhelmingly against it. These are facts, this is actually what happened. I do not know why this is so difficult for you to understand, except that for you to admit it would be for you to admit that all Democrats are not pure evil, and you're incapable of that.
 
If your idea of debate is 'the issue is settled" then please remove yourself from any debate.

My idea of debate is I present information and you try to refute it with opposing information. I did my part. You didn't do yours.
 
Weasel words cannot hide the fact that the greatest percentage of those for the ACT were Republicans, the greatest percentage of those against the ACT were Democrats. There is no doubt that Lyndon Johnson was another racist Southern Democrat and we can see now his intention behind his "Great Society" initiative which worked out, so far, just like he predicted it would.

You really should do more reading on the subject rather than using adjectives to bolster your pathetic responses.

Poor Grant. Thoroughly defeated and can't refute what I presented. The percentages tell the story. Here, I'll post it again so we can all admire your lack of education on this topic:

In 1964 more Democrats supported black rights both from a numbers perspective (fairly irrelevant) and a percentage perspective (completely relevant). Congressional results from voting on the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

The original House version:
• Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7–93%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 145–9 (94–6%)
• Northern Republicans: 138–24 (85–15%)
The Senate version:
• Southern Democrats: 1–20 (5–95%)
• Southern Republicans: 0–1 (0–100%)
• Northern Democrats: 45–1 (98–2%)
• Northern Republicans: 27–5 (84–16%)

Here are some of the important points that prove my position:

Here are some examples:

7 Southern Democratic Representatives supported the act (7%). NO Southern Republican Representatives supported it (0%).
9 Northern Democratic Representatives voted against the act (6%). 24 Northern Republican Representatives were against it (15%).

1 Southern Democratic Senator supported the act (5%). NO Southern Republican Senator supported it (0%)
1 Northern Democratic Senator voted against the act (2%). 5 Northern Republican Senators voted against it (16%)

Both the numbers and the percentages show that more Democrats than Republican supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It also shows that the delineation issue was REGIONAL, not partisan.

We can clearly see by these numbers that, firstly, the issue was regional, not partisan. We can also see by the numbers, that when broken down, regionally, more Northern Democrats supported the Act, both from a numbers and from a percentage standpoint. In fact, not ONE Southern Republican supported the ACT.

So. as usual, Grant doesn't know what he is talking about and has been proven wrong. Again.
 
Back
Top Bottom