Here is a good example of your inability to decipher evidence.
Have you stopped using references who's authors say exactly the opposite to your point, or have I just been missing them?
If a doctor doesn't accept Medicaid or a private Marketplace plan, then you shouldn't use that practice. Private practices can turn you away in non-emergencies but public practices can't.
Political scientists Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler:
"In our study, we tested how fact-checking of the death panel myth influences people’s belief in the existence of such panels. We discovered that debunking such myths is effective at convincing some people to give up their belief in death panels. People who had warm feelings toward Sarah Palin, and thus believed her death panel claim, were willing to abandon that belief when faced with non-partisan fact-checking evidence that these death panels did not exist at the time of Palin’s claim. But the fact-checking only reduced belief in death panels among Palin supporters who otherwise had very little knowledge of politics—people who couldn’t say, for example, how many U.S. Senators there are in each state. By contrast, as shown in the picture, Palin supporters who also held basic knowledge of U.S. politics were resistant to fact-checking –debunking of the death panel myth not only failed to dissuade them from believing in death panels, but actually caused them to believe more strongly that such panels exist."
The poorness of the US health care system was world renown. So bad and so unfair, there were movies based on it; The Rainmaker, John Q and Critical Care, for example.
Something needed to be done and someone has done something.
The success of the ACA is controversial.
To say it has been a failure is clearly an unsound claim, to put it politely..
The true eye witnesses are those that see a humanitarian admission program.
Pure ignorance. The only comparison to a German Chancellor would be a Prime Minister, which is quite dissimilar to a President.
To be more stupid than calling the Chancellor of Germany a President would be to believe it, which is consistent with believing the rest of the quote, and correspondingly perverted.
Germany's humanitarian admission program = policy to flood streets during daylight hours with Muslims?
With no evidence, this is a conspiracy theory, derived from a perverted mind.
"President Angela Merkel’ is an error derived from ignorance.
You presented nothing that would discredit any of the CBO reports on the matter.
"I've now replied multiple times to your point about the CBO scoring from 2010, "
1. It was not my point. My point was that posts within this thread presented evidence that made the issue of the effect of the ACA on federal deficits contentious.
2. What about the June, 2015 report?
Without credible evidence, you suggest the CBO is bias. Yet this year, a CBO report is at odds with the White House by seeing budget deficit forecasts much higher, indicating that the CBO is prepared to negate political spin.
The claim that you know the predicted effect of the ACA on the federal deficit is controversial, yet you post "will" in what I quoted previously, can only be described as a deliberate misrepresentation, perhaps even a lie, still stands.
I don't think that is true. Nevertheless, if it were true, it goes to show how the health insurance system in the US was just a rip off, and that someone did something about it.
Why do you report the definition of 'fiat' rather than 'fiat money?
Because you are dishonest.
The "We are a bit concerned...." rant represents the end of a series of chances to provide evidence for unsubstantiated claims. This identifies the answer to the question "[what is] the reason why [JP Morgan] go unpunished" as the most likely. That is, because nothing related was punishable.
"They also said it would not add to deficits. "Obamacare will increase the long-term federal deficit by $6.2 trillion, according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report" released in 2013."
From your other posts on this thread, you know of the CBO's report on the matter, making the predicted effect of the ACA on the federal deficit, at the most nonpartisan level, controversial. Yet you post what I've quote above. This can only be described as a deliberate misrepresentation, perhaps even a lie.
"Your example didn't support your point"
Oh, it did. You just aren't able to tell, as indicated by your continued attempts to rationalize a matching piece of nonsense and your "good point" comment on the original stupidity.
Given I'm not married and you're a hypocritical right-winger, I would expect you to do that.
P.s. very amusing to see you have "extrapolated" my paralleled example of right wing idiocy to demonstrate idiocy.
What a tard you are.
Your diversionary tactics never work.
Simply connecting two "rights" as though one feeds from the other is very stupid.
You have just proven your idiocy, again, as expected of a climate dummy.
I see that Dave now becomes the third person (1 person, snicker) that is unable to present evidence that JP Morgan's palms are being greased (this IS correct ; "evidence that JP Morgan's palms are greasing..." is what a looney tune would suggest) or that they have incendiary information on others.
This (these, snicker) idiot attempts the most transparent of smoke screens against the failure to back up his posts, as excepted of a conspiracy theorist.
You have questions yet to answer in the "SLW Will Be A Big Time $$ Winner In 2016...For Sure" thread Dave. Your failure to respond tells a lot about you.
Its OK....I've answered the question for you.