Obamacare: let’s not call it cancelled, let’s call it “transitioned”
One thing that you should be aware of is that word has gone out and Democrats will no longer speak of plans being “cancelled.” They are now all using the euphemism “transitioned to better plans.”
“Transitioned.”
Oh don’t mind those death panels. You’ll just be “transitioned” to a more stable, less medically vulnerable state.
Kind of like being renewed instead of cancelled. Yes, it has a ring to it:
Semantics are the end all and be all when parsing progressive speak. The definition of is is whatever progressives determine to be is.
Just had a conversation with daughter who is Director of PT at a large rehab center operated by a local California Gov’t.
I usually avoid politics like the plague with daughters, both health care professionals, because I do not want alienation.
She said Ocare would result in better policies for people that are now mistreated by big insurance. Oh my.
She said that it would take more people out of Medicare (Medical) which is the majority of their current patients. I told her that Medicare (Medical) would explode once the Ocare employer mandates kick in. She is a smart woman; so her thinking tells me that the level of misinformation out there is frightening.
Oldflyer:
That is indeed very odd. It’s one thing to disagree on whether the policy will be good or bad and for whom, but it’s another to think a Medicaid expansion will cause a Medicaid contraction. That’s just paradoxical. Did she explain her reasoning at all? Did she even know there is a Medicaid expansion?
starting in the schools…
did you read the news about the teen pregnancy eugenics programs?
who knew that Carousel used rfid and the navys laser?
Geobbels…Stalin…Mao….Ho…Che…Fidel…Kim…
Proud as hell of your efforts, Faux Comrade Obama.
I guess Obama is going to save people from those crappy programs they thought they wanted to keep.
Meanwhile the programs to transition people to food stamps and disability continue.
for sure v. insurance
It’s for sure coming.
Health care is no longer a “will I need it” question. For sure you will. Because there are so many services out there for your gout, your arthritis, your white bread diet, your depression because daddy didn’t love you, probably didn’t have a daddy, you were a child of a lesbian couple bought from Russia, whatever . . . sooner or later you’re going to need healthcare. And if you don’t get healthcare you are going to either be in pain for a long time, be disabled, or die.
So what’s wrong with that? If you didn’t plan for that for sure eventuality, then screw you. We can’t carry you.
That’s the death panel’s reasoning.
That’s carousel.
Let’s just call it off.
. . . and the mainstream media will pick up on the new terminology [ snap] like that.
By later this week, only racist extremists wearing hoods [and I don’t mean hoodies] will use the term “cancelled” for anything unless it’s a cancelled check (and even those are going out of style). “Cancelled” will be the new N-word: unspeakable in polite company.
Neo, late getting back to you. Coward or wise, I don’t know which I am, but I did not follow up.
As I said she works for a County operated, mostly state supported through Medical facility, so she is fed the government line constantly. Like most younger professional soccer Moms (literally plays and cheers) she does not have much time for independent research, or even reflective thinking.
Governor Jerry (Moonbean) Brown’s line is that everything will be just great under O’care and “Covered Cal” (¡Toma la decisié³n correcta en tu cobertura médica! Covered CA)
Guess, I should screw up my courage and try to make the points without alienating. I might just go walk through a minefield and leave it at that.
Yes, their medical insurance is in “transition” just like all the unemployed are “in transition between jobs” in this Obamanation.
Well, folks, I heard a new one today. Had to pick my jaw right off the floor. . . .
My skin doc — saw him today for my annual check — and I got into a weird discussion about Obamacare. I said it might be the last time I can see him, that I’m one of the ones whose plan has been CANCELLED.
He had trouble processing this information (I’ve seen a lot of this; liberal asshats can’t get it through your head that the Govt. has made private insurance ILLEGAL). Kept asking about “options” that don’t actually exist, in a strangely evasive way.
I told him I’m a Democrat (well, I’ve got the old registration! keeping it as a tarn cloak) and that this has really infuriated me, that I don’t like being herded, forced into a plan I don’t want. I added with some heat that they’re lying about the old plans being inferior: they’re MUCH better than the government crap.
Now, he and I have never discussed anything remotely political. The two doctors I saw last week, knee guys, both indicated that they and their hospitals will NOT be accepting Exchange patients in the future. I figured the Skin Man would be the same.
Then he dropped the big one: “Obamacare is this way because the REPUBLICANS designed it like this!”
I gaped at him: “What?”
“It’s the REPUBLICANS who insisted on this half and half stuff — John McCain designed Obamacare!”
“How can you say that? Not ONE Republican voted for it — not one!”
“I know…. but they created it!”
“No, no, no: the Democrats are going to have to own this one. It’s a complete mess: we now have the worst of both worlds.”
He snapped, “We should just transition to single-payer like the National Health Service.”
At that point I dropped the whole thing. He is DEE-ranged. And a communist. From Brazil, originally, but has been in the US for at least 35 years. No trace of an accent.
But seriously: have you heard even the liberal asshats making such a stupefying claim? Wow. And to hear that from a doctor….
He left the examination room with almost indecent haste.
The Great Utopia of Left’s Man Perfection will require a lot of… transitioning.
Beverly, the power of the Left’s mind control conditioning and techniques should not have underestimated. I’m sure they are cooking up even more refined and powerful methods as we speak.
It’s always funny when the ultra-Left Hollywood stumbles into a pro-life themed film. A more recent example of this is Michale Bay’s “The Island,” where clones lived in a post-apocalyptic city and dreamed of winning the lottery – a move to a tropical island. Take away the car chases & shootouts and you’re left with a very effective message that *everyone* has a right to live, and should have absolute control over their own bodies and destinies. Oops!
Beverly; Sorry to hear about that from your doctor! But, sadly, I’ve had several conversations like that with others over the last few years.
Republicans are the scapegoat, boogieman, whatever for many on the left. They really don’t think it through; they really don’t realize how insanely stupid it sounds to blame someone not involved at all.
And it isn’t just Obamacare, it is anything that goes wrong.
Often it reminds me of a funny (ok, maybe “funny” isn’t the right word) situation that happened many decades ago. Neo being from NYC will, hopefully, appreciate this; This was in NYC at one of those subway stations where different train lines share a platform. One train pulls in on one side of the platform and the other line uses the opposite side. Transferring subway lines is as easy as walking across the platform 15 feet.
As was often the case (and it was very frustrating – still is, although not as much) your train would pull in as you watched the other train close its doors just before yours opened. Arggh! You would have to wait for the next train – adding more time to your trip.
Well, one day, as this same situation happened, an older, blue-collar, an Archie-Bunker type, muttered under this breathe – “it’s the commie’s fault, they are messing everything up.”
As was so typical of the 1970s the “commies” were to be blamed for everything; from plane hijackings to Cuba, to the price of milk in the stores; and even the subway transfers just missing!
Liberals today, remind me of that guy; except, it isn’t the “commies” at fault, it is the Republicans. Everything bad is the fault of the Republicans, everything good is credited to Democrats.
“I added with some heat that they’re lying about the old plans being inferior: they’re MUCH better than the government crap.”
Except they’re often not actually good plans, right? Or rather, plans on the individual market had been profitable for insurers, but only because insurers could deny coverage for preexisting conditions and otherwise offer cheap plans to healthy people. Some (including you, I guess) are able to buy plans individually that offer generous coverage, but as I understand it one of the points of Obamacare was to bring security to a market that tended to be pretty capricious in how it dealt with the sick (or more-likely-to-become-sick).
This is not to say the alternatives presented by the state/federal exchanges are necessarily better, and it’s also not to say that Obama didn’t lie for political purposes in selling Obamacare to the public.
Communist infiltration and sabotage of America hasn’t stopped. Did someone get the wrong memo?
Or rather, plans on the individual market had been profitable for insurers, but only because insurers could deny coverage for preexisting conditions and otherwise offer cheap plans to healthy people.
You’re one of those people that never realized that Congress uses private corporations for their healthcare, right?
Their private healthcare plan is provided to a bunch of old about to die McCains and Hillaries. You ever ask the Ruling Class how they made it so the insurance companies that keep them alive, can make a profit and why they didn’t offer that to the public?
I do understand that members of Congress and their staffers get pretty nice healthcare coverage. You’re not implying, I assume, that the government should make similarly generous plans more readily available to more Americans, so what are you implying?
Semantics and euphemisms are sure indicators of insincerity. Liars lie because they fear the truth.
The Achilles heel to the attempt to rebrand ‘cancelled’ to ‘transitioned’ is that one must have something to ‘transition’ to…if the formerly insured have no viable means of replacing their former insurance, they’ve been cancelled, period.
This situation is being successfully portrayed among the low-info voter (as Beverly’s exp. demonstrates) as the fault of the Republicans and the Greedy, Evil Insurance Companies with the subtext being that it is capitalism itself which is responsible for this state of affairs.
As is the ‘solution’ to the ‘obstacles’ preventing ObamaCare from being successfully implemented. That ‘solution’ is of course, single payer, nationalized, government run health care. Which was always the original goal of transitional ObamaCare.
“plans on the individual market had been profitable for insurers, but only because insurers could deny coverage for preexisting conditions and otherwise offer cheap plans to healthy people.” J. Dunne
Please explain how an insurer would be able to stay in business without profitability?
It’s human nature that healthy people will NOT pay for expensive plans, since they’re HEALTHY and are only purchasing a plan to insure themselves against a one-in-a-million possibility.
A preexisting condition, by definition means that the insurer will have to pay out potentially large sums for the health care needed. Since most people with preexisting conditions reflect the economic spectrum, most are NOT wealthy. Therefore many cannot pay for the healthcare needed.
So someone else must pay if they are to receive the healthcare needed. If it is to be the insurance companies, they HAVE to raise their rates substantially to EVERYONE if they are to cover preexisting conditions. BUT healthy people will NOT willingly pay high premiums…
That leaves coercion in the form of higher taxes. And the imposition of single payer, nationalized, government run health care.
Canada and the UK have already discovered the price to be paid when nationalized health care is instituted. Everything is fine when a patient is reasonably healthy but if not, bureaucratic bean counters will weigh the value of your life to the State.
It takes generations but socialism, by its very nature, must eventuate in regulated tyranny. And tyranny NEVER stops at the ‘greater good’.
“Please explain how an insurer would be able to stay in business without profitability?”
My point was that the large number of people denied coverage because of preexisting conditions (and the large number of uninsured generally) was one of the market failures Obamacare tries to address, in part with the kind of regulations that have resulted in people’s “grandfathered” plans being discontinued.
“It’s human nature that healthy people will NOT pay for expensive plans, since they’re HEALTHY and are only purchasing a plan to insure themselves against a one-in-a-million possibility.”
Isn’t the whole point of insurance schemes, whether private or public, to counteract this instinct? I don’t see how this is an argument against a public (or, like ACA, a weirdly quasi-public) health insurance system.
And by all accounts the healthcare systems of the UK and Canada are pretty popular. That doesn’t mean that the US should want a similar system, necessarily (though, for me, it does suggest such a system at least might not result in the catastrophic tyranny you describe).
John Dunne:
The ACA is an insurance scheme in name only. Insurance must be allowed to assess risk when it fixes prices, or it’s not insurance, and people will not buy it prior to risk if it must cover anyone no matter what their risk and they can buy it after risk increases.
So even calling Obamacare “insurance” when pre-existing conditions are forced to be covered without even a waiting period (as Obamacare does) makes it a prepaid health plan with guaranteed issue.
Even auto insurance (which is mandatory in most states) is allowed to take into account people’s prior driving history when it sets rates, and to charge people with a lot of claims more. Off the top of my head I can’t think of any other type of insurance that doesn’t allow this, except for the fake insurance known as Obamacare (or insurance in states that even prior to Obamacare had forced companies to ignore pre-existing conditions).
As for Canada and Britain, a lot of people are very unhappy with those systems, plus in Canada people with any money at all have the safety valve of going to the US for treatment if they aren’t pleased with what they get in Canada. Plenty do just that: come to the US, which acts in a way to protect the Canadian system from disgruntled dissatisfied Canadians who happen to have a bit of money, creating a two-tiered system. What’s more (at least in Britain), the national health care system was accepted because it replaced a system that was nothing like as good as ours was. The Brits essentially had very little health insurance prior to that (it was instituted in the 1940s, and is the oldest such system in the world), so they were replacing next-to-nothing with something.
Not so, here. Americans were not 100% pleased with the previous system, but they were mostly pleased. It needed tweaks, not an overhaul, and certainly not an overhaul this destructive and downright stupid (unless the goal was to destroy it, in which case it’s pretty well-designed).
You can’t see? Apparently it’s because you can’t see that you are not talking about contagion or equiprobable accident when you advocate the healthy underwriting an “insurance” policy for preexisting autogenic or behaviorally related disorders through an individual mandate.
If you have green eyes, and I do not, I will never catch green eyes. If you are a drunkard, or a self-induced diabetic or a druggie, and I am not, I will not be at the same or any significant risk, for cirrhosis of the liver.
The individual mandate is social fascism plain and simple. That some personally happen to find it an emotionally congenial and satisfying prospect doesn’t change that.
“The ACA is an insurance scheme in name only.”
Just as social insurance is not insurance at all.
“explain how an insurer would be able to stay in business without profitability?” G. Britain
I understood your point but that does not address the question put to you above. The large number of people denied coverage because of preexisting conditions and the large number of uninsured generally is NOT a ‘market failure’, it is a moral failure. Capitalism is not a moral system, it is an amoral system. As is nature.
It is a fact, however unpalatable, that a society cannot pay for preexisting conditions and those unwilling or unable to be insured WITHOUT placing an unconscionable burden upon those able to pay.
Nor will ‘magical thinking’ or willful denial change that fact. For single payer to pay for preexisting conditions and the previously uninsured requires a choice; very high taxation or death panels run by bean counters. High taxation results in the gradual strangulation of a society’s economic health. Death panels result in a “Logan’s Run” arrangement, where life is limited to the luck of the genetic draw.
Attempts to make economics ‘moral’ are doomed to failure because 2+2=4 regardless of how “cruelly uncaring” the personal result may be. That is why western societies adopted charity as a christian duty.
No, the whole point of insurance schemes, whether private or public, is NOT to counteract the self-preservation instinct and not expending resources on unneeded expenditures is a self-preservation ‘instinct’.
Trying to counteract instinctual behavior for the ‘greater good’ through coercion is the fastest path possible to tyranny. Absent coercion, voluntarily contributing resources for the greater good by asserting it to be a moral duty and placing a reasonable charitable limit (10%) on what is expected ensures a harmonious balance between moral obligation and amoral economic laws.
“by all accounts” you mean the reportage of the MSM? Conservative blogs are filled with stories from the UK of horrendous conditions in hospitals and nursing homes. Bean counters do NOT expend resources on those ‘soon to check out’. Nor does the MSM report conditions contrary to their agenda.
“what are you [Ymasakar] implying?” J Dunne
It’s rather obvious isn’t it? Your assumption is correct, Ymasarker understands that offering more Americans similarly generous plans is not an option. Not under private insurance nor under a single payer system.
His implication is that Congress is taking care of their own. That they know that private insurance offers far better coverage than single payer could ever provide. And, that Congress’ actions demonstrate that they realize that Churchill had it right when he stated that, “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”
And by doing so have revealed their unfitness for office because they also realize that socialism’s “equal sharing of miseries” stops the progress that individual initiative brings. Under socialism, private pools of investment wealth atrophy, necessary to fund entrepreneurial growth and invention.
“Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the socialist state.” Vladimir Lenin
“We can’t expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders into repeatedly and gradually giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism.” — Nikita Khrushchev
I assume, that the government should make similarly generous plans more readily available to more Americans
Oh, I see. You think our Rulers deserve better, while we need to slurp up the scraps off the government table and teat… right. I see your Utopia now. You know what it looks like?
Redefining the meanings of things is right out of 1984. Have any of the progressives or LIVs read 1984?
I have redefined the ACA as a law that intended to insure the uninsured. Oops, what it has actually done in uninsure the insured. Unintended conseq
From the “Obama’s lies work” file:
Oops — I hit “Submit Comment” when I really wanted to amend that to say that “45% disagree that Obama lied about the impact of the health care law and think he honestly expected the law to work.”
I’ll respond later in more detail to the longer answers, but you’ve pretty blatantly misinterpreted my question there, Ymarsakar.
As for why I brought up the Congress’ healthcare coverage post Obama, they had an interesting setup. Now supposedly they are under ObamaCare, although with 1001 exemptions for their family and staff for X amount of time. Obama is not under ObamaCare, though, that we at least know.
So before Obama, the Age of Aquarios and Obamaca overriding America, Congress had a certain system setup of groups of healthcare providers/corporations that banded together to be able to provide them, if I recall, not only access to the best doctors and medical resources (Ted Kennedy’s brain fart surgery or whatever it was) but also a very generous profit margin to the corporations and insurance companies involved. This was before the days of Obama, so people like me were researching stuff like this in order to figure out why politicians were trying to “upgrade” American healthcare.
A lot of the insurance plans which people liked, also came from private insurance groups like Kaiser Permanente and that other one people in Marin, California use a lot. This was not bare minimum coverage, it was the works, yet it was affordable (at least to the upper middle class, two parent homes).
There were certain laws or regulations that were affecting the private sector for civilians that weren’t exactly applied against the insurance companies when they worked for Congress. But Congress did not allow regular Americans to partake of the same exemptions and laws which made their insurance plans not only efficient but also relatively cost effective (for a bunch of geritocratic aristocrats).
So why didn’t a certain John Dunne know about this and why didn’t he ask them why Congress didn’t spread the wealth around and give the same exemptions to the working class so they could get something just as good as the Political Class?
Redefining the meanings of things is right out of 1984. Have any of the progressives or LIVs read 1984?
I have redefined the ACA as a law that intended to insure the uninsured. Oops, what it has actually done in uninsure the insured. Unintended consequences and all that. 🙂
The primary goal was to “bend the cost curve down.” Instead it has bent it upward for all those middle class insurance buyers who are getting stuck with higher premiums and deductibles. In the meantime, the actual cost of healthcare in the USA continues to expand faster than inflation. 🙁
Can the ACA be altered to do what is needed? Ha, no one knows. It’s many affects on the healthcare industry coupled with the byzantine regulations written in addition to the law, have already had so many unwanted consequences (part-time jobs, employers refusing to hire more than 50 full-time workers, Cleveland Clinic and others laying off workers, etc.), that it will be like stopping a snowball that is gaining speed and size as it rolls downhill. That said, the only moral thing to do is to try to stop the snowball and do the obvious free market things:
1. Tort reform.
2. Portability and tax deductability of polices.
3. Make healthcare prices transparent.
4. Create state-run high risk pools for pre-existing conditions.
Those steps, though they would be fought against by the progressives, could actually bend the cost curve down and provide a better healthcare system.
John Dunne, this whole claim that older plans are being canceled because they are “substandard” is just another deception. The grandfathering rules do not take the quality of plans into account when determining which must be canceled. All that matters is whether the plan was changed after March 23, 2010 — which includes changes to IMPROVE the plan. Furthermore, next year when employer group plans start being canceled because of the same grandfathering rules, where is your whole justification about the supposedly-awful individual market be? The cancellation problem is NOT limited to the individual market. The only reason group policies aren’t being canceled now is that the employer mandate was deferred for a year. Try telling employees how substandard and awful their policies were once that starts happening. Your arguments hold no water at all.
Also, people like you who try to argue that the old individual market was some kind of Wild West disaster either don’t know, or prefer that others don’t know, that health insurance is heavily regulated by the states. Insurers’ profits are regulated by the states. What policies must cover is regulated by the states. The treatment of preexisting conditions is regulated by the states (so that, in NY for instance, the state required insurers to start covering preexisting conditions with no protective measures such as the individual mandate in place, and instantly made individual insurance unaffordable.) Insurers never were, as you people want others to believe, perfectly free to dump people because they got sick. The extent to which they could cancel a policy or refuse to renew it or impose caps on expenditures was controlled by 1) the policy language (which is regulated by the states, every word of it) and 2) the state’s insurance regulations. Insurance has always been an intensely regulated market. Pretending that it was unregulated before the federal government stepped in with Obamacare is just more lying — and people have had about enough of that.
Mrs Whatsit:
I hadn’t yet seen your comment when I wrote one of today’s posts, but it deals with much the same issues that you go into here.
Ann:
That same 45% could watch Obama kill a puppy on live TV and say that he must have thought it was a rat.
“Except they’re often not actually good plans, right? Or rather, plans on the individual market had been profitable for insurers, but only because insurers could deny coverage for preexisting conditions and otherwise offer cheap plans to healthy people. ” –John Dunne
First, you shouldn’t besmirch the name of the noble poet by using it as your nom de guerre.
Second, you are dead wrong about the insurance plans. Mine was HIP, a garden-variety insurance policy that my professional association (with a very modest average income) was able to buy at a discount because we got it as a group. Nothing “special” about it.
But it covered my surgery 2 years ago 100% after just a $1000 deductible. No “out of pocket” costs. And at one of the best hospitals in New York, with a surgeon who is renowned for this particular operation.
But thank you for playing.
Neo, I hadn’t seen that post when I made my comment or I might have posted it there, instead. I’ll switch over there shortly but want to add one more point directed at John Dunne regarding the “substandard” argument in favor of canceling insurance plans. As I said above, the purpose of making the grandfathering regulations so narrow was not to protect people from substandard plans. If it had been, the determination whether plans could continue would have been based on their content, not their stability over time. What I didn’t talk about above is the reason for the extremely narrow grandfathering regs — which is to make Obamacare financially sustainable by driving as many previously-insured people as possible out of their private insurance and onto the exchanges, where their premium payments will help defray the adverse-selection issue by which those most motivated to sign up — that is, the sickest and poorest — are the likeliest to do so. This had nothing to do with protecting insured people or with the quality of policies. Far from it — it is all about USING insured people to get their premium dollars onto the exchanges to help pay for the sick. Of course, telling the truth about this forced redistribution of resources is politically impossible — so, more lies, more lies, more lies.
Neo:
“Insurance must be allowed to assess risk when it fixes prices, or it’s not insurance, and people will not buy it prior to risk if it must cover anyone no matter what their risk and they can buy it after risk increases.”
Unless I’m misunderstanding (and you’d probably say I am!), ACA doesn’t really prevent insurers from assessing risk, it just prevents them from taking into account the specific factors you mention in their assessments of risk.
By your logic, do Medicaid and Medicare qualify as “insurance”?
Also, what tweaks would you prefer?
Mrs Whatsit:
“John Dunne, this whole claim that older plans are being canceled because they are “substandard” is just another deception. […] All that matters is whether the plan was changed after March 23, 2010”
Okay, would it be more accurate if I worded it like this: some millions of people bought plans on the individual market, which was characterized by frequent turnover. Obamacare allowed plans purchased on this market before March 2010 to be “grandfathered,” despite their not meeting certain coverage standards they would otherwise have had to meet. Many of these plans are now expiring, and because of Obamacare-related standards insurers now can’t legally offer the kinds of plans that would (pre-Ocare) have replaced the older ones in the market.
And this understanding of the state of the individual market doesn’t require it to have been an entirely unregulated “Wild West disaster.” Rather, it only requires it to have been a market that prevented lots of riskier-to-insure people from getting insured. This situation at least bothered enough Americans that our political system ended up vomiting out the ACA as a solution.
“This had nothing to do with protecting insured people or with the quality of policies.”
You’re right, I guess: a major goal of ACA was to get insurance offered to many the existing system wasn’t insuring. But it’s not as if people who could afford (either for monetary or health reasons) to buy on the individual market weren’t/aren’t already paying for the healthcare of the uninsured in some sense. This goes back to the original arguments that surrounded Obamacare and the logic of health reform in general, but I’m talking about the idea that we pay for the healthcare of the uninsured, just only at the point where they become so sick they end up in a hospital or emergency room. So you’re right that Obamacare had as a goal broadening the pool of insured to include those the private system couldn’t afford to insure, and as such Obamacare wasn’t concerned solely with protecting the insured.
Now, if the exchanges worked they would have a means of reentering the market, but Obama does seem to have seriously bungled that job. Which, to be fair, does undermine a major part of the logic of Obamacare.
And finally, a funny tweet from Steve Stockman: “About 110,000 people contract chlamydia each month, more than signed up for Obamacare. Obamacare is less popular than chlamydia.”
JD…
It’s now out in the press that their was NO wording in the original statute — flaws and all — that zapped the grandfathered policies.
That happened by specific order — an Executive Order under Barry’s signature — drafted three months after the legislation cleared! It was NOT created by a crew of civil servants.
When the GOP found out about the matter — they passed legislation to reverse it. The vote went down on strict party lines.
So the Democrats own that, too, 100%.
ONLY now do they realize their peril.
They are entering the failure cascade… i.e. they’re headed over the falls.
This 0-care debacle is domestically critical… the Iranian give up is internationally critical.
This is going to be SO BAD that I now predict that Barry will be given the heave ho before the next year is out. For he is destroying the American economy, world peace, and the Democrat party.
Hitler had the support of the German Army — right up until the WHEELS CAME OFF.
Nixon was never in any impeachment peril — until it was all over. His best buddies had to explain it to him.
No one sees that the big man is walking the cliff until he stumbles badly — so badly that he’s exposing his crew to a ‘zipper fall.’
Then, his crew just cuts the line — and waves goodbye!
I shouldn’t engage you, but are you serious with that shit? “It’s now out in the press”?
You’ll see it tomorrow.
It’s already on the Internet.
Source: Senator Rand Paul.
His speech clip runs 30 minutes.
He was wigging out.
It’s obviously behind Clinton’s admonishment.
Bill sees that this doesn’t play well at all.
Really impossible to explain.
Beverly,
I had a conversation with one of my cardios last week. She was really upset at the commie DeBlasio winning, and griped about the mostly Hispanic people in her office having no clue yet voting. She was also upset at herself for not prepping more. She asked me what sort of items to prep. I gave her a laundry list including bottles of vodka for medicinal and trade purposes, peppercorns and other seed spices, dried beans, etc. But my main item to her was ammo. I told her you never have enough ammo.
About a month ago, I had a conversation with a med tech while having a nuclear stress test. He’s an immigrant from Pakistan, coming here in 1984 and is now a citizen with a young child. I told him OwebamaCare is slavery and that Dems have always been the party of slavery, of Jim Crow, of segregation. He was shocked; he had no clue. The Dem propaganda really works.
Things are going to get real interesting real fast, in a Chinese insult kind of way.
Social Justice is neither justice nor social.
Not even social justice can reattach a human head cut from the body. Nor can Leftist propaganda.
Death is a power beyond even the US federal authority and Leftist Utopia.
This is going to be SO BAD that I now predict that Barry will be given the heave ho before the next year is out.
Asssuming he doesn’t declare himself President for Life.
Hitler had the support of the German Army Eright up until the WHEELS CAME OFF.
Right up until Stauffenberg’s assassination attempt, yea.