Tea Party is not demanding purity; it is demanding sanity

If you want I'll dig up all of the old videos and posts from Barry's supporters praising him for offering "free" health care, low information voters didn't get the memo that health care was going to cost them any money at all.

[youtube:14x6jcfg][/youtube:14x6jcfg]

Dig all you want.... Find me the one of Obama promising free health insurance and free health care. It's called the Affordable Care Act, not the Free Care Act.

archer wrote: Dig all you want.... Find me the one of Obama promising free health insurance and free health care. It's called the Affordable Care Act, not the Free Care Act.

Obamacare Website Quietly Deletes Reference to 'Free Health Care'
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/oba ... 57348.html

If you don't trust this source (and I rarely use The Weekly Standard as a source), you can look up the pages in Archive.org's Wayback Machine.

Free preventive care, including check—ups and vaccinations
http://www.barackobama.com/health-care/

"... where low-to-middle income Americans can shop for free or low cost health insurance."
"Americans will be presented with the choice between affordable and free health care choices and more expensive, private health care choices."
"so only those making less than 400% of the Federal poverty level will be able to use cost assistance to obtain free or low cost health insurance."
http://obamacarefacts.com/

"Life won’t change much for seniors on Medicare, other than having an easier time getting prescription drugs. However, Obamacare includes a big expansion of free health care for the poor, through Medicaid. Starting now, nearly all families making less than $31,000 yearly could get free Medicaid, which means 17 million of the 60 million uninsured could be covered."
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... p_and.html

I could go on.

Whether these claims above are absolutely true, somewhere in the middle or false there has certainly been a perception fostered that all or parts of Obamacare are free.

archer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Archer: the country is run by both sides. Really? Then ACA should have been negotiated instead of rammed down America's throat when the Dems held the House, Senate, and the Presidency for a few short months.

And now when Americans complain about ACA, they are told it is the law of the land and quit your bitching.

Go back to the beginning of the ACA Fred....the democrats and Obama tried to get the Republicans to participate in crafting this law. And, true to form, all the Republicans said was no, no, no. Their only goal was to make Obama a one term president, they had no intention in helping provide the American people with affordable health insurance. I'll bet you can find numerous instances of Obama inviting republicans to participate, he emphasized that the democrats welcomed any and all ideas to improve the law. But the Republicans just flat out weren't interested. Spin this however you want, the Republicans had a chance to give their input and walked away. They much prefer to bitch about it later than engage in the hard work of actually creating a law.

The first thing is that one should actually believe the law is needed before they engage in the hard work of creating it. Secondly, the only ideas Obama was interested in were ones he agreed with, something that hasn't changed about him since his first day in office.

Perhaps you have forgotten the shenanigans used to pass the (un)Affordable Care Act archer, but I haven't. I remember that the Democrats in Massachusetts altered the way that an open Senate seat was handled specifically to preserve a 60 seat majority in the Senate for the Democrats to ensure that cloiture on any measure could be reached. I remember the Cornhusker Kickback and the 2nd Louisianna Purchase. I remember Democrats in the House waiting until Pelosi had just enough votes to get it passed before voting against it so that they could cover their political posteriors with their constituents. I remember the Republicans offering alternatives to some of the more aggregious proposals forwarded by the Democrats. i remember the Democrats lying about the cost of the law in order to try and sell it. Under a trillion dollars, remember? What is it now - approaching $3 Trillion over 10 years? When it was pointed out that the cost came from 10 years of taxes versus 6 years of spending and the cost would skyrocket after that, those who made that allegation were called liars by the ones who were actually telling the lies. I remember that too.

My memory isn't as selective as yours is archer. The Republicans were more than willing to work hard to reform the insurance industry. They were ready and willing to make it possible to purchase insurance across State lines to open up the marketplace to competition for instance. What they weren't willing to do, what they kept saying no to, was a federalization of one sixth of our economy and that was the only plan Obama and the Democrats were interested in pursuing.

PrintSmith wrote:

archer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Archer: the country is run by both sides. Really? Then ACA should have been negotiated instead of rammed down America's throat when the Dems held the House, Senate, and the Presidency for a few short months.

And now when Americans complain about ACA, they are told it is the law of the land and quit your bitching.

Go back to the beginning of the ACA Fred....the democrats and Obama tried to get the Republicans to participate in crafting this law. And, true to form, all the Republicans said was no, no, no. Their only goal was to make Obama a one term president, they had no intention in helping provide the American people with affordable health insurance. I'll bet you can find numerous instances of Obama inviting republicans to participate, he emphasized that the democrats welcomed any and all ideas to improve the law. But the Republicans just flat out weren't interested. Spin this however you want, the Republicans had a chance to give their input and walked away. They much prefer to bitch about it later than engage in the hard work of actually creating a law.

The first thing is that one should actually believe the law is needed before they engage in the hard work of creating it. Secondly, the only ideas Obama was interested in were ones he agreed with, something that hasn't changed about him since his first day in office.

Perhaps you have forgotten the shenanigans used to pass the (un)Affordable Care Act archer, but I haven't. I remember that the Democrats in Massachusetts altered the way that an open Senate seat was handled specifically to preserve a 60 seat majority in the Senate for the Democrats to ensure that cloiture on any measure could be reached. I remember the Cornhusker Kickback and the 2nd Louisianna Purchase. I remember Democrats in the House waiting until Pelosi had just enough votes to get it passed before voting against it so that they could cover their political posteriors with their constituents. I remember the Republicans offering alternatives to some of the more aggregious proposals forwarded by the Democrats. i remember the Democrats lying about the cost of the law in order to try and sell it. Under a trillion dollars, remember? What is it now - approaching $3 Trillion over 10 years? When it was pointed out that the cost came from 10 years of taxes versus 6 years of spending and the cost would skyrocket after that, those who made that allegation were called liars by the ones who were actually telling the lies. I remember that too.

My memory isn't as selective as yours is archer. The Republicans were more than willing to work hard to reform the insurance industry. They were ready and willing to make it possible to purchase insurance across State lines to open up the marketplace to competition for instance. What they weren't willing to do, what they kept saying no to, was a federalization of one sixth of our economy and that was the only plan Obama and the Democrats were interested in pursuing.

I forgot about those FACTS as well PS, thx for posting. They also purposesly failed to even address the COSTS of health care and how to bring them down.... instead they helped to push them even higher with the medical device tax.