Zero And Team Claim Victory Over 7 Million In A Nation Of Nearly 320 Million For Obeying The Law!!! Zerocare!!!!

image

Obama Touts 7 Million Enrollments: ‘This Law Has Made Our Healthcare System A Lot Better’

Speaking from the Rose Garden Tuesday afternoon, President Obama touted 7.1 Obamacare signups. The deadline to signup was yesterday.

“The idea that everybody in this country can get decent healthcare, we are on our way,” Obama said. “7.1 million Americans have now signed up for private insurance plans.”

The President did not distinguish between first time health insurance holders and those who signed up due a loss of insurance under new Obamacare rules. He also failed to give a definition of “enrolled.”

Obama argued Obamacare has made healthcare more accessible for millions of Americans and that the law has stabilized the insurance market for people who already have health insurance plans outside of the Affordable Care Act.

“This law has made our healthcare system a lot better,” Obama said.

Yeh…. of course, signing up doesn’t mean they’ve actually paid for it.  and as the article points out, it doesn’t account for the 5 million who lost their insurance because of Zerocare.  Personally, I think it speaks poorly towards the 40 million …. now maybe about 30 million who still don’t have it, even though, we all thought we were compelled by law to get it.  And, it probably sucks for those who decided to comply with the law, only to find out that was one of the 29 major parts of the law Zero decided to, by edict, belay.  Why people allow this criminal to brag about his criminality is beyond me, but, they’re Dems, they’re above the law. 

The fact is, even with the postponements, which we’ll see the effects shortly after the mid-term elections, the law has been a miserable and abject failure. 

It did not, and will not accomplish what it was suppose to accomplish.  The cost and burden of Zerocare was much higher than was first “estimated”.  The courts are still trying to decide if my religious beliefs will make me an enemy in my own country, and our health care industry, as a whole is much worse today then before.  No one can take these clowns seriously, any longer.  They’re enemies of the people of this nation, they are enemies of the country, and they are enemies of our framework of this nation, the US Constitution.    All of this, for 7 million sighps, which anyone else, given the money they spent, on the website and advertisement, could have signed up 5 times that much if we were offering shiny turds.  Give me the money spent on advertisement and the website and I’ll sell Zerocare to the Canadians!!!  I could get the Swedes to sign up for it!!!  But, about 33 million uninsured Americans told Zero to go “F” himself.  

Yeh, that’s success, Zero.  Only a leftard so far up his own behind could brag about that.  Idiot. 

This entry was posted in News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Zero And Team Claim Victory Over 7 Million In A Nation Of Nearly 320 Million For Obeying The Law!!! Zerocare!!!!

  1. Latitude says:

    ..and, of course, the website was down most of the day

  2. leftinflagstaff says:

    Ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Watch the absurdity ramp up toward Nov. Ocare will have cured cancer by then.

  3. philjourdan says:

    Sorry, I may not be from Missouri, but I still demand – show me. We already saw him manufacture half a million jobs to win an election. What is a few million ghost signups?

    And as you stated, (the number is now 6 million), netting the numbers shows that the number of new insured is pathetic even assuming the lies from Obama.

  4. pasinby says:

    Wonder how many dead people have signed up ?

  5. kim2ooo says:

    I’m proud to say my family and I… are not on any signup list.

  6. tom0mason says:

    James you may wish to look at this reply from Steve Goddard blog. Basically the guy is getting health insurance through Christian Ministries and he says it’s cheaper and better.

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/04/02/98-consensus-reached/#comment-333461

    • suyts says:

      He’s posted here, as well, and I thank him for it. He’s a great guy and I enjoy his comments. But, this is great stuff! And, thanks for bringing it up again!!!

  7. Tom In Indy says:

    signed up 5 times that much if we were offering shiny turds.

    Thanks for the chuckle :))

    The lies and distortions from the Obama administration and the lap dog media will continue through the midterms.

    Forget “young and healthy”. The notion that the young people who are signing up are healthy, is false. Insurers need healthy people to make up large proportion of paying customers. There is little incentive for the healthy to sign up. Therefore, adverse selection will force premiums “to necessarily skyrocket“.

    What a farce. Create a government-run command and control health sector so that less than 1 million uninsured become insured.

    I wonder if the health insurance companies, who have somehow been beaten into submission, will have the backbone to announce premium increases before the November elections.

    Take a moment to consider the the fact that the term Progressive was rarely mentioned to refer to liberals before Obama. In a few short years, Progressives have used Healthcare and man-made Global Warming to create a centralized Command and Control bureaucracy that is taking control of our healthcare and energy sectors. A huge part of our economy.

    Progressives have hijacked the Democrat party. Where are the sane Democrats willing to take back control of their party and throw out the communists masquerading as Progressives?

    • cdquarles says:

      They’re just using the Lakoff rule. The ‘Progressives’ took over both the D and R party establishments over 100 years ago. The R base, though, chafes at the imposition. the D base embraces it. Thus, I don’t expect the D party to change. The R party will continue its internal war until it either goes the way of the Whigs or remakes itself in the classical liberal mode.

      • Tom In Indy says:

        Maybe so. They certainly had their day in the 1900 – 30’s period, then fell out of favor. I wouldn’t classify JFK or even Clinton as a Progressive. Wilson, FDR, certainly. Johnson was more welfare friendly. Carter? I don’t know what he was, lol, and I don’t think he did either.

        Traditional Democrats are pro-labor and pro-welfare, but Progressives lean more toward Fascism in terms of their desire to manage U.S. industry from the executive branch. I don’t recall Kennedy/Johnson/Carter/Clinton attempting to centralize power in the executive branch to the same degree as FDR and Obama. In my mind, its the Fascist/Statist component that separates traditional Dem’s from Progressives.

        I’d like to see a liberal candidate emerge who is true to the pro-labor/welfare plank, while at the same time, calling out Obama/Reid/Pelosi for their attempts to create a command and control U.S. industrial complex. Progressives are essentially the radical left of the Democrat party. I think a Dem candidate who can effectively communicate that distinction could attract a large following of more traditional Democrats and Independents.

        My parents were Dem’s and they would have never gone along with this Progressive nonsense.

        • cdquarles says:

          JFK, maybe not; Slick Willie, heck yes (HillaryCare don’t you recall?) Progressives have always wanted government run medical care. Johnson, heck yes. He lied about Medicare and Medicaid. I agree with you about Carter, yet he never spoke against the Socialist/Eugenic premises that have defined the D party since Wilson. What else is more pro-labor than you keep what you earn and you must earn what you get. Labor is a seller. The employer is a buyer.

          My father died a long time ago, so I have no idea how he voted. Mom’s been ill most of her adult life. My grandparents voted D, yet what they said and what they did taught me to never vote D, unless you knew the D personally and were reasonably sure that they were not power mad. Whether they realized that their faith in God precluded the acceptance of the hate the Ds have always shown all of my own life, I’ll never know.

        • philjourdan says:

          Tom, the only difference in Obama and Clinton is the years. Clinton did not have a chance to be Obama. The country essentially kicked him out after 2 years (turned congress republican). Had Clinton had the majorities that Obama did, he would have been just as progressive.

          LBJ is actually both an enigma and simpler to understand. In one aspect, he is exactly like Clinton and Obama. He craved power. In another aspect he was exactly like Clinton – he knew how to read the populace. But those are the only commonalities he shared with those 2. If the KKK was marching in washington instead of MLK, there would have been no civil rights. His sole ideology was the acquisition and maintaining of power. In that, he is the father of the current democrat party.

    • suyts says:

      Just my opinion….. but, JFK wasn’t there long enough to know. He certainly was pragmatic, as Clinton was. Clinton absolutely was/is a progressive.

      As I see it working .. one leftard lays the groundwork, the other implements. Half this crap that Zero does is because of the groundwork Clinton did …. and Bush accepted rather than roll back.

      Once in a while, we get a leftard so incompetent, so delusional, he gets too stupidly greedy, we see a pushback. That’s where the Repub party comes in. Often, they’re effective in ensuring the “wrong” person doesn’t get in. Sometimes, the populace is just too overwhelming to counter.

      Ike was the people’s response to FDR …. Reagan was the response to Johnson, and Carter …. and the lingering response to FDR. Bush Sr. was the establishment’s response to Reagan. Bush Jr was suppose to be the people’s response …. he failed.

      Neither party could say no to Ike. Neither party liked Reagan.

  8. philjourdan says:

    Wow! Death to Free Speech! In the UK – http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4051905.ece

    Most of the article is paywalled. But enough is visible.

  9. DirkH says:

    US denies Nigella Lawson entry because she admitted having taken cocaine.
    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/04/03/Nigella-Lawson-Barred-From-US-Over-Drug-Use
    Article doesn’t say what Barack Hussein Obama’s opinion is about that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s