DescentBB

Use a smaller font.

Will Robinson wrote:I didn't fact check the number because it sounds quite believable knowing the promises of Obamacare vs the actual cost.

I rest my case.

Krom wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I didn't fact check the number because it sounds quite believable knowing the promises of Obamacare vs the actual cost.

I rest my case.

Ok, touche and all that... and I'm conceding the lack of investigation based on my opinion of Obama's record of understating costs by a large margin.

But considering correct number is still 200+% above the given cost I'm not feeling like I was wrong about saying the price is way too much for a site that isn't working.

Whether it was under represented by 700% as I accepted, or actually by 200+% it is still hundreds of millions more than they want us to accept. And still dysfunctional...which is really the only thing that matters. Government always spends way more than it should. How the hell would I know how much Obamacare should cost, right? But the guy who is supposed to know, the guy responsible for convincing us to vote for it tells us it will cost under a trillion in the first ten years and it already has been changed to 1.7 trillion.

So yea, bad on us for thinking the site was so outrageously expensive when it was really only kind of outrageously expensive.

Will Robinson wrote: But considering correct number is still 200+% above the given cost I'm not feeling like I was wrong about saying the price is way too much for a site that isn't working...Government always spends way more than it should.

Again, the site works. The bugs are to be expected given the size and scope of the project. We did not pay for a broken website. Government spending will always be an issue because 1) our country is enormous 2) our country in diverse and 3) our government cannot and should not be run like a business.

woodchip wrote:The link shows what was paid first to health and human services that then got paid to CGI as contractor for websites. At least that's how the numbers seem to add up. Show me where I'm wrong.

you have any idea how many websites HHS runs? No,I'm sure you don't. Do you see any time period there? No. Gawd, you are not only determined to spread lies, but think we are all stupid as shrubbery.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:The link shows what was paid first to health and human services that then got paid to CGI as contractor for websites. At least that's how the numbers seem to add up. Show me where I'm wrong.

you have any idea how many websites HHS runs? No,I'm sure you don't.

do you??? no I'm sure you don't

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:The link shows what was paid first to health and human services that then got paid to CGI as contractor for websites. At least that's how the numbers seem to add up. Show me where I'm wrong.

you have any idea how many websites HHS runs? No,I'm sure you don't. Do you see any time period there? No. Gawd, you are not only determined to spread lies, but think we are all stupid as shrubbery.

Unless you can point out that the link is not for the website work then I suggest you stop using the word "Lie" as it only makes you appear both infantile and junior high at the same time.

I have already proven that you lied. You linked to a site listing total costs for all work(website and otherwise) done for HHS, which administers ACA, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, and about 40 other programs, all of which have web portals. Give it up, already. You are, and are provably, a liar. The accounting clearly states that the figure was 90 million, when you claimed 7 times that number.Why you insist on promoting lies, I don't know, but you've lied so many times on these pages to make your extremist points that you have little credibility left.

Maybe for the same reason the president chooses to lie.

your double standards are astonishing. Or maybe your lying to cover his lies. You act so third grade some time

liar liar pants on fire. Anything to try snd stifle debate huh? Maybe I should bring HH and pud to this forum. Seems you've stopped posting over there since they started calling you a liar. Dont like it do you? Maybe you should look in the mirror

callmeslick wrote:I have already proven that you lied. You linked to a site listing total costs for all work(website and otherwise) done for HHS, which administers ACA, Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, and about 40 other programs, all of which have web portals. Give it up, already. You are, and are provably, a liar. The accounting clearly states that the figure was 90 million, when you claimed 7 times that number.Why you insist on promoting lies, I don't know, but you've lied so many times on these pages to make your extremist points that you have little credibility left.

Unlike you I tracked down further information for the costs surrounding CMS expenditures for establishing the portals for the Affordable Health care act. Turns out 394 million is what this report shows (I trust the GAO is a acceptable agency for presenting the information)

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/655291.pdf

CUDA wrote:Maybe for the same reason the president chooses to lie.

your double standards are astonishing. Or maybe your lying to cover his lies. You act so third grade some time

liar liar pants on fire. Anything to try snd stifle debate huh? Maybe I should bring HH and pud to this forum. Seems you've stopped posting over there since they started calling you a liar. Dont like it do you? Maybe you should look in the mirror

I stopped posting over there a month ago when I said I would stop. There was a side discussion between a half-dozen old regulars to the effect that one cannot debate with folks speaking gibberish.Thus, we all stopped any posts(I was the last holdout, as I had made a promise to give my ACA cost results and am a man of my word). Now, CUDA, say what you wish about the President, I hope you read my descriptive paragraphs as to why I objected to posting clearly discernable lies here. Nothing I have ever read from you or anyone about the President is anything but grey areas of distinction, or parsing English. In this example, a number was quoted for the ACA website that was off by a factor of 7. And, the fact that it was was off could be verified by any fool with Google, using Conservative sites even as sources, within a minute. Now, I know you agree far more with Woody and Will than you do with me, CUDA, but there was a distinct reason I didn't lump you in with the rip I made on them above: you, in my experience, tend to check your facts. Do you miss a few? Sure, so do I. We're human, humans make mistakes, without further elaboration from a scientific or religious perspective..... Still, do you not agree that injecting blatant falsehoods and repeating them doesn't help the process of intelligent debate? Do you take a position that it is ok to lie if it serves your position? I suspect you DON'T really accept that.

woodchip wrote:Unlike you I tracked down further information for the costs surrounding CMS expenditures for establishing the portals for the Affordable Health care act. Turns out 394 million is what this report shows (I trust the GAO is a acceptable agency for presenting the information)

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/655291.pdf

um, no, what you have done is continue to try to cover what should be embarrassment with goofy-ass smokescreens. This link, for instance is the total cost to establish ACA exchanges, portals and other issues around functionality. You claimed that it cost over $600 million to create a website. It didn't, it cost about $90. This new number you toss at the wall to cover your ass goes FAR, FAR beyond simply creating a website. Anyone can glean that much in the first 4 paragraphs, for crying out loud!

Not sure where you are reading what you did but the purpose of the linked report is to:

"In this report, GAO describes (1) the federal government’s role in establishing FFEs for operation
in 2014 and state participation in that effort; and (2) the status of federal and
state actions taken and planned for FFEs and the data hub."

What do you think FFE's and Data Hubs are? Locations of ACORN offices? The report, unless you can show otherwise, is about establishing the websites (FFE's) and the datahubs (To
support the exchanges’efforts to determine exchange applicants’ eligibility to enroll, CMS is building a tool called the data hub. According to CMS officials, the data hub is to provide one electronic connection to federal sources for near real-time access to data)

Want to continue making asinine statements?

The ACA 'web site' that they have paid @88 million for so far is completely useless without the 200+ million dollars of software and systems to provide the website user with content. Together it is a system. That system, it's cost and functionality is what is being discussed here.

It has cost around 300 million so far and it isn't functioning the way it was supposed to even after 3 years of working on it and basically an unlimited budget. Obama knew it wouldn't. He was told it wasn't ready. But he has to press on anyway.

He knew businesses were going to make moves to protect themselves from the ACA. He gave them an exemption from abiding by the law. He refuses to do the same for individuals. The reason why is simple in both cases. Political fallout.

The moves businesses will take to avoid the greater expense of compliance will result in further job loss or hours worked reduced to part time etc.
He couldn't afford that right now with an all important mid term election coming where he hopes to secure the house so he will have a rubber stamp Senate and House.

He can't afford to let the individuals not enroll because he needs funds desperately for ACA to at least appear to be fiscally possible and becasue if he exempts everyone from ACA after it becomes law because the systems are broken even the mainstream media won't be able to protect him...or his mid term candidates...from the fallout of ACA being a big cluster#^@%!
Individuals forced to comply can't take any kind of action like bussiness will that result in horrible swings in job loss data.

So now the definition of web site has expanded to include a whole bunch of other stuff which would be required for ACA to work even if there was no web site at all? Do you also ★■◆● at your auto dealership for not including the price of the roads/bridges/gas stations/parking lots/etc (note you indirectly pay for all of these) when they sell you a vehicle?

Krom wrote:So now the definition of web site has expanded to include a whole bunch of other stuff which would be required for ACA to work even if there was no web site at all? Do you also ★■◆● at your auto dealership for not including the price of the roads/bridges/gas stations/parking lots/etc (note you indirectly pay for all of these) when they sell you a vehicle?

No but the website portals and the software hubs to tie them all together is all part of the functionality of people using the website. These having nothing to do with the people required to to administer Obamacare, the insurance companies involved or even the IRS looking down your throat to make sure you have insurance. So what now appears to be 394 million in expenditures is for only the websites and nothing else.

woodchip wrote:No but the website portals and the software hubs to tie them all together is all part of the functionality of people using the website. These having nothing to do with the people required to to administer Obamacare, the insurance companies involved or even the IRS looking down your throat to make sure you have insurance. So what now appears to be 394 million in expenditures is for only the websites and nothing else.

Holy hell, this song and dance is entertaining. Do we get dinner with the show?

Krom wrote:So now the definition of web site has expanded to include a whole bunch of other stuff which would be required for ACA to work even if there was no web site at all? Do you also ★■◆● at your auto dealership for not including the price of the roads/bridges/gas stations/parking lots/etc (note you indirectly pay for all of these) when they sell you a vehicle?

No, my definition of web site hasn't changed. I simply adopted the term web site that was used to describe the system that I was complaining about. I completely concede the actual web site has only cost 88 million if the reports I've seen are to be believed.

And if it is important to get anal retentive about the mistake I made instead of the point I was trying to make then you have succeeded. Yes, someone published the 697 million dollar number and called it the web site. If they had bothered to look closer they would have seen it was more like 300 million and included a back end of software and servers etc. that make the "web site" functional and they could have even called it a 'web site system'. They probably didn't for partisan reasons...wanting the higher number tossed around. They tossed, I received. My bad.

And now, if you choose to continue to focus on how I was wrong about how many millions the system cost, you can stifle any conversation about the system, it's failure/premature start up, the reasons why it was brought online too soon....is 3+ years and 300 million enough to expect a working system...etc. etc.

Now it is your toss....what will your target be?

Krom wrote: Do you also ★■◆● at your auto dealership for not including the price of the roads/bridges/gas stations/parking lots/etc (note you indirectly pay for all of these) when they sell you a vehicle?

Bad analogy, you are forced to pay for roads/bridges with your tax dollars.
gas stations parking lots are not something you pay for in the public sense, they are a By-product of the want to own a vehicle which you purchase by choice, which is essentially what they are saying with the web site. purchasing a program on a disk doesn't do any good without the infrastructure to operate it. so to follow-up on your analogy. owning a car doesn't do any good if you don't BUY the gas to run it.

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:No but the website portals and the software hubs to tie them all together is all part of the functionality of people using the website. These having nothing to do with the people required to to administer Obamacare, the insurance companies involved or even the IRS looking down your throat to make sure you have insurance. So what now appears to be 394 million in expenditures is for only the websites and nothing else.

Holy hell, this song and dance is entertaining. Do we get dinner with the show?

You have something specific to say or you just doing another of your one line trolls

PS: I know some people here keep saying it isn't broken..
Well I've been trying for days to buy insurance on the 88 million dollar web site that is connected to the 260 million dollar three-years-in-the-testing backend and this is all I get:

Internal Server Error - Read

The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

So, if that isn't broken I think we have room to complain without being called whiners. No matter exactly how many millions it cost.

How much do you want to bet that my creating an account that gets me nothing more than an error message is being counted by the administration as "someone who successfully signed up" because, after all, I did successfully sign up for an account. It doesn't give me anything to go with it but I do have a new account created on that expensive web site.

★■◆● happens, Will.

Do you complain this loud if you get a server error like that from a site like Best Buy? I'm guessing no. But seeing as it's OBAMA, somehow a technological screw-up isn't allowed to happen.

With Best Buy I never got a server error. I suspect if you did tho it would be fixed in a matter of hours...if not less.

Ferno wrote:**** happens, Will.

Do you complain this loud if you get a server error like that from a site like Best Buy? I'm guessing no. But seeing as it's OBAMA, somehow a technological screw-up isn't allowed to happen.

First of all how loud is my complaint?
I think you may be 'hearing' sensitive if my contribution is " loud" to you.

Second, BestBuy doesn't use my money, taken with the weight of armed enforcement exempt from due process, to build their site and force me to buy their product from the site, again with the jackbooted IRS enforcement if I don't buy the product.

Other than those tiny differences you are right,the government is about the same quality as BestBuy.

ITT: Single minded people who know nothing about software or the Internet.

Will Robinson wrote: First of all how loud is my complaint?
I think you may be 'hearing' sensitive if my contribution is " loud" to you.

Second, BestBuy doesn't use my money, taken with the weight of armed enforcement exempt from due process, to build their site and force me to buy their product from the site, again with the jackbooted IRS enforcement if I don't buy the product.

Other than those tiny differences you are right,the government is about the same quality as BestBuy.

splitting hairs and missing the point. once again.

I got a laugh out of the 'armed enforcement' and the 'jackbooted IRS' bits. Good to see that Godwin's law is invoked when you have nothing else to defend your position. Let us know when you see the ACA enforcers walking down the street and demanding papers from people on the street.

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote: First of all how loud is my complaint?
I think you may be 'hearing' sensitive if my contribution is " loud" to you.

Second, BestBuy doesn't use my money, taken with the weight of armed enforcement exempt from due process, to build their site and force me to buy their product from the site, again with the jackbooted IRS enforcement if I don't buy the product.

Other than those tiny differences you are right,the government is about the same quality as BestBuy.

splitting hairs and missing the point. once again.

I got a laugh out of the 'armed enforcement' and the 'jackbooted IRS' bits. Good to see that Godwin's law is invoked when you have nothing else to defend your position. Let us know when you see the ACA enforcers walking down the street and demanding papers from people on the street.

So the IRS, who has the power to seize my bank account, and any property I have for that matter, without any warrant, court order or any other form of judicial process, collects the money from me to help fund Obamacare and this web site. They further have been given the power to enforce any penalty the government sees fit to hit me with if I don't buy health care insurance.

And you think my opinion of the BestBuy web site and the Obamacare web site, and how their implementation affects my life, should be the same....

You still smoke that weed don't you?

Will Robinson wrote: So the IRS, who has the power to seize my bank account, and any property I have for that matter, without any warrant, court order or any other form of judicial process, collects the money from me to help fund Obamacare and this web site. They further have been given the power to enforce any penalty the government sees fit to hit me with if I don't buy health care insurance.

Look at you. Clawing for any reason to blame obama for anything. How can anyone have any sort of discussion when you always resort to this one position? I feel like I'm talking to someone who hates smart meters because they think it emits harmful radiation, and no amount of facts can change their mind. If you think people would seriously believe that the IRS seizes peoples' bank accounts to fund ACA just because you don't get a certain type of healthcare, you either live in a dictatorship, or think everyone's a moron.

And you think my opinion of the BestBuy web site and the Obamacare web site, and how their implementation affects my life, should be the same....

so you're telling all of us, that because it's a government site funded by some imaginary number, it should be immune of all bugs, including human error?

REALLY? That's some seriously fantastical thinking.

Will Robinson wrote:I didn't fact check

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote: So the IRS, who has the power to seize my bank account, and any property I have for that matter, without any warrant, court order or any other form of judicial process, collects the money from me to help fund Obamacare and this web site. They further have been given the power to enforce any penalty the government sees fit to hit me with if I don't buy health care insurance.

Look at you. Clawing for any reason to blame obama for anything. How can anyone have any sort of discussion when you always resort to this one position? I feel like I'm talking to someone who hates smart meters because they think it emits harmful radiation, and no amount of facts can change their mind. If you think people would seriously believe that the IRS seizes peoples' bank accounts to fund ACA just because you don't get a certain type of healthcare, you either live in a dictatorship, or think everyone's a moron.

And you think my opinion of the BestBuy web site and the Obamacare web site, and how their implementation affects my life, should be the same....

It's called software bugs. It happens to EVERYTHING and no amount of troubleshooting, triple-checking or testing can catch all the bugs. Trying to pretend that a government site should be immune to software problems because of a dreamed up number (that's been debunked) is some seriously fantastical thinking.

Will Robinson wrote:I didn't fact check

They named it after him, they call it his signature piece of legislation and recent reports say he was told the web site system was broken but he insisted on going online. He gave an exemption to businesses from the law because it was what he wanted to do....he isn't a King yet he unilaterally suspended that part of the law....

The point being Obama is very much responsible for Obamacare.....cool because the name really works out nicely for him huh?

And you may not know it but the IRS is the enforcement for financial penalty for citizens and businesses that don't comply with Obamacare.
The IRS does operate exactly the way I described. If you don't pay them however much they tell you to they freeze your assets. They don't need to get any kind of permission from a judge in advance...no warrant...etc.

Now you can call me a moron or call them/him dictator if you like. I simply call it the way our system works.

Obama could easily have made it a simple state or federal offense for failing to comply and given the citizens due process in the court system like when you fail to pay judgement in a lawsuit but he chose to make the IRS the collection agency.

The law says clearly that if you don't buy healthcare coverage you will be fined.
The law says the IRS is the authority to collect it.
And Ferno says ★■◆● he doesn't really understand.

News Flash, Will: No one likes taxes. No one approves of everything their taxes pay for. Unfortunately for you, you live in a democracy and sometimes you are not going to like the arrangement. Personally, I don't like my taxes going toward war. I don't like government funding and tax-breaks for religious organizations, but hey, that's the breaks (even though we have a legal separation of church and state and that shouldn't happen). The only thing I can do is be civic-minded and support local politicians who can hopefully influence regional and national policies. That's all any of us can do. Don't like Obamacare? Vote. Speaking of voting, the ACA was voted into law fair and square. It also survived and insane amount of attempts to repeal it. Just accept this is the way things are -- for now.

Ferno wrote:

I got a laugh out of the 'armed enforcement' and the 'jackbooted IRS' bits. Good to see that Godwin's law is invoked when you have nothing else to defend your position. Let us know when you see the ACA enforcers walking down the street and demanding papers from people on the street.

How about getting arrested for making jokes about airport security? :

"While traveling through George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Matt Miller heard a security announcement repeatedly aired on the airport intercom that left him disturbed.

“You are also reminded that any inappropriate remarks or jokes concerning security may result in your arrest,” the loudspeaker message states."

Pretty funny eh.

vision wrote: Speaking of voting, the ACA was voted into law fair and square. It also survived and insane amount of attempts to repeal it. Just accept this is the way things are -- for now.

Fair and square? No debate and the Democrats controlled everything. I wonder how you would react if the Tea Party was in total control and passed a law requiring every adult to carry a concealed firearm and would be fined if they were caught without one.

woodchip wrote:

vision wrote: Speaking of voting, the ACA was voted into law fair and square. It also survived and insane amount of attempts to repeal it. Just accept this is the way things are -- for now.

Fair and square? No debate and the Democrats controlled everything. I wonder how you would react if the Tea Party was in total control and passed a law requiring every adult to carry a concealed firearm and would be fined if they were caught without one.

I for one, would accept it.....that is WHY WE HAVE ELECTIONS.

See, what happened here is this….

The government said….holy ★■◆●! We paid 90 million dollars for a stinking web site, the public is going to throw a fit…so they decided to leak that the site actually cost 600 million dollars, so when it finally comes out it was "only" 90 million, people will be relieved.

It’s actually a very old sales trick.

vision wrote:News Flash, Will: No one likes taxes. No one approves of everything their taxes pay for. Unfortunately for you, you live in a democracy and sometimes you are not going to like the arrangement. Personally, I don't like my taxes going toward war. I don't like government funding and tax-breaks for religious organizations, but hey, that's the breaks (even though we have a legal separation of church and state and that shouldn't happen). The only thing I can do is be civic-minded and support local politicians who can hopefully influence regional and national policies. That's all any of us can do. Don't like Obamacare? Vote. Speaking of voting, the ACA was voted into law fair and square. It also survived and insane amount of attempts to repeal it. Just accept this is the way things are -- for now.

You are totally misinterpreting my position on Obamacare.
I plan to take advantage of it and will sing its praises for as long as it lasts but I won't pretend it is a bad long term arrangement and I have no illusions of it being nothing more than a stepping stone to have single payer insurance. They couldn't get it voted in like that so they got the nose in the tent the way it is now. That is no wild theory by the way. Obama laid it out as such.

And if they have an epiphany and adjust spending to actually sustain the ACA I'll give credit to who ever is responsible for it.

At the same time I feel that I have a right, and an obligation to complain about the excessive cost and ineptitude we suffer under this Presidents tactics.

I don't think it is right that someone suggests if I'm not in the army I have no right to criticize the use of the military. That is a bull★■◆● argument.

Likewise I have a right as a citizen to criticize the way a web site is put on my tax bill and brought online before it functions and I'm forced by law to use it even though I'm not an IT guy. That's equally a bull★■◆● charge to make.

I'm not complaing on the premise my taxes being used for things I wouldn't have voted for. I understand elections have consequences. The political maneuvering at the expense of ethical and equal representation is where I start complaining. And the media selectively attacking legitimate criticism is in my sights as well.

I take issue with people saying I have no right to complain about misleading us about the results, costs and viability of the ACA. That this should be to me nothing more than the way the glitches in an iPhone rollout or a BestBuy web site affect me. That is an extreme bull★■◆● argument. An apples to mud comparison.

There is a whole lot of bull★■◆● being shoveled on us regarding the real world effect of Obamacare and I will complain where I see fit and if some people want to dismiss my particular complaints as simply being the result of an anti-Obama sentiment is beyond my control. But my right and desire to speak up is beyond theirs as well.

woodchip wrote:

vision wrote: Speaking of voting, the ACA was voted into law fair and square. It also survived and insane amount of attempts to repeal it. Just accept this is the way things are -- for now.

Fair and square? No debate and the Democrats controlled everything. I wonder how you would react if the Tea Party was in total control and passed a law requiring every adult to carry a concealed firearm and would be fined if they were caught without one.

If the democrats were in control of anything the government wouldn't be shut down right now. The ACA passed because there was a sufficient level of agreement between parties. Your concealed weapon analogy is so stupid it doesn't merit any attention other than pointing out how stupid it is.

Will Robinson wrote: They named it after him, they call it his signature piece of legislation and recent reports say he was told the web site system was broken but he insisted on going online. He gave an exemption to businesses from the law because it was what he wanted to do....he isn't a King yet he unilaterally suspended that part of the law....

The point being Obama is very much responsible for Obamacare.....cool because the name really works out nicely for him huh?

And you may not know it but the IRS is the enforcement for financial penalty for citizens and businesses that don't comply with Obamacare.
The IRS does operate exactly the way I described. If you don't pay them however much they tell you to they freeze your assets. They don't need to get any kind of permission from a judge in advance...no warrant...etc.

Now you can call me a moron or call them/him dictator if you like. I simply call it the way our system works.

Obama could easily have made it a simple state or federal offense for failing to comply and given the citizens due process in the court system like when you fail to pay judgement in a lawsuit but he chose to make the IRS the collection agency.

The law says clearly that if you don't buy healthcare coverage you will be fined.
The law says the IRS is the authority to collect it.

There you go again, treating us like morons... But let's start with the glaringly obvious. At no time, did the Obama administration employ the name 'Obamacare' when it was finalized. That was a colliqual name coined by either the Republicans or Tea Party (and in my mind, the distinction doesn't really matter), and it stuck because it kept being repeated on and on and on and on... It was officially named the "Affordable Care Act", but I guess someone figured it needed a catchier name.

Does anyone else care to fill in the rest? Or are the rest of us happy to watch watch Willy boy here dance like a puppet on strings and treat us like we can't understand anything...

And Ferno says ★■◆● he doesn't really understand

The only reason you're accusing me of saying stuff that "I don't really understand" is simply because I don't agree with you. You really enjoy taking cheap shots at people you don't agree with, don't ya? Keep em coming. It's actually kind of entertaining.

Ferno wrote:

Will Robinson wrote: They named it after him, they call it his signature piece of legislation and recent reports say he was told the web site system was broken but he insisted on going online. He gave an exemption to businesses from the law because it was what he wanted to do....he isn't a King yet he unilaterally suspended that part of the law....

The point being Obama is very much responsible for Obamacare.....cool because the name really works out nicely for him huh?

And you may not know it but the IRS is the enforcement for financial penalty for citizens and businesses that don't comply with Obamacare.
The IRS does operate exactly the way I described. If you don't pay them however much they tell you to they freeze your assets. They don't need to get any kind of permission from a judge in advance...no warrant...etc.

Now you can call me a moron or call them/him dictator if you like. I simply call it the way our system works.

Obama could easily have made it a simple state or federal offense for failing to comply and given the citizens due process in the court system like when you fail to pay judgement in a lawsuit but he chose to make the IRS the collection agency.

The law says clearly that if you don't buy healthcare coverage you will be fined.
The law says the IRS is the authority to collect it.

There you go again, treating us like morons... But let's start with the glaringly obvious. At no time, did the Obama administration employ the name 'Obamacare' when it was finalized. That was a colliqual name coined by either the Republicans or Tea Party (and in my mind, the distinction doesn't really matter), and it stuck because it kept being repeated on and on and on and on... It was officially named the "Affordable Care Act", but I guess someone figured it needed a catchier name.

Does anyone else care to fill in the rest? Or are the rest of us happy to watch watch Willy boy here dance like a puppet on strings and treat us like we can't understand anything...

And Ferno says **** he doesn't really understand

The only reason you're accusing me of saying stuff that "I don't really understand" is simply because I don't agree with you. You really enjoy taking cheap shots at people you don't agree with, don't ya? Keep em coming. It's actually kind of entertaining.

He said he likes the name. He is proud to have it named after him.

Do you deny he is the main person responsible for it? He made it possible, he fought for it, he still fights for it, etc if not for his efforts over any other person it would not be.
It's no secret and frankly I don't think anyone from any perspective would doubt that.
So what's wrong with me attributing responsibility for bringing the web site on line when even his own team said it wasn't ready?!?

And I said you don't know what you are talking about with regard to the IRS role in enforcement and with regard to how the IRS enforces law.
Clearly you were wrong there.

vision wrote:
If the democrats were in control of anything the government wouldn't be shut down right now. The ACA passed because there was a sufficient level of agreement between parties.

You really are ignorant. Roll call vote for Obamacare:
HOUSE
Dems 219 for 39 against
Reps 1 for 176 against

SENATE
Dems 60 for 0 against
Reps 0 for 39 against 1 abstained

So you see any agreement between the parties?

vision wrote:Your concealed weapon analogy is so stupid it doesn't merit any attention other than pointing out how stupid it is.

Yeah, you don't like it so it must be stupid.

as for 'ownership' of the ACA, at this stage, yes, Obama does fight for it. But, please remember, this was a compromise to avoid GOP obstruction. What Obama would have liked, as would many Dems and Independants, is Single-Payer National Health Insurance(cradle-to-grave Medicare). However, in 2009 there were a few problems. First off, it would have been a really uphill political fight, as the Insurers would have put a ton of money into the battle. Second, post-recession, the start up costs would have been a burden on a Federal budget with low revenues. Thus, Obama set the House and Senate to work on a compromise. They came up with the ACA, passed it, and it is law. Almost everyone thinks that it is but a step to tide us over until we get to Single Payer(post Hillary's election, I suspect).