Subject: Fwd: 10535 pages reduced to 4 sentences
.
Subject:10535 pages reduced to 4 sentences
To:
10535 pages reduced to 4 sentences
Is there a single soul who is surprised that an Engineer came up with this?
Great summary by a Notre Dame University engineer.
Here are the 10,535 pages of Obama Care condensed to 4 simple sentences.
As humorous as it sounds... every last word is absolutely TRUE!
1. In order to insure the uninsured, we first have to un-insure the insured.
2. Next, we require the newly un-insured to be re-insured.
3. To re-insure the newly un-insured, they are required to pay extra
charges to be re-insured.
4. The extra charges are required so that the original insured, who
became un-insured, and then became re-insured, can pay enough extra so
that the original un-insured can be insured, so it will be
‘free-of-charge’ to them.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is called "redistribution of wealth" or,
by its more common name, SOCIALISM, or “PROGRESSIVE”, the politically
correct names for COMMUNISM !
Wow! What a brilliant way to raise money to fund a free service.
Aren’t we lucky to have such a brilliant man leading us!
Posts
5 comments:
Not a word of that is true.
You'll never understand policy (which an informed electorate should be up on) if you think like a little kid.
The think tanks dumb this down for a reason.
Points 1-4 are completely false.
Socialism is a system of government where the government owns all means of production.
Communism is a system of government where the government owns all means of production and all property.
No one has claimed that the Affordable Care Act provides free healthcare coverage.
And another reminder - the ACA was based on a plan written by a Republican think tank, and Republicans loved it right up until the Black Guy signed it into law.
Notre Dame should demand their degree back from this nincompoop posing as an "engineer". If this engineer is this dumb, then he or she should be happy about ACA when they're fired for incompetence. And no, not bc they'll get free health insurance. But they'll find it much easier to buy health insurance while unemployed.
CharlieE said...
The Clintons are nothing but bad news
Nothing? I wouldn't say that; the last time someone named Clinton was in the White House, I was seeing 20% annual returns on my mutual funds.
Haven't seen that with a Republican president...ever.
Mike Hawk said...
@CharlieE - How quickly you forget, my LIE-BURAL amigo. Or, perhaps you don't even invest, because what you state above is totally misleading and false.
What have you been e'smoking, amigo? Lawd have mercy!! :-(
After 1982, when the stock market began a stratospheric ascent that would not really come to an end until 2000 (although there were a few temporary setbacks along the way, most notably a 500-point crash on 19 October 1987). On 12 August 1982, the Dow closed at a low of just 776.92. Before the end of that year, the index had surged past 1000, and by 1987 it peaked at 2722.42.
Soaring returns on the stock market generated unprecedented opportunities for savvy investors to attain great wealth. In 1980, just 4,400 American taxpayers had claimed an annual income of more than $1 million. By 1987, more than 35,000 did—a stunning eight fold increase.22 While the ranks of the wealthy quickly multiplied, middle-class investors also entered the stock market in rapidly growing numbers. The creation by Congress in 1978 of the 401(k) tax-deferred retirement plan provided new incentives for workers to invest their savings in the stock market (often through mutual funds) rather than relying on company-funded pensions for retirement. The 401(k) led to a kind of democratization of Wall Street, as the percentage of American households owning some stake in the stock market—either directly or through mutual funds—shot quickly from 15.9% in 1983 to 29.6% in 1989.23 Thus the great bull market of the 1980s created more wealth, for more American families, than any previous boom in history.
Mike Hawk
@Mike Hawk
The 15.2% annual growth of the stock market during Clinton's two terms in office is the highest of any president during the past century.
The stock market always kills when a Democrat is in the White House. It never does as well when a "pro-business" Republican lives there.
Over the past 80 years, the average return on the stock market when a Democrat is in the White House is about 20 times higher than when we have a Republican president.
Numbers here: http://tinyurl.com/3q87g9
That article is from 2008, but when Obama took office, the Dow was at 7949.09. It's currently at 18,520.25.
Of course, Obama won't get credit for that.
BTW - My investments in stocks gained 32% in 2013. When was the last time stocks did that well under a Republican? I'll spare you the research - the answer is never.
Post a Comment