This proves to anyone who didn't already know that Al Sharpton is the dumbest ma n on tv today.

The fact that msnbc gave him his own show speaks volumes about th em. As for Maher, he just made the point conservatives have always been making lol. If the states were running things, the system would be working a lot better, and that applies to every issue, not just healthcare. The irony is he's so used to living and working in his own liberal media bubble he didn't realize he made it and nobody called him out on it and pointed it out to him. Liberals say the fed gov't should have more power and can correct the injustices and inefficiencies of the free market, but when it's given the perfect opportun ity to do so it fails miserably, while the states that are creating their own ex changes are having more success. So why not get rid of the whole incompetent federal bureaucracy that created thi s mess and give the power to the states to create their own healthcare policies that work best for them? Even Obama said the states who have helped create the e xchanges are seeing better results than the ones who just relied on the federal gov't to do it. So he just proved the point for us, why should ANY state be rely ing on the fed gov't to intervene in their health insurance market when they've proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they aren't capable of even creating a nat ional website that people can use to view insurance plans? If the fed gov't was the best means of achieving our goals as liberals contend, then Obamacare should've worked just fine without the help of any states, that w as the whole point right, that up til now the states weren't doing enough to fix the healthcare problems in this country? Well it's clear now that whatever they were doing, it was better than anything the federal gov't can do, and actually the federal gov't was already too involved in the insurance industry in the firs t place. If big gov't was as good as liberals say it is, it should've been able to create successful exchanges in every state, after all, they had 3 years to do it. If t hey can't even get the website right, who in their right mind would trust the sa me bureaucrats to actually implement and enforce the rest of the law? http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bill-maher-and-panel-unloads-on-obamacare-rollout-big -fck-up-for-liberals/

12 minutes ago Henry_Moody Chris Antenucci Hey. Dumbass. That was part of the compromise. Because that's what Democrats do. Compromise. Because that's how a Representative Republic is supposed to work. C ompromise. You did nothing in your screed other than demonstrate the rank hypocrisy and imm aturity of Republicans. So, I say..... EXCELLENT POST!!! 1 1 Reply Share Avatar Chris Antenucci Henry_Moody a minute ago I have no idea what "compromise" you're referring to, but it certainly never ent ered into the picture with Obamacare. It was rammed through on a party line vote in both houses of congress, and even then only with back room deals to get blue state dems to vote for it. Actually we're a constitutional republic, i'm sure you left that word out by mis take knowing how much liberals love the constitution. Our system isn't based on compromise, but on checks and balances. These days compromise is just the pc wor d used to pressure republicans to do what democrats want. Usually the politician s who "compromise" just do so to stay in power longer and make friends with thei

r corrupt colleagues in the other party. Both parties do it. We don't send politicians to Washington to "compromise", we send them there to r epresent us and try the policies they believe will improve this country, if thos e policies fail, we kick them out and give the other party a chance, if they suc ceed, we re-elect them. At least that's how it used to work, when people actuall y paid attention to what was going on.

Michele (Obama) Gardner Hamurabi2085 2 hours ago That's always bewildered me. Supposedly "states rights" "small government" conse rvatives punting this opportunity/responsibility off to the federal government. Obamacare wasn't created to be a "government takeover" it was designed to be a s tate run market based solution. The idea is that everybody has to take personal responsibility for their healthcare and for those with financial constraints the federal government will provide a subsidy. Furthermore, for those who are absol utely destitute you'll be covered by Medicaid. That's the core of it. The rest i s simply rules and regulations insurance companies must abide by in order to pro tect folks from profit driven insurance companies. That's what our so-called rad ical, communist, socialist, redistributionist, Kenyan Muslim president came up w ith to reform our health care system. This is why Republicans don't have any via ble alternatives to Obamacare......cause this WAS their plan. Now they've blown this whole thing out of proportion and they can't stop. They l iterally can't stop this circus. They're as wedded to the failure of Obamacare a s liberals are to the success of it. They're on record. This isn't like Medicare or Social Security where they can lie and pretend they were always for it. To m uch water is under the bridge. Going forward their very survival and viability d epends on the failure of this program......regardless of any good it might actua lly do. Overburdening the federal government with the responsibility of running all these exchanges was their first effort to sabotage the law. Refusing to expa nd Medicaid was their second attempt. In the long run they're going to lose this battle, but unfortunately going to be a lot more difficult than it had to be. 3 4 Reply Share Avatar Chris Antenucci Michele (Obama) Gardner 11 minutes ago Most of the states "punted" this back to the fed gov't because it was Obama's id ea, not theirs, therefore it's his responsibility, not theirs. They never wanted it in the first place. Some of these states have already come up with their own ideas to improve healthcare, so they didn't need this bureaucratic mess. Obamacare was never a market-based solution, by definition it can't be if the IR S is in charge of verifying what insurance every individual is eligible for and has the power to enforce fines for people who don't buy a product they don't nee d. Last time I checked, market-based solutions don't involve gov't coercion. Lib erals point to medicaid and medicare, but those are targeted to discrete segment s of the population and are voluntary. You say the federal gov't will provide a subsidy, but it's not the gov't who's p roviding it, it's the taxpayers via higher taxes, the middle class by paying hig her premiums, and by other means like the medical device tax and significantly r educing the payments to doctors and hospitals. As for medicaid, there's a problem with that too . . ..http://www.mediaite.com/t v/cbs-news-e... Republicans do have their own plan and it's nothing like Obamacare, why they hav en't been pitching it to the american people is beyond me. I'm a conservative, n ot a republican so I'm not gonna attempt to defend them.

But conservatives have lots of truly market based solutions to the healthcare pr oblems we face, they just haven't been tried yet. . . . http://www.ncpa.org/healthcare... http://freebeacon.com/the-righ... Conservatives predicted Obamacare would collapse under its own weight, and it is . Literally more people now have lost their current insurance under it than peop le who have enrolled in a new plan. Meanwhile, everyone's premiums are going up to pay for the increased cost of the more expensive plans that Obamacare require s employers and insurers to offer. As for "overburdening" the fed gov't, are you kidding me? The fed gov't chose to implement this policy, the states had no say in it whatsoever, and the supreme court rightly ruled that the fed gov't couldn't force states into the medicaid e xpansion. They refused to expand medicaid cause in this horrible economy most states are a lready struggling to make their medicaid payments as it is, so increasing that c ost would increase their debt even more. If the fed gov't was as competent as liberals say it is, why would they need sta tes to help them create exchanges? They had 3 years to do it themselves. You jus t made the conservative argument for limited gov't. The states should've had the power in the first place, not the fed gov't. .