So republicans are only paying lip service to concern about the deficit? Shocking.

Sure, the Republicans care about the deficit, but it takes a backseat to their #1 priority of trying to make Obama look bad.

It really is the only thing...

No, 0bamacare COSTS money.

'cause soshalism.

In other news, conservatives announce their new political strategy of smashing Obama's fists with their faces.

MrEricSir: Sure, the Republicans care about the deficit, but it takes a backseat to their #1 priority of trying to make Obama look bad.

Well, it's not that we reduce the deficit as much as it's that we reduce it the right way. You know, the right way being in a way that Obama doesn't like, outlaws abortions, teaches abstinence-only birth control, and explodes the deficit in sweetheart deals to the top 1% and corporations.

You know, responsibly.

Also: I'm not entirely sure it would piss off liberals to repeal Obama's health care plan.

Well, I'm sure the Republican would cut taxes on the wealthy at the same time, so it will all balance out.

What matters is that we decrease the scope of government as well as the size. This is a scope issue, which, occasionally, can contradict the size ideal. In the long run though it is a step in the right direction. Eventually we will be back to the glory days when the federal government didn't have any say between a doctor and patient, and a hospital could refuse anyone who couldn't pay. Maybe if poor people actually were turned out to the street it would give them some incentive to not put off getting health insurance. Sorry to say it but if you want an omelette you have to break some eggs and if a poor person has to die on the street to get the message across so be it. Better than OBamacare. Its freedom.

False dichotomy.

The hilarious part is they assume no.changes will be made to obamacare, despite the removal of CLASS and the various waivers. Second they say of no obamacare plus other controls removed in the second chart. So their assumptions are best case for obamacare and worse case for other. How laughable.

Blathering Idjut: Also: I'm not entirely sure it would piss off liberals to repeal Obama's health care plan.

Given that, in the couple years it would take us to cycle back to it, the GOP will probably have completely imploded and the single-payer option will pass no problem, I can see that.

Obamacare was headed in the right direction, but calling it a "step" is like calling the walk from your couch to the TV a marathon.

well if they repeal it then they can cut costs and reduce the price right? right?! or will they follow the airlines and just charge more because people wouldn't notice

Shaggy_C: if a poor person has to die on the street to get the message across so be it. Better than OBamacare. Its freedom.

Well ok, provided that your plan includes a market-driven approach to dealing with the corpses in the street.

Shaggy_C: What matters is that we decrease the scope of government as well as the size. This is a scope issue, which, occasionally, can contradict the size ideal. In the long run though it is a step in the right direction. Eventually we will be back to the glory days when the federal government didn't have any say between a doctor and patient, and a hospital could refuse anyone who couldn't pay. Maybe if poor people actually were turned out to the street it would give them some incentive to not put off getting health insurance. Sorry to say it but if you want an omelette you have to break some eggs and if a poor person has to die on the street to get the message across so be it. Better than OBamacare. Its freedom.

Got it, the only true freedom for the poor is the sweet release of death...

IoSaturnalia: Shaggy_C: if a poor person has to die on the street to get the message across so be it. Better than OBamacare. Its freedom.

Well ok, provided that your plan includes a market-driven approach to dealing with the corpses in the street.

The homeless can turn them in at the Soylent Green recycling center for $0.10 per body.

As sure as the Fark Shop side pane will show either the DIAF shirt or a "zombified" movie marque poster, the republicans will continue to bark about how concerned they are about the deficit while at the same time continuing to contribute to the very problem they use as a whooping cane.

Santorum: "Repeal every regulation the Obama administration has put in place, repeal them all! You may have replace a few"
Debate moderator: "It's disingenuous to just say you can wave it all away."
Santorum: "I said repeal it"

This is it folks... This is YOUR field of prospective candidates being put forth by the GOP for the office of the President of the United States...

/Garbage in
//Garbage out
///RIP Carlin, you nailed it on the head

This is actually the upside to the Tea Baggers:

They're holding the GOP's feet to the fire on deficit reduction makes it more and more obvious that the GOP is not now and never has been interested in fiscal responsibility.

That and the LULZ.

IoSaturnalia: Shaggy_C: if a poor person has to die on the street to get the message across so be it. Better than OBamacare. Its freedom.

Well ok, provided that your plan includes a market-driven approach to dealing with the corpses in the street.

Bring out your dead.

Obamacare will raise the deficit. Repealing Obamacare will raise the deficit. Both those statements cant be true.

The bill itself is a moving target. Since it passed Dems have been rolling back parts of it.

Jim_Callahan: Blathering Idjut: Also: I'm not entirely sure it would piss off liberals to repeal Obama's health care plan.

Given that, in the couple years it would take us to cycle back to it, the GOP will probably have completely imploded and the single-payer option will pass no problem, I can see that.

Obamacare was headed in the right direction, but calling it a "step" is like calling the walk from your couch to the TV a marathon.

Well, considering it means I can now have the hope of buying health coverage when before I would have been flat out denied across the board, I still call it a "step".

Mager: Shaggy_C: What matters is that we decrease the scope of government as well as the size. This is a scope issue, which, occasionally, can contradict the size ideal. In the long run though it is a step in the right direction. Eventually we will be back to the glory days when the federal government didn't have any say between a doctor and patient, and a hospital could refuse anyone who couldn't pay. Maybe if poor people actually were turned out to the street it would give them some incentive to not put off getting health insurance. Sorry to say it but if you want an omelette you have to break some eggs and if a poor person has to die on the street to get the message across so be it. Better than OBamacare. Its freedom.

Got it, the only true freedom for the poor is the sweet release of death...

Which, coincidentally is the GOP alternative plan to ObamaCare.

Does Obamacare create more doctors? Does it make manufacturers produce more medical supplies?

Trying to fix the high cost of medical care, which is directly related to the shortage of medical resources, without increasing the supply of those resources is not going to work.

Your only other option that might actually do something is to reduce demand... but well that has some negatives.

Forcing agencies, insurance companies, and receptionists to push even more paper around in circles at faster and faster speeds is not going to help. Or sometimes digital information instead of paper but you have to worry about HIPAA then... and so on and so forth

but if they blow a hole in the deficit, they can just cut more social programs to "fix" the deficit. Like how they fixed the deficit when Bush was President

hint: Republican politicians don't care about deficits when Republicans are in office

I've often wondered what the results to the question from both Democrat and Republican leaders if you asked:

If no matter what, you could get three laws passed. What would they be?

Kumana Wanalaia: In other news, conservatives announce their new political strategy of smashing Obama's fists with their faces.

The new face of the GOP:

HellRaisingHoosier: I've often wondered what the results to the question from both Democrat and Republican leaders if you asked:

If no matter what, you could get three laws passed. What would they be?

1) Term limits.
2) All elections are publicly funded and instant run-off.
3) Regulation of the media and what can call itself "news" versus what must be clearly labeled as "opinion."

The rest of the problems would solve themselves extremely quickly.

Mager: Got it, the only true freedom for the poor is the sweet release of death...

Well, let's wax philosophical: is a law that requires a person to act in a particular manner an infringement of freedom? I would say that, yes, it is. But such a law would not be necessary if not for a previous infringement of freedom elsewhere. You see, the only reason I support a mandate at all is because we've had a mandate that emergency rooms care for patients without regard to their ability to repay. I look upon people without health insurance the same as I do shoplifters - they are stealing from the rest of us.

Since Obama hasn't been even close to being right on any of his financial projections since he's taken office we should all be very concerned and do exactly what he says.

Larofeticus: Does Obamacare create more doctors? Does it make manufacturers produce more medical supplies?

Trying to fix the high cost of medical care, which is directly related to the shortage of medical resources, without increasing the supply of those resources is not going to work.

Your only other option that might actually do something is to reduce demand... but well that has some negatives.

Forcing agencies, insurance companies, and receptionists to push even more paper around in circles at faster and faster speeds is not going to help. Or sometimes digital information instead of paper but you have to worry about HIPAA then... and so on and so forth

I'm not entirely certain that our exploding medical costs are because of increasing doctor shortages......

/it may be a *lot* more complicated than that.

Larofeticus: Does Obamacare create more doctors? Does it make manufacturers produce more medical supplies?

Trying to fix the high cost of medical care, which is directly related to the shortage of medical resources, without increasing the supply of those resources is not going to work.

Your only other option that might actually do something is to reduce demand... but well that has some negatives.

Forcing agencies, insurance companies, and receptionists to push even more paper around in circles at faster and faster speeds is not going to help. Or sometimes digital information instead of paper but you have to worry about HIPAA then... and so on and so forth

I also have not read anything about Obamacare yet do not let that stop me from making things up about it.

But all snark aside, I agree with you on needing socialized health care to get rid of all the beaurocracy.

Really important sentence in TFA:

"The health care reform law will extend subsidized private health insurance to millions of Americans, paid for with new taxes and Medicare savings."

It pretty much all hinges on this doesn't it? And does anyone really believe all those needed tax increases and Medicare cuts are going to happen?

Blathering Idjut: Also: I'm not entirely sure it would piss off liberals to repeal Obama's health care plan.

I agree and I'm starting to see this opinion expressed more often. It's been a year and a half and people are starting to realize this was the wrong way to go.

Botkin of the Yard: Blathering Idjut: Also: I'm not entirely sure it would piss off liberals to repeal Obama's health care plan.

I agree and I'm starting to see this opinion expressed more often. It's been a year and a half and people are starting to realize this was the wrong way to go.

liberals wanted more. They would not want it repealed, they would want it replaced or added on to.

But don't let that stop you from pretending.

fritton: I'm not entirely certain that our exploding medical costs are because of increasing doctor shortages......

The increase in costs is due to expensive new technologies. Nowadays every former blue collar assembly-line worker on a pension thinks he deserves multi-million dollar cancer therapy. He's going to die regardless, but unlike 30 years ago, we're paying out the nose to delay it.

Shaggy_C: Mager: Got it, the only true freedom for the poor is the sweet release of death...

Well, let's wax philosophical: is a law that requires a person to act in a particular manner an infringement of freedom? I would say that, yes, it is. But such a law would not be necessary if not for a previous infringement of freedom elsewhere. You see, the only reason I support a mandate at all is because we've had a mandate that emergency rooms care for patients without regard to their ability to repay. I look upon people without health insurance the same as I do shoplifters - they are stealing from the rest of us.

Without Obamacare I *couldn't get* Health Insurance...at any price.

Not to mention that health insurance premiums are increasing at a rate many times that of inflation..and weren't cheap to begin with.

/Maybe there's a better option than: Private health insurance for the rich and death to all the poor thieves.

Botkin of the Yard: It's been a year and a half and people are starting to realize this was the wrong way to go.

Especially considering almost none of it has taken effect yet...hurr

fritton: Without Obamacare I *couldn't get* Health Insurance...at any price.

In which case we need a good social safety net, to catch those who would otherwise fall through the cracks. But when some perfectly healthy 26 year old hipster falls off his fixed-gear bike and breaks his leg, I don't think the rest of us should pay for it. It's his own damn fault for not getting health insurance.

MFL: Since Obama hasn't been even close to being right on any of his financial projections since he's taken office we should all be very concerned and do exactly what he says.

GAO =! Obama, dumbass.

lennavan: HellRaisingHoosier: I've often wondered what the results to the question from both Democrat and Republican leaders if you asked:

If no matter what, you could get three laws passed. What would they be?

1) Term limits.
2) All elections are publicly funded and instant run-off.
3) Regulation of the media and what can call itself "news" versus what must be clearly labeled as "opinion."

The rest of the problems would solve themselves extremely quickly.

I agree with all of these but would probably substitute out #3 with "amend the constitution to explicitly and clearly state without much room for otherwise sideway interpretations that a corporation is NOT a person of any kind and there for should not be afforded the same rights"

HellRaisingHoosier: I've often wondered what the results to the question from both Democrat and Republican leaders if you asked:

If no matter what, you could get three laws passed. What would they be?

frosted mine wheats should be frosted on both sides
penutbutter and jelly should not come in the same jar
no abc stores, liqouir always cost more in those states

This part sums it all up:

Republicans' answer to this problem is contained in the controversial budget framework they adopted this past spring. It would phase out Medicare as a single government insurance payer and replace it with a private insurance system - with subsidies for beneficiaries that grow much slower than the cost of health care. Democrats reject this approach - but Republicans aren't interested in playing ball with the liberal approach of hacking away at health care costs in a way that ultimately makes Medicare affordable.

In other words, the GOP has no farking clue how to balance the budget without destorying people's lives.

/bit hyperbolic but still gets my point across

Shaggy_C: Especially considering almost none of it has taken effect yet...hurr

Great, so when will we know exactly? And of course you're certain that all the required tax increases and Medicare cuts will happen on schedule.

Shaggy_C: fritton: I'm not entirely certain that our exploding medical costs are because of increasing doctor shortages......

The increase in costs is due to expensive new technologies. Nowadays every former blue collar assembly-line worker on a pension thinks he deserves multi-million dollar cancer therapy. He's going to die regardless, but unlike 30 years ago, we're paying out the nose to delay it.

That doesn't really explain the enormous costs associated with even minor procedures that have been around for decades (hell, even centuries).

We have an extremely, *extremely* inefficient system. We pay much more than every other first world nation for the same standard of care. My appendectomy does not cost $75,000 because someone, somewhere is coming up with a new nifty cancer diagnosis machine.

lennavan: But don't let that stop you from pretending.

Pretending about what?

fritton: Shaggy_C: fritton: I'm not entirely certain that our exploding medical costs are because of increasing doctor shortages......

The increase in costs is due to expensive new technologies. Nowadays every former blue collar assembly-line worker on a pension thinks he deserves multi-million dollar cancer therapy. He's going to die regardless, but unlike 30 years ago, we're paying out the nose to delay it.

That doesn't really explain the enormous costs associated with even minor procedures that have been around for decades (hell, even centuries).

We have an extremely, *extremely* inefficient system. We pay much more than every other first world nation for the same standard of care. My appendectomy does not cost $75,000 because someone, somewhere is coming up with a new nifty cancer diagnosis machine.

Clearly privatizing Medicare, tort reform, and interstate insurance competition are the answer.

Shaggy_C: fritton: Without Obamacare I *couldn't get* Health Insurance...at any price.

In which case we need a good social safety net, to catch those who would otherwise fall through the cracks. But when some perfectly healthy 26 year old hipster falls off his fixed-gear bike and breaks his leg, I don't think the rest of us should pay for it. It's his own damn fault for not getting health insurance.

A social safety net is one thing.. but considering that very shortly our health care premiums will cost more than the price of rent or housing for a very sizable percentage of our population, while at the same time every other civilized nation in the world accomplishes much more for a fraction of the cost...then maybe it's time for a radical change.

The health of our own citizens shouldn't be primarily a for-profit concern... or at least not a protected concern.

Mrtraveler01: fritton: Shaggy_C: fritton: I'm not entirely certain that our exploding medical costs are because of increasing doctor shortages......

The increase in costs is due to expensive new technologies. Nowadays every former blue collar assembly-line worker on a pension thinks he deserves multi-million dollar cancer therapy. He's going to die regardless, but unlike 30 years ago, we're paying out the nose to delay it.

That doesn't really explain the enormous costs associated with even minor procedures that have been around for decades (hell, even centuries).

We have an extremely, *extremely* inefficient system. We pay much more than every other first world nation for the same standard of care. My appendectomy does not cost $75,000 because someone, somewhere is coming up with a new nifty cancer diagnosis machine.

Clearly privatizing Medicare, tort reform, and interstate insurance competition are the answer.

Clearly. Those huggable mega-corporations have always put my well being and continued good health as their top priority.

/They just need fuzzier mascots and spokespersons.