Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   McCaskill: "ObamaCare is RyanCare for seniors." Ah but RyanCare is McCaskill care for the poor and McCaskillCare is SchumerCare for rednecks and SchumerCare is McCainCare for Jews and McCainCare is ObamaCare for seniors and...oh crap   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 69
    More: Amusing, Claire McCaskill, obamacare, SchumerCare, McCaskillCare, McCainCare, Jews, middle ground, Cornyn  
•       •       •

1063 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Mar 2012 at 10:28 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



69 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-03-08 09:46:36 AM  
I realize its in bad taste to praise one's own headline, but of the three I've had greened today, this one is the only one that really made me chuckle.

\subby
 
2012-03-08 09:58:54 AM  

somedude210: I realize its in bad taste to praise one's own headline, but of the three I've had greened today, this one is the only one that really made me chuckle.

\subby


Great job. Except she said the opposite of what you thought she said.
 
2012-03-08 10:03:08 AM  

Wendy's Chili: Great job. Except she said the opposite of what you thought she said.


in my defense, i went with what the headline said. Blame it for being misleading
 
2012-03-08 10:16:48 AM  

somedude210: Wendy's Chili: Great job. Except she said the opposite of what you thought she said.

in my defense, i went with what the headline said. Blame it for being misleading


Headline: McCaskill: Obamacare Is Like Ryancare For Non-Seniors
 
2012-03-08 10:18:16 AM  

Wendy's Chili: Headline: McCaskill: Obamacare Is Like Ryancare For Non-Seniors


oops...it was early and I was more in the funny then in the reading comprehension side of things.

besides, we've had worse on Fark
 
2012-03-08 10:31:10 AM  
But when will then be now?
 
2012-03-08 10:31:15 AM  
 
2012-03-08 10:31:17 AM  
I thought Hitlercare was for the Jews
 
2012-03-08 10:31:23 AM  
Duh.

Obamacare, with the sole exception of the elimination of pre-existing condition clauses, is exactly what the GOP wanted in the 90s.
 
2012-03-08 10:32:43 AM  
One of the few politics headlines that elicited a chuckle from me. +1 for you, subby
 
2012-03-08 10:39:17 AM  

madgonad: Duh.

Obamacare, with the sole exception of the elimination of pre-existing condition clauses, is exactly what the GOP wanted in the 90s.


blogofbad.files.wordpress.com

No way. The Republican plan was like, "Bum bum bum bumbum ba da," whereas the Democratic plan was like, "Bum bumbum bum bum da da."
 
2012-03-08 10:40:06 AM  
What? No Romneycare?
 
2012-03-08 10:40:47 AM  
#1 reason health care costs so much...

Insurance.

It separates people from the prices. Thus prices can go as high as they can pry out of the insurance companies.

Next up, Obamacare limits the profitability of insurance companies by saying they can only keep up to 20% of premiums. This leads to the obvious solution of paying doctors and drug companies more so that 20% is of something even larger.

/I could teach Levitt and Dubner a few cynical things.
 
2012-03-08 10:40:53 AM  
cdn.10dailythings.com

This is all just Socialist Infinite-Loop style healthcare for babbies in the womb who want free contraceptives
 
2012-03-08 10:45:28 AM  
Um.... well, the Healthcare Reform bills that actually passed were based on the old REPUBLICAN PLAN.

Because the Democrat's plan had zero chance of getting through the House and Senate.

Welcome to the world of compromise at the hands of 538 children.
 
2012-03-08 10:46:41 AM  

rcantley: No way. The Republican plan was like, "Bum bum bum bumbum ba da," whereas the Democratic plan was like, "Bum bumbum bum bum da da."


+1 would LOL again.
 
2012-03-08 10:46:55 AM  
Was hoping for maybe some Gillibrandcare, if you know what I mean.
 
2012-03-08 10:47:32 AM  

rcantley: madgonad: Duh.

Obamacare, with the sole exception of the elimination of pre-existing condition clauses, is exactly what the GOP wanted in the 90s.

blogofbad.files.wordpress.com

No way. The Republican plan was like, "Bum bum bum bumbum ba da," whereas the Democratic plan was like, "Bum bumbum bum bum da da."


Brilliant. All our Internets belong to you.
 
2012-03-08 10:50:37 AM  
Obamacare forces people to buy insurance from a private company or else face a financial penalty and is therefore unconstitutional.

RyanCare forces people to buy insurance from a private company or else face a financial penalty as well, but it is *not* Unconstitutional because shut up, libtard.
 
2012-03-08 10:51:07 AM  
So when will we start hearing ACA + contraception referred to as "Slut-icare"?
 
2012-03-08 10:54:28 AM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: [cdn.10dailythings.com image 640x379]

This is all just Socialist Infinite-Loop style healthcare for babbies in the womb who want free contraceptives


Wow - that was voted the best answer? People are sofa king wee todd did.
 
2012-03-08 10:56:33 AM  
As McCaskill said, "I don't think people realize - I think they think it's a government plan, and it's all private insurance companies."


No, Claire, some of us figured that out a long time ago when we were asking for single payer while the rest were buying muskets and three-cornered hats and doing handstands for birth certificates.
 
2012-03-08 11:01:53 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: But when will then be now?


soon
 
2012-03-08 11:11:14 AM  

moistD: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: But when will then be now?

soon


HOW soon?
 
2012-03-08 11:12:14 AM  

DarwiOdrade: The All-Powerful Atheismo: [cdn.10dailythings.com image 640x379]

This is all just Socialist Infinite-Loop style healthcare for babbies in the womb who want free contraceptives

Wow - that was voted the best answer? People are sofa king wee todd did.


I just saw the source for that answer, so my hair is a bird.
 
2012-03-08 11:21:41 AM  

wildcardjack: Next up, Obamacare limits the profitability of insurance companies by saying they can only keep up to 20% of premiums. This leads to the obvious solution of paying doctors and drug companies more so that 20% is of something even larger.


That, or they'll simply reclassify administrative expenses as medical expenses, which is not a new thing for them.

Either way, they'll be sure to invest a significant portion of that (ha ha) "20%" on more lobbyists to make sure real reform like a government health plan for all will never be available, and on teams of attorneys to challenge attempts to make state based single payer systems. And part of that money will come from the American taxpayer via any leftover subsidies that haven't been cut by 2014.

As long as we continue to accept mediocrity, particularly on the basis that something worse will happen if we don't, mediocrity is all we'll get.
 
2012-03-08 11:23:28 AM  
img825.imageshack.us

img685.imageshack.us

img96.imageshack.us

img19.imageshack.us

img402.imageshack.us
 
2012-03-08 11:25:02 AM  

dervish16108: That, or they'll simply reclassify administrative expenses as medical expenses, which is not a new thing for them.

Either way, they'll be sure to invest a significant portion of that (ha ha) "20%" on more lobbyists to make sure real reform like a government health plan for all will never be available, and on teams of attorneys to challenge attempts to make state based single payer systems. And part of that money will come from the American taxpayer via any leftover subsidies that haven't been cut by 2014.

As long as we continue to accept mediocrity, particularly on the basis that something worse will happen if we don't, mediocrity is all we'll get.


I firmly believe that Universal Healthcare in the US is an inevitability. It won't happen by 2020, or 2030, but it *will* happen, as it's the only real viable way to handle the problem long-term.
 
2012-03-08 11:25:09 AM  
Here's the only question you need to ask yourself: does our society have a moral obligation to treat those who are dying, even if those who are dying are unable to pay for their treatments? If your answer is yes, then the only thing we really need to quibble about is how we are going to pay for it.
 
2012-03-08 11:37:40 AM  

Serious Black: Here's the only question you need to ask yourself: does our society have a moral obligation to treat those who are dying, even if those who are dying are unable to pay for their treatments? If your answer is yes, then the only thing we really need to quibble about is how we are going to pay for it.


soak the rich
 
2012-03-08 11:55:13 AM  
And yet, the same people that support RyanCare call ObamaCare unconstitutional. Odd.
 
2012-03-08 12:00:03 PM  

HeartBurnKid: And yet, the same people that support RyanCare call ObamaCare unconstitutional. Odd.


The reason PPACA is unconstitutional is the mandate. Ryan's plan - as stupid as it is - doesn't have a mandate.
 
2012-03-08 12:03:44 PM  

sprawl15: The reason PPACA is unconstitutional is the mandate. Ryan's plan - as stupid as it is - doesn't have a mandate.


How does it not have a mandate? Under the Ryan plan, the government forcibly collects Medicare Tax from me over the entirety of my life, and then issues me a "voucher" to use as a suppliment of my purchase of private insurance. I don't get the option to either not pay the medicare tax, or take my "voucher" in the form of cash, therefore If I choose to remain uninsured I lose all of that money I paid to the government.

It's the exact same thing. The only difference between RyanCare and ObamaCare is that if you choose to not have insurance, under RyanCare you pay your penalty beforehand rather than afterward.

Without the ability to opt-out of the program, it's a mandate to purchase insurance from a private company or else be financially penalized.
 
2012-03-08 12:07:08 PM  

The Homer Tax: How does it not have a mandate? Under the Ryan plan, the government forcibly collects Medicare Tax


Notice how the two bolded words are different?

There's a lot of ways to have the same functional idea.
 
2012-03-08 12:15:54 PM  

sprawl15: The Homer Tax: How does it not have a mandate? Under the Ryan plan, the government forcibly collects Medicare Tax

Notice how the two bolded words are different?

There's a lot of ways to have the same functional idea.


And apparently, the Framers of the Constitution were intensely concerned with semantic differences between policies that would lead to the exact same outcome.
 
2012-03-08 12:29:00 PM  
If ACA stopped at simply providing subsidies to those who needed help paying for insurance (and otherwise incentivized the cessation of work-tied insurance), allowing people to shop for their insurance in an open market, I would be for it. Unfortunately it goes much, much farther.
Insurance by its very nature is obtained to cover "pooled risks"; it should go without saying that paying for a need is not insurance.
This is not to say, however, that there may be group buying and other benefits which an insurance company can facilitate and coordinate among and for a contiguous group of people (i.e. dialysis services, prescription meds). Indeed, an insurance company (and its insured clients) can also gain mutual benefit by caring for these needs as it will mitigate some event risks down the road.
Long story short, you can insure risks, but someone always pay for needs.
 
2012-03-08 12:35:54 PM  

Serious Black: sprawl15: The Homer Tax: How does it not have a mandate? Under the Ryan plan, the government forcibly collects Medicare Tax

Notice how the two bolded words are different?

There's a lot of ways to have the same functional idea.

And apparently, the Framers of the Constitution were intensely concerned with semantic differences between policies that would lead to the exact same outcome.


What the fark are you babbling about?
 
2012-03-08 01:05:53 PM  

sprawl15: Serious Black: sprawl15: The Homer Tax: How does it not have a mandate? Under the Ryan plan, the government forcibly collects Medicare Tax

Notice how the two bolded words are different?

There's a lot of ways to have the same functional idea.

And apparently, the Framers of the Constitution were intensely concerned with semantic differences between policies that would lead to the exact same outcome.

What the fark are you babbling about?


Let's suppose there are two countries who adopt different ideas for convincing people to buy health insurance policies from private companies.

Country A automatically takes 2.5% of each citizen's income and, upon proof of holding a health insurance policy, issues the citizen a check for 2.5% of their income. In the end, individuals who provide proof of health insurance do not have any net money taken from them, and individuals who do not have 2.5% of their income taken from them.

Country B asks each citizen for proof of holding a health insurance policy. The government takes 2.5% of each citizen's income only if they cannot provide this proof. In the end, individuals who provide proof of health insurance do not have any net money taken from them, and individuals who do not have 2.5% of their income taken from them.

Is Country A really Freedomland? Is Country B really Tyrannystan? I know full well that behavioral economics says that these two systems are not identical, but there is no way that the Framers of the Constitution knew this considering that the field of behavioral economics wasn't even conceived of until Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky released their landmark paper on prospect theory almost 200 years after the Constitution was ratified. I can't believe they would look at these two systems and conclude that Country A worships freedom while Country B obliquely crushes it.
 
2012-03-08 01:10:06 PM  
If the Teatards are so upset about the ACA, I suggest a compromise - eliminate the individual mandate if hospitals can reject patients for inability to pay. Since emergency room visits are 100% darkies mooching off the system and uninsured seniors are not at all a plurality, it would let the entire healthcare industry be more bootstrappy and freedomy.
 
2012-03-08 01:10:48 PM  

Serious Black: Is Country A really Freedomland? Is Country B really Tyrannystan?


Serious Black: Framers of the Constitution


Christ, you're really going after those strawmen. Poor things.
 
2012-03-08 01:13:24 PM  

tnpir: moistD: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: But when will then be now?

soon

HOW soon?


WHEN I'M READY. Dont make me have to stop this car.
 
2012-03-08 01:13:50 PM  

sprawl15: Serious Black: Is Country A really Freedomland? Is Country B really Tyrannystan?

Serious Black: Framers of the Constitution

Christ, you're really going after those strawmen. Poor things.


Fine. Take those things out of the equation. Consider just the two policies I described. They have identical effects on your income. What makes one policy constitutional while the other is unconstitutional?
 
2012-03-08 01:17:47 PM  

Serious Black: What makes one policy constitutional while the other is unconstitutional?


Since they're happening in different hypothetical countries, I really have no idea what the Constitution has to do with your example situation.

Taxes are one of the few powers that are pretty explicitly laid out in their methodology. The mandate - were we to consider it a tax - would be a direct, unapportioned tax. Blatantly unconstitutional. If we don't consider it a tax, it's even farther out in left field in terms of allowable Constitutional authority.

You are aware that one can question the legality of something without assuming it's sekrit muslin hitler tyranny, right?
 
2012-03-08 01:23:24 PM  

Bag of Hammers: rcantley: madgonad: Duh.

Obamacare, with the sole exception of the elimination of pre-existing condition clauses, is exactly what the GOP wanted in the 90s.

[blogofbad.files.wordpress.com image 295x177]

No way. The Republican plan was like, "Bum bum bum bumbum ba da," whereas the Democratic plan was like, "Bum bumbum bum bum da da."

Brilliant. All our Internets belong to you.


Am I the only one who tried to verbally utter/hum the two variations offered to try to discern a difference?
 
2012-03-08 01:25:53 PM  

sprawl15: Taxes are one of the few powers that are pretty explicitly laid out in their methodology. The mandate - were we to consider it a tax - would be a direct, unapportioned tax. Blatantly unconstitutional. If we don't consider it a tax, it's even farther out in left field in terms of allowable Constitutional authority.


Isn't the Obamacare penalty a tax penalty?

I'm pretty sure they structured it that way as to make it legal for that very reason. The penalty you pay is via the government's power to lay and collect taxes.
 
2012-03-08 01:27:33 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: [cdn.10dailythings.com image 640x379]

This is all just Socialist Infinite-Loop style healthcare for babbies in the womb who want free contraceptives


Fun fact: aphids are born pregnant.

Think of all the baby aphids who would never be born if the socialists let them have birth control in the womb.
 
2012-03-08 01:29:59 PM  

The Homer Tax: Isn't the Obamacare penalty a tax penalty?


Depends what you mean by tax penalty. It's punitive in nature, so it is a penalty in that sense. It's not a 'penalty' on your income taxes, though, it's filed independently.

The Homer Tax: I'm pretty sure they structured it that way as to make it legal for that very reason. The penalty you pay is via the government's power to lay and collect taxes.


The government has no power to lay and collect unapportioned direct taxes (aside from the income taxes allowed under the 16th Amendment). Article I, Section 9:
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
 
2012-03-08 01:41:32 PM  

sprawl15: Serious Black: What makes one policy constitutional while the other is unconstitutional?

Since they're happening in different hypothetical countries, I really have no idea what the Constitution has to do with your example situation.

Taxes are one of the few powers that are pretty explicitly laid out in their methodology. The mandate - were we to consider it a tax - would be a direct, unapportioned tax. Blatantly unconstitutional. If we don't consider it a tax, it's even farther out in left field in terms of allowable Constitutional authority.

You are aware that one can question the legality of something without assuming it's sekrit muslin hitler tyranny, right?


Of course I'm aware of that. The problem I see with the GOP base is that they're not doing that. Rick Santorum gave a speech in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio on the night before Super Tuesday. He said "Obamacare is usurping your rights." It doesn't really matter to him, or the crowd that wildly cheered after that part of his speech, whether the Supreme Court says it is constitutional or not. The mandate to hold health insurance could have been structured like the tax-and-credit scheme proposed in Paul Ryan's Roadmap and his budget, and I am confident that everybody in the GOP would still consider it a usurpation of their rights because the guy who supported it the one time it mattered was Barack Obama. How else can you explain numerous Republicans championing the individual mandate in the form that was eventually enshrined in federal law up through July 2009 and then immediately pulling a 180 a week or two later and calling it a usurpation of our rights?
 
2012-03-08 02:02:36 PM  

sprawl15: Taxes are one of the few powers that are pretty explicitly laid out in their methodology. The mandate - were we to consider it a tax - would be a direct, unapportioned tax. Blatantly unconstitutional.


Clearly incorrect. "Direct taxes" under the Constitution were understood to mean capitation and land taxes. There was the old Supreme Court case, Pollock, that addressed an income tax as applied to real estate rentals and found that they were tantamount to land taxes; and since the income tax statute in question had no severability clause, the whole thing was found to be unconstitutional. Hence the 16th Amendment -- which was probably unnecessary since most people consider Pollock to have been incorrectly decided today. But there are plenty of federal non-income taxes nowadays -- estate tax, gasoline tax, various excise taxes, environmental taxes, on and on -- that are perfectly valid, because "direct tax" is a narrow category. The health care tax would be no different.

Can you debate whether it's actually a tax in the first instance, or a veiled regulation under the guise of a "tax"? Yes, but I think it still holds up under Commerce Clause authority.
 
2012-03-08 02:25:30 PM  

Serious Black: Of course I'm aware of that.


Then don't throw a shiatfit about tyranny and other nonsense when I'm talking about simple Constitutional enumeration. What Republicans have done before - or what Paul Ryan proposed - has absolutely zero bearing on the Constitutionality of the PPACA mandate. Why you think they do is completely beyond me.

Super Chronic: But there are plenty of federal non-income taxes nowadays -- estate tax, gasoline tax, various excise taxes, environmental taxes, on and on -- that are perfectly valid, because "direct tax" is a narrow category. The health care tax would be no different.


Incorrect. The health care 'tax' is paid directly to the fed, annually. The other taxes are collected by secondary agencies before being paid to the Fed, and thus are indirect taxes. Basically, if it's not income tax, it's indirect taxation because apportioned direct taxation is a pain in everyone's ass. The mandate, if considered a tax, would be directly levied (you pay directly to the Fed), would not be apportioned among the states, and would not be a tax on income. QED.

Super Chronic: Yes, but I think it still holds up under Commerce Clause authority.


The problem (or one of them) with trying to hold it up under Commerce Clause is that a punitive mandate to purchase a private product has no real precedence. It sets a massive change in capability for the government; the government would simply need to decide that there is a public need for people to purchase X, and could pass a law mandating purchase of X. That's a very strange way to go about something that could much more easily have been handled via direct government provided health insurance (expanding Medicare, single payer systems, etc).

Another major problem of holding it up under the Commerce Clause is that a mandate is in absolutely no way a regulatory act.
 
Displayed 50 of 69 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report