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.

(Politico)   Senator Scott Brown was happy to vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and he's just as happy to use it to keep his 23-year-old daughter insured   (politico.com) divider line 323
    More: Obvious, Senator Scott Brown, Affordable Care Act, Massachusetts Republicans, health care, repeal, Ponzi, Ayla Brown  
•       •       •

3479 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 May 2012 at 2:55 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-01 12:23:40 PM  
This guy is making enemies on both sides of the aisle.
 
2012-05-01 12:29:08 PM  
How dare he play by the rules and say the rules should be changed!

I'll bet he pays all his taxes while campaigning for reductions in tax rates too, the hypocrite.
 
2012-05-01 12:37:11 PM  
I wonder how many College Republicans have healthcare because of that part of the ACA.
 
2012-05-01 12:39:44 PM  

gerrymander: How dare he play by the rules and say the rules should be changed!

I'll bet he pays all his taxes while campaigning for reductions in tax rates too, the hypocrite.


You'd think if it was so bad that he wants it repealed, he wouldn't have his daughter participate.

I'm sure that she can pay for her own health insurance on the free market with all that money she's getting from his campaign.
 
2012-05-01 12:40:36 PM  

gerrymander: How dare he play by the rules and say the rules should be changed!
I'll bet he pays all his taxes while campaigning for reductions in tax rates too, the hypocrite.


Are you just being intentionally obtuse, or do you really need to have this explained to you?

Here's a hint: Federal law requires you (as opposed to simply allows you) to pay your taxes regardless of whether you agree with the tax rates or not. You do not have the option to opt out of paying taxes. Federal law allows you (but does not require you) to keep your kids on your employer's health plan up to age 25 regardless of whether or not you agree with the law, but you may opt not to do so.

Now go back and see if your comment still makes sense to you.
 
2012-05-01 12:50:57 PM  
People hate Obamacare and want it repealed, but like all of the things it does and want to keep them. The Republicans/Fox News won the hell out of that branding battle.
 
2012-05-01 01:01:16 PM  
Hmm. Sounds like RON PAUL would love this guy.
 
2012-05-01 01:23:35 PM  
Ah, the old "fark you, i got mine" strategy.
 
2012-05-01 01:24:41 PM  
It reminds me of the Romney Loophole.

"Governor, why is the individual mandate acceptable at the state level and not the federal level?"

"Because the Massachusetts Constitution permits it. The Federal Constitution does not."

"Well, that's fine in terms of what's allowed and what's not. But is it a good idea? Should government on any level compel you to purchase goods or services they dictate?"

*crickets*

I wish someone would have the balls to put it to him in those terms. He has no answer to that.
 
2012-05-01 01:33:52 PM  
As much as I don't like the guy, this article reeks of spin.

To me, it's like being given a minivan when you wanted a sports car. You're still going to drive the minivan if what you really need is to get from A to B.

Just because he voted against it doesn't mean he shouldn't take advantage of it. Did you give the $300 the Bush administration gave every citizen right back to the government? No, you spent it or put it in your own bank account.
 
2012-05-01 01:40:29 PM  

This Is Bold Text: To me, it's like being given a minivan when you wanted a sports car. You're still going to drive the minivan if what you really need is to get from A to B.


The difference is not between cars. The difference is that Senator Brown could afford to pay his daughter's health insurance with or without the HCA if he wanted to do so. But most everyone else CAN'T do that. And he's trying to eliminate the option for those people. And yes, lots of people turned right around and gave that $300 payola to anti-Bush efforts.
 
2012-05-01 01:43:31 PM  

Diogenes: I wish someone would have the balls to put it to him in those terms. He has no answer to that.


No worries. I have a feeling that's one of many topics President Obama will happily discuss with Gov. Romney during live primetime debates.
 
2012-05-01 01:44:07 PM  
"I've said right from the beginning, that if there are things that we like, we should take advantage of them and bring them back here to Massachusetts,'' Brown said.

That's some mighty fine irony right there. The Massachusetts-style individual mandate is what makes the rest of the bennies that Scott Brown enjoys possible.
 
2012-05-01 01:44:26 PM  

Somacandra: Diogenes: I wish someone would have the balls to put it to him in those terms. He has no answer to that.

No worries. I have a feeling that's one of many topics President Obama will happily discuss with Gov. Romney during live primetime debates.


Unfortunately it could very likely be a moot point by then, depending on SCOTUS.
 
2012-05-01 01:55:36 PM  

Somacandra: The difference is not between cars. The difference is that Senator Brown could afford to pay his daughter's health insurance with or without the HCA if he wanted to do so. But most everyone else CAN'T do that. And he's trying to eliminate the option for those people. And yes, lots of people turned right around and gave that $300 payola to anti-Bush efforts.


If you have the option of paying more or less, which would you choose?
 
2012-05-01 01:59:32 PM  

This Is Bold Text: Somacandra: The difference is not between cars. The difference is that Senator Brown could afford to pay his daughter's health insurance with or without the HCA if he wanted to do so. But most everyone else CAN'T do that. And he's trying to eliminate the option for those people. And yes, lots of people turned right around and gave that $300 payola to anti-Bush efforts.

If you have the option of paying more or less, which would you choose?


Would you pay less and then work so that everyone else has to pay more?
 
2012-05-01 02:02:00 PM  

This Is Bold Text: Somacandra: The difference is not between cars. The difference is that Senator Brown could afford to pay his daughter's health insurance with or without the HCA if he wanted to do so. But most everyone else CAN'T do that. And he's trying to eliminate the option for those people. And yes, lots of people turned right around and gave that $300 payola to anti-Bush efforts.

If you have the option of paying more or less, which would you choose?


I would choose to pay less and I would also make sure that option remains available for others to do so.
 
2012-05-01 02:02:03 PM  

This Is Bold Text: Somacandra: The difference is not between cars. The difference is that Senator Brown could afford to pay his daughter's health insurance with or without the HCA if he wanted to do so. But most everyone else CAN'T do that. And he's trying to eliminate the option for those people. And yes, lots of people turned right around and gave that $300 payola to anti-Bush efforts.

If you have the option of paying more or less, which would you choose?


Scott Brown has the extra cost of Politico sniffing for hypocrisy during a tough election cycle.
 
2012-05-01 02:07:02 PM  
www.americanidol.com
1.bp.blogspot.com

Pics of said 23 year old daughter (who is also or was also an American Idol contestant apparently.
 
2012-05-01 02:14:09 PM  
"Yes, I'm taking advantage of it. No, I don't want it around anymore. What would I do if it wasn't around anymore? I'd buy health insurance for my daughter. Because I can afford to do that. Can't every American?"
 
2012-05-01 02:15:28 PM  

James!: Would you pay less and then work so that everyone else has to pay more?


Again, remember the Bush Economic Stimulus Package where everyone received $300? I spent mine, but I didn't have to vote for Bush in order to do so.

You dont have to like something that you use.
 
2012-05-01 02:26:31 PM  

This Is Bold Text: James!: Would you pay less and then work so that everyone else has to pay more?

Again, remember the Bush Economic Stimulus Package where everyone received $300? I spent mine, but I didn't have to vote for Bush in order to do so.

You dont have to like something that you use.


But, in a sense, wasn't that $300 really our money in the first place?

Plus, the argument someone made earlier about how you are required to pay taxes muddies your position a bit IMHO.
 
2012-05-01 02:36:16 PM  

This Is Bold Text: James!: Would you pay less and then work so that everyone else has to pay more?

Again, remember the Bush Economic Stimulus Package where everyone received $300? I spent mine, but I didn't have to vote for Bush in order to do so.

You dont have to like something that you use.


You keep using that $300. Scott is working to kick people like his daughter off of their insurance. It's not a subtle difference.
 
2012-05-01 02:51:45 PM  
My favorite thing about this is that in order for the GOP to act like it's not a big deal, they have to also accept this aspect of Obamacare as being beneficial for families.
 
2012-05-01 02:54:47 PM  

Aarontology: My favorite thing about this is that in order for the GOP to act like it's not a big deal, they have to also accept this aspect of Obamacare as being beneficial for families.


That's been the thing all along.

If you take the pieces parts and show them to people, and don't tell them its part of "Obamacare", there's very little they'd object to.
 
2012-05-01 03:00:03 PM  
Oh, I'm sure he realizes there's a "dichotomy" in his public stance on the ACA and him taking advantage of one of its benefits... Just like that Teabagger in Boston a few years ago realized there was a "dichotomy" between her protesting against welfare while receiving welfare from the Commonwealth for all her kids she keeps on having... because their "blessings" you see.


Some folks might call that hypocrisy, but I'm sure Brown doesn't see it that way.
 
2012-05-01 03:00:11 PM  

James!: This Is Bold Text: James!: Would you pay less and then work so that everyone else has to pay more?

Again, remember the Bush Economic Stimulus Package where everyone received $300? I spent mine, but I didn't have to vote for Bush in order to do so.

You dont have to like something that you use.

You keep using that $300. Scott is working to kick people like his daughter off of their insurance. It's not a subtle difference.


Plus even if you take his argument at face value he is just some guy not a senator who belongs to a party that is against it. Being a public official means you have to base your actions on how they are perceived.
 
2012-05-01 03:00:14 PM  

gerrymander: How dare he play by the rules and say the rules should be changed!

I'll bet he pays all his taxes while campaigning for reductions in tax rates too, the hypocrite.


Is he breaking the law if he doesn't put his daughter on Obamacare?

I thought "Obamacare" was "government take over in healthcare". Why would he voluntarily let government take over his healthcare and a service which he said is worse than normal non-obamacare?
 
2012-05-01 03:00:51 PM  
I don't see the outrage. I mean, yeah he's against Obamacare and that's not right but someone is trying to connect the dots here when there are none.
 
2012-05-01 03:03:00 PM  

This Is Bold Text: To me, it's like being given a minivan when you wanted a sports car. You're still going to drive the minivan if what you really need is to get from A to B.

Just because he voted against it doesn't mean he shouldn't take advantage of it. Did you give the $300 the Bush administration gave every citizen right back to the government? No, you spent it or put it in your own bank account.


Umm why can't he just buy normal insurance for her? You are saying he isn't given the choice but he is.

So then you are saying "Government take over" insurance is just as good as "Non-obamacare insurance"? You mean it's just as good and the Republican talking point that it isn't is a lie?

It's ok to support the "US Decline to government take over"? Or are all those GOP line Bull shiat? Which is it?
 
2012-05-01 03:03:43 PM  
www.brainygamer.com
 
2012-05-01 03:04:03 PM  
At 23 his daughter can't buy her own health insurance?
 
2012-05-01 03:04:25 PM  

This Is Bold Text: As much as I don't like the guy, this article reeks of spin.

To me, it's like being given a minivan when you wanted a sports car. You're still going to drive the minivan if what you really need is to get from A to B.

Just because he voted against it doesn't mean he shouldn't take advantage of it. Did you give the $300 the Bush administration gave every citizen right back to the government? No, you spent it or put it in your own bank account.


Yeah, I actually agree with you. I find this just as stupid as people who think Warren Buffet not voluntarily paying higher taxes undermines his argument that we should up the tax rate on the rich. There's nothing wrong with playing by the rules while arguing the current rules are stupid.

The problem here is neither this article, nor its original source, get at the actual issue which is what will families who do not pull in a Congressman's salary do when this law is repealed?
 
2012-05-01 03:04:37 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: [www.americanidol.com image 423x230]
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 315x275]

Pics of said 23 year old daughter (who is also or was also an American Idol contestant apparently.


This is the only part of the thread worth a damn.
 
2012-05-01 03:05:06 PM  

Guidette Frankentits: I don't see the outrage. I mean, yeah he's against Obamacare and that's not right but someone is trying to connect the dots here when there are none.


Why would you voluntarily participate in something you believe is "Government take over of your healthcare" or a plan to have "socialism take over the United States"? That's ok to do if you want to save a few dollars?

Or are those BS lines? Now Obamacare is just as good as non-Obamacare insurance? THat's not what the GOP has been saying for years.
 
2012-05-01 03:05:08 PM  
What about the millionaire Dems who consistently vote to raise taxes yet take advantage of every possible tax break they can get? They don't think they are paying enough in taxes yet use the law to pay the least amount allowable. This Scott thing sounds like that to me.
 
2012-05-01 03:05:37 PM  
gerrymander: How dare he play by the rules and say the rules should be changed!

I'll bet he pays all his taxes while campaigning for reductions in tax rates too, the hypocrite.


You mean like arguing to lower taxes and telling people that if they want to pay higher taxes they should "just donate to the government"?

Browns said that before too. He should put his money where his mouth is and refuse to cover them under the ACA and pay out of pocket. After all, that's the argument he makes against paying higher taxes, no?
 
2012-05-01 03:05:38 PM  

keylock71: Oh, I'm sure he realizes there's a "dichotomy" in his public stance on the ACA and him taking advantage of one of its benefits... Just like that Teabagger in Boston a few years ago realized there was a "dichotomy" between her protesting against welfare while receiving welfare from the Commonwealth for all her kids she keeps on having... because their "blessings" you see.


Some folks might call that hypocrisy, but I'm sure Brown doesn't see it that way.


The Teabaggers he's courted may.

Which is another point, This Is Bold Text: We may not see anything wrong with him taking advantage of the program. But his base very well could.
 
2012-05-01 03:08:01 PM  

James!: This Is Bold Text: James!: Would you pay less and then work so that everyone else has to pay more?

Again, remember the Bush Economic Stimulus Package where everyone received $300? I spent mine, but I didn't have to vote for Bush in order to do so.

You dont have to like something that you use.

You keep using that $300. Scott is working to kick people like his daughter off of their insurance. It's not a subtle difference.


You focused on the wrong part of the analogy and then pretended like you made a relevant point. That was silly. His analogy was an example of something people were against but still participated in anyways. I was against the Bush Tax Rebate, I was for the lockbox. I did not send my $300 check back to the US government. I'm for higher taxes for people in my income bracket. I do not volunteer to pay more in taxes. There is no hypocrisy there. I'm playing by the rules of the game, while saying the rules are stupid.
 
2012-05-01 03:09:10 PM  

Guidette Frankentits: I don't see the outrage. I mean, yeah he's against Obamacare and that's not right but someone is trying to connect the dots here when there are none.


You know who else connected dots?


..... 3 .... million... jobs... lost... forever....
 
2012-05-01 03:11:35 PM  

radioshack: What about the millionaire Dems who consistently vote to raise taxes yet take advantage of every possible tax break they can get? They don't think they are paying enough in taxes yet use the law to pay the least amount allowable. This Scott thing sounds like that to me.


If you're in your company breakroom and you see Dunkin Donuts there... you know what, fark it, I can already tell analogies are going to be lost on you.
 
2012-05-01 03:12:29 PM  

coeyagi: Guidette Frankentits: I don't see the outrage. I mean, yeah he's against Obamacare and that's not right but someone is trying to connect the dots here when there are none.

You know who else connected dots?


..... 3 .... million... jobs... lost... forever....


You are talking about the Bush Admin, right?
 
2012-05-01 03:14:16 PM  

coeyagi: radioshack: What about the millionaire Dems who consistently vote to raise taxes yet take advantage of every possible tax break they can get? They don't think they are paying enough in taxes yet use the law to pay the least amount allowable. This Scott thing sounds like that to me.

If you're in your company breakroom and you see Dunkin Donuts there... you know what, fark it, I can already tell analogies are going to be lost on you.


It seems his analogy was lost on you.
 
2012-05-01 03:15:13 PM  

gerrymander: How dare he play by the rules and say the rules should be changed!

I'll bet he pays all his taxes while campaigning for reductions in tax rates too, the hypocrite.


He has to pay taxes because that's a lawful requirement. However, he doesn't HAVE to put his daughter under his health care. If he is against it and doesn't believe it should exist, he should set the example and let his daughter fend for herself.
 
2012-05-01 03:15:34 PM  
One example of the bumper sticker campaign (series) I have been trying to get going (finance)...

i46.tinypic.com
 
2012-05-01 03:17:07 PM  

Cyberluddite: gerrymander: How dare he play by the rules and say the rules should be changed!
I'll bet he pays all his taxes while campaigning for reductions in tax rates too, the hypocrite.

Are you just being intentionally obtuse, or do you really need to have this explained to you?

Here's a hint: Federal law requires you (as opposed to simply allows you) to pay your taxes regardless of whether you agree with the tax rates or not. You do not have the option to opt out of paying taxes. Federal law allows you (but does not require you) to keep your kids on your employer's health plan up to age 25 regardless of whether or not you agree with the law, but you may opt not to do so.

Now go back and see if your comment still makes sense to you.


Yeah, it still does. You're drawing a meaningless distinction, in the hope that it creates a distraction.

Here's why it's meaningless: Brown does not have the opportunity to avoid any of the structure and penalties of Obamacare, even if he chooses to forgo some of the benefits. "Obamacare" is to "paying federal income taxes" as "checking the $3 to federal elections box" is to "adding daughter to insurance policy".

Ultimately, he can opt out of neither paying income taxes nor Obamacare, even if the framework of both offer some a la carte options. If what he wants is the ability to opt out -- permanently, or in some fraction - of the overall structure, what he does at any instant with the minimal choice he has in irrelevant to the greater argument against.
 
2012-05-01 03:17:13 PM  
What was the age limit prior to the ACA? Would a 23 year old have been eligilble to remain on the parent's policy either way?
 
2012-05-01 03:17:56 PM  

moralpanic: gerrymander: How dare he play by the rules and say the rules should be changed!

I'll bet he pays all his taxes while campaigning for reductions in tax rates too, the hypocrite.

He has to pay taxes because that's a lawful requirement. However, he doesn't HAVE to put his daughter under his health care. If he is against it and doesn't believe it should exist, he should set the example and let his daughter fend for herself.


Interesting argument you have there. Mind if I borrow it to argue against every single Democrat who has advocated tax hikes for the wealthy while not opting to pay higher taxes themselves?

He has to pay low taxes because that's a lawful requirement. However, he doesn't HAVE to opt to pay more in taxes. If he is against low tax rates for the rich and doesn't believe it should exist, he should set the example and opt to pay higher taxes himself.

Thanks.
 
2012-05-01 03:19:29 PM  

gerrymander: Ultimately, he can opt out of neither paying income taxes nor Obamacare,


You can 100% opt out of "Obamacare" (whatever that means)

You just have to pay more in taxes.
 
2012-05-01 03:20:47 PM  

radioshack: What about the millionaire Dems who consistently vote to raise taxes yet take advantage of every possible tax break they can get? They don't think they are paying enough in taxes yet use the law to pay the least amount allowable. This Scott thing sounds like that to me.


No they want ALL rich American to pay their fair share not just themselves.

Republicans on the other hand have told us again and again that "Obamacare" is inferior to normal healthcare so why would they then pick it if they have an option not to?

Is Obamacare "Government run healthcare" inferior? If so why choice it?

Why can't people answer that?
 
Displayed 50 of 323 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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