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.

(MSNBC)   One in three Americans back Obama's health care reform. Numbers are even less for people who are members of the Supreme Court   (msnbc.msn.com) divider line 256
    More: Fail, obama, supreme courts, healthcare reform, Americans, Associated Press-GfK, extended coverage, health care law, supreme court rules  
•       •       •

3482 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Jun 2012 at 12:51 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-22 04:35:50 PM

qorkfiend: Deftoons: qorkfiend: The term "health insurance" carries no implication that its coverage is limited to catastrophic costs.

That's how it was known to be practiced and considered to be over the last five decades; both in the government and private sector for the US. It was a policy directed towards certain incurring expenses in an agreed-to policy. Single payer is neither.

There are some private insurance products that cover only catastrophic costs, but to say that all health insurance only covers catastrophic costs and that's the way it's viewed by both public and private entities is demonstrably false. Medicaid and Medicare, for example, cover far more than catastrophic costs.

Is Medicare not a "policy directed towards certain incurring expenses"? If Medicare meets the definition, how does Medicare-for-all not?


Single payer (what I'm talking about in my Boobies in this thread) covers ALL expenses, and it's not an agreed-to policy. Everybody is forced in, with the government becoming defacto sole provider of expenses. Again, this requires a Constitutional Amendment in order to happen in America.

The closest thing I see the US having to single payer is a public option, per what you phrase it to be "Medicare for All."
 
2012-06-22 04:36:34 PM
that kind of brand loyalty to the republican party in this day and age is quite amazing.
 
2012-06-22 04:38:02 PM

Deftoons: LasersHurt: Guess it's time for Single-Payer.

You'll need to pass a Constitutional Amendment first. Good luck with that.


I don't see why.

Even if the mandate falls, the power of Congress to collect taxes is certainly constitutional, as its ability to directly provide health services (cf. Medicare, Medicaid, VA).

Single-payer would involve Congress exercising powers that no one doubts that it has, simply on a broad scale. There would be absolutely no grounds for a constitutional challenge.
 
2012-06-22 04:39:18 PM

Deftoons: Single payer (what I'm talking about in my Boobies in this thread) covers ALL expenses, and it's not an agreed-to policy. Everybody is forced in, with the government becoming defacto sole provider of expenses. Again, this requires a Constitutional Amendment in order to happen in America.


The details of what it does and doesn't cover would be left to implementation; you can't say definitively that any single payer system would automatically include all expenses.

Social Security and Medicare aren't agreed-to policies, either.

What, precisely, makes this unconstitutional?
 
2012-06-22 04:39:54 PM

Deftoons: Serious Black: Deftoons: Your "golden mean" argument still runs into some conflicts - for instance, wouldn't the "spending" part and the "legislation" part be one and the same?

Helvering v. Davis asserted that Congress has a plenary power to spend money as long as the expenditure of money is in promotion of the general welfare. South Dakota v. Dole asserted that legislation relating to conditions on spending money must be unambiguous and must be related to the purpose of spending that money. Nobody has ever asserted that the Taxing and Spending Clause gives Congress carte blanche to legislate independently of spending money.

Two things:

-Can't the federal government then simply legislate any new power as long as they slap a "general welfare" purpose on it, per Helvering v. Davis? Because that does essentially mean it gives Congress carte blanche authority, without needing to pass a new Amendment.


-How can Congress legislate independently of spending money? Honest question here. That seems rather confusing.

There are lots of bills passed that have nothing to do with spending money. One example would be DOMA; it has nothing to with the expenditure of duly raised funds and, thus, cannot be declared a use of the Taxing and Spending Clause. Beyond that, different sections of laws can be a use of different enumerated powers, so just slapping an expenditure of funds onto a bill wouldn't automatically make the entire thing constitutional.
 
2012-06-22 04:43:05 PM

qorkfiend: What, precisely, makes this unconstitutional?


I think it would be constitutional (but I'm certainly no expert in Const. law), but the cost would have to be offset by something. Unless D and R mutually agree to big cuts in defense (never happen) then they sure need to find a lot of money from somewhere.
 
2012-06-22 04:45:20 PM

3_Butt_Cheeks: qorkfiend: What, precisely, makes this unconstitutional?

I think it would be constitutional (but I'm certainly no expert in Const. law), but the cost would have to be offset by something. Unless D and R mutually agree to big cuts in defense (never happen) then they sure need to find a lot of money from somewhere.


Indeed. That's always going to be a problem.
 
2012-06-22 05:01:11 PM
Let me guess - people want to replace the ACA with free health care and lower taxes?

Seems like something Romney would promise.
 
2012-06-22 05:09:45 PM

qorkfiend: 3_Butt_Cheeks: qorkfiend: What, precisely, makes this unconstitutional?

I think it would be constitutional (but I'm certainly no expert in Const. law), but the cost would have to be offset by something. Unless D and R mutually agree to big cuts in defense (never happen) then they sure need to find a lot of money from somewhere.

Indeed. That's always going to be a problem.


I'd rather pay my premiums to Single Payer coverage than to my current for-profit insurance provider.
 
2012-06-22 05:10:44 PM

Chummer45: Let me guess - people want to replace the ACA with free health care and lower taxes?

Seems like something Romney would promise.


The ACA is Romneycare,only on a national level.
 
2012-06-22 05:16:04 PM
Can someone explain to me how a 1/3rd of the people re 1 in 3. Because honestly I have trouble with math but I know enough to know that 1/3rd is not always 1 in 3.
I seriously doubt 105 million people support this bill.
 
2012-06-22 05:18:00 PM

Cup_O_Jo: Can someone explain to me how a 1/3rd of the people re 1 in 3. Because honestly I have trouble with math but I know enough to know that 1/3rd is not always 1 in 3.
I seriously doubt 105 million people support this bill.


Can you give an example where 1/3rd is not 1 in 3?
 
2012-06-22 05:20:20 PM

Karac: Chimperror2: Serious Black:

Two, if insurance companies are really trying to control costs, then why have health insurance premiums increased at a rate at least twice as fast as health care costs over the last fifteen years?

Premiums are a function of the level of service, not cost. Go price out automobile premiums and compare "no deductible" premiums to $1000 deductible premiums. If people demand "no deductible" or a cap on out of pocket or whatever else Unions and employees value as insurance, premiums will reflect that. If more conditions are "covered", premiums will reflect that.

Everyone wants 100% covered, no deductible, no out of pocket expenses, no limit on pre-existing conditions, all relatives included on policy, no lifetime limits and no copay's. But no one wants to pay the premium for that. If you pass laws that force those coverages, premiums will rise. Only morons would support laws that essentially mandate insurance premium increases and then complain about insurance premium increases. "But I wanted it for FREE!!"

You're point that health care insurance premiums rise out of sync with healh care costs is that insurance companies were suddenly required to cover more. How do you then account for the fact that that out-of-sync rise dates back years before Obamacare was even passed? Was this another magical time machine operation?


I don't believe I qualified any of it on Obamacare. People demand more through their unions or their feet. Premiums are not directly coupled to cost as there are a myriad of other things that affect them including legislation. If your employer starts offering more coverage because the employees demanded it or to be competitive, the premiums will go up.

Take "No pre-existing conditions exclusion" for example. There were/are employer plans that existed before any legislation that would not exclude a covered person due to a pre-existing condition. Employers pay a premium for that coverage. Now, everyone will pay a premium for that as it becomes the law. It doesn't magically become free.

Heck, a lot of employers are self-insured and use the insurance companies because of their negotiated rates and administrative infrastructure and they pay them an administrative charge but the risk is assumed by the employer and they get a bill for actual health care costs plus fees.
 
2012-06-22 05:21:10 PM

Cup_O_Jo: Can someone explain to me how a 1/3rd of the people re 1 in 3. Because honestly I have trouble with math but I know enough to know that 1/3rd is not always 1 in 3.
I seriously doubt 105 million people support this bill.


If you ask three people.
 
2012-06-22 05:21:43 PM

qorkfiend: Cup_O_Jo: Can someone explain to me how a 1/3rd of the people re 1 in 3. Because honestly I have trouble with math but I know enough to know that 1/3rd is not always 1 in 3.
I seriously doubt 105 million people support this bill.

Can you give an example where 1/3rd is not 1 in 3?


Congressional budgeting?
 
2012-06-22 05:22:32 PM

3_Butt_Cheeks: qorkfiend: Cup_O_Jo: Can someone explain to me how a 1/3rd of the people re 1 in 3. Because honestly I have trouble with math but I know enough to know that 1/3rd is not always 1 in 3.
I seriously doubt 105 million people support this bill.

Can you give an example where 1/3rd is not 1 in 3?

Congressional budgeting?


Good point. They mostly use imaginary numbers.
 
2012-06-22 05:31:34 PM

Chimperror2: Karac: Chimperror2: Serious Black:

Two, if insurance companies are really trying to control costs, then why have health insurance premiums increased at a rate at least twice as fast as health care costs over the last fifteen years?

Premiums are a function of the level of service, not cost. Go price out automobile premiums and compare "no deductible" premiums to $1000 deductible premiums. If people demand "no deductible" or a cap on out of pocket or whatever else Unions and employees value as insurance, premiums will reflect that. If more conditions are "covered", premiums will reflect that.

Everyone wants 100% covered, no deductible, no out of pocket expenses, no limit on pre-existing conditions, all relatives included on policy, no lifetime limits and no copay's. But no one wants to pay the premium for that. If you pass laws that force those coverages, premiums will rise. Only morons would support laws that essentially mandate insurance premium increases and then complain about insurance premium increases. "But I wanted it for FREE!!"

You're point that health care insurance premiums rise out of sync with healh care costs is that insurance companies were suddenly required to cover more. How do you then account for the fact that that out-of-sync rise dates back years before Obamacare was even passed? Was this another magical time machine operation?

I don't believe I qualified any of it on Obamacare. People demand more through their unions or their feet. Premiums are not directly coupled to cost as there are a myriad of other things that affect them including legislation. If your employer starts offering more coverage because the employees demanded it or to be competitive, the premiums will go up.

Take "No pre-existing conditions exclusion" for example. There were/are employer plans that existed before any legislation that would not exclude a covered person due to a pre-existing condition. Employers pay a premium for that coverage. Now, everyone will pay a premium for that as it becomes the law. It doesn't magically become free.

Heck, a lot of employers are self-insured and use the insurance companies because of their negotiated rates and administrative infrastructure and they pay them an administrative charge but the risk is assumed by the employer and they get a bill for actual health care costs plus fees.


This is patently not true. Group health plans have been required to cover pre-existing conditions for all beneficiaries since 1996 because of HIPAA. The only catch is that they can hold out coverage for PREX for 12 months if there has been a lapse in coverage longer than 63 days. This is all spelled out in Title I of the law.
 
2012-06-22 05:43:48 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: pdee: And you believe the government agency that administers single payer will have 0% costs?

Close to it.


Certainly compared to what the insurance executives currently pay themselves.
 
2012-06-22 05:54:24 PM
Reform - actual reform, would be nice, and is very much needed. Obamacare is not reform, any more than throwing gasoline on a fire is firefighting.

However, my experience on the politics tab has shown that all I'm going to get in reply is derp, no matter how much trouble I go to in providing evidence of this. All the sources who don't blindly champion everything Obama does are low-down dirty rotten lying scoundrels, so what's the point?

Fortunately, the fact is that no more than about 20% of the country shares these ultra-leftist views. Obama only got elected because he swore up and down that he wasn't an ultra-leftist. Sadly, not only is he an ultra-leftist and a blame-America-firster, he's also the crony tool of the very same monitary elites he claims to oppose. That's because leftism is largely an invention of those elites, designed to make fools feel better about themselves while championing policies which concentrate social, political and ecomonic power upwards into fewer and fewer hands.

"B-b-b-but Bush!!" Yeah. Bush. COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATIVE. That's a code phrase meaning " big-government central planning, plus Bibles for decoration."

Real reform would streamline regulations without gutting actual protections, it would foster actual competitveness, and it would not grow the government. Obamacare does exactly the opposite of these things. Therefore it is not reform. You might like this or that aspect of it, but it is not reform and, taken as a whole, will bankrupt the healthcare system. I don't mean "oh noes!! 199.9 billion in profit instead of 200 billion!!" I mean that the whole system is going to suffer, and within a decade (at best), will no longer be able to function. At that point the government takes over, and I submit that this is why we "had to pass it to know what's in it." If we'd had a chance to read all 2500 pages of this monstrosity, that would have been figured out before it could be passed.

Like practically everything Democrats Republicans politicians do, it's all lies and bullshiat. And I hope SCOTUS strikes it down with extreme prejudice.
 
2012-06-22 05:54:39 PM

lilbjorn: Dusk-You-n-Me: pdee: And you believe the government agency that administers single payer will have 0% costs?

Close to it.

Certainly compared to what the insurance executives currently pay themselves.


They're going to piss money away like government always does. And I can't imagine that in their wildest fantasy of having hooker and blow "meetings" in Vegas for this or that task force or fact finding commission that they could ever come close to even a tiny fraction of the money that insurance companies soak up in profit.

It blows my mind that anyone could support a health care "reform" law that mandates doing business with insurance companies.
 
2012-06-22 05:58:50 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: However, my experience on the politics tab has shown that all I'm going to get in reply is derp, no matter how much trouble I go to in providing evidence of this. All the sources who don't blindly champion everything Obama does are low-down dirty rotten lying scoundrels, so what's the point?


Dude nobody here says that Obama is the messiah and his infallability is that of a living god. We're just saying that's how it works out in a practical sense. It's not that Obama can do no wrong, we're just saying that he never has and there's really no chance he ever will.

So go ahead with your criticism of Obama, that's allowed. It's just that any criticism of Obama is wrong by definition.
 
2012-06-22 06:01:44 PM

Deftoons: Your "golden mean" argument still runs into some conflicts - for instance, wouldn't the "spending" part and the "legislation" part be one and the same?


No, that's not a conflict. The difference is between a general power to enact all legislation Congress determines to promote the general welfare, and a specific power to enact legislation to spend for the general welfare. The latter is the long accepted and correct construction of the general welfare clause, for the reasons I've already discussed.

The way you imagine liberals read the general welfare clause:

Congress shall have power to enact all legislation to promote the general welfare.

The way Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, progressives, and the Supreme Court really read the general welfare clause:

Congress shall have power to spend to promote the general welfare.
 
2012-06-22 06:02:45 PM

paygun: Dude nobody here says that Obama is the messiah and his infallability is that of a living god. We're just saying that's how it works out in a practical sense. It's not that Obama can do no wrong, we're just saying that he never has and there's really no chance he ever will.

So go ahead with your criticism of Obama, that's allowed. It's just that any criticism of Obama is wrong by definition.


Ok, well done, I laughed. : )
 
2012-06-22 06:55:52 PM

Cletus C.: gearsprocket: I am glad it will be struck down. You liberal trash don't deserve healthcare.

Oh, I am serious by the way. Deal with it.

I'd add you to my list of people who make funny comments that cause mass lib panty bunching if I kept such a list.


Know how I know you're self-important and not too bright?
 
2012-06-22 06:56:18 PM

qorkfiend: Deftoons: Single payer (what I'm talking about in my Boobies in this thread) covers ALL expenses, and it's not an agreed-to policy. Everybody is forced in, with the government becoming defacto sole provider of expenses. Again, this requires a Constitutional Amendment in order to happen in America.

The details of what it does and doesn't cover would be left to implementation; you can't say definitively that any single payer system would automatically include all expenses.

Social Security and Medicare aren't agreed-to policies, either.

What, precisely, makes this unconstitutional?


It's important to know the history behind Social Security's Supreme Court challenge (the one Serious Black referenced above). As I noted before, FDR was threatening to change the Supreme Court judicial structure after many of his New Deal provisions were struck down by the Supreme Court. Plus, just like what I also noted previously in this thread, they slapped the "An act for general welfare" on top the bill in order to simply claim the verbiage is in line with the general welfare statement noted in the Constitution. After both of these actions, despite the Supreme Court striking down many other New Deal policies, the Supreme Court strangely claimed Social Security Constitutional. It wasn't until after FDR's battle with the Supreme Court that this happened.

Again, the Supreme Court's rulings are not historically consistent.
 
2012-06-22 07:01:56 PM

Serious Black: Deftoons: Serious Black: Deftoons: Your "golden mean" argument still runs into some conflicts - for instance, wouldn't the "spending" part and the "legislation" part be one and the same?

Helvering v. Davis asserted that Congress has a plenary power to spend money as long as the expenditure of money is in promotion of the general welfare. South Dakota v. Dole asserted that legislation relating to conditions on spending money must be unambiguous and must be related to the purpose of spending that money. Nobody has ever asserted that the Taxing and Spending Clause gives Congress carte blanche to legislate independently of spending money.

Two things:

-Can't the federal government then simply legislate any new power as long as they slap a "general welfare" purpose on it, per Helvering v. Davis? Because that does essentially mean it gives Congress carte blanche authority, without needing to pass a new Amendment.

-How can Congress legislate independently of spending money? Honest question here. That seems rather confusing.

There are lots of bills passed that have nothing to do with spending money. One example would be DOMA; it has nothing to with the expenditure of duly raised funds and, thus, cannot be declared a use of the Taxing and Spending Clause. Beyond that, different sections of laws can be a use of different enumerated powers, so just slapping an expenditure of funds onto a bill wouldn't automatically make the entire thing constitutional.


I think the tax and spending clause should mean the federal government can spend on the powers the Amendments specifically dictate therein. Like a national defense (that protects our borders, not invade foreign lands). But if the Amendments don't specifically say the government can spend on something, the 10th Amendment should be respected and adhered to. I think that's what the 10th Amendment is for.
 
2012-06-22 07:05:43 PM

Deftoons: "An act for general welfare" on top the bill in order to simply claim the verbiage is in line with the general welfare statement noted in the Constitution.


Social Security is in fact an act spending to promote the general welfare. I'd say it's a good thing they cited the power which authorized the legislation.

After both of these actions, despite the Supreme Court striking down many other New Deal policies, the Supreme Court strangely claimed Social Security Constitutional. It wasn't until after FDR's battle with the Supreme Court that this happened.

The Supreme Court never read laissez-faire into the Constitution until around the turn of the 20th century. The idea that the Constitution mandates laissez-faire did not originate with the founders. It stopped reading laissez-faire into the Constitution in the 30's. Roosevelt's "threat" was perfectly within the purview of his Constitutional powers to make. If that's what it took to get the Justices to stop reading false doctrine into the Constitution, then there's nothing wrong with that.
 
2012-06-22 07:09:32 PM

Deftoons: I think the tax and spending clause should mean the federal government can spend on the powers the Amendments specifically dictate therein.


1) There is no textual basis for this position.

2) This position renders the general welfare clause moot, since all spending for the other enumerated powers is justified under the necessary and proper clause.

3) Reading the general welfare clause as an independent, enumerated power to spend does not render the other Article I powers moot, because the spending power by itself would not authorize them.
 
2012-06-22 07:11:34 PM

Serious Black: Chimperror2: Take "No pre-existing conditions exclusion" for example. There were/are employer plans that existed before any legislation that would not exclude a covered person due to a pre-existing condition. Employers pay a premium for that coverage. Now, everyone will pay a premium for that as it becomes the law. It doesn't magically become free.

Heck, a lot of employers are self-insured and use the insurance companies because of their negotiated rates and administrative infrastructure and they pay them an administrative charge but the risk is assumed by the employer and they get a bill for actual health care costs plus fees.


This is patently not true. Group health plans have been required to cover pre-existing conditions for all beneficiaries since 1996 because of HIPAA. The only catch is that they can hold out coverage for PREX for 12 months if there has been a lapse in coverage longer than 63 days. This is all spelled out in Title I of the law.


And plans without exclusions existed 1995. Plans without waiting periods exist. All the "good stuff" that everyone agrees with is available today. You just have to pay for it. Making it a law doesn't change that. It's not magically free because it's now required by law. Quite the opposite.
 
2012-06-22 07:11:34 PM

bugontherug: Deftoons: I think the tax and spending clause should mean the federal government can spend on the powers the Amendments specifically dictate therein.

1) There is no textual basis for this position.

2) This position renders the general welfare clause moot, since all spending for the other enumerated powers is justified under the necessary and proper clause.

3) Reading the general welfare clause as an independent, enumerated power to spend does not render the other Article I powers moot, because the spending power by itself would not authorize them.


You know what they say...
 
2012-06-22 07:17:52 PM

qorkfiend: bugontherug: Deftoons: I think the tax and spending clause should mean the federal government can spend on the powers the Amendments specifically dictate therein.

1) There is no textual basis for this position.

2) This position renders the general welfare clause moot, since all spending for the other enumerated powers is justified under the necessary and proper clause.

3) Reading the general welfare clause as an independent, enumerated power to spend does not render the other Article I powers moot, because the spending power by itself would not authorize them.

You know what they say...


In this case, he's one of many passionate right wing attackers of what they imagine other people interpret the Constitution to be. This canard of misrepresenting a power to spend as a general power to legislate, and then attacking a general power to legislate dates back to the first lying conservative, James Madison. They've been allergic to truth since the inception of the republic.
 
2012-06-22 07:34:48 PM

Sabyen91: What? No it isn't. Have you ever HAD insurance?


I have house insurance, car insurance, motorcycle insurance, and lost limb/disability insurance. I don't have healthcare insurance. I have a healthcare plan/program.

Personally, I'm in favor of 'healthcare savings plans' and forcing employers to fund them, with the government funding it if the person is low income enough, unemployed, and what not.
 
2012-06-22 07:58:10 PM

Get Your Dick Out Of My Food: By having an individual mandate with no public option, It presents the ass of the American public to the private insurance industry on a golden platter.



^
|
|

THIS
 
2012-06-22 08:04:36 PM

lacrossestar83: Get Your Dick Out Of My Food: By having an individual mandate with no public option, It presents the ass of the American public to the private insurance industry on a golden platter.


^
|
|

THIS


I agree in principle that there should have been a public option. But the bill as it stands still permits competition among insurance companies. Companies that charge higher premiums, or deliver poorer quality service, etc., will lose market share to better companies. Auto insurers don't own anyone's ass either, and mandatory car insurance has been around much longer than Obamacare.
 
2012-06-22 08:11:51 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Cletus C.: gearsprocket: I am glad it will be struck down. You liberal trash don't deserve healthcare.

Oh, I am serious by the way. Deal with it.

I'd add you to my list of people who make funny comments that cause mass lib panty bunching if I kept such a list.

Know how I know you're self-important and not too bright?


My sexual prowess?
 
2012-06-22 08:26:31 PM

bugontherug: I agree in principle that there should have been a public option. But the bill as it stands still permits competition among insurance companies.


In many states there are only 1-2 insurance companies in the market due to the complexities of complying with state law. Car insurance is simple in comparison.

Personally, I'd have really loved if the measures to start some not/non-profit insurance exchanges had passed, like Farmer's Insurance Exchange does house/auto. Basically, health insurance is so expensive nobody's managed to collect enough money to start one. I think it was something like $500M to start up three of them if the federal government went to stand one up like Fannie/Freddie for the home market.
 
2012-06-22 08:29:25 PM

Cup_O_Jo: Can someone explain to me how a 1/3rd of the people re 1 in 3. Because honestly I have trouble with math but I know enough to know that 1/3rd is not always 1 in 3.
I seriously doubt 105 million people support this bill.


What? I don't even... What? Seriously?

I think this might be the single stupidest thing I've seen written on fark in the decade I've been here. I'm trying to think back to something that might surpass it, but this is a whole order of power more stupid than when someone seriously asked if each state would get three senators if there were three major political parties. This makes the "Nixon! You dolt!" incident seem positively farking erudite. All the things FlashLV ever posted seem like lost works of Socrates in comparison.
 
2012-06-22 08:50:01 PM

Shaggy_C: Marcus Aurelius: Two out of three American couldn't tell you what Obamacare is if their lives depended on it.

But shouldn't the brilliant campaigner be able to sell the message effectively?


You try selling a message effectively when the media unquestioningly repeats any and every misleading half-truth and outright lie your opponents tell verbatim for fear of being called "biased" by the American version of Der Sturmer.

That being said, I could also say it doesn't matter how brilliant he is at selling a message since he never made any discernable attempt to sell one during the summer of 2009. Week upon week, he said nothing and let the GOP lie machine run unquestioned. And now we're shocked that people are misinformed?
 
2012-06-22 08:55:54 PM

Marcus Aurelius: Two out of three American couldn't tell you what Obamacare is if their lives depended on it.


What is deathpanels, for $500.00
 
2012-06-22 09:32:58 PM

LasersHurt: Guess it's time for Single-Payer.

 
2012-06-22 09:43:46 PM

BKITU: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Marcus Aurelius: Two out of three American couldn't tell you what Obamacare is if their lives depended on it.

It's a type of hat...?

It's a strapless evening gown.


It's a kind of cheese.
 
2012-06-22 09:45:14 PM
The problem...people are upset because we put him and the demoncrats in office specifically to deal its this, end the war budget and the wars. He hasn't really done any of these properly...of what has been done. The health care is a disgrace and he should have done a single payer plan or Medicare E..for everyone. Instead he embraced a colossally cumbersome program that technically accomplishes the goal, but in doing os Pansy's to all stakeholders except the American people. Meaning costs are only contined when cuts to service are made. And yes, we are informed about the bill because we have to implement it at our institution. It's a one pit or a limited service, shift costs to employees scam. Either way, people end up bearing more actual dollar for dollar costs.
 
2012-06-22 10:04:58 PM

Grand_Moff_Joseph: Again, I'll ask:

Why do Americans think it is perfectly acceptable to leave the fate of your healthcare needs in the hands of a for-profit, private company?


It's not ok and in fact that's the biggest issue I have with the mandate. I hate that I would be forced to give my money to folks who profit off of murder by proxy, it's foul.
 
2012-06-22 10:09:49 PM

Zombie Butler: It's not ok and in fact that's the biggest issue I have with the mandate. I hate that I would be forced to give my money to folks who profit off of murder by proxy, it's foul.


The "mandate" is functionally identical to a 2% tax increase with an offsetting tax credit for people who prove they have qualifying health insurance. You're no more "forced" to buy health insurance than you are "forced" to have kids because the government gives tax breaks for children. Less so, really, because the health insurance "penalty" can only be collected via withholding of tax refunds.
 
2012-06-22 10:12:55 PM

Firethorn: bugontherug: I agree in principle that there should have been a public option. But the bill as it stands still permits competition among insurance companies.

In many states there are only 1-2 insurance companies in the market due to the complexities of complying with state law.


I'm going to have to see a citation for this proposition.
 
2012-06-22 10:20:48 PM
My new reaction to people hating Federal Health Care is to question their religion. They invariably answer that they are Christian, then I helpfully point out that Jesus healed the poor and disenfranchised.

If they say their aethiest, I point out it's a chance to prove how much better they are then all the feckless believers.

Any other religious views are taken on a case-by-case basis.
 
2012-06-22 10:23:56 PM

Stile4aly: If only the President would have done something sensible like establishing high risk pools, creating tax incentives for business to provide insurance, requiring insurance companies to spend a floor limit amount on services, ending recissions and denials for preexisting conditions, providing premium support for people to purchase insurance, setting minimum coverage standards, allowing young people to stay on their parents' insurance, and lowering Medicare costs.

Instead he had to push a bill which takes over the healthcare industry, rations care so that no one will ever be able to get an MRI or cardiac catheterization, forces mandatory abortions, and establishes death panels.


Why, no...I'm not going to steal this and post it to my Facebook in order to troll half of my friends list. Why do you ask?
 
2012-06-22 10:27:08 PM

Lando Lincoln: Shaggy_C: Marcus Aurelius: Two out of three American couldn't tell you what Obamacare is if their lives depended on it.

But shouldn't the brilliant campaigner be able to sell the message effectively?

It's kinda hard to do that when the GOP is using a bullhorn next to you spewing lies about it.

But the GOP really cares about us is all. It's not that they're actually evil or anything.


Yeah!

And the Bears still suck!!
 
2012-06-22 10:27:11 PM

Cup_O_Jo: Can someone explain to me how a 1/3rd of the people re 1 in 3. Because honestly I have trouble with math but I know enough to know that 1/3rd is not always 1 in 3.
I seriously doubt 105 million people support this bill.


I'm honestly having trouble understanding how stupid one must be to not even be able to grasp the most basic concepts of math and statistics.

It's making my head hurt thinking about it.
 
2012-06-22 11:25:29 PM

Shaggy_C: Marcus Aurelius: Two out of three American couldn't tell you what Obamacare is if their lives depended on it.

But shouldn't the brilliant campaigner be able to sell the message effectively?


Brilliancy has nothing to do with it when the average american WalMart shopper has the memory of a senile goldfish. If it's more than five words their brains can't hold onto it long enough for it to stay and it just slides across the empty space to spill out through their other ear. This is even though not only has the entire text available on line for many months, but the differing house and senate versions as well. In english.

None of this should have to be about "selling a message", it should be about "read the f*cking bill then judge it". The people who don't like this legislation are usually the same people who wouldn't like "the message" if the president was telling them that their f*cking hair was on fire. Nothing he says is right anyway, and you can't "sell" anything to people who won't buy no matter how good the product is simply because it's you who is selling it.

Betcha if MIttens RMoney had tried to sell this same legislation like he did when he was governor the trailer park crew would have eaten that sh*t up with a spoon and asked for seconds. We all know why that is.

tl;dr - they're either too stupid or too impatient to read it. It isn't the law they don't like, it's the salesman, and that will never change.
 
Displayed 50 of 256 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report