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.

(Chicago Trib)   Final poll before SCOTUS rules on Obamacare shows Americans still hate it even though they love everything in it   (articles.chicagotribune.com) divider line 352
    More: Stupid, Americans, U.S. Supreme Court, obamacare, Ipsos, political independents, health care law, Americans oppose, individual mandate  
•       •       •

2803 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jun 2012 at 7:27 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-24 12:32:23 PM  
Almost everything.
61% oppose the mandate... which the pre-existing conditions rule (that 82% support) needs as an necessary kind of counterbalance. (Other solutions may be possible, but no less palatable to the conservatives.)
 
2012-06-24 12:41:24 PM  
Fifty-six percent of people are against the healthcare overhaul and 44 percent favor it, according to the online poll conducted from Tuesday through Saturday.

Not a single person is undecided or has mixed feelings? Great poll.
 
2012-06-24 12:54:44 PM  
I trust Karl Rove and/or David Axelrod to tell me what I like or don't like. That whole thinking thing just got tedious.
 
2012-06-24 03:41:00 PM  

Dogberry: I trust Karl Rove and/or David Axelrod to tell me what I like or don't like. That whole thinking thing just got tedious.


LIBERAL! The real thinkists is cumming from the John Birch Society.

4.bp.blogspot.com

Obamacare is a UN conspiracy.
 
2012-06-24 04:06:31 PM  

abb3w: Almost everything.
61% oppose the mandate... which the pre-existing conditions rule (that 82% support) needs as an necessary kind of counterbalance. (Other solutions may be possible, but no less palatable to the conservatives.)


100 theoretica bucks says the mandate is kept but the rest is repealed.
 
2012-06-24 04:40:13 PM  
While there are many aspects of the law that are problamatic for me, the requirement to purchase is the one that bugs me the most. If I choose to do without coverage, that's my business, not the Federal Government's.

I firmly believe that if this whole law get's repealed (which I doubt will happen), that Obama can kiss his reelection goodbye.
 
2012-06-24 04:49:18 PM  

Endive Wombat: If I choose to do without coverage, that's my business


4.bp.blogspot.com

Shut up and get a job like your parents did, hippie.
 
2012-06-24 05:10:46 PM  

Somacandra: Endive Wombat: If I choose to do without coverage, that's my business

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 400x323]

Shut up and get a job like your parents did, hippie.


emotibot.net
 
2012-06-24 05:15:45 PM  
Republicans did such a fantastic job astroturfing their oppostition, it's amazing anyone has a clear view on this at all. Meanwhile, their plan is nonexistent, so if it goes, and you get sick, die quickly.
 
2012-06-24 05:26:52 PM  
Yeah subby, it's called being a partisan douchebag.
 
2012-06-24 05:35:58 PM  

Endive Wombat: If I choose to do without coverage, that's my business, not the Federal Government's.


Is it the federal government's business if you have a mortgage?
 
2012-06-24 05:40:22 PM  

Endive Wombat: If I choose to do without coverage, that's my business, not the Federal Government's.


The law requiring emergency rooms to provide service to you regardless of your ability to pay still exists, and so long as it keeps existing, it is not your business, but the business of those who ultimately foot the bill -- the insured and taxpayers.

Once the law allows hospitals to let you be turned away at the door, then you can claim it's your business. Until then, you're putting my money at risk, you freeloader.
 
2012-06-24 05:46:05 PM  
When pulled on its components:

72% were in favour of the death panels
59% agreed with mandatory abortions
67% like the idea all the decisions on their medical treatment being made my Nancy Pelosi
 
2012-06-24 05:54:34 PM  

Endive Wombat: While there are many aspects of the law that are problamatic for me, the requirement to purchase is the one that bugs me the most. If I choose to do without coverage, that's my business, not the Federal Government's.

I firmly believe that if this whole law get's repealed (which I doubt will happen), that Obama can kiss his reelection goodbye.


Good lord, do you not understand wtf this is about? When people like you get a disease or gets injured or sick and have to go to the hospital and then can't pay, guess what happens? Yep, the hospital that has to eat your bill ups the price of aspirin and band-aids and everything else another percent to make up for it.

But I guess you'll never get sick or injured so it's only your business, right?
 
2012-06-24 05:55:48 PM  
but but obama is black
 
2012-06-24 06:21:16 PM  
The clause that I don't understand is where they will tax high-end ("Cadillac") plans but not other plans. Why can't all plans be taxed equally under the law? My employer has drastically increased my contributions (in deductible and paycheck deductions) since this was passed, in anticipation of coming in just under the threshold by the cutoff date.

Now it costs me more to go, so I don't go as often. How is that better healthcare?
 
2012-06-24 06:22:44 PM  

Gig103: The clause that I don't understand is where they will

INCREASE tax ON high-end ("Cadillac") plans but not other plans.

Fixed for me -- I know there are already some taxes in place, but now the good employers are punished for offering good benefits.
 
2012-06-24 06:22:46 PM  

Endive Wombat: While there are many aspects of the law that are problamatic for me, the requirement to purchase is the one that bugs me the most. If I choose to do without coverage, that's my business, not the Federal Government's.


How is that not societies problem? People that think like that cost Americans billions of dollars a year. Why should we put up with that?
 
2012-06-24 06:30:15 PM  

Tor_Eckman: But I guess you'll never get sick or injured so it's only your business, right?


Those are some sharp knees he has; it would be a real shame if anything happened to them...?
 
2012-06-24 06:42:12 PM  

Gig103: Fixed for me -- I know there are already some taxes in place, but now the good employers are punished for offering good benefits.


The republicans told us if you don't have high copays and deductibles that you would go to the doctor for every little sniffle and drive up prices.

Anyways, do yo know how much your plan costs per year? I work at a company of only about 10 people and my boss gives us insurance where we play no deductible, no copays, and all our prescriptions are covered 100%. The plans include costs for those things and then an employer funded pool is used to pay for the rest, but it's all tied to the insurance itself. I don't have a recent paystub here but I seem to recall paying about $55 every other week for a single plan, and that's 20% of the premium, so if I'm right about the deduction from the paycheck it means my plan costs somewhere around $7000/yr, even if you factor in me using my deductible, a few copays and prescriptions, that's still $2000-3000 less than the Cadillac plan cutoff.
 
2012-06-24 06:44:21 PM  

itsdan: Gig103: Fixed for me -- I know there are already some taxes in place, but now the good employers are punished for offering good benefits.

The republicans told us if you don't have high copays and deductibles that you would go to the doctor for every little sniffle and drive up prices.

Anyways, do yo know how much your plan costs per year? I work at a company of only about 10 people and my boss gives us insurance where we play no deductible, no copays, and all our prescriptions are covered 100%. The plans include costs for those things and then an employer funded pool is used to pay for the rest, but it's all tied to the insurance itself. I don't have a recent paystub here but I seem to recall paying about $55 every other week for a single plan, and that's 20% of the premium, so if I'm right about the deduction from the paycheck it means my plan costs somewhere around $7000/yr, even if you factor in me using my deductible, a few copays and prescriptions, that's still $2000-3000 less than the Cadillac plan cutoff.


Canadians don't pay a cent and if anything, they wish people went to their doctors more often.
 
2012-06-24 06:59:23 PM  
No surprise

It is easy to like something if you don't understand the cost or how it interacts with other things.
 
2012-06-24 07:04:30 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: No surprise

It is easy to like something if you don't understand the cost or how it interacts with other things.


You understand the complexity though? Right?
 
2012-06-24 07:12:15 PM  
The

abb3w: Almost everything.
61% oppose the mandate... which the pre-existing conditions rule (that 82% support) needs as an necessary kind of counterbalance. (Other solutions may be possible, but no less palatable to the conservatives.)


Ah, yes. The mandate, which until about three years ago was THE calling card of the Republican solution to the healthcare crisis. Romney - pro-mandate. Gingrich - pro-mandate. Most of the Republicans in the Congress and Senate -- pro-mandate. Marcus Bachmann -- pro-ManDate...so, so very pro man date.

/OK, the last part was a cheap shot
//the mandate was still a Republican invention and they supported it until Obama said he did
 
2012-06-24 07:15:19 PM  

Gig103: The clause that I don't understand is where they will tax high-end ("Cadillac") plans but not other plans. Why can't all plans be taxed equally under the law? My employer has drastically increased my contributions (in deductible and paycheck deductions) since this was passed, in anticipation of coming in just under the threshold by the cutoff date.

Now it costs me more to go, so I don't go as often. How is that better healthcare?


Because actual even taxes weren't allowed, so they took steps where they could to balance the short-term costs. Long term it is a net gain to the budget, but short term it is a loss.

Also, the "Cadillac" plans were targeting union members. It's why the GOP has never complained about it.
 
2012-06-24 07:17:52 PM  

dahmers love zombie: Theabb3w: Almost everything.
61% oppose the mandate... which the pre-existing conditions rule (that 82% support) needs as an necessary kind of counterbalance. (Other solutions may be possible, but no less palatable to the conservatives.)

Ah, yes. The mandate, which until about three years ago was THE calling card of the Republican solution to the healthcare crisis. Romney - pro-mandate. Gingrich - pro-mandate. Most of the Republicans in the Congress and Senate -- pro-mandate. Marcus Bachmann -- pro-ManDate...so, so very pro man date.

/OK, the last part was a cheap shot
//the mandate was still a Republican invention and they supported it until Obama said he did


I wonder why when Obama proposes republican ideas they are all of a sudden the worst thing to ever be uttered and worse than anything Stalin or Hitler did? Obama needs to come out and say this country should be a xian theocracy with a gun in every hand. The right wing would explode in rage over it...
 
2012-06-24 07:32:21 PM  
 
2012-06-24 07:33:08 PM  
F*cking cognitive dissonance, how does it work?


abb3w: mandate


If they'd just called it a tax we wouldn't be in this mess now.
 
2012-06-24 07:33:20 PM  
It doesn't matter what I like or dislike about it. The Federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to implement Obamacare. If you want it, pass a Constitutional Amendment to make it legal.

I like my government to actually abide by our highest laws on occasion.
 
2012-06-24 07:38:15 PM  
I'll translate this for you...

'When people are presented with cherry picked points of ObamaCare they say they like those points but we just can't get them to ignore all the other stuff no matter how hard we try!'

This submission headline would be the same as asking people what they like about a car with a nice paint job and good interior with a nice stereo... but with crap breaks, engine, tires, suspension, safety features, and comfort...

Then standing around going 'But they LIKE things about this car!!'
 
2012-06-24 07:39:25 PM  
Obama will be screwed if the law gets overturned. I can see the attack ads now - "His oath to uphold the constitution was a lie - can you trust anything Obama says?"
 
2012-06-24 07:39:59 PM  
Hi there! I'm in Europe! We have wicked socialist medicine!

The term "medical bankruptcy" has no meaning here. It's a horrible place to be!
 
2012-06-24 07:40:02 PM  
In other breaking news, Skinnyhead is actually relatively intelligent.


For an American.
 
2012-06-24 07:40:45 PM  

OgreMagi: It doesn't matter what I like or dislike about it. The Federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to implement Obamacare. If you want it, pass a Constitutional Amendment to make it legal.

I like my government to actually abide by our highest laws on occasion.


On what grounds do you say it is unconstitutional? A mythical difference between activity and inactivity that doesn't exist in the words of the Constitution, decades of precedent, or historical record of what politicians in the late 1700's actually signed into law?
 
2012-06-24 07:41:11 PM  

OgreMagi: It doesn't matter what I like or dislike about it. The Federal government does not have the Constitutional authority to implement Obamacare. If you want it, pass a Constitutional Amendment to make it legal.

I like my government to actually abide by our highest laws on occasion.


Does the federal government have the power to force you to sell your homegrown wheat on the open market (and thus force you to buy it again if you want to use it), rather than allow you to keep and use it after it's harvested?

If you answered no, then you don't understand Constitutional law.
 
2012-06-24 07:41:39 PM  

Shaggy_C: Obama will be screwed if the law gets overturned. I can see the attack ads now - "His oath to uphold the constitution was a lie - can you trust anything Obama says?"


You're going to have to explain why this was so illegal when the GOP proposed the individual mandate first in 1994.
 
2012-06-24 07:42:07 PM  

randomjsa: I'll translate this for you...

'When people are presented with cherry picked points of ObamaCare they say they like those points but we just can't get them to ignore all the other stuff no matter how hard we try!'

This submission headline would be the same as asking people what they like about a car with a nice paint job and good interior with a nice stereo... but with crap breaks, engine, tires, suspension, safety features, and comfort...

Then standing around going 'But they LIKE things about this car!!'


So vote Republican...who have consistantly told me over the course of the debate to basically die quick because of my pre-existing condition.
 
2012-06-24 07:43:54 PM  

Guidette Frankentits: abb3w: Almost everything.
61% oppose the mandate... which the pre-existing conditions rule (that 82% support) needs as an necessary kind of counterbalance. (Other solutions may be possible, but no less palatable to the conservatives.)

100 theoretica bucks says the mandate is kept but the rest is repealed.


That would be the dumbest thing to do. Ergo...
 
2012-06-24 07:45:04 PM  

GAT_00: Shaggy_C: Obama will be screwed if the law gets overturned. I can see the attack ads now - "His oath to uphold the constitution was a lie - can you trust anything Obama says?"

You're going to have to explain why this was so illegal when the GOP proposed the individual mandate first in 1994.


Because Reagan, that's why not.
 
2012-06-24 07:45:16 PM  

Bungles: Hi there! I'm in Europe! We have wicked socialist medicine!

The term "medical bankruptcy" has no meaning here. It's a horrible place to be!


I'm in America, where we had a long drawn out debate with a lot of pissing and moaning where one side said a system like in Europe would be a lot better than what we have, and the other side said it wouldn't.

In the end we passed a law that had nothing do with that and we're still arguing about it now.
 
2012-06-24 07:45:17 PM  

Shaggy_C: Obama will be screwed if the law gets overturned. I can see the attack ads now - "His oath to uphold the constitution was a lie - can you trust anything Obama says?"


heh. more like "Activist justices on the Supreme Court overturn 100 year precedent and their own previous opinions to block you from getting healthcare"
 
2012-06-24 07:47:52 PM  

randomjsa: I'll translate this for you...

'When people are presented with cherry picked points of ObamaCare they say they like those points but we just can't get them to ignore all the other stuff no matter how hard we try!'

This submission headline would be the same as asking people what they like about a car with a nice paint job and good interior with a nice stereo... but with crap breaks, engine, tires, suspension, safety features, and comfort...

Then standing around going 'But they LIKE things about this car!!'


I smell the part/whole fallacy:

I might like doughnuts, friend chicken, jello, and apple sauce, but I don't want to eat in a pile of mushed up mess. And I might be able to eat eat individual slice of a 300 ft long subway sandwich for dinner, but I can't the whole thing.

So, yeah, one can like individual bits of the bill and still think it should be repealed and/or rejected as unconstitutional by the SC.
 
2012-06-24 07:50:09 PM  
As a foreigner, it's a little baffling to see all these people masturbating over Constitution, as if it were some immutable divine tablet from God.

The meat of the Constitution is amendments. You change it when it's clearly not working or not addressing a situation. The US having such a backward medical system is clearly one of those situations.

If it doesn't let you do something that anyone with even the smallest grasp of the situation can see as necessary, amend the damn thing.

You like people lying in the streets because some men in the 18th C didn't foresee the cost of cancer medication?
 
2012-06-24 07:50:48 PM  

mrshowrules: itsdan: Gig103: Fixed for me -- I know there are already some taxes in place, but now the good employers are punished for offering good benefits.

The republicans told us if you don't have high copays and deductibles that you would go to the doctor for every little sniffle and drive up prices.

Anyways, do yo know how much your plan costs per year? I work at a company of only about 10 people and my boss gives us insurance where we play no deductible, no copays, and all our prescriptions are covered 100%. The plans include costs for those things and then an employer funded pool is used to pay for the rest, but it's all tied to the insurance itself. I don't have a recent paystub here but I seem to recall paying about $55 every other week for a single plan, and that's 20% of the premium, so if I'm right about the deduction from the paycheck it means my plan costs somewhere around $7000/yr, even if you factor in me using my deductible, a few copays and prescriptions, that's still $2000-3000 less than the Cadillac plan cutoff.

Canadians don't pay a cent and if anything, they wish people went to their doctors more often.


That's because they have a magical money tree. Can you really be dumb enough to think that they don't pay for it out of taxes? Please try to remember that governments don't actually have any money only what they take from or borrow on behalf of the people.
 
2012-06-24 07:51:01 PM  
I really don't see a big distinction between this and medicare. both are mandatory taxes for your healthcare that are paid to private providers.
if one is unconstitutional both should be.
 
2012-06-24 07:51:50 PM  

Bungles: The meat of the Constitution is amendments. You change it when it's clearly not working or not addressing a situation. The US having such a backward medical system is clearly one of those situations.

If it doesn't let you do something that anyone with even the smallest grasp of the situation can see as necessary, amend the damn thing.


Our constitution is ridiculously hard to amend. The last time it was amended on any issue of policy which mattered to people was about a hundred years ago, and that amendment was repealed.
 
2012-06-24 07:52:41 PM  

tcan: Please try to remember that governments don't actually have any money only what they take from or borrow on behalf of the people.


This is literally the opposite of reality. Money comes from the government. It literally prints the stuff.
 
2012-06-24 07:54:22 PM  

Hobodeluxe: I really don't see a big distinction between this and medicare. both are mandatory taxes for your healthcare that are paid to private providers.
if one is unconstitutional both should be.


Pretty much "THIS". But as I said, they were too pussy to call it a "tax" and had to go with "individual mandate" instead.
 
2012-06-24 07:54:38 PM  

BKITU: Endive Wombat: If I choose to do without coverage, that's my business, not the Federal Government's.

The law requiring emergency rooms to provide service to you regardless of your ability to pay still exists, and so long as it keeps existing, it is not your business, but the business of those who ultimately foot the bill -- the insured and taxpayers.

Once the law allows hospitals to let you be turned away at the door, then you can claim it's your business. Until then, you're putting my money at risk, you freeloader.


Really? You are going with ignorance as your stance? Any hospital can stop taking in uninsured whenever they want. They just get no Medicare or Medicaid dollars. Read the emtala law sometime. How about next time the government tries to bribe morality thy actually pay for it?

And for those "but they love all those individual pieces!" Idiots.

1) would you like a new tv? Yes!
2) are you going to pay for the tv? No!

These are not contradictory viewpoints. They are two separate items. Extending coverage until 26 isn't magically free. No co pay for preventative care is not free. Once.you factor in actual costs, peoples views change. Stop being retarded with your view that they are uninformed.
 
2012-06-24 07:56:08 PM  

MyRandomName: BKITU: Endive Wombat: If I choose to do without coverage, that's my business, not the Federal Government's.

The law requiring emergency rooms to provide service to you regardless of your ability to pay still exists, and so long as it keeps existing, it is not your business, but the business of those who ultimately foot the bill -- the insured and taxpayers.

Once the law allows hospitals to let you be turned away at the door, then you can claim it's your business. Until then, you're putting my money at risk, you freeloader.

Really? You are going with ignorance as your stance? Any hospital can stop taking in uninsured whenever they want. They just get no Medicare or Medicaid dollars. Read the emtala law sometime. How about next time the government tries to bribe morality thy actually pay for it?

And for those "but they love all those individual pieces!" Idiots.

1) would you like a new tv? Yes!
2) are you going to pay for the tv? No!

These are not contradictory viewpoints. They are two separate items. Extending coverage until 26 isn't magically free. No co pay for preventative care is not free. Once.you factor in actual costs, peoples views change. Stop being retarded with your view that they are uninformed.


Actually a majority of Americans are ok with the extending coverage until 26 part.
 
Displayed 50 of 352 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | 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