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.

(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
    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 (3 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 07:56:18 PM  

DamnYankees: 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it was amended on any issue of policy which mattered to people was about a hundred years ago, and that amendment was repealed.


Please tell me you are referring to prohibition, because that issue mattered!

If you are, it technically wasn't repealed, the Constitution was amended again.

/beer snob. this counts, right?
 
2012-06-24 07:56:34 PM  
People advocating for the overturn of the individual mandate and/or Obamacare must hold one of the following logical positions:
- Complete removal of similar mandated insurance programs like Medicare and Social Security
- Creation of a universal coverage single payer solution (ie Medicare for everyone)

Otherwise, they are partisan assbags that cry about everyone paying their fair share and making their own choice right up until you point out that hospitals are forced to provide emergency care.
 
2012-06-24 07:57:02 PM  

fusillade762: 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.


if they rule against it everyone should start refusing to pay into medicare on that basis then. let's see how long that lasts once the courts start filling up with those cases.
 
2012-06-24 07:57:39 PM  

bulldg4life: People advocating for the overturn of the individual mandate and/or Obamacare must hold one of the following logical positions:
- Complete removal of similar mandated insurance programs like Medicare and Social Security
- Creation of a universal coverage single payer solution (ie Medicare for everyone)


Why would someone advocate overturning the mandate and support the second one?
 
2012-06-24 07:58:51 PM  

bulldg4life: People advocating for the overturn of the individual mandate and/or Obamacare must hold one of the following logical positions:
- Complete removal of similar mandated insurance programs like Medicare and Social Security
- Creation of a universal coverage single payer solution (ie Medicare for everyone)

Otherwise, they are partisan assbags that cry about everyone paying their fair share and making their own choice right up until you point out that hospitals are forced to provide emergency care.


exactly. the main thing the mandate does is keep the freeloaders who choose not to purchase insurance (even though they can afford it) from abusing that law.
 
2012-06-24 07:59:15 PM  

DamnYankees: Why would someone advocate overturning the mandate and support the second one?


If they don't like the current bill, but do not agree with abolishing Medicare/SS....then they must be ok with government provided solutions that provide a safety net to the community and can compete with private insurance. They must be ok with a government provided public option.
 
2012-06-24 07:59:34 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.


Aca was not argued under tax and spend you ignorant twat. Even sotomayor blasted that argument 1st day of oral arguments. The democrats did not want tor be accused of raising taxes, so they tried to shoe horn Aca under commerce.
 
2012-06-24 08:00:18 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.


Because the mandate is to buy private insurance. Taxes are paid to the government, this is settled fact. But the mandate isn't a tax. You don't pay taxes to a private company (well, not directly, anyway).

The same people who have been screaming for years for the government to get out of the way of business are literally now hopping mad that the government got completely out of the way of business.... they're pissed off because instead of acting as a tax-collecting middleman, the government is allowing the private sector direct access to the customers. Pretty much exactly what these retards supposedly wanted this whole time....
 
2012-06-24 08:00:28 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!!'


There is a major flaw in your logic. First, Obama was elected and a major part of that was to repair a car that was already broken. People like all the fixes except the part of paying for it.
 
2012-06-24 08:00:53 PM  
Who gives a fark what people think about it? The mandate will be struck down by the ideologues on the supreme court, insurance costs will skyrocket, and eventually we will open medicare to everybody because we have no other choice. Eventuallywe get to single payer and the republicans kick and scream every step of the way. It's going to happen because there is no alternative.
 
2012-06-24 08:01:49 PM  

MyRandomName: 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.

Aca was not argued under tax and spend you ignorant twat. Even sotomayor blasted that argument 1st day of oral arguments. The democrats did not want tor be accused of raising taxes, so they tried to shoe horn Aca under commerce.


How does it matter what it was argued under? If the government can do something, they can do something. The word they use to describe their action is totally irrelevant. The government can't kill you by calling it a "life tax", and they can still tax you even if they call it "economic murder". The words don't matter.
 
2012-06-24 08:01:52 PM  

Mrtraveler01: 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.


Really? Is your reading comprehension level at 1st graer? I never made an argument people didn't like coverage extended to 26.
 
2012-06-24 08:01:52 PM  
So when this gets repealed, what will be the next step then Republicans?

Hint:

If it involves the words "tort reform" or "cross-border competition), you will get punched in the cock.

/sits back and waits for the response
 
2012-06-24 08:01:59 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: It's going to happen because there is no alternative.


The 20 years between the backlash and it actually happening are going to suck, though.

Much like the impending collapse of higher education because of student loan debt.
 
2012-06-24 08:02:09 PM  

MyRandomName: Aca was not argued under tax and spend you ignorant twat.


Medicare isn't a "tax."
 
2012-06-24 08:02:42 PM  

Splinshints: Because the mandate is to buy private insurance. Taxes are paid to the government, this is settled fact. But the mandate isn't a tax. You don't pay taxes to a private company (well, not directly, anyway).


What is the constitutional basis whereby one is allowed and the other not? I see no provision of the constitution which makes a distinction between these two things.
 
2012-06-24 08:03:16 PM  

DamnYankees: Why would someone advocate overturning the mandate and support the second one?


They hate insurance company execs buying yacht number 5 and wiping their asses with 100 dollar bills?
 
2012-06-24 08:03:50 PM  

MyRandomName: Mrtraveler01: 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.

Really? Is your reading comprehension level at 1st graer? I never made an argument people didn't like coverage extended to 26.


You said people's views on the matter change. They didn't in the case of extending coverage to 26 year olds.

Maybe you're the one with the reading comprehension my friend.
 
2012-06-24 08:04:51 PM  
And, per the act, one could quit their job and become destitute (or reduce their hours enough so as to make under the poverty line) and they'd be in line to receive some government assistance per the de-facto expansion of Medicaid.
 
2012-06-24 08:07:28 PM  

DamnYankees: What is the constitutional basis whereby one is allowed and the other not? I see no provision of the constitution which makes a distinction between these two things.


You don't see a distinction between the government collecting taxes and telling you that you have to buy something? There's a distinction. One's in the constitution, the other isn't. Or, at least, that's the opposition's argument.
 
2012-06-24 08:08:45 PM  
I think the funniest thing about this whole situation will be the posts on Facebook (or the trolls here) that cheer its overturn.

"yay, we got rid of a small improvement to our health care system and its now back to the broken form it was 3 years ago!"
 
2012-06-24 08:09:03 PM  

DamnYankees: 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.


The constitution has been amended twelve times in just the last hundred years.
 
2012-06-24 08:09:09 PM  

Splinshints: DamnYankees: What is the constitutional basis whereby one is allowed and the other not? I see no provision of the constitution which makes a distinction between these two things.

You don't see a distinction between the government collecting taxes and telling you that you have to buy something? There's a distinction. One's in the constitution, the other isn't. Or, at least, that's the opposition's argument.


No, I don't. What the difference between the government taxing you and then using that tax money to buy something from a private company, then giving you that product, versus just cutting out the middle man and give you the product?

In both situations, the government is taking money away from you, the private company is getting that money, and you are getting a product. I fail to see any material difference in the 2 ways of making that happen.
 
2012-06-24 08:09:45 PM  

bulldg4life: I think the funniest thing about this whole situation will be the posts on Facebook (or the trolls here) that cheer its overturn.

"yay, we got rid of a small improvement to our health care system and its now back to the broken form it was 3 years ago!"


And almost all of those amendment were procedural, not policy, related.
 
2012-06-24 08:10:55 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.


ProTip: Yes, they actually do. I suggest reading the actual Constitution - beyond the 2nd Amendment. Then I suggest you look at the stuff done BY those very same forefathers who signed it. Your head may very well explode. But if you survive, you will become stronger than you can possibly imagine.
 
2012-06-24 08:11:51 PM  
Can we stop all this petty bickering and just get on with UHC already?
 
2012-06-24 08:13:05 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: No surprise

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


Well, THANK GOD we've got someone like you who can set the rest of us straight on this stuff!!!
 
2012-06-24 08:16:42 PM  

mrshowrules: There is a major flaw in your logic. First, Obama was elected and a major part of that was to repair a car that was already broken. People like all the fixes except the part of paying for it.


No, they don't like 'all the fixes', as I said when presented with cherry picked aspects of ObamaCare, people say they like those cherry picked aspects. The problem is you don't get the bits you like, you have to take the bits you like along with the rest of it which is a complete and total disaster.

Pincy: Can we stop all this petty bickering and just get on with UHC already?


How about you pay for yours and I pay for mine and we call it fairs fair?
 
2012-06-24 08:17:43 PM  
Either way, I bet the supreme court does a lot of jumping and dancing around to avoid stepping on their own dicks.
 
2012-06-24 08:18:00 PM  

randomjsa: Pincy: Can we stop all this petty bickering and just get on with UHC already?

How about you pay for yours and I pay for mine and we call it fairs fair?


Fine. While we're at it, I'm thinking we need to go ahead and remove federal laws forcing hospitals to provide emergency care. Fair's fair.
 
2012-06-24 08:18:10 PM  

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


If we can make it ILLEGAL TO TREAT YOU if you get sick and can't pay, I agree.
 
2012-06-24 08:18:35 PM  
Oh, I'm also paying for someone else's Medicare and Social Security. Get rid of those while we're at it. Fair's fair.
 
2012-06-24 08:19:28 PM  

Hobodeluxe: fusillade762: 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.

if they rule against it everyone should start refusing to pay into medicare on that basis then. let's see how long that lasts once the courts start filling up with those cases.


your employer isn't gonna listen to your insane ramblings and stop deducting fica from your check.
they'd be on the hook for it.
they would owe that money to the irs.
 
2012-06-24 08:22:00 PM  

randomjsa: How about you pay for yours and I pay for mine and we call it fairs fair?


Hey - I got a better idea. Since you don't know if you will be hit by a catastrophic medical condition or not, and neither do I - let's hedge by pooling our risk. It would even be a better hedge if we could get all 300 million of our fellow Americans in the pool, too!

It would be awesome and what could be fairer than everyone sharing alike?
 
2012-06-24 08:22:55 PM  

bulldg4life: Oh, I'm also paying for someone else's Medicare and Social Security. Get rid of those while we're at it. Fair's fair.


While we are all being super fair about stuff, it is OK for me not to pay for killing brown people I've never met?
 
2012-06-24 08:23:06 PM  

bulldg4life: Oh, I'm also paying for someone else's Medicare and Social Security. Get rid of those while we're at it. Fair's fair.


Indeed. It's hard to make an argument that invalidates the individual mandate that doesn't also invalidate those, both of which are considered Constitutional.
 
2012-06-24 08:23:17 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.

I don't care if the poll showed the opposite, citing an online poll is idiotic. They're not scientific, and their only valid use is for entertainment purposes.

You may as well toss a bunch of numbered oranges in a dryer and cite the one that you pull out first. It would be as useful and meaningful of a result.
 
2012-06-24 08:26:14 PM  

GhostFish: 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.

I don't care if the poll showed the opposite, citing an online poll is idiotic. They're not scientific, and their only valid use is for entertainment purposes.

You may as well toss a bunch of numbered oranges in a dryer and cite the one that you pull out first. It would be as useful and meaningful of a result.


In other words, it's GOP SOP.
 
2012-06-24 08:26:22 PM  

puffy999: And, per the act, one could quit their job and become destitute (or reduce their hours enough so as to make under the poverty line) and they'd be in line to receive some government assistance per the de-facto expansion of Medicaid.


Why would they give up there jobs to become just destitute enough for free healthcare? Seems like if someone was willing to do that (who would do that?!) then they aren't the smartest creature out there. 'Hey, I know! I'll give up everything I have so I can scam the government's healthcare system! It'll be the best and most perfect life!'

Is this really how people see other people? Good god what a world.
 
2012-06-24 08:27:41 PM  
I dont see what the issue is, as long as we have a strong defense. So what if everyone is sick and dead?
 
2012-06-24 08:29:36 PM  

truthseeker2083: Is this really how people see other people? Good god what a world.


From the same minds that bring you "people on welfare and unemployment are living the high life with their AC and refrigerators".

There are people everywhere quitting their jobs and getting fired just to be on welfare cause it is so awesoem.
 
2012-06-24 08:29:38 PM  

truthseeker2083: puffy999: And, per the act, one could quit their job and become destitute (or reduce their hours enough so as to make under the poverty line) and they'd be in line to receive some government assistance per the de-facto expansion of Medicaid.

Why would they give up there jobs to become just destitute enough for free healthcare? Seems like if someone was willing to do that (who would do that?!) then they aren't the smartest creature out there. 'Hey, I know! I'll give up everything I have so I can scam the government's healthcare system! It'll be the best and most perfect life!'

Is this really how people see other people? Good god what a world.


Well, lots of teabaggers said they weren't going to make any money over $250k because of HORRIBUL TACKSES! They also aren't going to hire anyone, even if they need them, because of Obama.

So, you know, it's not out of the realm of possibility.
 
2012-06-24 08:30:04 PM  

randomjsa: How about you pay for yours and I pay for mine and we call it fairs fair?

I don't like paying for YOUR fire and police protection. I can just pay firemen and policemen out of pocket, so lets get rid of the whole socialized fire and police service.
 
2012-06-24 08:30:36 PM  

truthseeker2083: puffy999: And, per the act, one could quit their job and become destitute (or reduce their hours enough so as to make under the poverty line) and they'd be in line to receive some government assistance per the de-facto expansion of Medicaid.

Why would they give up there jobs to become just destitute enough for free healthcare? Seems like if someone was willing to do that (who would do that?!) then they aren't the smartest creature out there. 'Hey, I know! I'll give up everything I have so I can scam the government's healthcare system! It'll be the best and most perfect life!'

Is this really how people see other people? Good god what a world.


Poor people have refrigerators which apparently equates with economic Nirvana.
 
2012-06-24 08:30:42 PM  

tcan: 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.


I'm Canadian. Americans pay more in taxes towards health care per capita than we do. That's excluding premiums/just looking at taxes.

I have a question for you.

How much does your local library charge you take out books?
 
2012-06-24 08:32:56 PM  

ghare: truthseeker2083: puffy999: And, per the act, one could quit their job and become destitute (or reduce their hours enough so as to make under the poverty line) and they'd be in line to receive some government assistance per the de-facto expansion of Medicaid.

Why would they give up there jobs to become just destitute enough for free healthcare? Seems like if someone was willing to do that (who would do that?!) then they aren't the smartest creature out there. 'Hey, I know! I'll give up everything I have so I can scam the government's healthcare system! It'll be the best and most perfect life!'

Is this really how people see other people? Good god what a world.

Well, lots of teabaggers said they weren't going to make any money over $250k because of HORRIBUL TACKSES! They also aren't going to hire anyone, even if they need them, because of Obama.

So, you know, it's not out of the realm of possibility.


Yes, but to be fair, those teabaggers are full of poo. I'd take over that ammount and gladly pay the taxes on it.... but then again, I'm not a selfish, childish, dick, and I understand how living in an advanced society works.
 
2012-06-24 08:34:03 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.


So what happens when, not if, you get sick? You'll just go to the emergency room, and get free treatment? You do realize the government and the insurance companies end up having to pay for you, right? And you realize that when you choose not to have insurance, you indirectly make everybody's insurance premiums, as well as government expenditures, go up? Because when you take those things into consideration, it is very much more than just YOUR business.
 
2012-06-24 08:34:24 PM  

GAT_00: bulldg4life: Oh, I'm also paying for someone else's Medicare and Social Security. Get rid of those while we're at it. Fair's fair.

Indeed. It's hard to make an argument that invalidates the individual mandate that doesn't also invalidate those, both of which are considered Constitutional.


I'd say it goes further than that. Just about any argument about the activity/inactivity distinction that invalidates the mandate could also be used to invalidate every single exemption, exclusion, deductions, deferral, credit, and preferential tax rate in the entire tax code.
 
2012-06-24 08:34:32 PM  

bk3k: randomjsa: How about you pay for yours and I pay for mine and we call it fairs fair? I don't like paying for YOUR fire and police protection. I can just pay firemen and policemen out of pocket, so lets get rid of the whole socialized fire and police service.


Kinda makes you wonder if the supreme court has noticed that there's a difference between paying taxes for a government service and mandating that citizens pay a private for-profit company instead. I hope someone made them aware.
 
2012-06-24 08:37:28 PM  

bulldg4life: truthseeker2083: Is this really how people see other people? Good god what a world.

From the same minds that bring you "people on welfare and unemployment are living the high life with their AC and refrigerators".

There are people everywhere quitting their jobs and getting fired just to be on welfare cause it is so awesoem.


It's funny... I lived in section 8 housing for about a year or so a couple years ago... 600 square feet, you'd freeze to death if you didn't watch the airconditioner. The fridge tho... well, it was a 1960's dinosaur and was empty most of the time we were there. Our 20+ year old truck was too nice to qualify for more than $16 a month in foodstamps. While it sucked that we couldn't get more help, I can't imagine turning around and telling someone else that they don't deserve help. This country is just full of selfish assholes who can't see further than their face. Ugh!
 
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