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 08:37:53 PM  
Maybe if that clusterfark HCR law is struck down, we can get real reform and expand Medicare to cover everyone.

Doesn't scare stupid, old voters (AKA "keeps the government out of Medicare") and passes constitutional muster.
 
2012-06-24 08:39:14 PM  

paygun: 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.


So if it was structured as a tax credit for those responsible enough to have insurance, you would be OK with it?
 
2012-06-24 08:41:06 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.


It also invalidates any attempt to privatize Social Security.
 
2012-06-24 08:41:26 PM  

GoldSpider: Maybe if that clusterfark HCR law is struck down, we can get real reform and expand Medicare to cover everyone.


Yes, we'll get that. In 20 years. Until then, we're befarked.
 
2012-06-24 08:41:57 PM  

mrshowrules: So if it was structured as a tax credit for those responsible enough to have insurance, you would be OK with it?


THOSE TAX AND SPEND LIBERALS ARE RAISING EVERYONE'S TAXES! VOTE THEM OUT! SECOND AMENDMENT SOLUTIONS! WHARGARBLE
 
2012-06-24 08:42:48 PM  
www.mediaite.com
Would you buy a casket from this man?
 
2012-06-24 08:43:00 PM  
The best possible outcome would be for the individual mandate to be struck -- with the rest of the law remaining on the books.

That would cause a breakdown of the entire for-profit healthcare system and force the government to intervene as a single payer.

If the entire law is upheld, the country is likely screwed. If the entire law is declared unconstitutional, the country is even more screwed.
 
2012-06-24 08:43:05 PM  
randomjsa: How about you pay for yours and I pay for mine and we call it fairs fair?

How about we shorten that up a bit and call it "I got mine, so fark you"?
 
2012-06-24 08:44:03 PM  
nothing wrong with the public option. no one is making a profit off the government mandate to purchase a private and substandard product with the public option.
no question of whether the government has the ability to tax and spend.
it's just too bad obama didn't just do what he promised and instead cut a deal with the for profit insurance lobby to kill the public option.
 
2012-06-24 08:44:26 PM  

qorkfiend: 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.

It also invalidates any attempt to privatize Social Security.


Yeah, but that's different, because socialism.
 
2012-06-24 08:45:01 PM  
Once the law fails, then we can try again for single payer. Use 45% of the 60% tax on capital gains retroactive to 2007 to pay for it.
 
2012-06-24 08:46:03 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.


Do you not carry auto liability insurance? They require you to have that, you know. Would you prefer that nobody carry auto insurance unless they feel like it, and when you get in a wreck that's not your fault, too bad so sad for you?

Mandated insurance--of any kind--is there to ensure the rest of us don't have to pick up after people who want to mind their own business but forget they live in a larger community. I would much rather be required to carry health insurance so the hospitals can get paid instead of watching emergency rooms go out of business because of uninsured patients. As it is, there's only one or two Level One Trauma centers in all of So Cal, because people don't have health insurance. Now if you're going to pay out of pocket for your trauma surgery when you get in that car accident you don't have insurance for, that's fine; but I suspect you don't have a half-million dollars in your checking account right now.
 
2012-06-24 08:47:07 PM  

Mrtraveler01: 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


President Obama directly addressed lawyers on the tort reform issue. He made it clear to them that there'd be no caps on malpractice lawsuits under Obamacare. How does that help mitigate costs? It doesn't.
 
2012-06-24 08:48:22 PM  

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


Actually, if they strike the whole thing down (which is unlikely) the GOP loses it's biggest piece of ammunition against Obama. If the court strikes down the individual mandate, they lose a huge piece of ammunition against Obama.

Once again he's buggered them for a lark.
 
2012-06-24 08:51:38 PM  

missiv: [www.mediaite.com image 300x400]
Would you buy a casket from this man?


I'd buy a casket FOR him...
 
2012-06-24 08:51:56 PM  

Dwight_Yeast: Actually, if they strike the whole thing down (which is unlikely) the GOP loses it's biggest piece of ammunition against Obama. If the court strikes down the individual mandate, they lose a huge piece of ammunition against Obama.

Once again he's buggered them for a lark.


And the rest of us still have to deal with a hackneyed, half-assed, health care law. But "your side" wins, and that's what's important.
 
2012-06-24 08:52:35 PM  

Opeth1429: Mrtraveler01: 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

President Obama directly addressed lawyers on the tort reform issue. He made it clear to them that there'd be no caps on malpractice lawsuits under Obamacare. How does that help mitigate costs? It doesn't.


If a doctor screws up and does $1,000,000 in damage to a patient, but they can only get $500,000 in compensation, how does that help prevent medical bankruptcies?
 
2012-06-24 08:52:47 PM  

GoldSpider: And the rest of us still have to deal with a hackneyed, half-assed, health care law. But "your side" wins, and that's what's important.


Those damn democrats. Screwing up the healthcare debate.
 
2012-06-24 08:53:02 PM  

Gyrfalcon: 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.

Do you not carry auto liability insurance? They require you to have that, you know. Would you prefer that nobody carry auto insurance unless they feel like it, and when you get in a wreck that's not your fault, too bad so sad for you?

Mandated insurance--of any kind--is there to ensure the rest of us don't have to pick up after people who want to mind their own business but forget they live in a larger community. I would much rather be required to carry health insurance so the hospitals can get paid instead of watching emergency rooms go out of business because of uninsured patients. As it is, there's only one or two Level One Trauma centers in all of So Cal, because people don't have health insurance. Now if you're going to pay out of pocket for your trauma surgery when you get in that car accident you don't have insurance for, that's fine; but I suspect you don't have a half-million dollars in your checking account right now.


Sorry man, that argument is played out. Driving a car is a choice, it's not in the same league as life.
 
2012-06-24 08:54:23 PM  

Farty McPooPants: Sorry man, that argument is played out. Driving a car is a choice, it's not in the same league as life.


And yet the principle is exactly the same.
 
2012-06-24 08:55:19 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.


The whole mandate thing is such a retarded fiasco that it should be taught in poli sci classes for the next hundred years. Easily the worst political move by a President since Roosevelt's court packing plan. Your idiotic post is a great example of why. Reasons:

1) Obama instinctively knew the mandate was a loser from the beginning. He campaigned against a mandate. As a candidate he said it was lousy idea. That's the incredible part of the whole thing--Obama knew the idea was a piece of shiat on first hearing, and got argued by his advisers into pushing something that he knew was crap.

2) One of the big political problems with the mandate was that it had been big with the GOP chattering class, but had never become a shibboleth of the party. Cut taxes, less regulation, strong defense, etc. are concepts so integral to the GOP that party members can't just dump them one day and pretend they were party principles. The mandate is a 100% Republican concept -- originated with the Heritage Foundation, embraced by Republicans as the alternative to HIllarycare, proposed by Bob Dole, endorsed by Gingrich, enacted by Romney. (Democrats had no use for the mandate--they wanted to get rid of private health insurance, not require people to buy it.) But the idea never became central the GOP, or internalized by Republican voters. Obama thought he was being clever by turning around and embracing a Republican idea, with it probably never occurring to him that the GOP would not only instantly drop the idea, but also turn completely against it. (Same thing with cap and trade--it originated with the University of Chicago's conservative law and economics crew, was embraced by the first Bush administration urged by C. Boyden Gray and was opposed by Democrats. Interesting that two of the most reviled Obama policies were Obama embracing solutions proposed by conservatives.) This is also why you never saw any GOP health reform plan--they didn't have one to propose, because Obama had already proposed it. (Notice how Ryan's proposal for Medicare is essentially Obamacare with the consumer protections removed?) Basically what happened with the GOP and Obama was that they swapped positions on the mandate, with the vast majority of voters having no idea that the mandate was originally a GOP plan.

3) Democrats don't like health insurance companies and it was asking way too much to ever think that a huge majority of Democratic voters would switch to support a mandate. The reason the ACA polls so badly is that its centerpiece is a GOP policy (the mandate) that the GOP abandoned and that Democratic voters never particularly liked in the first place. The whole constitutional argument is nonsense--in reality, all it is a tax that can be avoided by insuring oneself privately. You didn't hear a peep about the alleged unconstitutionality of the mandate until Republican politicians needed an excuse to come out against the mandate they had been backing for close to twenty years. Why was there no mention of unconstitutionality back when the Heritage Foundation, Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich were pushing the idea? Kinda reminds me the way Southerners discovered state's rights AFTER the Civil War. (When the idea was never mentioned in the South back when war was declared--except for Southern states being against Northern states asserting states' rights to not return fugitive slaves.)

4) One of the biggest mistakes the Obama administration has made is loudly supporting and protecting the mandate. Politically, the appropriate response would have been to simply say, "Hey, the mandate wasn't our idea to begin with. Thank Mitt Romney and the Republicans for the mandate--if they want to drown their own baby, let them. And hey, Republican Supreme Court justices, if you want to strike out the Republican part of the law, go right ahead."
 
2012-06-24 08:56:15 PM  

Opeth1429: President Obama directly addressed lawyers on the tort reform issue. He made it clear to them that there'd be no caps on malpractice lawsuits under Obamacare. How does that help mitigate costs? It doesn't.


How does tort reform mitigate costs?

It doesn't. Just look at Texas and California and see what tort reform has done to health care costs in both states.
 
2012-06-24 08:56:39 PM  
Ok, that'll be power seats, heated headrests, OnStar, a martini dispenser (which requires the autonomous drive option), sunroof, and hood-top bikini model. You like? YES YES YES!

Here's what it's gonna cost you. WHOA WHOA WHOA!

Does this come as some kind of surprise to anybody?
 
2012-06-24 08:58:33 PM  
Another Canadian here, and I'm surprised the jobs side hasn't been discussed more: it's pretty fantastic to pick and choose any job I want without worrying about benefits. Yes, I have supplementary insurance for things like prescriptions and dental care through my job, but I'd never have to work a job I hate just to help pay a sick spouse's medical bills. When I got pregnant I upgraded to the family insurance (kids' dental, private hospital rooms etc) - for $3.21 a month. Takes pressure off employers too.

In fact, the losers with socialized medicine seem to be...insurance companies...and right wing ideologues.
 
2012-06-24 08:59:25 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Opeth1429: President Obama directly addressed lawyers on the tort reform issue. He made it clear to them that there'd be no caps on malpractice lawsuits under Obamacare. How does that help mitigate costs? It doesn't.

How does tort reform mitigate costs?

It doesn't. Just look at Texas and California and see what tort reform has done to health care costs in both states.


A more meaningful metric is what it's done to insurance premiums for medical providers. Do you know those figures?
 
2012-06-24 09:00:03 PM  

GoldSpider: Maybe if that clusterfark HCR law is struck down, we can get real reform and expand Medicare to cover everyone.

Doesn't scare stupid, old voters (AKA "keeps the government out of Medicare") and passes constitutional muster.


A couple more republican majorities and they'll get right on it, right?

Oh, wait, they've buried things in so much rhetoric it'll be decades before they can openly suggest anything other than vouchers and tax cuts.
 
2012-06-24 09:01:16 PM  

Opeth1429: President Obama directly addressed lawyers on the tort reform issue. He made it clear to them that there'd be no caps on malpractice lawsuits under Obamacare. How does that help mitigate costs? It doesn't.


Except for in the now 39 or 40 states that have caps on malpractice lawsuits (and basically all malpractice torts are filed in state courts, so it's kind of a matter for state law to put limits on civil suits in the states), many for decades, you're totally right.
 
2012-06-24 09:01:17 PM  

Smackledorfer: A couple more republican majorities and they'll get right on it, right?


That would be remarkably stupid thing to believe. I can't imagine why you would suggest something so dumb.
 
2012-06-24 09:05:53 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.)


Kind of hoping that this 61% who oppose the mandate will soon become 100% of those who are denied health insurance should this law be overruled. Now that would be sweet justice.

Wonder how many who oppose said mandate also get their insurance from their master, er I mean corporate employer?
 
2012-06-24 09:06:31 PM  
I'm not sure why this law won't still operate effectively without the mandate.
the mandate was simply a way to get those who will be highly profitable premium payers that don't get sick very often to help pad the insurance company bottom line.

in response to this the insurance companies will presumably just have to raise rates on everyone else more than they projected.
that might not be a bad thing.

it could be bad for obama, but it might be good for the nation. the sooner people realize that this system is irrevocably broken and that prices will continue to rise faster than inflation without real reform and a government system to limit price increases the better.
and it seems to me like just striking the mandate increases that likelihood.
 
2012-06-24 09:07:40 PM  
The simple answer is, is that we are farked. Congresscritters get free health care, so why should they lift a finger to do anything to help anyone else?

They dont give a shiat, and never ever will. For profit healthcare is a big joke, nearly as bad as our excessively bloated defense industry.

We're farked.
 
2012-06-24 09:07:40 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.


You haven't lived until you've used food stamps to buy vintage champagne at Sotheby's.
 
2012-06-24 09:08:02 PM  

GoldSpider: Smackledorfer: A couple more republican majorities and they'll get right on it, right?

That would be remarkably stupid thing to believe. I can't imagine why you would suggest something so dumb.


And yet you and others apparently blame the dems and Obama for their inability to surpass the propaganda and blocking of the right.

Any and all defense of the side closer to reform is viewed by you as partisanship.

So, aside from saying bsrb and leaving it at that, what is your path forward?
 
2012-06-24 09:08:11 PM  

Opeth1429: President Obama directly addressed lawyers on the tort reform issue. He made it clear to them that there'd be no caps on malpractice lawsuits under Obamacare. How does that help mitigate costs? It doesn't.


That would be because malpractice accounts for AT MOST 3% of our healthcare spending, and we spend more per capita than any nation on earth. For all the money we spend, we rank about #20 in terms of quality of care.

You want to cut healthcare costs in the US? Cut profits to insurers and service providers (ie, for-profit hospitals).
 
2012-06-24 09:09:02 PM  

DamnYankees: Farty McPooPants: Sorry man, that argument is played out. Driving a car is a choice, it's not in the same league as life.

And yet the principle is exactly the same.


not really.
you don't have to buy insurance if you own a car, just if you drive it on public thoroughfares.
 
2012-06-24 09:10:22 PM  

elffster: The simple answer is, is that we are farked. Congresscritters get free health care


No, it's not free. We, the American taxpayers, pay for it.
 
2012-06-24 09:11:30 PM  

DamnYankees: Farty McPooPants: Sorry man, that argument is played out. Driving a car is a choice, it's not in the same league as life.

And yet the principle is exactly the same.


Indeed. If you choose not to have a car, you don't have to have auto insurance. If you do so choose, you must carry liability insurance so that when you cause an accident, the other person doesn't wind up paying for your stupidity.

You don't choose to live; but you are alive, and you will undoubtedly get injured or sick and need a doctor. Either you pay for it out of your own pocket, or the rest of us have to pay for you in some way. That may be because you get injured and need a hospital (in which case all MY taxes are paying for you); or you get fat and diabetic (in which case all MY taxes are paying for your inability to work); or you have a preemie baby who develops into a special-needs child (in which case all MY taxes are paying for your defective offspring's schooling and care).

If you're going the Ted Kacyzski route and living in a cave with no amenities and when you die bears will eat you, then by all means, you don't have to have health insurance. Otherwise, as long as MY taxes are paying for your potential illness or disability, stop blocking this measure.
 
2012-06-24 09:11:33 PM  
I'm still thoroughly incredulous at the way the administration dropped the single payer component practically before "negotiations" began. Shooting themselves in the foot, two-legged stool, et cetera. Made the whole thing toothless.* Unbalanced and a complete ʞɹɐɟɹǝʇsnןɔ. Would the act be so ridiculously large and unwieldy if this had not happened?

I honestly don't know who to be angrier at, the Republicans for being such obdurate jerks, or the Democrats for being so pathetically spineless, even more than we've become accustomed to. I'm definitely ashamed at the millions upon millions of US citizens who allow themselves to be blindly led by morally bankrupt ideologues who clearly do not have said citizens' best interests at >cough, cough< "heart."

* Makes me think of
Idiot wind blowing every time your move your mouth
Blowing down the backroads heading south
Idiot wind blowing every time you move your teeth
You're an idiot babe
It's a wonder that you still know how to breathe
 
2012-06-24 09:13:38 PM  

Smackledorfer: And yet you and others apparently blame the dems and Obama for their inability to surpass the propaganda and blocking of the right.

Any and all defense of the side closer to reform is viewed by you as partisanship.


I've said no such thing. You're making that up.

Smackledorfer: So, aside from saying bsrb and leaving it at that, what is your path forward?


That I have said, in this thread. Look for it.
 
2012-06-24 09:16:05 PM  

relcec: you don't have to buy insurance if you own a car, just if you drive it on public thoroughfares.


And you don't have to own health insurance if you never use any public health services.

Oh wait, literally no one can promise that.
 
2012-06-24 09:17:41 PM  

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

Actually, if they strike the whole thing down (which is unlikely) the GOP loses it's biggest piece of ammunition against Obama. If the court strikes down the individual mandate, they lose a huge piece of ammunition against Obama.

Once again he's buggered them for a lark.


It's like Obama has this grand plan to pass a piece of shiat half-ass health care bill and then he's all "muhahahaha! It'll get repealed by the Supreme Court just before the election and then that'll make the GOP look bad."

/big pile o' derp
 
2012-06-24 09:18:30 PM  

runcible spork: Would the act be so ridiculously large and unwieldy if this had not happened?


It was going to be big, as it redraws a major sector of our economy. The notion that it's "large" and "too big to read" were just BS talking points used by the GOP (and Blue Dogs) to confuse people as to what's actually in it, as was the notion that it had to be passed to find out what was in it.
 
2012-06-24 09:20:03 PM  

relcec: I'm not sure why this law won't still operate effectively without the mandate.
the mandate was simply a way to get those who will be highly profitable premium payers that don't get sick very often to help pad the insurance company bottom line.

in response to this the insurance companies will presumably just have to raise rates on everyone else more than they projected.
that might not be a bad thing.

it could be bad for obama, but it might be good for the nation. the sooner people realize that this system is irrevocably broken and that prices will continue to rise faster than inflation without real reform and a government system to limit price increases the better.
and it seems to me like just striking the mandate increases that likelihood.


I really have not come up with an opinion as to the best outcome. Striking down just the mandate would put an immense amount of pressure on Congress to fix the obvious flaws that could start a death spiral. Striking down the whole law could destroy a big motivator for people voting for Romney and push him to have a specific policy response that will open him up to attacks, and Obama could come out for Medicare for All which many Americans want. Leaving the whole law intact (most likely by a 6-3 ruling as I can't see only Kennedy swinging) would protect Obama from the almost guaranteed attacks that the court is being wildly activist unless they want to take the step of calling Roberts a RINO.
 
2012-06-24 09:20:24 PM  

paygun: 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.


You're right. I think I should stop paying mandatory auto insurance to my insurance company and start paying more in taxes instead. Lets change the law to make the government my auto insurance company paid for in taxes.

Now before you go on how "that's different because you technically don't HAVE TO drive," I'd like to point out that you technically don't HAVE TO work, because those who do not work don't have to buy this. The IRS cannot penalize the federal taxes - that you no longer pay being unemployed - and on welfare.

Now if you intend to be a productive member of society, you must both work and drive. So yes, that is the same thing. If your (or if you have family lets say their) uninsured ass ends up in the ER for any reason, my ass gets to pay for it in taxes. So yes, the individual mandate MAKES YOU PAY FOR YOU and makes ME PAY FOR ME.

That is the very same reason that mandatory auto insurance laws exist. In fact, one provision of that law - at least in IL - makes you pay for insurance to cover MEDICAL EXPENSES of anyone you hit. AKA I am already forced to buy medical insurance from the government.
 
2012-06-24 09:22:22 PM  
 
2012-06-24 09:22:40 PM  

God Is My Co-Pirate: Another Canadian here, and I'm surprised the jobs side hasn't been discussed more: it's pretty fantastic to pick and choose any job I want without worrying about benefits. Yes, I have supplementary insurance for things like prescriptions and dental care through my job, but I'd never have to work a job I hate just to help pay a sick spouse's medical bills. When I got pregnant I upgraded to the family insurance (kids' dental, private hospital rooms etc) - for $3.21 a month. Takes pressure off employers too.

In fact, the losers with socialized medicine seem to be...insurance companies...and right wing ideologues.



We were yoked into the system in the post-WWII boom. Falls under the category of "It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time/Unintended Consequences/Competition is Always the Best Solution." While the quality of US Healthcare is very good (though still not the "best in the world" as some are wont to tout), it is woefully expensive on a per capita basis, which takes it down many, many pegs. Not to mention the widespread lack of coverage, and the very real possibilities of medical bankruptcy. It's execrable.
 
2012-06-24 09:23:47 PM  
www.modleft.com
 
2012-06-24 09:25:47 PM  
Obamacare will give you An Incurable Desire for Shiftlessness.
 
2012-06-24 09:25:55 PM  
Poll shows that a majority of Americans would prefer to live naked in a tropical forest, subsisting on berries, grubs and the occasional frog while spending their free time grooming themselves for lice.
 
2012-06-24 09:27:26 PM  

Mantour: [www.modleft.com image 500x370]


She's a plant, you can tell by the spelling and the European Z.
 
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