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.

(The Daily Beast)   So who's going to get screwed if Obamacare is struck down? Ironically, it's Southerners (who vote GOP), insurance companies (who support the GOP) and young people (who don't vote)   (thedailybeast.com) divider line 247
    More: Interesting, obamacare, Roberts Court, Scalia, supreme courts  
•       •       •

2332 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Jun 2012 at 4:52 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-27 05:29:55 PM  

GoSlash27: I shall butter my popcorn with the delicious tears of the farketariat when tomorrow's majority opinion is handed down.


If they say the whole law is unconstitutional, my kids are going to be thrown off of my insurance, unless Congress comes up with a new plan.

Are you going to be celebrating that?
 
2012-06-27 05:30:29 PM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: I hope the SCOTUS does strike the mandate down. It'd be hilarious to see insurance companies pouring billions into Democrat races just to try and protect their own existence. If Republican policies led to bankruptcy in the name of freedom, the good businessman knows that reduced profit at continued existence is a far superior option.


What will be hilarious is the hundreds if not thousands of followup lawsuits against states for mandating drivers insurance.
 
2012-06-27 05:31:05 PM  
If Obamacare gets struck down, I'm sure that working-class hero Ocongo is going to fight tooth and nail for a better single-payer system...oh wait...hehe
 
2012-06-27 05:31:07 PM  

jigger: Polly Ester: The author of that article didn't actually read the legislation, his analysis was based solely on Obama stump speeches.

Hell, I'd like to know who the hell has actually read the whole thing and understands it fully. The Supreme Court justices certainly didn't. No single legislator did. Probably the only people who did were lawyers and lobbyists for insurance and pharmaceutical companies.


I did. It really wasn't that difficult to go through. It just took a few hours of stopping myself from getting distracted by bright lights and TV shows.
 
2012-06-27 05:32:36 PM  
Just curious for the more legal-minded here, if the mandate gets thrown out, will that have any effect on states requiring you to have auto insurance to get a license?
 
2012-06-27 05:32:52 PM  

Lando Lincoln: GoSlash27: I shall butter my popcorn with the delicious tears of the farketariat when tomorrow's majority opinion is handed down.

If they say the whole law is unconstitutional, my kids are going to be thrown off of my insurance, unless Congress comes up with a new plan.

Are you going to be celebrating that?


Nope, we won't be celebrating your loss.

We WILL however be celebrating the ruling that government cannot force citizens to buy X.
 
2012-06-27 05:32:55 PM  

pisceandreamer: Serious question (and I know Fark ain't the place to ask, but...) - if the individual mandate is struck down, will this bring a public option back into play?


No, it means we go back to the laws prior to "Obamacare" being passed. With the current Congress (and the Congress we had when Obamacare passed, hence the reason we didn't get it), the chances of single payer passing is 0.00000000000000%.
 
2012-06-27 05:32:56 PM  

whidbey: Ned Stark: relcec: an MRI costs $98 in japan.

until the american people demand action our situation will continue to get worse.

the answer to the problem of cost isn't a government prohibition on catastrophic plans and a government mandate on the young and healthy to purchase overpriced insurance products from for profit corporations to pad their bottom lines that these people neither want, need, or that are a anything but a rip off from a for profit insurance industry that plays wingman as healthcare providers everywhere rape american citizens with no lube.

this reform bill looks more like a corporatist wet dream and payoff for campaign contributions than anything designed to address the real problems in healthcare.
they need to take the word affordable out of affordable care act.

Fark doesnt allow font big enough for the THIS this post deserves.

Actually, we need a "Wrong Side of History Tag" for both of you.


Sorry champ, The Left always wins. If we can't get rid of this shiat bill, your kids will be more than happy to.
 
2012-06-27 05:33:28 PM  

jigger: Polly Ester: The author of that article didn't actually read the legislation, his analysis was based solely on Obama stump speeches.

Hell, I'd like to know who the hell has actually read the whole thing and understands it fully. The Supreme Court justices certainly didn't. No single legislator did. Probably the only people who did were lawyers and lobbyists for insurance and pharmaceutical companies.


Least of all, Scalia, who revealed during oral argument that he believed the unpopular "Cornhusker Kickback" and "Louisiana Purchase" provisions made it into the bill. Instead of reading the text of the bill, a synopsis of it, or the legal briefs, Mr. Justice Scalia formed his opinion on the basis of Fox News talking points.

In general, anyone who thinks the individual mandate will be struck down, but the pre-existing condition discrimination ban will survive is delusional. The individual mandate is necessary to overcome the moral hazard posed by the pre-existing condition discrimination ban.
 
2012-06-27 05:33:41 PM  

Ned Stark: Yes, because affordable health insurance is "free stuff." You have an odd way of classifying things.

Because when I think good policy, I think of the bloody AMA.


One of these days you'll post an eloquent diatribe about why you hate medical professionals.

And we'll ignore it.
 
2012-06-27 05:33:53 PM  

zarberg: Just curious for the more legal-minded here, if the mandate gets thrown out, will that have any effect on states requiring you to have auto insurance to get a license?


Saying the federal government doesn't have the power to mandate insurance versus state governments mandating such things?
 
2012-06-27 05:33:54 PM  
I don't get this whole uproar. I WANT socialized medicine. I am single, 42 years old, and self-employed. My health insurance plan is basically this: don't farking get sick.

On a bigger scale, I wonder why the Republicans are against universal healthcare. They were for it just a few years ago, Nixon was all about government-sponsored healthcare, and Romney friggin' implemented it. It would remove the burden of healthcare from businesses, allowing them to grown and focus that money on job creation. We could create new jobs with healthcare administrators instead of having Shirley in Accounting at Business A managing it, and Ron in Human Resources managing it at Company B right next door. In fact, every single company has at least one guy whose job it is to manage healthcare. How does that make sense?

Then there's the fact that the free market really isn't the free market when it comes to healthcare, but if there was only one payor, then they could pretty much dictate terms to the industry (within reason, of course). Plus the profit motive is gone when it comes to denying care to people in need.

Surely there's more to it than just being against healthcare reform because a black guy came up with it, right?
 
2012-06-27 05:34:02 PM  

zarberg: Just curious for the more legal-minded here, if the mandate gets thrown out, will that have any effect on states requiring you to have auto insurance to get a license?


Driving is a privilege not a right.
 
2012-06-27 05:34:30 PM  

Ned Stark: Actually, we need a "Wrong Side of History Tag" for both of you.

Sorry champ, The Left always wins. If we can't get rid of this shiat bill, your kids will be more than happy to.


Do you always daydream on Fark? What other visions of the future do you have for us?
 
2012-06-27 05:34:35 PM  

penetrating_virga: government cannot force citizens to buy X.


Like insurance for old people and a crappy retirement plan?
 
2012-06-27 05:35:15 PM  

bulldg4life: zarberg: Just curious for the more legal-minded here, if the mandate gets thrown out, will that have any effect on states requiring you to have auto insurance to get a license?

Saying the federal government doesn't have the power to mandate insurance versus state governments mandating such things?


State governments are not allowed to violate your rights any more than the federal government is allowed to.
 
2012-06-27 05:36:54 PM  

penetrating_virga: Lando Lincoln: GoSlash27: I shall butter my popcorn with the delicious tears of the farketariat when tomorrow's majority opinion is handed down.

If they say the whole law is unconstitutional, my kids are going to be thrown off of my insurance, unless Congress comes up with a new plan.

Are you going to be celebrating that?

Nope, we won't be celebrating your loss.

We WILL however be celebrating the ruling that government cannot force citizens to buy X.


YAY 40 million uninsured people. FARK EM I GOT MINE.
 
2012-06-27 05:36:59 PM  

JerkStore: On a bigger scale, I wonder why the Republicans are against universal healthcare. They were for it just a few years ago, Nixon was all about government-sponsored healthcare, and Romney friggin' implemented it. It would remove the burden of healthcare from businesses, allowing them to grown and focus that money on job creation. We could create new jobs with healthcare administrators instead of having Shirley in Accounting at Business A managing it, and Ron in Human Resources managing it at Company B right next door. In fact, every single company has at least one guy whose job it is to manage healthcare. How does that make sense?


Because they believe that basic health care like having a doctor save your life after getting run over by a car is a privilege that must be earned. Plain and simple.
 
2012-06-27 05:37:03 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: The mandate is necessary if pre-existing conditions denials are eliminated. There are plenty of scumbags in the country who will not get insurance until they get really sick.

I am still amazed we are even discussing this. Healthcare shouldn't even be an issue. Medicine should not be a for-profit industry. we are talking about human lives and the only thing that seems to matter to some people is the farking bottom line.

Single payer. Now.


All of this. Preach it brother!
 
2012-06-27 05:37:42 PM  

Lando Lincoln: GoSlash27: I shall butter my popcorn with the delicious tears of the farketariat when tomorrow's majority opinion is handed down.

If they say the whole law is unconstitutional, my kids are going to be thrown off of my insurance, unless Congress comes up with a new plan.

Are you going to be celebrating that?



These teatards would celebrate millions of Americans, including children, losing their insurance, just to score some cheap political points. It's sickening how the politicians, pundits and the Right-wing media have turned us against each other.
 
2012-06-27 05:39:15 PM  

Warlordtrooper: bulldg4life: zarberg: Just curious for the more legal-minded here, if the mandate gets thrown out, will that have any effect on states requiring you to have auto insurance to get a license?

Saying the federal government doesn't have the power to mandate insurance versus state governments mandating such things?

State governments are not allowed to violate your rights any more than the federal government is allowed to.


Unless the majority opinion resurrected the opinion in Lochner v. New York that you have a fundamental right to contract based on the Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment, there is no right being infringed upon by a mandate to hold insurance.
 
2012-06-27 05:39:24 PM  

zarberg: Just curious for the more legal-minded here, if the mandate gets thrown out, will that have any effect on states requiring you to have auto insurance to get a license?


Don't the states require you to have proof of financial liability to drive on public roads, not insurance. Every state I've lived in the rich or big businesses could just get certified by the state or be 'self insured'.
 
2012-06-27 05:39:31 PM  
How many Americans does a broken healthcare system kill each year?
How many Americans do terrorists kill each year?

Guess where Republicans want the money to go?
 
2012-06-27 05:40:26 PM  

Serious Black: jigger: Polly Ester: The author of that article didn't actually read the legislation, his analysis was based solely on Obama stump speeches.

Hell, I'd like to know who the hell has actually read the whole thing and understands it fully. The Supreme Court justices certainly didn't. No single legislator did. Probably the only people who did were lawyers and lobbyists for insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

I did. It really wasn't that difficult to go through. It just took a few hours of stopping myself from getting distracted by bright lights and TV shows.


A few hours to read 1000 pages of legalese?
 
2012-06-27 05:40:38 PM  

cc_rider: Lando Lincoln: GoSlash27: I shall butter my popcorn with the delicious tears of the farketariat when tomorrow's majority opinion is handed down.

If they say the whole law is unconstitutional, my kids are going to be thrown off of my insurance, unless Congress comes up with a new plan.

Are you going to be celebrating that?


These teatards would celebrate millions of Americans, including children, losing their insurance, just to score some cheap political points. It's sickening how the politicians, pundits and the Right-wing media have turned us against each other.


Oh come on, save the butthurt for tomorrow. It'll be more fun. ;)
 
2012-06-27 05:40:46 PM  

whidbey: penetrating_virga: Lando Lincoln: GoSlash27: I shall butter my popcorn with the delicious tears of the farketariat when tomorrow's majority opinion is handed down.

If they say the whole law is unconstitutional, my kids are going to be thrown off of my insurance, unless Congress comes up with a new plan.

Are you going to be celebrating that?

Nope, we won't be celebrating your loss.

We WILL however be celebrating the ruling that government cannot force citizens to buy X.

YAY 40 million uninsured people. FARK EM I GOT MINE.


As opposed to what?! Gimme Gimme.. I WANT YOURS!
 
2012-06-27 05:41:56 PM  

Serious Black: Warlordtrooper: bulldg4life: zarberg: Just curious for the more legal-minded here, if the mandate gets thrown out, will that have any effect on states requiring you to have auto insurance to get a license?

Saying the federal government doesn't have the power to mandate insurance versus state governments mandating such things?

State governments are not allowed to violate your rights any more than the federal government is allowed to.

Unless the majority opinion resurrected the opinion in Lochner v. New York that you have a fundamental right to contract based on the Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment, there is no right being infringed upon by a mandate to hold insurance.



Then that's that, no rights are being violated by mandating you purchase insurance. Be it Health or Driver.
 
2012-06-27 05:42:18 PM  

penetrating_virga: whidbey: penetrating_virga: Lando Lincoln: GoSlash27: I shall butter my popcorn with the delicious tears of the farketariat when tomorrow's majority opinion is handed down.

If they say the whole law is unconstitutional, my kids are going to be thrown off of my insurance, unless Congress comes up with a new plan.

Are you going to be celebrating that?

Nope, we won't be celebrating your loss.

We WILL however be celebrating the ruling that government cannot force citizens to buy X.

YAY 40 million uninsured people. FARK EM I GOT MINE.

As opposed to what?! Gimme Gimme.. I WANT YOURS!


Nobody's saying that sh*t.

Pretty much the chorus is FARK YOU I GOT MINE, and it's been that way for decades now.
 
2012-06-27 05:42:36 PM  
Yeah, this really shouldn't be a surprise. It'll be 5-4 striking down the individual mandate, with Roberts writing the majority opinion. The big question is whether SCOTUS will strike down the whole bill or try to sever the mandate from the rest. Since I don't see this Court playing the role of legislature to try to untangle the mandate from the rest, I think they'll kick it back to Congress to try and fix.

ObamaCare was a huge political mistake and a huge policy mistake. It was a huge policy mistake because it was never really thought through and was overly complicated and added layers and layers of new bureaucracy. Then the Democrats fudged the numbers to get a CBO scoring showing that it would reduce the deficit - by putting in cuts to Medicare that would never happen and things like the CLASS system that wouldn't actually save money in the real world. And then they passed it on a nearly pure party-line vote when they had plenty of polling data and the Scott Brown victory to show that Americans really didn't want it.

If we wanted to fix the health care system we'd start moving away from third-party payors and make health insurance portable and saleable across state lines. Your employer doesn't buy your car insurance or your homeowner's insurance or your food? So why the hell should they pay for your health insurance? And for that matter, you don't pay for gas by submitting a claim to your auto insurance - so why are we paying for regular and predictable medical expenses with insurance.

Insurance is for hedging risk, not for payment. That's the fundamental mistake we made, and nearly everything that's farked up about health care in America is because of that. If we started paying for health care the way we pay for everything else we'd see real cost controls and everyone would have access to affordable care. The problem isn't that America has a "capitalist free-market" health care system, it's that we don't. There's no price transparency, there's no functioning market, and the whole industry is massively inefficient. We need to fix that, not centralize all the problems into government.
 
2012-06-27 05:43:55 PM  
Oh cool. THIS again.

Save your energy being google research ACA 'experts'....tomorrow is the real prize. Remember kids, the SCOTUS is just and good when it votes our way, and evil and big stupid meanies when they don't.
 
2012-06-27 05:44:24 PM  

Warlordtrooper: Then that's that, no rights are being violated by mandating you purchase insurance. Be it Health or Driver.


There wasn't before.

You do not have the "right" to be a danger to others on the road or to be a burden to the rest of us by being uninsured.
 
2012-06-27 05:44:57 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Are you going to be celebrating that?


Celebrating? He'll be masturbating while pushing a Coke bottle up his ass.
 
2012-06-27 05:44:59 PM  

Lando Lincoln: vygramul: The funny thing is that anyone with even a modicum of understanding of the Republican position on economics and government understands why it was conservatives who proposed the individual mandate, and why it makes complete sense from a Republican point of view.

It's really Democrats who shouldn't like it. But these days, it's all about which party PASSED the bill than intellectual honesty.

I understand that it was a crappy way to keep the insurance companies in the money loop. But nearly the entire Democratic party shied away from even bringing up the single-payer topic, so this is the best that we could get.


Well, I certainly wouldn't dispute THAT.
 
2012-06-27 05:45:11 PM  

jigger: Serious Black: jigger: Polly Ester: The author of that article didn't actually read the legislation, his analysis was based solely on Obama stump speeches.

Hell, I'd like to know who the hell has actually read the whole thing and understands it fully. The Supreme Court justices certainly didn't. No single legislator did. Probably the only people who did were lawyers and lobbyists for insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

I did. It really wasn't that difficult to go through. It just took a few hours of stopping myself from getting distracted by bright lights and TV shows.

A few hours to read 1000 pages of legalese?


It's not really fine print, wall to wall text. It's a lot of lines like:

a) Every individual shall purchase qualifying health insurance.
b) Any individual who does not purchase qualifying health insurance shall pay a fine of:
1) Two percent of his gross income, or
2) $750.

Contrast this with, say:

A question has been made concerning the constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement; but there is certainty no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare," with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States; and that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to numbers, ascertained by a census or enumeration, taken on the principles prescribed in the constitution," and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State."

These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary and indefinite, and the objects to which it may be appropriated, are no less comprehensive thin the payment of the public debts, and the providing for the common defence and general welfare. The terms "general welfare" were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which preceded; otherwise, numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limits than the "general welfare;" and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.

It is, therefore, of necessity, left to the discretion of the National Legislature to pronounce upon the objects which
concern the general welfare, and for which, under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt, that whatever concerns the general interests of learning, of agriculture, of manufactures, and of commerce, are within the sphere of the national councils, as far as regards an application of money.

The only qualification of the generality of the phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this: That the object, to which an appropriation of money is to be made, be general, and not local; its operation extending, in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot.

No objection ought to arise to this construction, from a supposition that it would imply a power to do whatever else should appear to Congress conducive to the general welfare. A power to appropriate money with this latitude, which is granted, too, in express terms, would not carry a power to do any other thing {251} not authorized in the constitution, either expressly or by fair implication.
 
2012-06-27 05:45:31 PM  

jigger: Serious Black: jigger: Polly Ester: The author of that article didn't actually read the legislation, his analysis was based solely on Obama stump speeches.

Hell, I'd like to know who the hell has actually read the whole thing and understands it fully. The Supreme Court justices certainly didn't. No single legislator did. Probably the only people who did were lawyers and lobbyists for insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

I did. It really wasn't that difficult to go through. It just took a few hours of stopping myself from getting distracted by bright lights and TV shows.

A few hours to read 1000 pages of legalese?


Seriously. That said, I'm a relatively fast reader, so somebody who isn't as quick as I am might have taken more like eight hours to half a day to read through it all. And I certainly don't recall every single infinitesimally small detail of the bill, but I generally know what sections to look at in the bill to give you the exact text of the provision within a minute (presuming I have access to THOMAS of course). Yesterday, some dumbass tried to tell me that Congress has explicitly forbidden interstate sales of health insurance, and I kindly pointed him to Section 1333 of the bill that explicitly authorizes interstate sales in two different settings.
 
2012-06-27 05:45:35 PM  

timujin: MeinRS6: AdolfOliverPanties: MeinRS6: AdolfOliverPanties: I am still amazed we are even discussing this. Healthcare shouldn't even be an issue. Medicine should not be a for-profit industry. we are talking about human lives and the only thing that seems to matter to some people is the farking bottom line.

Single payer. Now.

And there you have it. A perfect example of a person that doesn't know anything about the failures of communism around the globe. He's blocked out all factual information, all history, all facts regarding human nature, and just relies on his "But what about the children!?!" type feelings. This is one of the reasons why it is dangerous to the country for idiot libs to be in power.

I was going to reply to this point by point, refuting all of your hypotheses and illuminating for all to see your deep level of misunderstanding not only my post, but things in general, but then I remembered something.

There's no need.

Everyone on this board already knows what an ignorant misguided dickhole you are.

Such nasty name-calling. tsk tsk Those libby emotions really do rule your life. You should try facts and logic for a change.

The reason that you cannot respond in a meaningful way is because you know I'm right.


He responded, he didn't speak to your points, but he responded. It seems that is another word you don't know the meaning of. In his response, he essentially said "this" to the posts immediately before his, the ones you purposefully ignored. Rather, you attacked his post because it allowed you to continue your narrative. If you really have any notions of how socialized medicine works (and here's a hint, it has nothing to do with "communism") and how it relates to single payer, then, please, expound upon them.


Right, that's what I thought... pick the post with the weakest argument against your position, attack that argument and ignore the rest that stomp your "thoughts" into a pile of wet goo.
 
2012-06-27 05:46:20 PM  

penetrating_virga: zarberg: Just curious for the more legal-minded here, if the mandate gets thrown out, will that have any effect on states requiring you to have auto insurance to get a license?

Driving is a privilege not a right.


I'm curious about this.

People are forced to pay for the roads and other infrastructure, but must be skill tested to prove themselves worthy of the privilege of driving a vehicle on said roads and infrastructure.

People are forced to pay for government schools. Their kids are forced to go these schools if they haven't gone to some other form of school. If they go to these schools, they must be medically tested to prove themselves worthy of the right to attend a government school. Or, at least most would call it a right.
 
2012-06-27 05:46:44 PM  
In his dissent on Arizona SB 1070, Scalia violated procedure by going out of his way to bring up facts that were not germane, referring to the Obama DREAM Act policy that had just been announced.
So are there betting odds as to whether he uses the phrase "death panel" in his opinion (ruling, concurring, or dissenting) on PPACA?
 
2012-06-27 05:47:02 PM  
Bullshiat. Obamacare is bad for young people, because it makes age-actuarialism illegal, which forces young, poor people to subsidize the health care costs of rich, old people. I'm a liberal democrat and I hate this stupid bill. It had some good ideas, but it was too compromised from the get go thanks to President Pantywaist's prenegotiating with the GOP.
 
2012-06-27 05:48:00 PM  

bugontherug: jigger: Serious Black: jigger: Polly Ester: The author of that article didn't actually read the legislation, his analysis was based solely on Obama stump speeches.

Hell, I'd like to know who the hell has actually read the whole thing and understands it fully. The Supreme Court justices certainly didn't. No single legislator did. Probably the only people who did were lawyers and lobbyists for insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

I did. It really wasn't that difficult to go through. It just took a few hours of stopping myself from getting distracted by bright lights and TV shows.

A few hours to read 1000 pages of legalese?

It's not really fine print, wall to wall text. It's a lot of lines like:

a) Every individual shall purchase qualifying health insurance.
b) Any individual who does not purchase qualifying health insurance shall pay a fine of:
1) Two percent of his gross income, or
2) $750.

Contrast this with, say:

A question has been made concerning the constitutional right of the Government of the United States to apply this species of encouragement; but there is certainty no good foundation for such a question. The National Legislature has express authority "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare," with no other qualifications than that "all duties, imposts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the United States; and that no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to numbers, ascertained by a census or enumeration, taken on the principles prescribed in the constitution," and that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State."

These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary and indefinite, and the objects to which it may be appropriated, are no less comprehensive thin the payment of the public debts, and the providing for the common defence and general welfare. The terms "general welfar ...




Fine ≠ tax.
 
2012-06-27 05:48:36 PM  

FlashHarry: i would have thought big insurance would've supported dems, but this is not the case.


Insurance companies probably feel they have more to gain from tort reform, which the GOP loves, than the ACA. It is a winning combo for the GOP and Insurance Companies. Blame the lawyers, reduce risk and keep increasing premiums... what is not to love.
 
2012-06-27 05:48:41 PM  

Serious Black: And I certainly don't recall every single infinitesimally small detail of the bill,


But that's where they getcha.
 
2012-06-27 05:49:01 PM  

vygramul: It's really Democrats who shouldn't like it. But these days, it's all about which party PASSED the bill than intellectual honesty.


Democrats don't like the insurance mandate. Democrats wanted single payer. Part of the reason that support for Obama is so soft right now is because instead doing what the public asked for, the Democrats tried to "compromise" with a bunch of obstructionists Republicans who refused every attempt to negotiate in good faith.

Nobody on the left asked for a huge insurance company giveaway that creates a behemoth new public-private partnership boondoggle and will throw away hundreds of billions of dollars a year on billing paperwork. The Republicans asked for that, and the Democrats caved in and gave it to them, and they caved for no reason that anyone on the left has ever understood.

If you ask me, the Democrats should have just expanded medicare to every man, woman, and child in the United States. Then they could have let the Republican Attorneys General try to strike down Medicare. The lulz would have been epic.
 
2012-06-27 05:49:05 PM  

penetrating_virga: Lando Lincoln: GoSlash27: I shall butter my popcorn with the delicious tears of the farketariat when tomorrow's majority opinion is handed down.

If they say the whole law is unconstitutional, my kids are going to be thrown off of my insurance, unless Congress comes up with a new plan.

Are you going to be celebrating that?

Nope, we won't be celebrating your loss.

We WILL however be celebrating the ruling that government cannot force citizens to buy X.


Whether it is stated as such or not, the government does force us to buy goods and services. We buy everything from police and fire protection, to a military, to materials and labor to keep roads and traffic signals in working order, to schools running, the paychecks at city hall. They come in the form of a tax, but that's just a matter of nomenclature. They force you to buy these things. Would you be happy if they just put the cost of this onto some tax, be it income, property, or whatever other tax? The difference is in name only; they aren't calling this a tax, they are calling it a mandate to buy a service.

Lando Lincoln: GoSlash27: I shall butter my popcorn with the delicious tears of the farketariat when tomorrow's majority opinion is handed down.

If they say the whole law is unconstitutional, my kids are going to be thrown off of my insurance, unless Congress comes up with a new plan.

Are you going to be celebrating that?


Yes, they will be celebrating that. They have stated that they would rather watch the whole country crumble and fail than to have Obama win a second term. This is out of spite, pure and simple. Many of them will also suffer the same loss as you, or even worse, but they will still celebrate. They are so enveloped in their anger that they don't care if they get hurt, so long as you get hurt too.
 
2012-06-27 05:49:31 PM  

zarberg: Just curious for the more legal-minded here, if the mandate gets thrown out, will that have any effect on states requiring you to have auto insurance to get a license?


No.

The states have the police power - they can do whatever the hell they want so long as they don't violate certain parts of the Constitution that have been "incorporated" onto the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

The federal government has limited and enumerated powers. They do not have general police powers. The federal government doesn't mandate that you carry auto insurance - the state does.

The question is whether the individual insurance mandate is part of the powers given to the federal government through the Commerce Clause - and the Supreme Court is more likely than not going to say it isn't.

That won't effect the states because the states are not limited by the Commerce Clause. A state can force you to have auto insurance to drive, they can impose their own individual mandates, they can make you buy broccoli if they wanted. The Constitution limits some state powers, but only a few.

This is part of the federal system of government in the United States.
 
2012-06-27 05:49:51 PM  
thank-you subby for the elventymillionth thread on how the stoopid southerners vote against their interests without any further explanation

/end sarcasm
 
2012-06-27 05:51:34 PM  

jigger: Fine ≠ tax.


Way to miss the point, re: the imagined time consumed in reading a "thousand page" bill.
 
2012-06-27 05:51:42 PM  
A decision that angers consumers, Democrats, and insurance companies alike-that would be quite a feat, even by this court's standards.

Why would Democrats be angered by the court striking down only the part of the bill that Democrats had to insert to get a single Republican (Olympia Snowe) to support the bill? I would be thrilled if only the mandate and not the preexisting condition clause was struck down. Stick it to the f*ckers at Aetna.
 
2012-06-27 05:51:44 PM  

Agneska: cc_rider: Lando Lincoln: GoSlash27: I shall butter my popcorn with the delicious tears of the farketariat when tomorrow's majority opinion is handed down.

If they say the whole law is unconstitutional, my kids are going to be thrown off of my insurance, unless Congress comes up with a new plan.

Are you going to be celebrating that?


These teatards would celebrate millions of Americans, including children, losing their insurance, just to score some cheap political points. It's sickening how the politicians, pundits and the Right-wing media have turned us against each other.

Oh come on, save the butthurt for tomorrow. It'll be more fun. ;)


A year and a half ago, my best friend lost his life due to lack of a common antibiotic and a bit of follow-up care because he lost his health insurance and his job due to a work-related injury. He died with an SSI claim tied up in the courts for 5 years.

That kind of shiat is supposed to happen in third-world countries, not here..

What I am feeling is not butthurt, but utter contempt for the people who would allow this to keep happening, so EABOD and go troll somewhere else, farktard.
 
2012-06-27 05:52:15 PM  

Descartes: thank-you subby for the elventymillionth thread on how the stoopid southerners vote against their interests without any further explanation

/end sarcasm


Everyone should only vote for their own selfish interests. Democracy is merely collective Randian individualism.
 
Displayed 50 of 247 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report