tenpoundsofcheese: clovercat: [sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net image 403x403]

Oh well, would have been nice.

as well as all these new wonderful taxes and fees.

or did you think that money was coming from 0bama's Magic Unicorn?

Well Taxes that's socialism!

tenpoundsofcheese: 0bama

FARK needs an "attractive and successful..." filter for this lame troll gag.

/ Numerals, they do not work that way.

taxandspend: Kingly Weevil: What's Obamacare?

It's that thing where fat guys have a beard but only on their chin roll.

New York's hottest club is "Obamacare." This place has everything, Seth: death panels, a Hilary Clinton look alike giving mammograms, and for the kids, a pony ride with a horse personally circumised by Justice Scalia. *breaks Stefon character and covers mouth and nose with hands*

/spelling sucks
//somebody else can post a picture of Stefon

I wish I understood it well enough to know if I should be scared because of socialism or scared because my type I diabetic daughter will never ever get insurance due to preexisting. It would be nice if parties would garner support by using reason through facts and not fear through rhetoric.

Jonathan Strange: taxandspend: Kingly Weevil: What's Obamacare?

It's that thing where fat guys have a beard but only on their chin roll.

New York's hottest club is "Obamacare." This place has everything, Seth: death panels, a Hilary Clinton look alike giving mammograms, and for the kids, a pony ride with a horse personally circumised by Justice Scalia. *breaks Stefon character and covers mouth and nose with hands*

/spelling sucks
//somebody else can post a picture of Stefon

You forgot "jacked midgets."

tenpoundsofcheese: or did you think that money was coming from 0bama's Magic Unicorn?

That mutherfarker has a money giving unicorn?

Why does he want us to send him money n shiat on weddings and birthdays then???

Ambivalence: I'm sure with people like him around to tell us what to think about it we'll be okay.

/eyeroll

Wanna know how we know you don't know anything about Nate Silver?

Ambivalence: Hope springs eternal. I don't think Obama is in favor of single payer.

He actively made sure single payer was off the table.

tenpoundsofcheese: clovercat: [sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net image 403x403]

Oh well, would have been nice.

as well as all these new wonderful taxes and fees.

or did you think that money was coming from 0bama's Magic Unicorn?

Err, looking over the link you had, you know implying I'm out more money in taxes due to Obamacare, Uh--

3. "Black liquor" tax hike (Tax hike of $23.6 billion). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105
Read more: http://www.atr.org/tax-hikes-obamacare-scotus-rule-a6996#ixzz1z2dTKOra

Just one of the claims that struck me as a little disingenuous since it's about a tax loophole that ended for the paper industry.

- Americans for Tax Reform now claims the health care bill included a $23.6 billion "tax hike" on black liquor.
http://www.ironmountaindailynews.com/page/blogs.detail/display/549/Bl a ck-liquor-and-health-care.html

Plenty of countries provide universal care without single payer.

Jonathan Strange: taxandspend: Kingly Weevil: What's Obamacare?

It's that thing where fat guys have a beard but only on their chin roll.

New York's hottest club is "Obamacare." This place has everything, Seth: death panels, a Hilary Clinton look alike giving mammograms, and for the kids, a pony ride with a horse personally circumised by Justice Scalia. *breaks Stefon character and covers mouth and nose with hands*

/spelling sucks
//somebody else can post a picture of Stefon



You are welcome.

Kingly Weevil: What's Obamacare?

Its what Democrats call the Affordable Health Care for America Act.

Kingly Weevil: What's Obamacare?

Something that makes you pay just for breathing.

Mrtraveler01: soy_bomb: Kingly Weevil: What's Obamacare?
Its what Democrats call the Affordable Health Care for America Act.
They're just taking it back.
/Obamacare 4 life

After tomorrow, they will find themselves empty handed and sputtering derp.

I'm sure these folks will understand just fine:

soy_bomb: Mrtraveler01: soy_bomb: Kingly Weevil: What's Obamacare?
Its what Democrats call the Affordable Health Care for America Act.
They're just taking it back.
/Obamacare 4 life

After tomorrow, they will find themselves empty handed and sputtering derp.

That was a pretty petty response to a joke.

I hope the decision strikes down ACA and takes Medicare with it into the bargain. Rightists deserve to what they're asking for good and farking hard and everyone else needs to learn what it means to have capitalists having their way with us without us having the little kneepads we get offered occasionally.

tenpoundsofcheese: as well as all these new wonderful taxes and fees.

or did you think that money was coming from 0bama's Magic Unicorn?

I suppose you prefer the Republican method of spending on their pet projects without any funding. Or do you think deficits and debt are good things?

Oh, I forgot - nothing is every wrong when conservatives do it. Carry on.

Mrtraveler01: Sabyen91: soy_bomb: Mrtraveler01: soy_bomb: Kingly Weevil: What's Obamacare?
Its what Democrats call the Affordable Health Care for America Act.
They're just taking it back.
/Obamacare 4 life

After tomorrow, they will find themselves empty handed and sputtering derp.

That was a pretty petty response to a joke.

No kidding.

Didn't think it was THAT obscure.

My grandma used to call me Obamacare all the time when I was a kid.

It was a done deal long ago. The SCOTUS sent out signals to big business and the insurance companies and other parties involved have been offering up little bits of "It's going to be okay for you--screw the other guy".

The SCOTUS is corrupt. Fark it. We'll clearly see more evidence of that corruption tomorrow.

What is amazing is in the end, if Obamacare is thrown out, employers will drop coverage all together which will force us to adopt what Obama probably wanted in the first place but couldn't get--single payer. Regardless of what Obama will do in response to the ruling, employers will drop coverage before some new flavor of mandate comes along.

Good-bye middle class. I guess you have to fight a real BIG war--see WWII--for rich people before they give you the table scraps of rising wages and rising standards of living. I hope you think the lives of you loved ones dying in a really big war are worth you getting back on the ladder to success.

It's pretty much the only way the rich will share the wealth.

Mrtraveler01: soy_bomb: Mrtraveler01: soy_bomb: Kingly Weevil: What's Obamacare?
Its what Democrats call the Affordable Health Care for America Act.
They're just taking it back.
/Obamacare 4 life

After tomorrow, they will find themselves empty handed and sputtering derp.

Nah, it'll probably turn out like the AZ immigration law ruling and they're pick and choose which parts are constitutional which will create a huge clusterfark for Obamacare in general.

BTW: If the GOP is so sure Obamacare is going to be overruled. What is the GOP soultion to fix this situation?

If it's tort reform or cross border competition, I'm going to litterally laugh my ass off at the stupidity of those ideas...

It doesn't matter. I would guess if this is shown to be unconstitutional, no matter what is proposed will get zero support from angry Democrats, even if it's very similar. All speculation of course, and I also think ACA gets upheld, along with all its inherent flaws and 'creativity'.

Boudica's War Tampon: if Obamacare is thrown out, employers will drop coverage all together which will force us to adopt what Obama probably wanted in the first place but couldn't get--single payer

Obama proactively went against single payer.


Boudica's War Tampon: The SCOTUS is corrupt.

Something this big deserves a citation.

3_Butt_Cheeks: Boudica's War Tampon: The SCOTUS is corrupt.

Something this big deserves a citation.

Scalia and Thomas accepting gifts and junkets from the companies they rule for isn't corruption? Thomas ruling on two cases (Gore v. Bush and PPACA) when his wife directly benefits isn't corruption? No, I won't cite for you. There's plenty on Google.

Ambivalence: And no matter what happens, it's going to be an absolute, unprecedented outrage to SOMEONE.

ImpendingCynic: No, I won't cite for you. There's plenty on Google.

Your opinions about such indicates favors/benefits were exchanged for rulings. I'm sure you can be bothered to provide evidence of this? I'd like to get in on some of that action.

Pfftt.. it'll be whatever FOX tells them it will be. For example if it stands they'll kindly inform them that the Nazi Communists have taken over the Supreme Court to force their Socialist Anti-Christ views on you and you are now placed on the death panel wait list.

3_Butt_Cheeks: Boudica's War Tampon: if Obamacare is thrown out, employers will drop coverage all together which will force us to adopt what Obama probably wanted in the first place but couldn't get--single payer

Obama proactively went against single payer.


Well, before he was POTUS he campaigned for a single-payer system. I figure he had political sense not to end up looking like supporting Hillary-care by allowing private insurance to run the show. But in the end I'm pretty sure he knew that single-payer would eventually win out. So I don't blame him for running away from single payer. Then was not the time. Eventually it will be time to point out that we've tried everything else--especially if business drops coverage altogether for employees--and the only thing left is single payer. I'm thinking it will be a race to see which politicos get to the high ground of single payer first.

A corrupt SCOTUS? Let me cite Bush v. Gore. Ding ding ding. Winner winner chicken dinner.

3_Butt_Cheeks: Your opinions about such indicates favors/benefits were exchanged for rulings. I'm sure you can be bothered to provide evidence of this?

You're clearly clueless about what an independent judiciary is supposed to mean, so no, I won't indulge you.

LessO2: I'm sure these folks will understand just fine:

[www.idiotsholdingsigns.com image 450x341]

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 500x370]

[www.balloon-juice.com image 525x384]

I really, really, really hate those signs... Where do they think that their ticket comes from? Goddamn it.

Boudica's War Tampon: Let me cite Bush v. Gore. Ding ding ding. Winner winner chicken dinner.

Despite the arguments from the left, the SCOTUS did nothing inappropriate, and ruled accordingly. If there is blame to be handed down for 'what if's" it lies with the Fla supreme court and their conclusion of how best to handle the "hanging/dimpled chad" mess. A ruling by SCOTUS which most internally say was difficult and was not handled correctly by Fla does not demonstrate corruption.

ImpendingCynic: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Your opinions about such indicates favors/benefits were exchanged for rulings. I'm sure you can be bothered to provide evidence of this?

You're clearly clueless about what an independent judiciary is supposed to mean, so no, I won't indulge you.

Master deflection. Well done :) I'll jus take that as a "no" and move on.

Wow... Two Fark Independents in a short thread claiming "No! It was the DEMOCRATS who called the PPACA 'Obamacare!' Not us!" Must be today's marching orders from Rush before the SCOTUS knocks chunks out of it.

Ah, revisionist history. Kinda like the Teabaggers trying to claim they never called themselves that and it was a evil smear foisted on them by libs.

3_Butt_Cheeks: Boudica's War Tampon: Let me cite Bush v. Gore. Ding ding ding. Winner winner chicken dinner.

Despite the arguments from the left, the SCOTUS did nothing inappropriate, and ruled accordingly. If there is blame to be handed down for 'what if's" it lies with the Fla supreme court and their conclusion of how best to handle the "hanging/dimpled chad" mess. A ruling by SCOTUS which most internally say was difficult and was not handled correctly by Fla does not demonstrate corruption.

You can take it up with Justice Stevens:

What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

The same 5 justices--Republican nominees, I believe--stopped the count then ruled there was no remedy.

All these issues would be solved if they called it by its proper name of HeritageCare, since that's where it originated.

.

Boudica's War Tampon: 3_Butt_Cheeks: Boudica's War Tampon: Let me cite Bush v. Gore. Ding ding ding. Winner winner chicken dinner.

Despite the arguments from the left, the SCOTUS did nothing inappropriate, and ruled accordingly. If there is blame to be handed down for 'what if's" it lies with the Fla supreme court and their conclusion of how best to handle the "hanging/dimpled chad" mess. A ruling by SCOTUS which most internally say was difficult and was not handled correctly by Fla does not demonstrate corruption.

You can take it up with Justice Stevens:

What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

The same 5 justices--Republican nominees, I believe--stopped the count then ruled there was no remedy.

SCOTUS ruled that Florida was not following their own laws that allowed ONE recount. They seemed to want to keep recounting in different ways until they got a different result.

What I'm wondering for tomorrow isn't if it gets struck down - I fully expect that in a 5-4 decision, the entire act will be thrown out, with one justice voting to do so on his principles and the other four doing so to give Republicans political points. I mean, Roberts is supposed to be writing the decision. The bill's going down.

What I'm wondering is if in their desire to "get" Obama, they overreach and make a ruling that takes down other longstanding programs.