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 New York Times)   You might want to sit down for this one: Nate Silver thinks that the details of tomorrow's Obamacare ruling might be lost on the general public   (fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com) divider line 187
    More: Obvious, obamacare, general public  
•       •       •

2654 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Jun 2012 at 6:52 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-27 09:40:40 PM

3_Butt_Cheeks: Obama proactively went against single payer.


Ahh... I miss the days of Republicans posting links to Obama saying that this was just the first step to universal health care...
 
2012-06-27 09:41:41 PM

bulldg4life: whidbey: Why would that be funny? That's exactly what the Republicans have wanted for years.

Social security, maybe. However, they can't ever go with privatizing social security if the mandate is overturned. And, if they were leading the charge to get rid of Obamacare and it led to destroying Medicare? Why...that'd be political suicide.


Well you know, I'm sure they could spin it as something attractive, like maybe the elderly might get tax cuts if they go with the private carriers.

Just say they're saving money through the free market or some bullsh*t....
 
2012-06-27 09:41:54 PM

bulldg4life: Truman Burbank: What I'm wondering is if in their desire to "get" Obama, they overreach and make a ruling that takes down other longstanding programs.

Considering Scalia used his dissent in the Arizona case to talk about the recent Dream-related Obama executive decision....that sounds completely likely.

It'd be funny if they worded it in a way that destroyed Medicare or SS.


The language they use can have far-reaching effects. Say they use some language to the effect of "the government cannot force a citizen to buy a private product." What the hell does that do to auto insurance dealers? Or do they ignore their own precedent - which they recently used to tell Montana it had to abide by Citizens United on the state level - to only prevent the Feds from requiring such?
 
2012-06-27 09:42:01 PM

whidbey: I love how people think Obamacare was dreamt up by the Heritage Foundation.


Well, it was at minimum championed by Heritage 5 years before Obama was a glint in the electorate's eye.
 
2012-06-27 09:43:49 PM

vygramul: whidbey: I love how people think Obamacare was dreamt up by the Heritage Foundation.

Well, it was at minimum championed by Heritage 5 years before Obama was a glint in the electorate's eye.


Not with anything approaching a mandate, it wasn't. To me, that is not Obamacare.
 
2012-06-27 09:44:34 PM

saintstryfe: MyRandomName: Upholding the mandate has effects for the young and healthy who end up subsidizing the old and sick. Either way a subset gets farked. So what is your point?

In other words: Social Security. Something we've run very effectively over the last 75 years without serious incident.


It's going broke you know.
 
2012-06-27 09:45:15 PM

CujoQuarrel: saintstryfe: MyRandomName: Upholding the mandate has effects for the young and healthy who end up subsidizing the old and sick. Either way a subset gets farked. So what is your point?

In other words: Social Security. Something we've run very effectively over the last 75 years without serious incident.

It's going broke you know.


[CITATION NEEDED]
 
2012-06-27 09:45:25 PM

CujoQuarrel: 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.


And, as Gore argued, the variations in counting methodology spread among precincts, counties, etc was SOP in Florida and SOP in virtually all of the states. Additionally, the 5 SCOTUS justices stopped the count which then brought in the entire time frame problem.

As Justice Stevens said, the fact that the SCOTUS interfered in a state's recount then, using the same the justices that stopped the recount, decided there was no remedy available--thanks to the justices' original interference--means the SCOTUS can't be trusted. And that was a sitting Supreme Court justice who said that.
 
2012-06-27 09:45:57 PM

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.


Note that 7 justices in the ruling immediately prior said Florida was farking things up in their recount. So let's keep in perspective that it's not like the Court stopped a valid count.
 
2012-06-27 09:47:18 PM

Truman Burbank: Or do they ignore their own precedent - which they recently used to tell Montana it had to abide by Citizens United on the state level - to only prevent the Feds from requiring such?


Considering the conservatives on the bench (most notably Scalia) recent wave of going back and forth on what the federal government can or cannot do (feds can't regulate wheat, but weed is ok), I see no reason why they couldn't just make up whatever the hell they wanted to destroy the mandate.

The federal government is not granted the power to do such things. But, states can do what they want. No take backs.
 
2012-06-27 09:49:20 PM

CujoQuarrel: saintstryfe: MyRandomName: Upholding the mandate has effects for the young and healthy who end up subsidizing the old and sick. Either way a subset gets farked. So what is your point?

In other words: Social Security. Something we've run very effectively over the last 75 years without serious incident.

It's going broke you know.


A generation may only get 75% benefit because of the population bubble, but then it will be fine once the population bubble dies. Or just raise the cap on the tax for a generation and everyone can get 100%.
 
2012-06-27 09:49:48 PM

3_Butt_Cheeks: 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???


why is it that there wasn't a single greenlit thread about that? that was really funny.

his money giving unicorn is real - problem is the unicorn needs to gore businesses to get the money.
 
2012-06-27 09:50:20 PM

whidbey: vygramul: whidbey: I love how people think Obamacare was dreamt up by the Heritage Foundation.

Well, it was at minimum championed by Heritage 5 years before Obama was a glint in the electorate's eye.

Not with anything approaching a mandate, it wasn't. To me, that is not Obamacare.


I dunno - it's pretty damn close:

But as part of that contract, it is also reasonable to expect residents of the society who can do so to contribute an appropriate amount to their own health care. This translates into a requirement on individuals to enroll themselves and their dependents in at least a basic health plan - one that at the minimum should protect the rest of society from large and unexpected medical costs incurred by the family.
 
2012-06-27 09:51:13 PM

Boudica's War Tampon: As Justice Stevens said, the fact that the SCOTUS interfered in a state's recount then, using the same the justices that stopped the recount, decided there was no remedy available--thanks to the justices' original interference--means the SCOTUS can't be trusted. And that was a sitting Supreme Court justice who said that.


Honestly, the only reason they pulled that sh*t in 2000 is because they knew that they were beyond reproach legally.

Seems to me that when they start to abuse that sort of power, the rules need to be changed.
 
2012-06-27 09:51:13 PM

bulldg4life: I see no reason why they couldn't just make up whatever the hell they wanted to destroy the mandate.


Nor do I, and that's what scares the hell out of me. A court of ideology, not a court of law.
 
2012-06-27 09:52:07 PM

maxheck: 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.


Yeah - I called this. I predicted that conservatives would get all butt-hurt over it being called "Obamacare" when they're the ones who insisted on the label.
 
2012-06-27 09:52:26 PM

12349876: Or just raise the cap on the tax


Right. I'm sure that'll happen.
 
2012-06-27 09:53:39 PM

ImpendingCynic: 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.


No, I have criticized conservatives many times. As an example, Bush should have vetoed all of those budgets and spending the dems initiated when they took the house. We would be in much better shape right now.
 
2012-06-27 09:54:48 PM

vygramul: whidbey: vygramul: whidbey: I love how people think Obamacare was dreamt up by the Heritage Foundation.

Well, it was at minimum championed by Heritage 5 years before Obama was a glint in the electorate's eye.

Not with anything approaching a mandate, it wasn't. To me, that is not Obamacare.

I dunno - it's pretty damn close:

But as part of that contract, it is also reasonable to expect residents of the society who can do so to contribute an appropriate amount to their own health care. This translates into a requirement on individuals to enroll themselves and their dependents in at least a basic health plan - one that at the minimum should protect the rest of society from large and unexpected medical costs incurred by the family.


That was the think-tank phase of the proposal. When it came time to see if it could be put into law, the right dropped the whole thing like a hot potato.

Also, does that original draft contain services for pre-existing conditions? Keeping dependents as old as 26 on the plan?

Also, how does that proposal deal with saving costs?

It really isn't the same thing at all.
 
2012-06-27 09:55:56 PM

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

.

I love how people think Obamacare was dreamt up by the Heritage Foundation.

So...why wasn't it implemented decades ago?



Why should the fact that it was cooked up by Heritage imply that it would have been implemented decades ago? There's a gap in there somewhere.

.
 
2012-06-27 09:56:03 PM

Boudica's War Tampon: Well, before he was POTUS he campaigned for a single-payer system.


before he was POTUS he also was against the use of Executive Privilege, GITMO, killing US citizens without trial, taking money from Wall Street, tax cheats in the administration, etc.
 
2012-06-27 09:57:52 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: No, I have criticized conservatives many times. As an example, Bush should have vetoed all of those budgets and spending the dems initiated when they took the house. We would be in much better shape right now.


And lots of liberals wish Clinton would have vetoed all of those budgets and spending the reps initiated when THEY took the house. We would be in much better shape right now.
 
2012-06-27 09:57:58 PM

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

.

I love how people think Obamacare was dreamt up by the Heritage Foundation.

So...why wasn't it implemented decades ago?



Why should the fact that it was cooked up by Heritage imply that it would have been implemented decades ago? There's a gap in there somewhere.

.


Pretty sure the plan was cooked up in 1989. They've had over 20 years to implement it, and they balked because it had a mandate.
 
2012-06-27 09:59:06 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: ImpendingCynic: 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.

No, I have criticized conservatives many times. As an example, Bush should have vetoed all of those budgets and spending the dems initiated when they took the house. We would be in much better shape right now.


I am guessing that would have counteracted the Bush tax cuts, two unfunded wars, and Medicare Part D without one thin dime of funding. Thanks for clarifying that repeating a long-debunked myth.

.
 
2012-06-27 09:59:27 PM

vygramul: And lots of liberals wish Clinton would have vetoed all of those budgets and spending the reps initiated when THEY took the house. We would be in much better shape right now.


And Graham-Leach-Bliley.

However, I love that his one example of criticizing conservatives is for not being strong enough in defending against liberals.
 
2012-06-27 09:59:56 PM

whidbey: Also, how does that proposal deal with saving costs?


I think you mean reducing, not saving costs.

how does 0bamacare reduce costs?
 
2012-06-27 10:01:09 PM

whidbey: That was the think-tank phase of the proposal. When it came time to see if it could be put into law, the right dropped the whole thing like a hot potato.

Also, does that original draft contain services for pre-existing conditions? Keeping dependents as old as 26 on the plan?

Also, how does that proposal deal with saving costs?

It really isn't the same thing at all.


The point isn't whether these are identical. The point is that all the Republican wharrgarbl over the mandate and so on is bullshiat because they themselves were fans of it. They're lying when they pretend there's some kind of principle they're championing against the mandate when it's totally up their alley for a host of economic and philosophical reasons.

Heritage thought of an inferior and incomplete idea. The Democrats took the good parts and made the whole thing workable. Republicans don't oppose Obamacare because it is somehow bad, they oppose it because it's a victory that they don't want associated with Democrats lest the public realize who actually cares about them.
 
2012-06-27 10:03:31 PM

bulldg4life: vygramul: And lots of liberals wish Clinton would have vetoed all of those budgets and spending the reps initiated when THEY took the house. We would be in much better shape right now.

And Graham-Leach-Bliley.

However, I love that his one example of criticizing conservatives is for not being strong enough in defending against liberals.


Yeah- it's transparent. His sense of political philosophy is so fragile, he cannot handle bringing himself to lodge a legitimate complaint against his "side".
 
2012-06-27 10:05:50 PM

vygramul: bulldg4life: vygramul: And lots of liberals wish Clinton would have vetoed all of those budgets and spending the reps initiated when THEY took the house. We would be in much better shape right now.

And Graham-Leach-Bliley.

However, I love that his one example of criticizing conservatives is for not being strong enough in defending against liberals.

Yeah- it's transparent. His sense of political philosophy is so fragile, he cannot handle bringing himself to lodge a legitimate complaint against his "side".


So you think that Bush should not be criticized for approving all that spending? interesting.
 
2012-06-27 10:15:07 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: 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.


Over three hundred people had to die in the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire before regulations enforcing open exits were passed.

It took the sinking of the Titanic before they managed to push through real maritime safety regulations.

It took the Great Depression before it was realized that banks can't be allowed to run wild.

The Cuyahoga river had to get so polluted it literally caught fire before Congress was shamed into creating the EPA and passing the Clean Air and Water acts.

The PPACA is in large part the worst possible option for reform - Not only does it permit the corporate HMOs to continue to exist, it makes us all their hostage in an environment with zero demand elasticity (What are you going to do, not get treatment for your life-threatening medical condition?). If they win this round, I expect (given the utterly shameless nature of what they said before Congress during debate) that they will take it as license to go full retard, which may finally push people over the edge to realizing that this system is not only broken, it is evil and despicable. And then, as where previous catastrophes snapped people out of it and enabled real reform, we might see real reform.

Then again, the 4 previously cited instances of reform after catastrophe were before the right-wing echo chamber completely undocked from reality and became its own schizophrenic universe. I fully expected after the crash late in 2008 and right after Obama's inauguration that the banksters were about to be put back in their place too. I mean, take yourself back to 2008 - they'd just crashed the entire world's economy, we were losing over a hundred thousand jobs a week, people were carrying signs saying "jump you farkers," they were about on the same level as Nazi death camp guards claiming they knew nothing when it came to credibility. Who on God's green earth would listen to anything these maniacs say or want? Yet here we are, 4 years later, and millions of deluded tools actually believe that the banksters aren't the problem.

I keep expecting there to come a point at which the right wing's fever-swamp spittle-flecked insanity will reach a breaking point but it doesn't happen.
 
2012-06-27 10:17:40 PM
Details do not matter to rioters.
 
2012-06-27 10:19:58 PM

vygramul: The point isn't whether these are identical. The point is that all the Republican wharrgarbl over the mandate and so on is bullshiat because they themselves were fans of it. They're lying when they pretend there's some kind of principle they're championing against the mandate when it's totally up their alley for a host of economic and philosophical reasons.

Heritage thought of an inferior and incomplete idea. The Democrats took the good parts and made the whole thing workable. Republicans don't oppose Obamacare because it is somehow bad, they oppose it because it's a victory that they don't want associated with Democrats lest the public realize who actually cares about them.


I did miss the point somewhat. Agreed on the summation.
 
2012-06-27 10:23:35 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: Boudica's War Tampon: Well, before he was POTUS he campaigned for a single-payer system.

before he was POTUS he also was against the use of Executive Privilege, GITMO, killing US citizens without trial, taking money from Wall Street, tax cheats in the administration, etc.


GITMO? Where Congress amended a war funding bill that banned virtually any changes to the Bush processes of handling detainees? Yeah.

If you think I'll ever regret, as a Republican, voting for Obama over McCain, you'd be sadly mistaken.

If you would like to know how dirty Barry Goldwater, John McCain and the rest of the Republican party is, read up on the murder of Tony Serra who was killed in the Arizona State Penitentiary right after Don Bolles was blown to bits in a Phoenix hotel parking lot.

Serra worked for the same people that John McCain ended up working for--Mafia-connected felons. McCain's boss was a convicted felon Jim Hensley who illegally held a liquor distributorship license in Arizona--his reward for doing time for Kemper Marley, the guy he worked for. Cindy McCain was the daughter of this felon. That's why McCain has kept his finances separate from Cindy Hensley McCain's finances.

Anyways, Serra was murdered in prison because he talked about Kemper Marley and other Mafia-connected felons like John McCain's boss and father-in-law. The guys that murdered Serra in prison were the Tison Gang. They were allowed to escape from prison in payment for murdering Serra. They killed 6 people and a Chihuahua before they were captured or killed.

Oh and Barry Goldwater's connection to all of this Mafia murder and mayhem in the Arizona Republican party big-wigs? Barry called Neal Roberts 5 or 6 times the day the guys Roberts hired to blow up Don Bolles did the hit.

So, McCain has murder, Mafia, corruption, and lots of shiat hanging off of him. And so did Barry Goldwater. Given the choice between Obama and McCain, I'd vote Obama again no problem. For the most part, he has at least tried to fulfill his campaign promises without shooting someone in the face, outing a CIA operative or marrying a Mafia-connected felon's daughter. You obviously have higher standards than I do.
 
2012-06-27 10:27:57 PM
Vouchers in 3... 2... 1...
 
2012-06-27 10:27:57 PM

bulldg4life: It'd be funny awesome if they worded it in a way that destroyed Medicare or SS.


Oh the anarchy! That would definitely keep me entertained.
 
2012-06-27 10:32:34 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: vygramul: bulldg4life: vygramul: And lots of liberals wish Clinton would have vetoed all of those budgets and spending the reps initiated when THEY took the house. We would be in much better shape right now.

And Graham-Leach-Bliley.

However, I love that his one example of criticizing conservatives is for not being strong enough in defending against liberals.

Yeah- it's transparent. His sense of political philosophy is so fragile, he cannot handle bringing himself to lodge a legitimate complaint against his "side".

So you think that Bush should not be criticized for approving all that spending? interesting.


Awww... isn't it cute when conservatives intentionally misunderstand the conversation and try to shift the context in which things were said?

I hope you're enjoying your summer vacation.
 
2012-06-27 10:33:50 PM
Isn't it nice how public policy is ultimately decided by geriatric judges who were appointed for life more than a decade ago and don't face election?

What a wonderful system we have.
 
2012-06-27 10:41:56 PM

CujoQuarrel: saintstryfe: MyRandomName: Upholding the mandate has effects for the young and healthy who end up subsidizing the old and sick. Either way a subset gets farked. So what is your point?

In other words: Social Security. Something we've run very effectively over the last 75 years without serious incident.

It's going broke you know.


People have been saying that for years and years. It should have happened 20 years ago, according to the first time I heard it.

\Yeah, I'm pretty old.
\\I'm not eligable yet, but I bet it'll still be going when I am.
 
2012-06-27 10:42:29 PM

ManRay: Details do not matter to rioters.


And just who do you imagine is going to riot after this ruling?
 
2012-06-27 10:47:46 PM

Thrag: Given that the details of "Obamacare" are lost on the general public Congress, I'd say that's a pretty safe bet.


/"We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it."
 
2012-06-27 10:47:50 PM

FuturePastNow: ManRay: Details do not matter to rioters.

And just who do you imagine is going to riot after this ruling?


Paging 9beers. 9beers to the thread please.
 
2012-06-27 10:48:37 PM
It has always been Obamacare. Right from the start. --Phil Herup
 
2012-06-27 10:50:20 PM
 
2012-06-27 10:50:53 PM

vygramul: It has always been Obamacare. Right from the start. --Phil Herup


www.destinationhollywood.com
 
2012-06-27 10:51:31 PM
 
2012-06-27 10:52:00 PM
What most Americans wanted was at least Obamacare with the public option, which the heavily-lobbied Congress killed.

Most Americans actually want single payer, which we'd have if this were a democracy.

/inb4 everyone wants something for free
//yet we have to pay for our $2.5 billion per day military. At least our great grandchildren do.
 
2012-06-27 10:53:04 PM

Boudica's War Tampon: So, McCain has murder, Mafia, corruption, and lots of shiat hanging off of him. And so did Barry Goldwater. Given the choice between Obama and McCain,


McCain isn't running this in 2012 nor is Barry Goldwater.

Maybe you needed a thicker ply of aluminum foil for your hat?
 
2012-06-27 10:53:06 PM
Right-wingers are seriously going to lose their shiat when the court upholds parts of the bill (or even everything).

I'm predicting thousands of "Keep gubmint out of my Medicare" signs thrown through the windows of the Supreme Court.
 
2012-06-27 10:56:28 PM

vygramul: April 2010:

Attaching the President's name to it is red meat for the loonies on the right. Nobody but wingnuts call it Obamacare.


so you saying the 0bama administration are wingnuts. well, i agree with you there.

link
 
2012-06-27 10:58:38 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Is there some way that we can store the heat that is going to be generated by the blogosphere tomorrow? It'll be enough to power turbines for the next couple years in the US.


Nope. But the admins will harness every shiatty rightwing blog to generate clicks.
 
Displayed 50 of 187 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report