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.

(US Supreme Court) NewsFlash Supreme Court rules that Obamacare is constitutional. The bland mask that is Mitt Romney's face twitches with something called "emotion"   (supremecourt.gov) divider line 3382
    More: NewsFlash, obamacare, supreme courts, Mitt Romney, supreme court ruling  
•       •       •

14913 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Jun 2012 at 10:27 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

3382 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | » | Last
 
2012-06-28 01:19:25 PM

super_grass: This to Cons is what Citizens United was to Libs.


Except that liberals never proposed Citizens United and then cried when it actually came to pass.
 
2012-06-28 01:19:42 PM
Honestly, I can't see anyone being upset by this, and if you are, what the hell is wrong with you? Seriously.
 
2012-06-28 01:19:49 PM
It's so nice to be vindicated in my prediction that Republicans who insisted it be called Obamacare now object to that term because it gives him credit.

Nothing impeaches their intellectual honesty more than that.
 
2012-06-28 01:19:59 PM

o5iiawah: Anti_illuminati: If you have medical insurance and you get fat and incur medical costs due to diabetes (for example) medical insurance pays for it.

At a cost to other people within the care network.

Remove the penalty of increased healthcare costs on fat, unhealthy people and you'll get more fat, unhealthy people since insurance companies will be unable to raise their rates or drop them. This is possibly equivalent to crashing my uninsured car into a nursery school full of children, calling Geico and then expecting them to put me on a $60/mo policy and incur all the costs associated with the condition I just created before I had insurance.

If we are going to socialize the consequence of behavior, it is within our rights to regulate individual behaviors.


So are you saying that this socializes healthcare, thereby inherently causing people to be knowingly unhealthy because there is no consequence? Do you have anything to back that up (other than personal opinion/experience, of course)? Because I look at all the evidence to the contrary and it doesn't bode well for your example. (i.e., Europe/Scandinavia).

This slippery slope analogy has no real basis in reality other than personal bias and subjective rationalization.
 
2012-06-28 01:20:02 PM

L82DPRT: HeartBurnKid: is now the "FAILED status quo".

We currently have a FAILED status quo. Most expensive, top heavy, bloated, who-knows-what-costs Labyrinth of bureaucratic paper pushing BS on top of the Doctor-patient relationship.

This further sets it.


One, since, as I said before, it hasn't fully taken effect yet, it by definition has not "FAILED". It may fail in the future, but it hasn't failed yet.

Two, since it is relatively new and, again, hasn't fully taken effect yet, it by definition is not the "status quo".

Lrn2Englsh.
 
2012-06-28 01:20:03 PM

DiamondDave: The government can't force you to buy health insurance, but if you don't, you will pay an uncollected tax when you do your income taxes.

Work a minimum wage job and can't afford health insurance? fark you, pay me.

You're quite certainly excluded from any penalty, since a qualifying 'silver' plan will almost certainly cost more than 8% of your gross income. But, at that income, you're entitled to nearly-fully-subsidized care under the PPACA (if the subsidies are funded) if you don't qualify for Medicaid.
 
2012-06-28 01:20:22 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: The end zone dancing is very much misplaced. The powerful will avoid shouldering any additional burden, while the powerless will not be able to do so. It's probably good news for welfare riders, but for the working poor it's going to be a disaster, economically. So much for hiring picking up. So much for economic recovery.

But hey, your team won, right? And that's all that matters.

Congrats.


That may be so... I don't know how this will impact small businesses (I know Obamacare has DRAMATICALLY helped *our* business, but whatever...or maybe it was the law LePage signed...or both, I donno). What I do know is, unless there's some kind of provision in Obamacare, there will be a number of people that aren't poor enough for welfare but aren't rich enough to be able to afford insurance.

It happens all the time. Right here in Maine, for example: if you make $X an hour, you are eligible for food stamps. Make one penny more than that amount, and BAM! No food stamps. Nothing. A $.01 raise could end up costing you hundreds a month, because now you have to pay for ALL the food yourself. It's all-or-nothing.

I don't know the gory details of the law to know if this would happen or not. I sure hope not. Because I also worry that those stuck in the middle like that may also not be able to afford the cost of the mandate should they go without buying insurance.
 
2012-06-28 01:20:22 PM
We can now focus on the real socialist issue. Libraries!.....There i said it
 
2012-06-28 01:20:24 PM
Wow. The freepers are claiming that Roberts' family was held hostage to coerce his vote. Link
 
2012-06-28 01:20:31 PM
From Tea Party Nation:

Okay, it's time to think about impeaching John Roberts and the liberal members of the Supreme Court. They're only allowed to serve during "good behavior." Ripping the Constitution to shreds for political profit is the opposite of what the Founding Fathers meant by "good behavior." Roberts is now officially the worst Chief Justice in American history, and a traitor to the conservative right.


IMPEACH ROBERTS. IMPEACH HIM NOW.
 
2012-06-28 01:20:34 PM
Sorry if this is a repost...

fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net
 
2012-06-28 01:20:47 PM

BobBoxBody: The problem with Obamacare is that it doesn't address the main fundamental issue with healthcare: That it is expensive. Simply mandating by law that people have health insurance of some sort under penalty of fine tax isn't going to change the fact that health care costs are ballooning.


Actually it does. You are pretending the mandate is the only part of the law. That is not true.

Why don't you stop lying and READ what the law actually does!!!

Also adding more healthy people to the pool DOES lower health costs. If you understand anything about insurance (which it seems you don't) you would understand this.

Are you saying making preventive care more accessible won't drive costs down? Or you have no clue what the law actually is?
 
2012-06-28 01:20:48 PM

chiett: providing something for free to people who do not pay for it


You guys are funny.
 
2012-06-28 01:21:09 PM

Hagbardr: Wow. The freepers are claiming that Roberts' family was held hostage to coerce his vote. Link


they're having a rough day over at freerepublic.
 
2012-06-28 01:21:27 PM

whidbey: Honestly, I can't see anyone being upset by this, and if you are, what the hell is wrong with you? Seriously.


I'm reading a thread on freerepublic calling for armed revolution. What is wrong with people like that could fill volumes of psychology books.
 
2012-06-28 01:21:34 PM

snakedriver: So, I have health insurance already. And I had cancer a few years back. Im much better now, thankfully.
Every year, the price of my policy goes up significantly.
How will Obamacare help me?


by allowing you to shop around for a better policy without having that pre-existing condition thing hanging over you.
there's also a rule saying that they can't jack up your premiums just because you get sick
 
2012-06-28 01:21:47 PM

Joe Blowme: YEA!!! Now i get punnished for working for a company that offers a good health care package!! YEA!! for the 40% tax on cadillac plans!!!! fark! nothing like punnishing those who work to pay for other lazy bastards.


Lol.

HEY ERRYBODY! Looky here!
*points at Joe*
This is why compassion, sharing and reading comprehension are important. Without them, you turn into this.
 
2012-06-28 01:21:47 PM

gothelder: Lando Lincoln: I can't afford an aircraft carrier.

I work for Northrop Grumman, we just spun off Huntington-Ingalls, I'll see what I can do about getting you an employee discount, since my support desk still helps em out.


I'd go with an old CVE. Better gas mileage.
 
2012-06-28 01:21:50 PM

xdedd: Bwahahaha!

[i.huffpost.com image 640x246]


You know, I can understand interest in this case. But for the life of me, I don't understand why someone would go out to protest in front of the Supreme Court building today about it. Don't these people have jobs?
 
2012-06-28 01:21:54 PM

quizzical: Smeggy Smurf: 3 of the 4 boxes have failed. Time to break out the 4th box. Good thing I've been teaching the boys how to do it as well.

Awww, what's in the 4th box?


a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net

also

i47.tinypic.com
 
2012-06-28 01:21:55 PM

Godscrack: [img805.imageshack.us image 600x400]

/Still my favorite.


DAMN! The dreaded double troll face?!?!?!?!?!?!

That's awesome.

/the most devastating move since 3D
 
2012-06-28 01:22:03 PM

bugontherug: From Tea Party Nation:

Okay, it's time to think about impeaching John Roberts and the liberal members of the Supreme Court. They're only allowed to serve during "good behavior." Ripping the Constitution to shreds for political profit is the opposite of what the Founding Fathers meant by "good behavior." Roberts is now officially the worst Chief Justice in American history, and a traitor to the conservative right.


IMPEACH ROBERTS. IMPEACH HIM NOW.


Ha! So now not being an "Judicial Activist" is now an impeachable offense.
 
2012-06-28 01:22:04 PM
Dam, Dam Dam. I was hoping to be able to vote 3rd party for a couple of candidates in November but now I have to look at who to vote for to improve chances of getting this repealed.

Who am I kidding, once these types of programs get established it is easier to cure a reality show socialite of herpes than to kill the program.

The Dependency Class and their political minders have won another one. The court was our best shot and freedom took it on the chin in favor of being cared for.
 
2012-06-28 01:22:19 PM

bugontherug: From Tea Party Nation:

Okay, it's time to think about impeaching John Roberts and the liberal members of the Supreme Court. They're only allowed to serve during "good behavior." Ripping the Constitution to shreds for political profit is the opposite of what the Founding Fathers meant by "good behavior." Roberts is now officially the worst Chief Justice in American history, and a traitor to the conservative right.


IMPEACH ROBERTS. IMPEACH HIM NOW.


Please please pretty please impeach the Republican-appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court while a Democrat is President. PLEASE.
 
2012-06-28 01:22:36 PM
All those Freepers screaming for armed insurrection? I hope they do it. Pick up your rifles, pick up your bayonets, storm the Capitol. Demand Pelosi's head on a pike, then march down to the White House and start firing at the Oval Office windows. Do it, you raging sack of quivering pussies. If this country you once loved oh so much is now a shell of its former self, and the only way to reclaim its glory is through bloodshed, then start shedding some blood, assholes. Come on, be men for once in your pathetic lives. Prove you have the biggest patriot boners in all the land.

If you're unwilling or unable, then please......SHUT THE FARK UP.
 
2012-06-28 01:22:41 PM

BobBoxBody: If you all thought people were protesting before, just wait till you see what they do now that this has happened.

The problem with Obamacare is that it doesn't address the main fundamental issue with healthcare: That it is expensive. Simply mandating by law that people have health insurance of some sort under penalty of fine tax isn't going to change the fact that health care costs are ballooning.

The thing is this isn't a problem where we don't have a solution. Some very smart people spent several years researching this shiat and managed to find several sectors of the health care industry that were able to find ways of operating that drove costs of health care down to much more acceptable levels and were further able to derive a sound strategy for the healthcare industry to reliably lower the cost of care and still improve the quality of care delivered (mostly through decentralization and by making it much easier and affordable to get care for minor and easily treated illnesses via stuff like Minute Clinic and technology making it much easier to diagnose illness without needing highly trained professionals which lowers costs and turnaround).

"Mandated" health insurance doesn't work because it's not addressing the fundamental reason why healthcare is so expensive in the first place, and is only going to cause the problem to become worse over time, not better. Furthermore this is clearly a preemptive bailout for the health insurance industry, as they've mostly priced themselves out of the market, mainly because of rising health care costs, so if people think this is going to magically make their insurance more affordable (or significantly more so) or comprehensive, then I got a bridge in China I can sell you. And then of course there is the issue of "expanding" Medicare. How? With what money? Pretty soon Medicare will likely be as sustainable as Social Security is right now, which is to say, not very. I'm not attacking Medicaid or SS or the people on it, but these ...


If only there was a way to look at other places who have controlled costs. Like every other industrialized country in the farking world. You make it sound like only a think tank with the most brilliant mind in the world could solve this problem. Get rid of private insurance for basic care and have Government managed insurance. Done. Liberals would have done this 20 years ago if it wasn't for Conservatives.
 
2012-06-28 01:22:42 PM

Anti_illuminati: Phinn: Anti_illuminati: So if you chose not to have health insurance, you get hit by a truck and rack up medical costs you cannot afford, who pays for that? We do. Those that currently have health insurance. Your analogy is bad and you should feel bad.

No one should be forced to pay for anyone else's goods and services.

But now that we all have skin in the game, what happens when you get fat and incur lots of medical costs? Who pays for that? We do.

So, when do we get a fat tax? A lazy tax? An exercise-or-pay-up tax? Why should the expenses of healthy people be higher just because some people want to smoke and play video games and eat Cheetos all day long watching Judge Judy?

Jesus Christ. You can't be serious. Did you work this statement through your head completely before typing? If you have medical insurance and you get fat and incur medical costs due to diabetes (for example) medical insurance pays for it. What the hell kind of point are you making? Are you really grasping at straws to try to show a "slippery slope" scenario?


What don't you understand, genius?

I am forced to buy a product whose cost is tied directly to the level of other people's fitness and health. When they are lazy, overfed lard-asses, that increases my costs.

Since I'm paying for it, I deserve protection against the out-of-control increases in costs resulting from people with crappy diet and general lard-assery.

I want some specific cost-cutting mechanism that keeps me from being forced to subsidize lay-abouts.

It's simple -- either allow insurers to sell low-cost insurance for the low risk that's posed by fit and healthy people (as demonstrated with objectively-measurable criteria such as BMI, blood profiles, athletic performance tests, etc.), or tax the living shiat out of the aforementioned lard asses who stuff their holes all day and laze about while benefiting from my productivity.
 
2012-06-28 01:22:46 PM

Fail in Human Form: The bill limits the amount of overhead so if they raise the rates, or requires a rebate cheque to be sent to the policy holders, it'll be to cover the cost not to line their pockets.


Hey yoohoo. THAT is the problem. Just think for a second about this. .....What is stopping the hospitals and doctors from RAISING their prices? They know they are now gonna get paid, right? What is stopping them? Nothing is!
Well now Mr. Insurance Comp will just raise your premiums to cover this increase because, guess what? Ya' gotta have it by law. Let's say your premium was $1,000. well 80% has to be spent on care which leaves $200 for the insurance comp profit. Now your rate increase to $2,000 to cover the increased hospitals fees, 80% still has to go to care, but now the insurance comp profits are $400!
Think!
 
2012-06-28 01:22:49 PM

CPennypacker: derpdeederp: Good for you Libs, glad you got a win.

Personally, I think it morally wrong to take money from one group of people to pay for anothers benefits, so single payer would have been better in my mind. But we get what we get.

Go team, lol.

Cool story bro. I think its morally wrong to let people die or go into life crushing debt because they can't afford medical care.

Morals are funny.


Yes they are. Like how you want other people to pay for this opposed to society as a whole. Guess whatever is easiest on your pocket book. See, projecting is fun!
 
2012-06-28 01:22:49 PM

Chameleon: Did you tell him that what he was saying was not actually true?


Yep, I did. His response started with, "Well, Rush Limbaugh says..." I didn't push it any further because I have learned over the years (worked with this guy over 10 years) that there's little to no point. He honestly, truly, to the core of his being believes that Obama is the worst thing that has ever happened to this country, and that makes him very sad. He was a Santorum supporter. Hates Rmoney, but will hold his nose and vote for him anyway because he's not trying to force government in to our lives (just into my hoo-hah, apparently)

As a coworker, he's fantastic.... as long as we don't talk politics or religion, we get along fine!
 
2012-06-28 01:22:56 PM

bwilson27: Meanwhile, in freeperland...
[www.hostingbytes.us image 640x192]


Depends on how the GOP spins it. I'm sure there was a reason Roberts made it plain in his decision that the mandate IS A TAX. He essentially is telling the Republican party, "Go ahead and paint the Democrats as tax-raising, middle-class hating baby killers" or something like it.

Only time will tell if they DO spin it that way (I think it's a sure thing), and if it has any impact.
 
2012-06-28 01:23:01 PM

Weaver95: barneyfifesbullet: Yet another way this decision screws Obama.....

This decision totally removes the liberal talking point that everyone must vote for Obama because of judges. The Supreme Court as a November issue is totally gone.

incidentally - this is a direct Limbaugh quote. expect to see this talking point repeated a lot over the next several days.


Most Americans can't name all 50 states, but they know enough about Civics to consider the Supreme Court when they vote for a candidate? Yeah, ok. Tell me the percentage of Americans who even know the President appoints them. Then, add that to the percentage of people who have no farking clue whether or not a chair would even be open in the next 4 years. Multiply that by the number of people who still think Thurgood Marshall is on the bench.
 
2012-06-28 01:23:10 PM
Well, I will be out of a job in the medical field within 2 years... thanks a lot libs. Small rural clinics like mine will be shut down because of the high cost of compliance. We were already worried about the mandidtory Electronic Records implementation to get reimbursement with Medicare/Medicaid. That alone was going to cost us over $50k. We will be closed within 2 years now.
 
2012-06-28 01:23:26 PM

Brandyelf: Freepervillle is trying to spike the online poll at WCBV in Boston (about halfway down the page on the left).

Show them we can do better, Fark.

My VCOM (Very Conservative Office Mate) is flipping over today's decision. I asked him if he hated the freedom of insuring his kids (he has a lot) until they're 26. He said of course not. I asked him if my daughter, who has a pre-existing condition (asthma) should be denied insurance when she becomes independent because of that. He said of course not. I then asked what he objected to, and he told me we were all going to lose our insurance and be forced to buy government insurance and we wouldn't be allowed to see our own doctors anymore, but would instead have to go to whomever the government tells us to. Plus we would have to pay thousands more every year to pay for insurance for illegal immigrants.

This is how people "think".


See, because if Freepers "win" an online poll that means 0Bama goes to Guantanamo, ACA is repealed and Sarah Palin is automatically President (Todd is VP).
 
2012-06-28 01:23:26 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: The working poor are worse off because they lack health care. A majority of personal bankruptcies are caused by medical bills. Of those going bankrupt in 2007, the majority had insurance at some point, but they either lost it or the insurance company denied them. Obamacare is an attempt to fix these problems.


You may continue to believe this if you like. But aside from a few fig leaves like pre-existing conditions and parents' policy 'til 26, the only true winners are the insurance companies. Watch.

A monthly bill for health insurance, which can be budgeted and offset with vouchers, is doable for even poor families. A major health problem that comes out of nowhere and leads to a massive medical bill? Not so much.

The reason that job creation has been so anemic has largely been because of the huge costs involved with the government sticking its nose into health care in this way. Now that SCOTUS has upheld it, companies are going to continue to not hire. I was really hoping for an overturn; at this point, I don't care what fool sits in the White House. I just want the economy to pick up again. Oh well.
 
2012-06-28 01:23:38 PM

mrshowrules: BobBoxBody: If you all thought people were protesting before, just wait till you see what they do now that this has happened.

The problem with Obamacare is that it doesn't address the main fundamental issue with healthcare: That it is expensive. Simply mandating by law that people have health insurance of some sort under penalty of fine tax isn't going to change the fact that health care costs are ballooning.

The thing is this isn't a problem where we don't have a solution. Some very smart people spent several years researching this shiat and managed to find several sectors of the health care industry that were able to find ways of operating that drove costs of health care down to much more acceptable levels and were further able to derive a sound strategy for the healthcare industry to reliably lower the cost of care and still improve the quality of care delivered (mostly through decentralization and by making it much easier and affordable to get care for minor and easily treated illnesses via stuff like Minute Clinic and technology making it much easier to diagnose illness without needing highly trained professionals which lowers costs and turnaround).

"Mandated" health insurance doesn't work because it's not addressing the fundamental reason why healthcare is so expensive in the first place, and is only going to cause the problem to become worse over time, not better. Furthermore this is clearly a preemptive bailout for the health insurance industry, as they've mostly priced themselves out of the market, mainly because of rising health care costs, so if people think this is going to magically make their insurance more affordable (or significantly more so) or comprehensive, then I got a bridge in China I can sell you. And then of course there is the issue of "expanding" Medicare. How? With what money? Pretty soon Medicare will likely be as sustainable as Social Security is right now, which is to say, not very. I'm not attacking Medicaid or SS or the people on i ...


Hell, Nixon would have done this 40 years ago if it wasn't for conservatives.
 
2012-06-28 01:23:40 PM

canyoneer: Not surprising.

First SCOTUS ruled that the state can seize your property and turn it over to a corporation of its choosing.

Then it ruled that corporations can spend unlimited money to influence the political process.

Now it has ruled that the state can force you to buy a product from a corporation of its choosing.

If you object to any of this, there is a law on the books (which no one has "standing" to challenge) which allows the state to declare you a "terrorist" based on secret evidence that you are not allowed to see, and based on this to subject you to indefinite detention and/or extra-judicial execution.

Sounds like everything is in place now.



Might as well just turn yourself in to your local FEMA camp.
 
2012-06-28 01:23:42 PM

BobBoxBody: To sum up, "Obamacare" fails because it doesn't address the fundamental issue that healthcare is too expensive


Indeed, one of the essential aspects of the legislation is that unlike previous efforts, it does not rely on just one policy for effective cost control. Instead, it puts into place virtually every cost-control reform proposed by physicians, economists, and health policy experts and includes the means for these reforms to be assessed quickly and scaled up if they're successful. Link
 
2012-06-28 01:23:42 PM

qorkfiend: xanadian: xdedd: Bwahahaha!

[i.huffpost.com image 640x246]

Did they really show that on Fox News? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

qorkfiend: FirstNationalBastard: Rwa2play: xanadian: *saunters into thread*

[narwhaler.com image 469x453]

Problem, GOP?

I can only begin to imagine the conservative butthurt today...

Believe me, it's bigger than you can imagine

/moar trollface

I haven't seen Butthurt so big since John Holmes plugged Bruce Villanch.

I haven't seen butthurt so big since Zed brought out the Gimp.

The problem with this victory for Obama is that it *could* come back and bite him in the ass. If the GOP has even a quarter of a brain, they could easily spin this as, "Obama doesn't care about poor and middle-class people, because HE JUST INCREASED TAXES ON YOU in the form of the mandate."

I think Obama would welcome a chance to publicly debate tax policy with Mitt Romney; Romney's plan also increases taxes on the poor and middle class, but instead of helping people, Romney gives tax cuts to top brackets and increases defense spending. Romney wants taxes as far away from the debating table as possible for as long as possible.


This is a *very* good point.
 
2012-06-28 01:23:54 PM

inner ted: dennysgod: inner ted: Kuroshin: MasterThief: Silver lining based on SCOTUSBlog: The mandate was not a legit use of the commerce clause, but it was OK as a tax.

So yes, Obama and the Democrats did, in fact, raise taxes on the middle class. After repeatedly promising not to.

Not mine. I have health insurance.

So yeah, not really.

/a really weird way of doing things - punitive taxation...

uh ya, really

i have health insurance now through my employer. it is a small company, less than 20 people.

now they are going to drop our insurance cause they can't afford it.

so now i get to buy a product only where my government allows, where ever I want, or get taxed if i don't.

/the lib jack off fest here is priceless in it's ignorance.

//what's the lib equivalent of a tea-bagger??

You can get what ever health insurance you want. If you are too lazy deal with the hassle of finding you own you can sign up for the Exchange program and they'll find you one.

Also did you know that this tax only comes in to play during tax time (it's not taken out of each pay check), it's just a yes/no box on your tax form. There's no real legal ramification defined (ie no tax liens or criminal penalties) and nobody is checking the millions and millions of people that they in fact have insurance or don't so you can just simply lie on the tax form. Also there are so many ways to get out of it with a clear conscience, you can even use religious beliefs as an excused to get out of paying.

that is fine information you shared, thanks!

but how can i get 'whatever insurance i like' when i can't shop out of state? (real question)

you say though that this only comes into play during tax time, not all year. that's all swell and good, but if the fine is big enough, what does it matter?

as to them following up with all the people to make sure they have insurance - i hope you are correct, cause that seems a pretty tall order. though i suppose it will 'create jobs'...??

thanks for having rational discussion.


I thought that it was part of the Exchange program, or somewhere else in this law where this would be allowed be buy across state line. Maybe someone else elaborate.
 
2012-06-28 01:23:58 PM

Biological Ali: Thunderpipes: those 30 million people paying in are 30 million that did not have to before and already took care of themselves.

There's no way you typed this with a straight face. Admit it.


By "taking care of themselves" he means "Use VERY expensive emergency rooms and forcing others to cover the bill when they can't pay".
 
2012-06-28 01:23:59 PM
Just saw a poster at one of the rallies that said "RIP SMALL GOVERNMENT"...likely from someone who wants to ban abortion and thinks there should be a federal law against homosexual marriage.

/but enough of that: WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOi'm excited.
 
2012-06-28 01:24:52 PM
Does this mean I'm gonna be forced to gay marry someone now? Or does it mean I'm gonna be forced to check the air pressure in my tires every 12 hours or risk jail time?
 
2012-06-28 01:25:09 PM
meat0918


Buffalo77: Can someone explain the benefits of single payer to me.

One giant risk pool instead of hundreds of smaller risk pools = less cost for everyone in the giant risk pool because most people are healthy and never use their insurance, leaving premiums to pay for those few that have health issues.


That's not single payer, what you describe was universal healthcare. All people covered by one policy getting the same benefits.

Single payer says Pick plan A, B, C, D etc. Based on what you chose, your premium is x, y or z. Medical facilities are paid based on a negotiated rate or in the case of the federal gov't a dictated rate. Currently around 80% of the cost of the service. Servicing medicaid and medicare is a losing proposition for doctors and hospitals.
 
2012-06-28 01:25:18 PM
In all honesty, I may take the no-insurance-pay-tax option for awhile. My employer is crap, and I'm basically a contractor rather than an employee. I'm in my 20s, reasonably healthy, and can't afford full health insurance yet. I may opt out and take the tax hike because it's cheaper in the short term, then switch over when I get a bit more money.

Still very happy with the decision; the US can enter 1950 for social services
 
2012-06-28 01:25:26 PM

Thunderpipes: This is just making them...


You really ought to actually read the provisions of the two bills that is referred to so eloquently as 'Obamacare'.

Then you might realize a good bit of what you say refers to things that have absolutely nothing to do with the legislation that was upheld.
 
2012-06-28 01:25:28 PM

Grables'Daughter: Huh.

Well I did not expect that.


Clearly that means you must send BIE.

/eip
 
2012-06-28 01:25:48 PM
1.bp.blogspot.com

"With regards to the mandate, the individual responsibility program which I proposed, I was very pleased to see that the compromise from the two houses includes the personal responsibility principle, that is essential for bringing health care costs down for everyone, and for getting everybody the health insurance they deserve and need. So I was very pleased with that development."
 
2012-06-28 01:25:51 PM

dennysgod: I thought that it was part of the Exchange program, or somewhere else in this law where this would be allowed be buy across state line. Maybe someone else elaborate.


Hmm, I don't *think* so, but I'm basing that solely on the fact that I haven't heard about it and I'm pretty sure I would have if it was true since it's a well-known policy proposal.
 
2012-06-28 01:25:52 PM

Jackpot777: Sorry if this is a repost...

[fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net image 400x300]


Oh hell, you should read some of the shiat on Twitter about it. Derp condensed to 140 characters or less. It's like, super ultra concentrated derp.
 
Displayed 50 of 3382 comments

First | « | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | » | Last

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report