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  
•       •       •

14916 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 | « | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | » | Last
 
2012-06-28 01:51:23 PM

Big Man On Campus: Roberts surprised me. He surprised me in that he didn't read his own opinion. His opinion basically says that congress not only has the power to tax, but the power to tax individuals arbitrarily.

His decision seems to say that Congress decides what lifestyles are and are not fair to tax. Where does this line of reasoning end? "Oh, you haven't voted in the last election, that's another 1% on your tax bill."... "Oh, you didn't exercise regularly this year, that's another 1% effective tax rate."... "Oh you didn't purchase anything on Amazon this year, that's another 1%"

You might look at my hyperbole and be dismissive, but that's essentially the door that Roberts opened. He opened the door to most any individual lifestyle and/or individual financial decision to be taxable.


no he didn't

/he explicitly mentions that those types of taxes would be unconstitutional
 
2012-06-28 01:51:26 PM

barneyfifesbullet: Obama said it wasn't a tax.
The Supreme Court says he lied.


Actually, no. The ruling thinks the mandate is something neither fish nor fowl (nor good red herring).

The Anti-Injunction Act provides that "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person," 26 U. S. C. §7421(a), so that those subject to a tax must first pay it and then sue for a refund. The present challenge seeks to restrain the collection of the shared responsibility payment from those who do not comply with the individual mandate. But Congress did not intend the payment to be treated as a "tax" for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Affordable Care Act describes the payment as a "penalty," not a "tax." That label cannot control whether the payment is a tax for purposes of the Constitution, but it does determine the application of the Anti-Injunction Act. The Anti-Injunction Act therefore does not bar this suit. Pp. 11-15.


Essentially... the mandate is functionally a tax (or pedantaically, an exercise of the taxing power) from the stance of constitutional law, but it's not a tax from the standpoint of statutory law.

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No, calling a tail a leg don't make it a leg. - attributed to Abraham Lincoln

lh6.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-06-28 01:51:32 PM
Kibbler

Imagine tomorrow night's Right Wing Supreme Court Justice Poker Night.

*flushing sound*

*gurgling*

*gasping*

Scalia: Give him another.

Alito: I dunno, he's starting to turn blue, I...

Scalia: ANOTHER! I SAID ANOTHER!

*flushing sound*

Scalia: OK hold on for a minute, let me drop a deuce before the next one.


oh christ. hahahahahahaha.......bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha!
 
2012-06-28 01:52:11 PM
Lot's a shiat heads on both side here with the usual partisan posts.

Some of the Obamacare is good. Kids with pre existing conditions being able to get in on plans, same with sick adults.

But I am not paying the tax. I can't afford it. If I could, I'd buy farking health insurance in the first place.

See you in jail.
 
2012-06-28 01:52:11 PM

mrshowrules: I was responding to BillCo (notably absent). He was saying something to the effect that Liberals were unprepared for the mandate being shot down.

There will be plenty of time to gather the very funny and endless supply of screen captures of posts. I am predicting/earlier actually that some Fark handles will no longer show up on Fark. The same thing happened after the 2008 election.


Oh, there's plenty of stuff in this decision for conservatives to herp-and-derp their precious little hearts out over.

The whole "tax" thing, for one. Not to mention Chief RINO Uncle John shot down the Medicaid expansion, so red state legislatures can opt out then point to B. HUSSEIN Ni-B0NG0 as to why their poorest voters aren't getting coverage.
 
2012-06-28 01:52:28 PM

bulldg4life: Dancin_In_Anson: Where will that money come from?

Broaden Medicare tax base for high-income taxpayers: $210.2 billion
Annual fee on health insurance providers: $60 billion
40% excise tax on health coverage in excess of $10,200/$27,500: $32 billion
Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs: $27 billion
Impose 2.3% excise tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices: $20 billion
Raise 7.5% Adjusted Gross Income floor on medical expenses deduction to 10%: $15.2 billion
Limit contributions to flexible spending arrangements in cafeteria plans to $2,500: $13 billion
All other revenue sources: $14.9 billion
Original budget estimates included a provision to require information reporting on payments to corporations, which had been projected to raise $17 billion, but the provision was repealed.[43]

-----

The CBO expected the subsidies to cost something like $350 through 2019


Did you think to check how much govt spending on health care that this saves, Sparky?
 
2012-06-28 01:53:09 PM

Moderator: Weaver95: xanadian: Ya know, kind of off-topic, but...I'll bet Moderator must be busier in this thread than a three-legged man in an ass-kicking contest.

I kinda feel sorry for the mods today.

For the most part people are being good.


still...this has GOT to be nuts to monitor. I don't envy you at all!
 
2012-06-28 01:53:15 PM
I never did get my answer regarding the status of fungal infused multi-handled gerdunzas of a familial nature.
 
2012-06-28 01:53:17 PM
Man, the commercials about Obamacare coming up in November are going to be as hardcore as a Moss Covered Three Handled Family Gredunza
 
2012-06-28 01:53:18 PM

SharkTrager: Smelly McUgly: SharkTrager: monoski: SharkTrager: So, since the reason it survived was because the fine is considered a tax, will the administration stop insisting it's not a tax?

The administration does not care what the fark you call it now. It is law.

They'll care when it's pointed out how much they raised a lot of people's taxes.

Only if you don't have health care, which most people who are middle class and up already have.

The lower-mid-classes and impoverished will be exempt from the tax because they'll get Medicaid or a voucher that helps them purchase health care.

We all know that one of the 2 sides now has an argument that easily fits in a commercial, even if it is deceptive.


The commercials aren't deceptive already?

/gredunza.
 
2012-06-28 01:53:24 PM
Zerochance


I'll take the role of being the insensitive prick to answer this, and while I am profoundly sorry for your dad's condition (lost relatives to cancer myself) the ACA does specifically state there are no lifetime limits to coverage therefore your dad should have his scans covered by his insurance.

No: I said they wont pay for another like the "first-two" that they already took. The Doctor claims that he can't hardly compare the two, therefor making it difficult to measure any progress, if any... Need money: please send. It's the democratic way.
Thanks.
 
2012-06-28 01:53:25 PM

Smelly McUgly: dinomyar: Every "right" afforded to us by the constitution comes with some responsibilities. How soon before we are required to be responsible for our health?

NO! I AM ENTITLED TO MY RIGHTS AS LONG AS I WAVE A TINY AMERICAN FLAG AND BADMOUTH FOREIGNERS!


??????????????????????????????
 
kab
2012-06-28 01:53:30 PM

Thunderpipes: Now liberals, if we get a Republican advantage, how about we implement a tax on the unemployed? No job? Fine, pay a tax.


Math isn't your strong suit, is it?
 
2012-06-28 01:53:34 PM

robbrie: ACA is a tax, only if you CHOOSE to opt out of "mandatory" health insurance.

Using the tax code to influence the behavior of the electorate is neither new nor newsworthy.

Why do you think we have a home mortgage interest primary residence tax deduction? So more people will become homeowners.

Why do you think we lowered the long term capital gains tax rate to 15%? To stimulate individual investment.


So the Dems and Obama raised tax rates on ALL of the middle class. Well, no on everyone. So the Dems and Obama raised tax rates on EVERYONE, and then added a tax deduction for having health insurance. Is that what you're saying?
 
2012-06-28 01:53:35 PM

jevanpe5: My Dad has cancer....


Your father has my sympathies on two counts.
For having cancer, and an imbecile for a son.
Go read the actual legislation.
 
2012-06-28 01:53:38 PM

Jackson Herring: meat0918: claims to be a pacifist but was bragging bout his brand new gun collection

I'm a pacifist with a closet full of guns. Why is that weird?


He also claims that we can defeat the demons controlling the Jews with love, but he himself hates Jews?
 
2012-06-28 01:53:50 PM

FirstNationalBastard: SharkTrager: Smelly McUgly: SharkTrager: monoski: SharkTrager: So, since the reason it survived was because the fine is considered a tax, will the administration stop insisting it's not a tax?

The administration does not care what the fark you call it now. It is law.

They'll care when it's pointed out how much they raised a lot of people's taxes.

Only if you don't have health care, which most people who are middle class and up already have.

The lower-mid-classes and impoverished will be exempt from the tax because they'll get Medicaid or a voucher that helps them purchase health care.

We all know that one of the 2 sides now has an argument that easily fits in a commercial, even if it is deceptive.

The commercials aren't deceptive already?

/gredunza.


They are. And I retained.
 
2012-06-28 01:53:53 PM

jevanpe5: My Dad has cancer. It's a very aggressive cancer.


If its a blood related cancer try here:

http://www.lls.org/#/diseaseinformation/getinformationsupport/financi a lmatters/copayassistance/

They can help.

/Don't ask me how I know this.......
 
2012-06-28 01:53:56 PM

mr lawson: 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!


They don't think. They feel, and care, and so forth.

I think, and feel, and care. But because I think, I know this is going to be a disaster. Intentions don't matter; outcomes do.
 
2012-06-28 01:54:01 PM

jigger: Thank you for presenting a stunning demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.


I'm sorry; I misunderstood your post. I saw that you were presenting the argument that a health care-related tax was significantly different than other taxes. But then I made the incorrect assumption that you had some sort of point. I am so used to people using claims to bolster arguments or reach conclusions, that I just naturally assumed that you were going to do the same.

But after reading more closely, I see that you were just letting out a little message board fart. Just making a toot to clear out the elevator, as it were. You weren't trying to claim that the Supreme Court was wrong because the taxes are different, or argue that health care-related taxes are wrong. Nope, you were just saying that two different things are different. Apples and oranges are different kinds of fruit. A Ford and a Chevy are different kinds of cars. Social Security and the ACA mandate are different kinds of taxes.

Yep, thanks for clearing that up for us.
 
2012-06-28 01:54:06 PM
until either party address the real issue, nothing is gonna work.

The real issue? We do not have enough health care workers and clinics.
 
2012-06-28 01:54:20 PM

jevanpe5: 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.


My Dad has cancer. It's a very aggressive cancer. After the first 3 months of chemo, they just did another pet scan the other day and found out that it is not shrinking... They're not sure what to do now because the insurance company doesn't want to pay for another scan like the first two... And it's costing him alot of the money that worked so hard for all of his life... Average cost is about $5000...
Since your so into all of this, could you please send me $5000 so I can make sure my Dad get's the scan that is deemed proper??? Thanks and glad you saved him..
Looking forward to your donation, lib...


You don't have family? Shouldn't you be mad at the insurance company instead of dems? Which graveyard do I send the flowers to?
 
2012-06-28 01:54:29 PM

SharkTrager: I never did get my answer regarding the status of fungal infused multi-handled gerdunzas of a familial nature.


FFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
 
2012-06-28 01:54:33 PM
L82DPRT Smartest Funniest 2012-06-28 12:49:35 PM
(deleted: Personal attacks/namecalling)

WTF
 
2012-06-28 01:54:36 PM

Phinn: 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?


Sigh. Fine I'll address it point by point.

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.


You already pay for it. Lard-asses are already receiving medical care and the fact they can't pay for it is reflected in your insurance premiums increasing and tax dollars rising. This is a very important point you seem to be overlooking. This act, while not ideal at all, seeks to limit premium increases and places a profit margin that health insurance companies can obtain, while also increasing the risk pool to off set increasing premium costs and healthcare costs.

For example, let's say the standard deviation for a loss for an individual is $500. And there are 2,000 total insureds in this risk pool. The formula would be 500/√(2,000)= 11.18 premium. Now what happens if we increase that pull by 750 uninsured's that are now able be pooled? 500/√(2,750)= 9.53. So you see pulling in the uninsureds increases the risk pooling, thereby decreasing the shared amount. What's more significant, is that these uninsureds still incur losses that are then ultimately picked up in taxes and higher healthcare costs, increasing premium without the opportunity to risk pool.

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


The one outlined above is a good step, and severe focus on preventitive care is another. But overall I agree.

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.


If we follow this logic, we also have to exclude those with pre-existing conditions. While I agree the lard-asses and lazy f*cks do increase healthcare costs (because the mildly affect the risk pool), there's no exclusion from a lard-ass, lazy f*ck to get insurance. Many already do through their employers. So the standard deviation of the risk will not change much at all as the high-risk, low-risk potential is already mixed between those that are insured and those that are not. Because of this, the only proper (albeit sane) way is to risk pool everyone. If you're truly worried about unhealthy people corrupting the insurance/heathcare market, you should be 100% for maximizing the risk pool while pushing very heavily for an insurer/employer provided preventive care policy.

However, if you're just bigoted against unhealthy people and those with pre-existing conditions, then fine, I see where you stand on the issue and it has nothing to do with addressing the issue of cost-effectiveness.
 
2012-06-28 01:55:14 PM
Not surprised really, the court has been trending towards favoring "big government" for a few years now. I guess the Feds can now use the Kelo decision to take your house if you don't pay for health insurance, but at least you can protest it since they at least still care about the First Amendment (ironically, via the Westboro Church).

Surprised that Roberts sided with the libs. I guess a neocon can't hide his big-government tendencies forever.

The best thing for the country would have been to throw away the whole thing, and get a law together that really addresses lowering health care costs, and not just force everyone to buy insurance whether they can afford it or not, or whether they choose to or not.
 
2012-06-28 01:55:23 PM

Boudica's War Tampon: Why I bet the day after Mitt Romney becomes POTUS, the libtard butthurt will flow down like waters. This place will change its name to LibtardButthurtRUS.com.


Do you want to make a $10,000 bet on that?
 
2012-06-28 01:55:31 PM

WombatControl: bdub77: Doesn't matter. Americans got health care. This is a win for the American people, not just Obama. Obama will now go down as the first president who got Americans health care. His legacy in that regard, not to mention countless other things he's done as president, will solidify him as one of the greats.

And yes I expect him to fully whip Romney's ass in November.

WHISKY. TANGO. FOXTROT.

Really? Now Americans have health care? You mean no one in this country had health care prior to Obama? Is this what you really think?

Here's a clue: health insurance is not health care. All "universal" or "single-payer" systems work by rationing care. You want treatment for your rare cancer? Some government bureaucrat will determine that the treatment isn't cost effective, and you will either die waiting for it, or you'll never be given the chance. Not only do you end up dead in that scenario, but new and innovative treatments never get developed because said bureaucrat won't pay for them. Oh, but you have "free" health insurance - just not free health care.

Nothing is free. Health care is not free, and it can't be made free by government fiat. If the liberals got their way we'd have a system in which everyone but the ultra rich who could afford private insurace (or black-market care) is stuck waiting in lines for treatments they may never get.

If the statists got their way and we magically had an NHS-style system in the United States there would be riots in the streets because Americans do not take kindly to the government dictating to them what they can and cannot have. At least those Americans who still believe in the spirit of this nation's Founding, anyway.


Taxation without representation and religious intolerance? You could buy tea if you wanted, you just had to pay a higher tax on it. The British didn't ban the sale of tea.

This nonsense about people waiting in lines and dying for healthcare is hilarious. The system will be no different than it is now, except those people who come in off the streets who couldn't pay for important live-saving procedures will now not have to survive off of the teat of the hospital.

Just because everyone gets the same care doesn't mean that a doctor will pay more attention to the guy with a splinter more than the guy with a heart condition. These types of arguments completely ignore how care priority works in hospitals.
 
2012-06-28 01:55:43 PM

Moderator: Weaver95: xanadian: Ya know, kind of off-topic, but...I'll bet Moderator must be busier in this thread than a three-legged man in an ass-kicking contest.

I kinda feel sorry for the mods today.

For the most part people are being good.


You're a very busy body today. Yeah, I noticed.
 
2012-06-28 01:55:46 PM
OK, so there's all this debate about healthcare. I just have this to add. I'm on disability, but I don't qualify for medicAID (too much income - by about $50). According to existing law, I don't qualify for mediCARE until I've been on disability for 2 full years. And even then I'll need to have a supplement - Which I'll have to pay for out of the little I get for disability. Meanwhile, I'm out of pocket for everything until 2014. I've found some clinics that help, and base their fees on a sliding scale. Explain to me how this is supposed to help me? I know, big picture and all of that, but I'm still stuck in the middle, waiting until I can qualify to pay for a Medicare supplement on disability. Maybe I don't know how to work the system right, and there's not a person at the state or local level who knows how to get access to this. I'm just hoping I don't get really sick, or need any hospitalization before there is a safety net.

I didn't ask to be disabled, ya know, Try getting pain meds from a low-income clinic. They just laugh at you. I get to suffer until I can go to a real doctor in about a year and a half, taking over the counter NSAIDS that have cardiac or liver risks. Or I can buy something on the street and risk going to jail. Fun times.
 
2012-06-28 01:55:56 PM

Dog Welder: Why, the Fox News butthurt is unbelievable. Instead of leading with the headline of the actual news story (i.e. "ACA Upheld" or "Individual Mandate Upheld") or something a NORMAL news agency would run with, the Fox News main page:

Obama: "Mandate Absolutely Not a Tax." Supreme Court: "Oh, Yes It Is!"

Is that network capable of displaying any sort of actual integrity in their coverage?

/rhetorical question
//I know they're not


Except, based off of TFA MSNBC's article (almost screwed that one up), that's exactly what Roberts said it was, which he used as an excuse to say Obamacare is constitutional. "The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who held that the law was a valid exercise of Congress's power to tax. Roberts re-framed the debate over health care as a debate over increasing taxes. Congress, he said, is "increasing taxes" on those who choose to go uninsured."
 
2012-06-28 01:56:03 PM
so i took the obligatory stroll thru freeperville (it's kinda like visiting a zoo, except the animals are insane) - holy balls christmas. they are calling for armed revolt. proclaiming in 1990s geocities web template style that 5 justices are guilty of treason. random proclamations that the Scalia opinion was written as a majority opinion, and some last minute shenanigans (a la 'obama has your daughter, john roberts - wouldn't want anything to happen to her, would you?) altered what was right and patriotic.

for real, i wouldn't ordinarily be one to suggest strolling thru the loony bin, but be frigged if this flavor of insanity isn't worth viewing.
 
2012-06-28 01:56:18 PM

hbk72777: Lot's a shiat heads on both side here with the usual partisan posts.

Some of the Obamacare is good. Kids with pre existing conditions being able to get in on plans, same with sick adults.

But I am not paying the tax. I can't afford it. If I could, I'd buy farking health insurance in the first place.

See you in jail.


Oh, look! Someone else who doesn't know what Obamacare does!
 
2012-06-28 01:56:20 PM

hbk72777: Lot's a shiat heads on both side here with the usual partisan posts.

Some of the Obamacare is good. Kids with pre existing conditions being able to get in on plans, same with sick adults.

But I am not paying the tax. I can't afford it. If I could, I'd buy farking health insurance in the first place.

See you in jail.


If you're that badly off, you may be eligible for assistance or an exemption. The mandate isn't completely unforgiving.
 
2012-06-28 01:56:36 PM
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.


I'm not fluent in crazy. Someone mind explaining this to me?
 
2012-06-28 01:56:39 PM

SharkTrager: FirstNationalBastard: SharkTrager: Smelly McUgly: SharkTrager: monoski: SharkTrager: So, since the reason it survived was because the fine is considered a tax, will the administration stop insisting it's not a tax?

The administration does not care what the fark you call it now. It is law.

They'll care when it's pointed out how much they raised a lot of people's taxes.

Only if you don't have health care, which most people who are middle class and up already have.

The lower-mid-classes and impoverished will be exempt from the tax because they'll get Medicaid or a voucher that helps them purchase health care.

We all know that one of the 2 sides now has an argument that easily fits in a commercial, even if it is deceptive.

The commercials aren't deceptive already?

/gredunza.

They are. And I retained.


I know.

Bastard.

I think the funniest thing I've seen so far, commercial-wise, was a local station doing a news story on just how false and lie-riddled an anti-Obama commercial was, followed by them airing that same commercial first up during the ad break after their story.
 
2012-06-28 01:56:47 PM

The Larch: jigger: Thank you for presenting a stunning demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

I'm sorry; I misunderstood your post. I saw that you were presenting the argument that a health care-related tax was significantly different than other taxes. But then I made the incorrect assumption that you had some sort of point. I am so used to people using claims to bolster arguments or reach conclusions, that I just naturally assumed that you were going to do the same.

But after reading more closely, I see that you were just letting out a little message board fart. Just making a toot to clear out the elevator, as it were. You weren't trying to claim that the Supreme Court was wrong because the taxes are different, or argue that health care-related taxes are wrong. Nope, you were just saying that two different things are different. Apples and oranges are different kinds of fruit. A Ford and a Chevy are different kinds of cars. Social Security and the ACA mandate are different kinds of taxes.

Yep, thanks for clearing that up for us.




That was a lot of words just to say that you're not very bright. Keep it up. One day you'll be somebody.
 
2012-06-28 01:56:58 PM

jevanpe5: 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.


My Dad has cancer. It's a very aggressive cancer. After the first 3 months of chemo, they just did another pet scan the other day and found out that it is not shrinking... They're not sure what to do now because the insurance company doesn't want to pay for another scan like the first two... And it's costing him alot of the money that worked so hard for all of his life... Average cost is about $5000...
Since your so into all of this, could you please send me $5000 so I can make sure my Dad get's the scan that is deemed proper??? Thanks and glad you saved him..
Looking forward to your donation, lib...


This really sucks. I hope things go as well as possible. I lost my dad about 6 years ago I lost my brother to cancer 5 years ago. He was only 50 years old. He died in a Canadian hospital. Cancer survival rates in Canada rates are pretty much the same as the US but in this case the Canadian system couldn't save him but at least he didn't leave a financial burden to his wife and 4 children. He paid nothing. No bills, deductibles, no insurance compani to deal with or co-pays or anything like that.

Scans is one thing that is hard to get in Canada. There are long waits for MRIs but they give priority to people with greater need (cancer patients).

Take care.
 
2012-06-28 01:57:06 PM
Can someone answer this question. does this mean that americans wont have to pay for doctor appointments and surgeries or procedures?
 
2012-06-28 01:58:10 PM

bwilson27: DO YOU NEED HEALTH INSURANCE IN ENGLAND?
HOW MUCH DO YOU PAY FOR HEALTH TAX THERE?

/just wondering


Each country is different. In Germany the system is a lot like what this system is under the Affordable Care Act. In the UK you pay taxes and Healthcare is provided by the government.
 
2012-06-28 01:58:41 PM

ontariolightning: Can someone answer this question. does this mean that americans wont have to pay for doctor appointments and surgeries or procedures?


Nope. Very little will change, except the volume level of the biatching about it, which just got amplified 10-fold, but will slowly drop off for the next 30 years.
 
2012-06-28 01:58:43 PM

Dog Welder: Why, the Fox News butthurt is unbelievable. Instead of leading with the headline of the actual news story (i.e. "ACA Upheld" or "Individual Mandate Upheld") or something a NORMAL news agency would run with, the Fox News main page:

Obama: "Mandate Absolutely Not a Tax." Supreme Court: "Oh, Yes It Is!"

Is that network capable of displaying any sort of actual integrity in their coverage?

/rhetorical question
//I know they're not


can you imagine how depressing it must be to work there? they all can read other sites, they know their image, they know what the real discussions are but they must actively dumb down their base.

it is like a special ed teacher who, wanting to keep her job, goes around down poisoning babies with lead.
 
2012-06-28 01:58:43 PM

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.


Actually, with the possibility of 2 justices retiring, the Supreme Court is still very much a November issue, because it will possibly shape the next 25 years of policy.

But it's nice to see you swallowed what your oxy-addled boy banging microphone daddy told you to. You're a good Dittohead.
 
2012-06-28 01:58:46 PM

Krustofsky: Not surprised really, the court has been trending towards favoring "big government" for a few years now. I guess the Feds can now use the Kelo decision to take your house if you don't pay for health insurance, but at least you can protest it since they at least still care about the First Amendment (ironically, via the Westboro Church).

Surprised that Roberts sided with the libs. I guess a neocon can't hide his big-government tendencies forever.

The best thing for the country would have been to throw away the whole thing, and get a law together that really addresses lowering health care costs, and not just force everyone to buy insurance whether they can afford it or not, or whether they choose to or not.


That's not what Kelo says, that not what the healthcare bill says and that isn't what Roberts said.

/you're an idiot
 
2012-06-28 01:58:47 PM

GhostFish: If you're that badly off, you may be eligible for assistance or an exemption. The mandate isn't completely unforgiving.


Hey, if he were in jail he'd have health coverage.

Unless he was in a for-profit prison, then they'd just watch him die.
 
2012-06-28 01:58:58 PM
Though personally I didn't believe taxes should be raised on anyone until DC was cleaned the Fark out....

RAISE TAXES!!

Now!!

The TAX for not buying health insurance should be significantly higher than the average cost of purchasing health insurance.
 
2012-06-28 01:59:18 PM

hbk72777: Lot's a shiat heads on both side here with the usual partisan posts.

Some of the Obamacare is good. Kids with pre existing conditions being able to get in on plans, same with sick adults.

But I am not paying the tax. I can't afford it. If I could, I'd buy farking health insurance in the first place.

See you in jail.


If you can't afford the premiums you get a rebate or, ideally, if the republican governers would cooperate you might be expanded into medicade.

/Save the mellow drama
 
2012-06-28 01:59:43 PM
So, let me get this right.
Republicans are against affordable healthcare.
They are against enormous improvement in access to health care for millions of Americans, including increased access to preventive care such as mammograms and birth control.
They are against young people staying on their parents health insurance.
Republicans are against prohibiting insurance companies from turning down people who have pre-existing conditions.
They are against prohibiting insurance companies from increasing premiums to unaffordable levels for families who have a child born with a birth defect.
They are against something that has been determined to be fully constitutional and legal.

And Romney's alternative plan is: ...

Are you sure this is a winning issue for you? Are you sure? Are you really, really sure sure? I just don't think Republicans thought this all the way through.
 
2012-06-28 01:59:49 PM

heap: so i took the obligatory stroll thru freeperville (it's kinda like visiting a zoo, except the animals are insane) - holy balls christmas. they are calling for armed revolt. proclaiming in 1990s geocities web template style that 5 justices are guilty of treason. random proclamations that the Scalia opinion was written as a majority opinion, and some last minute shenanigans (a la 'obama has your daughter, john roberts - wouldn't want anything to happen to her, would you?) altered what was right and patriotic.

for real, i wouldn't ordinarily be one to suggest strolling thru the loony bin, but be frigged if this flavor of insanity isn't worth viewing.


Damn, the Secret Service is going to be busy.

I wonder when the owner of Free Republic will post a statement asking people to tone it down, and stop the seditious talk?
 
2012-06-28 01:59:59 PM

FirstNationalBastard: I think the funniest thing I've seen so far, commercial-wise, was a local station doing a news story on just how false and lie-riddled an anti-Obama commercial was, followed by them airing that same commercial first up during the ad break after their story.


I actually do vote against both parties, so I try to be objective. I am just predicting how this will be played out.
 
Displayed 50 of 3382 comments

First | « | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | » | Last

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report