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  
•       •       •

14920 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 | « | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | » | Last
 
2012-06-28 02:25:40 PM  

heap: Big Man On Campus: I wonder what the future tax credit on well-behaved children will be.

all they had to do was forget birth control. it wasn't a positive act any more than any other accident - you know, the type you have insurance for.

like childbirth!


Well, if women start spontaneously becoming pregnant through no physical copulation, I'll back down from my dislike of Robert's decision.

HEY FB-!!
 
2012-06-28 02:25:41 PM  

Jackson Herring: dandude23: This sucks for poor people,now you get to choose between insurance and food,now everyone in this country is born into the system by default ,GG.

Ahhhhh hahahahha holy shiat.

Do you actually know anything about the bill beyond OBAMA BAD?


what dandude23 may look like

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-06-28 02:25:46 PM  

Blues_X: TIKIMAN87: Obama has just destroyed this country.

Obama killed my father, shot my dog, and stole my bible.


Obama married my father, ate my dog, and ripped up my bible.
 
2012-06-28 02:25:54 PM  
A healthy nation is a strong nation. I support Michael Bloomberg.
 
2012-06-28 02:25:55 PM  

gremlin1: A couple of years ago I had to have a procedure thru outpatient surgery. Total cost was approx. $2000. My deductible was $4000. I told them not to bill the insurance I would just pay the bill and if I needed to I would submit the paid bill to the insurance company. The office had to have a conference on how to accept payment without insurance. By the time I paid the bill they had reduced it to under $1000.(I have no idea why but apparently they decided to charge me what the insurance would have paid).
How would something like that work with Obamacare ? Would I have been forced to submit it thru the insurance and have to pay the full amount because it went thru the insurance first?


the same way. you'll get the insurance discount that they provided you as a courtesy because now you will presumably have insurance. I would think the bill has to be silent on whether providers can still offer discounts to individuals who still won't carry insurance after implementation. nothing should change.
 
2012-06-28 02:26:03 PM  

xanadian: 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."


You're missing the point.

EVERYBODY covering this except Fox News is running with an actual news headline and then revealing the details of the decision, of which we are now fully aware. (See my post for examples.)

Fox News is running with "FARTBONGO IS A LIAR!" as their lead story.
 
2012-06-28 02:26:07 PM  

HeartlineTwist: heap: Big Man On Campus: I wonder what the future tax credit on well-behaved children will be.

all they had to do was forget birth control. it wasn't a positive act any more than any other accident - you know, the type you have insurance for.

like childbirth!

But the screwing was a positive action, amirite?


is getting into a car wreck a positive action? as much deliberation and decision was taken on that course.
 
2012-06-28 02:26:15 PM  

Anti_illuminati: gremlin1: A couple of years ago I had to have a procedure thru outpatient surgery. Total cost was approx. $2000. My deductible was $4000. I told them not to bill the insurance I would just pay the bill and if I needed to I would submit the paid bill to the insurance company. The office had to have a conference on how to accept payment without insurance. By the time I paid the bill they had reduced it to under $1000.(I have no idea why but apparently they decided to charge me what the insurance would have paid).
How would something like that work with Obamacare ? Would I have been forced to submit it thru the insurance and have to pay the full amount because it went thru the insurance first?

No. You still make the payment and send the receipt/order to the insurance carrier. You'll receive a standard EoB that applies the amount that you paid out of pocket to hospital to your deductible. The only issues you might have would be because you had it pre-approved through your insurer for x amount of dollars and their payment system might not be able to adjust accordingly. Payment remittance is almost never a problem, if it is, never go back to that hospital.

Looks like you were given a "pay in full" rate rather than an insurer rate, and this works well for all three parties involved - you, the hospital and the insurer. I do the same thing when I have to pay my 90/10 or 80/20 split on hospital visits (which is rare).


I should add: When you receive your initial invoice for payment from the hospital it could already have the insurer rates applied, or standard operating costs. In which case, you might have been given an invoice that had standard costs, and they needed to go back and get your insurer's cost so that the correct amount was charged. Not sure of your situation though, but either or could be the case.
 
2012-06-28 02:26:39 PM  

Big Man On Campus: LockeOak: Big Man On Campus: Voiceofreason01: no he didn't

/he explicitly mentions that those types of taxes would be unconstitutional

I'm reading up, but I don't see what you're talking about. Do you at least have a page/paragraph number to back up your claim? On reading this, it does indeed sound like he's saying Congress has the power to enact taxes for anything it wants.

There is currently a federal child tax credit. What's the difference between a tax credit for some and increased taxes for everyone else? How is that not already the Congress imposing a tax penalty for not having children? If they can do that, why not a tax for not having health insurance?

Having a child is a positive act, you are deciding to make major changes in your life.
Not purchasing health insurance is doing nothing, it is inaction. Why should inaction be taxed?


By that reasoning, not having a child is inaction, and those that do not have children pay a higher tax. Why should inaction be taxed?
 
2012-06-28 02:26:41 PM  

sweetmelissa31: Jackson Herring: I'm a pacifist with a closet full of guns. Why is that weird?

Don't you mean "a closet filled with cat"?

[i194.photobucket.com image 425x754]


I, um...yeah.
 
2012-06-28 02:26:59 PM  

jevanpe5: 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.


So you want us to give you money because the insurance company is being a jerk? And this, somehow, is related to "democrat" policies? I don't understand.

Why don't you go to your church and ask them for the cash? That's the "republican way" to fix things.
 
2012-06-28 02:27:04 PM  

vygramul: 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!


Is it indexed to col by zip or even state? Or is it the same shiatty poverty shiat they apply across the US where you couldn't even afford an apartment in the worst city in the state when you're 10k over the national poverty level and thus qualify for nothing that isn't local?
 
2012-06-28 02:27:08 PM  

LockeOak: Big Man On Campus: LockeOak: Big Man On Campus: Voiceofreason01: no he didn't

/he explicitly mentions that those types of taxes would be unconstitutional

I'm reading up, but I don't see what you're talking about. Do you at least have a page/paragraph number to back up your claim? On reading this, it does indeed sound like he's saying Congress has the power to enact taxes for anything it wants.

There is currently a federal child tax credit. What's the difference between a tax credit for some and increased taxes for everyone else? How is that not already the Congress imposing a tax penalty for not having children? If they can do that, why not a tax for not having health insurance?

Having a child is a positive act, you are deciding to make major changes in your life.
Not purchasing health insurance is doing nothing, it is inaction. Why should inaction be taxed?

By that reasoning, not having a child is inaction, and those that do not have children pay a higher tax. Why should inaction be taxed?


People without children should (and do) pay higher taxes...
 
2012-06-28 02:27:48 PM  

relcec: gremlin1: A couple of years ago I had to have a procedure thru outpatient surgery. Total cost was approx. $2000. My deductible was $4000. I told them not to bill the insurance I would just pay the bill and if I needed to I would submit the paid bill to the insurance company. The office had to have a conference on how to accept payment without insurance. By the time I paid the bill they had reduced it to under $1000.(I have no idea why but apparently they decided to charge me what the insurance would have paid).
How would something like that work with Obamacare ? Would I have been forced to submit it thru the insurance and have to pay the full amount because it went thru the insurance first?

the same way. you'll get the insurance discount that they provided you as a courtesy because now you will presumably have insurance. I would think the bill has to be silent on whether providers can still offer discounts to individuals who still won't carry insurance after implementation. nothing should change.


I'm almost certain that this is the case other than in Maryland where their state commission acts as an all-payer board that tells every provider what they can charge to everyone who comes through their doors.
 
2012-06-28 02:27:49 PM  

LockeOak: By that reasoning, not having a child is inaction, and those that do not have children pay a higher tax. Why should inaction be taxed?


because FREEEDOM!

also, you go to thread with the argument you have, not the argument you wish you had.

and this one is argument soup.
 
2012-06-28 02:28:15 PM  

Serious Black: And that part really doesn't make much sense to me. Couldn't Congress just repeal Medicaid entirely and then, in an entirely separate bill, create Medicaid Part 2: Electric Boogaloo?


It doesn't, plain and simple.

"Medicaid was founded with the clear legislative intent to provide health care for the needy. Providing health care for the needy is outside the purview of Medicaid, and the states who explicitly agreed the federal government retained the right to change Medicaid as it saw fit, have the right to refuse because the federal government changed Medicaid as it saw fit. Even though they did before, and therefore states have the right to refuse just the changes the federal government made to Medicaid as it saw fit. Because Congress' clear legislative intent was to provide health care for all Americans."

So now we're left -- again -- with the mandate and no public option, or anything approaching one.
 
2012-06-28 02:28:24 PM  

LivingDeadX1: [images.sodahead.com image 640x358]
"So this is how Democracy dies..."


homework.never-ends.net
 
2012-06-28 02:28:32 PM  
Wahooooooo!!!!!

Tis a Happy day! And the Freeper gems keep them coming...conservative tears fuel me
 
2012-06-28 02:28:41 PM  

ModernPrimitive01: I can see why some people are upset. I just got out of graduate school and from the time I was 18 to finishing my masters degree I was uninsured and unable to afford health insurance. Should I have gotten insurance? If I could have figured out how, of course. I guess people in my situation can now stay on their parents health insurance until 26 so that will cover a lot of young people. Some people just can't afford to buy private insurance and that will be a burden on them, but as a society this is a good thing. My mother would have been able to get cancer treatment in time to save her life if the ACA would have been passed a few years earlier. Millions of children can now get insurance who couldn't before. These are good things. If you fall into that category where this is a burden, that sucks and I'm sorry but later in life you'll benefit from this even if you don't see it now.


It's not time to get mad. It's time to adopt and change and hope for the best. If you see fake Libertarians like weaver for it, at least give it a shot.
 
2012-06-28 02:28:58 PM  

ModernPrimitive01: Some people just can't afford to buy private insurance and that will be a burden on them, but as a society this is a good thing



Um, the new law was that you can't decline to be covered by your employer if it is offered. For nearly all people, covering yourself is free. Some places charge a small amount but this drastic increase in people covered is supposed to lower rates. Especially group rates. Now that it has been upheld, I would expect any company that charges an arm and a leg for single coverage to find themselves getting sued.

This really shouldn't be a burden to anybody...
 
2012-06-28 02:29:03 PM  

Anti_illuminati: If Obama raises taxes on tanning beds, did he raise taxes for EVERY American?



No, he didn't raise them for EVERY American, but he did for some members of the middle class.

His words:


"I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."


The video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HE-rGGKksQ

But God forbid that your beloved Obama broke a promise.
 
2012-06-28 02:29:13 PM  

netweavr: People without children should (and do) pay higher taxes...


I won't debate that people without children do pay higher taxes, but what argument do you have as to why they should pay higher taxes?
 
2012-06-28 02:29:21 PM  

Close2TheEdge: The difference is this. If you choose not to own footwear, it has no impact whatsoever on the price that I pay for said footwear. Footwear is not critcial to your survival under any circumstances. It may be stupid to not wear it, but that's your problem.

OTOH, medical care, especially EMERGENCY medical care is critical to your survival under many circumstances. And if you choose not to be covered, somebody else foots the bill when you use that emergency care. And that cost eventually gets passed on to those of us responsible adults who choose to live in society. As opposed to self-absorbed cheaters like you. You refuse to pay for the system, but will use the system when the need arises. Whether you like it or not.


You're still addressing the consequences of not having the individual mandate with the assumption that everyone will use medical care. That's moot with respect to my original statement and argument, which was that the individual mandate is not valid under the Commerce clause, and Ginsburg et al stupidly opining it is. Also, you're cute when you put personal attacks in your argument instead of logic.

It'd be pretty easy to construe a law that incurs penalties only on those individuals that use medical care and, therefore, only have the law cover those actors actually in the market, and then make it valid under Commerce clause.
 
2012-06-28 02:29:46 PM  

muck4doo: It's not time to get mad. It's time to adopt and change and hope for the best. If you see fake Libertarians like weaver for it, at least give it a shot.



are you 9 years old?

if not, what the hell is your excuse?
 
2012-06-28 02:29:53 PM  
i will not taunt teatards about this
 
2012-06-28 02:30:08 PM  

qorkfiend: sweetmelissa31: Jackson Herring: I'm a pacifist with a closet full of guns. Why is that weird?

Don't you mean "a closet filled with cat"?

[i194.photobucket.com image 425x754]

I, um...yeah.


Mario is a majestic and dignified cat. He has a certain... gravity about him that other cats simply lack.
 
2012-06-28 02:30:11 PM  

hinten: Then, not only did they increase taxes for not owning a home, they also increased taxes on me because I don't have children.


I've actually heard this argument a lot of times. Usually from people that scoff at "breeders".
 
2012-06-28 02:30:19 PM  

The_Sponge: Anti_illuminati: If Obama raises taxes on tanning beds, did he raise taxes for EVERY American?


No, he didn't raise them for EVERY American, but he did for some members of the middle class.

His words:


"I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

The video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HE-rGGKksQ

But God forbid that your beloved Obama broke a promise.


Yeah! If he hadn't made that promise, the right wing would never complain about Obama raising your taxes!
 
2012-06-28 02:30:31 PM  

Sir Vanderhoot: AmazinTim: NowhereMon: Suck it cons, suck it long and hard

You must mean suck it everyone, now we'll never fix health care. We'll just keep patching scabby band-aids onto the issue, just like this bill.

I was really hoping it would get struck down, then force a complete overhaul single-payer plan. Make health insurance companies obsolete completely.

Oh well. Maybe in a few decades we can join the rest of the civilized world.


In a single payer health care system insurance companies don't disappear, they just pay for extras like natropathic medicine, acupuncture, or for private care. In Canada they also exist for dental and drug care.

The difference in cost to get extended benefits+drugs, total 125 a month for a family plan. Dental is 80 a month.

Single payer health care also spurs small business development, because it's far less scary to start your own business when you don't have to worry about health care costs.

My cousin's wife is working nights and paying most of that income to child care only because it provides health insurance, getting it on their own would cost 1000's a month. In Canada, she could quit and help my cousin at his business and cut back on the amount of day care they need.

Quite frankly, you already are paying for the poor through medicaid and long wait times at emergency rooms.

In single payer health care, you're paying for the middle class to survive and thrive, it's shocking that the vast majority of the American people haven't figured that out yet.

/American living in Canada
//Single payer health care isn't scary
 
2012-06-28 02:30:35 PM  

netweavr: People without children should (and do) pay higher taxes...


Why should they?
 
2012-06-28 02:30:47 PM  

ghare: i will not taunt teatards about this


can i have your teatard taunting token?
 
2012-06-28 02:31:00 PM  

The_Sponge: Anti_illuminati: If Obama raises taxes on tanning beds, did he raise taxes for EVERY American?


No, he didn't raise them for EVERY American, but he did for some members of the middle class.

His words:


"I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

The video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HE-rGGKksQ

But God forbid that your beloved Obama broke a promise.


I like how you and your brethren keep trying to push this as a talking point when, in fact, it's not.

But do keep farking that chicken.
 
2012-06-28 02:31:01 PM  
I am wondering how adding millions of payers into the system will drive up premiums? Maybe someone covered this but it's getting hard to sort through the trolls and football spiking. If insurance is now mandated can the govt. put controls on how much an insurance company can charge? Say, a premium cannot exceed x% of an individuals annual income?
 
2012-06-28 02:31:07 PM  

qorkfiend: netweavr: People without children should (and do) pay higher taxes...

I won't debate that people without children do pay higher taxes, but what argument do you have as to why they should pay higher taxes?


I'll take that one: they consume more government servuces as there are more of them.
 
2012-06-28 02:31:22 PM  

qorkfiend: netweavr: People without children should (and do) pay higher taxes...

I won't debate that people without children do pay higher taxes, but what argument do you have as to why they should pay higher taxes?


National Security requires continuous replenishment of a nations population. I agree that's a simplistic argument but this is the internet so you'll take it and you'll like it.
 
2012-06-28 02:31:40 PM  

derpdeederp: netweavr: People without children should (and do) pay higher taxes...

Why should they?



Using up more services and resources.
 
2012-06-28 02:31:51 PM  

bhcompy: vygramul: 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!

Is it indexed to col by zip or even state? Or is it the same shiatty poverty shiat they apply across the US where you couldn't even afford an apartment in the worst city in the state when you're 10k over the national poverty level and thus qualify for nothing that isn't local?


What you want someone else to read it for you and tell you? How do you know you can trust them?
 
2012-06-28 02:31:56 PM  

xanadian: 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."


So, joke's on Roberts for spinning it just so he could support it? What?

Bottom line is this: Roberts is NOT some genius as Fox "News" is opining. If he wanted to kill it, he would have just voted with his fellow GOP shills. The very thought that he upheld it, in order to kill it, is an exercise in Rube Goldberg-ian logic.

Obama won on this. Time to accept it.
 
2012-06-28 02:32:00 PM  

hinten: So, the other day, the government decides to increase my taxes. Simply because I rent my house and didn't buy it. Why do all those home owners have to pay less taxes?


You not owning a home does not increase the costs paid by those who do. You not having health insurance does, since when you herniate a disc while yelling at the TV you will go to the ER and get treated for free. When you can't pay the ER bill, that cost gets passed on to the rest of us.

Since when did conservatives become so protective of freeloaders? Everybody needs health care at some point. This just ensures that everybody helps pay for it.
 
2012-06-28 02:32:01 PM  

heap: muck4doo: It's not time to get mad. It's time to adopt and change and hope for the best. If you see fake Libertarians like weaver for it, at least give it a shot.


are you 9 years old?

if not, what the hell is your excuse?


Truth is my excuse. But you go ahead and keep believing that liar is an actual libertarian. He spews all the crap you want him too.
 
2012-06-28 02:32:13 PM  

Thunderpipes: People who are able to work but don't need to be taxed. Being unemployed hurts the economy. Force them to get jobs.


Not really necessary if you can force businesses to start hiring instead of sitting on record cash reserves.

Oh right, we're ignoring that because it doesn't fit the narrative.

Additional: Your examples continue to be no different than car insurance.
 
2012-06-28 02:32:16 PM  

mrshowrules: Purdue_Pete: Either have 100% socialized medicine... or stay out of our lives.

Many countries started by socializing the emergency care aspect. This is a natural extension to covering fire and police services. Covering people who can't afford private insurance is a natural extension to that. Ultimately, single-payer seems the next logical step because it is the most cost effective but more importantly helps you control the increases in health care costs which would be insane under a private insurance model.

Free-market works well for some things and bad for others. It has to with something having an inelastic demand. If people claiming to understand "free market" principles, they should actually understand this.


Exactly. However, Obamacare will be a bureaucratic disaster. I 100% guarantee that this will hurt the poor and sick the most. Doctors will be dropping Medicare due to the massive payment decreases and it will create a further divide in the haves and have-nots. It's not even debatable.

I am an independent, Libertarian-leaning thinker and it's beyond obvious, it needs to be single-payer or nothing at all. It's basic common sense.
 
2012-06-28 02:32:36 PM  
Please accept my sincere apology for mangling your swearing in the oath of office. I can assure you that it had absolutely nothing to do with your vote against my confirmation.

It was an honest mistake, and I deeply regret it. I intend to make this up to you some day, that is a promise.


Yours respectfully

John Roberts
Chief Justice United States Supreme Court
 
2012-06-28 02:32:46 PM  

heap: HeartlineTwist: heap: Big Man On Campus: I wonder what the future tax credit on well-behaved children will be.

all they had to do was forget birth control. it wasn't a positive act any more than any other accident - you know, the type you have insurance for.

like childbirth!

But the screwing was a positive action, amirite?

is getting into a car wreck a positive action? as much deliberation and decision was taken on that course.


Sorry, I should have noted my sarcasm.

I think the tax/fine/whatever anyone wants to call it is perfectly fine. The amount of hand-wringing over "WHAT ELSE WILL THE GOVERNMENT MAKE ME BUY!!!1jkl1jlJlk1jl1" is as ludicrous as the "CAN THAI MAEK ME BUY BROCCOLI UNDER COMMER$E CLAU$E" nonsense.

I mean, the closest analogy really should be auto insurance. That can be mandated. If I choose not to buy it and drive, I will be fined. The typical counter has been: "Well, you can choose not to drive and then you wouldn't have to pay for it, so that makes it all magically okay." Well, guess what: you don't get to choose when you get sick or when you have an aneurysm or when you develop cancer and suddenly need treatment. Insurance markets are drastically different in how they work than the markets of other consumer goods and services. The bigger the pool of participants is, the lower the cost for everyone can be.
 
2012-06-28 02:32:53 PM  

Anti_illuminati: 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.


You seem to be overlooking an important point -- I don't have health insurance.

I don't want it.

It's too expensive.

It provides me with a lousy cost-to-benefit ratio.

It's too expensive because government has had its corrupt fingers in the insurance business for so long that the product they offer is now outrageously over-priced for an unbelievably crappy product.

Now, I am forced to buy a product that is too crappy to be sold to people like me on a voluntary basis.

So, having failed to make something that appeals to me, that I would buy voluntarily, people like you resort to guns to compel me to "buy" it.

Anti_illuminati: If we follow this logic, we also have to exclude those with pre-existing conditions.


Forcing health insurers (i.e., their "customers") to pay for treatment of pre-existing conditions is like forcing homeowner insurers to pay to insure for the rebuilding of houses that have already burned down.

That's not "insurance" any more. It's just using a (nominally) private corporation as a proxy for giving welfare benefits to people. Fascism. Corporatism. Use the appropriate label.

Anti_illuminati: 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.


I'm against paying for their self-inflicted expenses, just as I am opposed to being risk-assessed for life insurance with smokers, suicidal depressives and the terminally ill.

A free market for insurance would pool similar risks. People who are obese and sedentary are not at the same risk for some (extremely expensive) medical costs as those who are active, fit and eat well.

But being active, fit and eating well comes at a cost of effort and exertion that many people are not willing to make. They'd rather pass the costs of their leisure and dietary pleasure onto others.

I don't approve, morally or economically, of people who demand that they are subsidized so they can live at the expense of everyone else.

If you want to be a champion for institutionalized parasitism, go ahead.

You will not get my money, though. I will see to that.
 
2012-06-28 02:33:03 PM  

jodaveki: Grables'Daughter: I made enough for everyone.

: )

Please tell me that's what you actually look like...


What?

Account created: 2011-07-10 21:33:51

You've been here almost a year and you're just now discovering Grables'Daughter?
 
2012-06-28 02:33:25 PM  

muck4doo: Truth is my excuse. But you go ahead and keep believing that liar is an actual libertarian. He spews all the crap you want him too.


did he pull your hair?

i think that means he likes you. you should throw sand at him when you see him at the monkey bars. you'll be kissing before you know it.
 
Ant
2012-06-28 02:33:43 PM  

brobdiggy: Government bans Cheetos, DQ Blizzards, and King Size Candy Bars.


Exactly. Check out Canada, Britain, and the Scandinavian countries. You don't see any junk food over th... Oh, wait...
 
2012-06-28 02:34:07 PM  

Rwa2play: I like how you and your brethren keep trying to push this as a talking point when, in fact, it's not.

But do keep farking that chicken.



You guys can't even admit that he broke that promise. At least keep it real by admitting that he did, but you don't mind because you like the end result.
 
2012-06-28 02:34:26 PM  
I'm tempted to suggest that if people don't have children then there's no point in subsidizing any education.
 
Displayed 50 of 3382 comments

First | « | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | » | Last

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report