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 | « | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | » | Last
 
2012-06-28 03:26:20 PM  

bhcompy: Lord Dimwit: I know tons of self-labeled libertarians. Why is economic freedom so much more important that social freedom? My libertarian friends talk about how they vote Republican because the Republicans want "freedom" - but what they mean is "economic freedom". The Republican Party doesn't want freedom of reproductive choice, freedom of religious choice, or freedom of marriage. If you vote for a Republican, you are implicitly saying that money-related "freedom" is more important than your freedom to do as you please with your own body or in your own bedroom. That's fine if you believe that, but own up to it.

Because you vote for what gets you closest to your favored result? Are you completely unfamiliar with with the concept of representative democracy and how it is instituted in America?


No, I get it - that's why I said "that's fine, but own up to it." If you vote Republican because you believe they are the party of "freedom", know that you're saying that your freedom to spend money is more important that your (or my or anyone else's) freedom to marry whom they choose, or deal with their own reproductive organs. That's okay if you want to believe that, though I personally think it's rather greedy and misinformed.
 
2012-06-28 03:26:23 PM  

HeartBurnKid: But it's a tax! TAXES BAD~! TAXES BAAAAAAAAAAAAAD~!


Even taxes on scofflaws? You oppose the American legal system?

Why do you hate America?
 
2012-06-28 03:26:45 PM  
His promise was to all Americans making under 250K....it wasn't a promise to only those who were going to vote for him. Yeesh.
 
2012-06-28 03:26:46 PM  

qorkfiend: The people who are penalized are those who can afford it, and choose to go without.


Thank you for deciding what I can and can't afford.

Can you dictate my choices of toilet paper, please? I'm too busy working to subsidize other people's sloth and gluttony to choose between the 2-ply and the ultra-plush.
 
2012-06-28 03:27:00 PM  

Lord Dimwit: chiefsfaninkc: Fluorescent Testicle: chiefsfaninkc: Then your faith is misguided. Freedom died today. Congress can now make you buy anything they want and "Tax" you if you do not.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 316x400]

/I'm sure this has been posted already.
//Can't be posted enough.

Sorry I am a libertarian not a conservative. Freedom is the only thing that means anything everything else is a byproduct of freedom. Again freedom died today people that are celebrating its death are idiots.

I know tons of self-labeled libertarians. Why is economic freedom so much more important that social freedom? My libertarian friends talk about how they vote Republican because the Republicans want "freedom" - but what they mean is "economic freedom". The Republican Party doesn't want freedom of reproductive choice, freedom of religious choice, or freedom of marriage. If you vote for a Republican, you are implicitly saying that money-related "freedom" is more important than your freedom to do as you please with your own body or in your own bedroom. That's fine if you believe that, but own up to it.


democrats no more believe in freedom than the current incarnation of the gop. they believe in freedom to do what you want as long as it doesn't conflict with the goals of the collective or how they think you should live your life. this is why true authoritarians like weaver feel so comfortable making the switch.

they want just want to slide what is morally acceptable open a bit, but don't for a second conflate that with true freedom. liberals definitely believe the government has the constitutional ability and more than that the obligation to restrict freedom as it sees fit to forward the goals of the collective.

they don't believe in any personal freedom whatsoever. the freedom to do with your body what you want only extends to things they deem moral. they don't have a problem with killing fetus, so you can do that. its got jackshiat to do with personal autonomy. that's why drugs are illegal, sex with your llama is illegal, sex with your sister is illegal. they don't want people to be free to marry anyone they want. they want people to be free to marry who they think is morally acceptable.

they have the exact same categorical failings as republicans, but at least some republicans in many regards can be said to favor the individual rights over the collective in all conflicts.

yes the republican party is dominated right now by the religious right who we need to dump on their asses, but democrats are inherently authoritarian and think all personal autonomy is up for regulation if it conflicts with the goals of the collective.

this is observable by everyone with a brain stem, and that is why true libertarians still side with conservatives more often than not. religious based moralism as practiced by the gop is abhorrent, but it is not immutable and there is the undercurrent of individualism still running through the party that will some day rise again; while collectivism can't exist under any other terms.
 
2012-06-28 03:27:05 PM  

xltech: HeartBurnKid: xltech: 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.

What new regulations are imposed on clinics by the PPACA? AFAIK, pretty much everything in it deals with insurers, not medical practitioners. Including the mandate that was at issue.

RIght now, we do not have enough staff to take care of all the "prior authorizations" we are forced to deal with. Medicaid in our state is going to require us to prior authorize every procedure, among other things, (no matter how minor like clipping toenails) and we must meet criteria before said procedure can be done. With any more increases, we will need to hire at least one employee full time. We have one Doctor, one PA one nurse and I do all the lab work, EKGs and x-rays, 3 others work in the office for billing, insurance and coding. With reimbursements going down, costs going up and no big hospital sponsoring us... we will be closing. Then, maybe I can get free health care and not work.... let all you libs support me for once!


You're managing well enough - you're able to hang out on Fark in the middle of a work day.
 
2012-06-28 03:27:40 PM  
do we have an over/under on when faux news stops calling it "Obamacare" so the president's name doesn't become permanently attached to it?
 
2012-06-28 03:27:46 PM  

The_Sponge: //Apparently disagreeing with Obama and pointing out a broken promise warrant a punch in the face.


www.myfacewhen.net

"Hearing the same stupid thing repeated over and over again can elicit frustration and annoyance from even the most mild-mannered of listeners."
 
2012-06-28 03:27:57 PM  

Phinn: Smelly McUgly: Hey, look, someone figured out that communism isn't a complete blanket bad thing and that some elements of communist economics work depending on the context!

No, collectivization destroys prices, which destroys the information needed to make production and consumption decisions.


Untrue, depending on the context. When it comes to selling, say, Lexuses, you are right. When it comes to health care, you aren't. There are a number of ways to measure health care needs and costs even if health care is collectivized under the state.
 
2012-06-28 03:28:01 PM  

Phinn: qorkfiend: The people who are penalized are those who can afford it, and choose to go without.

Thank you for deciding what I can and can't afford.

Can you dictate my choices of toilet paper, please? I'm too busy working to subsidize other people's sloth and gluttony to choose between the 2-ply and the ultra-plush.


try sandpaper
 
2012-06-28 03:28:07 PM  

Lawnchair: The subsidies. Serious answer.


Piggyback. Link
 
2012-06-28 03:28:26 PM  

bongmiester: heap: bongmiester: the democrats were the party of the KKK 100 years ago

when my state was ran by the klan 100 years ago, it damn sure wasn't democrats doing it.

Indiana? look up D. C. Stephenson. Started as a Democrat - changed parties in the 20's


you mean the same 20's when he was running the state? for real, this shiat makes no sense. this state was ran by the klan, and this state has always been ran by republicans. the klan didn't care if you were a democrat or a republican, they cared about attaining power. if the power structure was democrat, fine. if it was republican, that's a-ok, too.

100 years ago, A BUNCH of white people lost their damned minds. of all ideological flavors - its irrelevant, silly, and pointless to act like it has anything to do with either party today.
 
2012-06-28 03:28:48 PM  

Lando Lincoln: The_Sponge: 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.

If I promise my wife I'm not going to buy a blue car and I come home with a red car, and two years later my kid dumps a can of blue paint on the car and my wife screams, "BUT YOU PROMISED ME THAT YOU WOULD NOT BUY A BLUE CAR!" would I be allowed to punch her in the face like you deserve to be?


Heh, The_Sponge didn't think his cunning plan out now did he? :)
 
2012-06-28 03:29:35 PM  

L82DPRT: Dinki: stvdallas: . Only, Obamacare means that something we can't afford right now is just going to cost even more...and continue to run our country into even more debt.

You know that isn't true, right?

CBO and JCT estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation-H.R. 3590
and the reconciliation proposal-would produce a net reduction in federal
deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period as result of changes in
direct spending and revenues

Counting Up ObamaCare's Health Cost Inflation

Buying votes from DOLTS.


You're linking to an article by Sally Pipes as a more correct and less biased source than the CBO. Are you farking high? She's the leader of a highly conservative medical industry think-tank, and spends her free time shilling for Fox News. Her ENTIRE CAREER has been about pushing right-wing constituents into frothing frenzies on healthcare issues.

Try again.
 
2012-06-28 03:29:42 PM  

chiefsfaninkc: Do what ever the hell you want as long as you don't force me to do it. However you need to stay the hell out of my wallet and give me the courtesy to let me do what I want also. Which includes not using the governments monopoly on force to take from me in order to buy votes.


Sounds like someone read a bit too much Robert Heinlein in his youth. I did that, and ended up thinking I was some kind of libertarian.

Then Uncle Sugar posted me to Mogadishu for 25 months. Believe me, there is nothing like living in a libertarian paradise to cure one of that disease.
 
2012-06-28 03:29:50 PM  

Biological Ali: The_Sponge: //Apparently disagreeing with Obama and pointing out a broken promise warrant a punch in the face.



"Hearing the same stupid thing repeated over and over again can elicit frustration and annoyance from even the most mild-mannered of listeners."


I've seen a lot of stubbornness and ignorance from the other side, but yet I didn't feel the need to act childish.
 
2012-06-28 03:30:10 PM  

Lord Dimwit: No, I get it - that's why I said "that's fine, but own up to it." If you vote Republican because you believe they are the party of "freedom", know that you're saying that your freedom to spend money is more important that your (or my or anyone else's) freedom to marry whom they choose, or deal with their own reproductive organs. That's okay if you want to believe that, though I personally think it's rather greedy and misinformed.


Actually, I voted for the Republican that was pro-prematurebabymurder, pro-homomarriage, and voted to increase taking a larger percentage of my hard earned money, but that's just me I guess.
 
2012-06-28 03:30:11 PM  
If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual. - FRANK HERBERT
 
2012-06-28 03:30:52 PM  

Smelly McUgly: Well, since the world has not yet seen a true communist society (at least on a modern scale), we don't know what it takes to implement it.


Best example, albeit fictional, of a successful communist society is the Federation in Star Trek. They even do what Marx said and use technology to allow people the freedom to follow their passions.
 
2012-06-28 03:31:23 PM  

The_Sponge: His promise was to all Americans making under 250K....it wasn't a promise to only those who were going to vote for him. Yeesh.


Show Fartbama who is boss by voting him out of office in November!

Nobama 2012.

That stupid doodyhead promise breaker! What do we do about Roberts? Is he on the ballot?
 
2012-06-28 03:31:35 PM  

blackomne: If you think of yourselves as helpless and ineffectual, it is certain that you will create a despotic government to be your master. The wise despot, therefore, maintains among his subjects a popular sense that they are helpless and ineffectual. - FRANK HERBERT


i wonder if killing you and giving your water to the tribe is considered a mandate.
 
2012-06-28 03:31:53 PM  

d3sertion: colon_pow: d3sertion: colon_pow: i can't argue with robert's reasoning, but he should have kicked it back to congress and make them pass it as a tax.

or try to...

There's nothing in the Constitution requiring Congress to cite which part of the Constitution they're using to pass a law. Although sometimes bills will throw a jurisdictional hook in there, failing to do so has never been grounds for overturning a law -- the vast majority of legislation makes no reference to the Constitution for authority. If it was passed it was passed. Nothing about the language of the bill would change to "pass it as a tax."

when it was up for the vote, it was not defined as a tax. this whole thing is history's largest bait-and-switch.

It's not a bait and switch.... Nothing has changed about the operation of the bill. The only way the individual mandate was going to be enforced was by withholding your income tax return. They called it a fine. Roberts didn't buy that, but said it's closely enough related to Congress's power to tax and spend to be valid. It is, quite literally, nothing more than semantics.

Nothing has been "switched" here.... The law operates the exact same way as it was written to when the members of Congress voted for it and the President signed it into law.

The only way this could be a bait and switch is if no one read the damn bill. Nothing related to this part of the bill has changed at all.


except during the time leading up to the votes, the democrats kept insisting that it is not a tax. if it would have been sold as a tax at that time it would never have passed. therefore, bait-and-switch.
 
2012-06-28 03:32:14 PM  
Thanks NateGrey for making this easy. If they ever make an easy button, it should have your face on it.
 
2012-06-28 03:32:23 PM  

xanadian: So, what you're telling me is, the ruling was so ambiguously worded as to allow people like Faux News to scream "TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX"?


No, that's just a by-product. Roberts is a due deference kind of judge; in the event there's a problem with the law, he doesn't instantly toss it outright and entire, but instead looks to see if there was a way the law can be salvaged. (Conservative, not reactionary.)Taking the money would be legit if Congress had called it a tax... so, they can do it. The only significance of Congress not calling the penalty a tax is that the Tax Anti-Injunction Act doesn't apply, and the court challenge doesn't have to wait until someone gets a tax bill.
 
2012-06-28 03:32:44 PM  
And how sad is it that your side had a victory today, and instead of being happy, you get pissy when somebody points out that *GASP* Obama broke a promise.
 
2012-06-28 03:33:23 PM  

relcec: Lord Dimwit: chiefsfaninkc: Fluorescent Testicle: chiefsfaninkc: Then your faith is misguided. Freedom died today. Congress can now make you buy anything they want and "Tax" you if you do not.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 316x400]

/I'm sure this has been posted already.
//Can't be posted enough.

Sorry I am a libertarian not a conservative. Freedom is the only thing that means anything everything else is a byproduct of freedom. Again freedom died today people that are celebrating its death are idiots.

I know tons of self-labeled libertarians. Why is economic freedom so much more important that social freedom? My libertarian friends talk about how they vote Republican because the Republicans want "freedom" - but what they mean is "economic freedom". The Republican Party doesn't want freedom of reproductive choice, freedom of religious choice, or freedom of marriage. If you vote for a Republican, you are implicitly saying that money-related "freedom" is more important than your freedom to do as you please with your own body or in your own bedroom. That's fine if you believe that, but own up to it.

democrats no more believe in freedom than the current incarnation of the gop.


...so vote Republican?

they believe in freedom to do what you want as long as it doesn't conflict with the goals of the collective or how they think you should live your life. this is why true authoritarians like weaver feel so comfortable making the switch.

they want just want to slide what is morally acceptable open a bit, but don't for a second conflate that with true freedom. liberals definitely believe the government has the constitutional ability and more than that the obligation to restrict freedom as it sees fit to forward the goals of the collective.

they don't believe in any personal freedom whatsoever. the freedom to do with your body what you want only extends to things they deem moral. they don't have a problem with killing fetus, so you can do that. its got jackshiat to do with personal autonomy. that's w ...


The whole "rights of the collective" thing. Like the EPA? You mean I don't have the right to ruin a waterway for everyone else? I view the EPA as protecting the rights of others. My "freedom to dump toxic chemicals in the ground" conflicts with other people's freedom to "have use of a natural resource that was just found here and no one created so it belongs to everyone".

I'm not saying the Democrats are saints, but to think that a plank of their party is "everything for the horde!!!" is pretty misguided. I completely support your right to do anything and everything you please, so long as what you do harms no one else and limits no one else's enjoyment of common property and so long as anyone else involved is capable of consent. You want to marry your sister? Fine. You want to have sex with a llama? Well, the llama can't consent so, no dice. You want to do drugs? Knock yourself out.
 
2012-06-28 03:33:34 PM  

The_Sponge: Biological Ali: The_Sponge: //Apparently disagreeing with Obama and pointing out a broken promise warrant a punch in the face.



"Hearing the same stupid thing repeated over and over again can elicit frustration and annoyance from even the most mild-mannered of listeners."

I've seen a lot of stubbornness and ignorance from the other side, but yet I didn't feel the need to act childish.


Ah, I think I get it now. You've been pulling our legs all along. Well, good for you, I suppose.
 
2012-06-28 03:34:02 PM  

Phinn: qorkfiend: The people who are penalized are those who can afford it, and choose to go without.

Thank you for deciding what I can and can't afford.

Can you dictate my choices of toilet paper, please? I'm too busy working to subsidize other people's sloth and gluttony to choose between the 2-ply and the ultra-plush.


You shall now use Kirkland Signature from now on.

/You will thank me.
 
2012-06-28 03:34:02 PM  

bhcompy: Anti_illuminati: Wrong. Those who refuse to pay for want will ultimately be incurred is selfish. You'll get sick, you'll get hit by a bus, you'll have terminal cancer, you'll incur medical expenses no matter which way you look at it. Why should I have to pay for you getting hit by a bus and dying? You're not paying the medical costs, are you? You just want a free ride until its time to meet your maker, then its "fark everyone else, I deserve this medical treatment".

1) There is no guarantee that rates will go down, so they will go up. They always do. It's built in to the contracts that sales reps sell to companies for benefits packages for crying out loud.

2) Why are you assuming that people are going to pay? You just changed the burden, slightly.
-Person who can't afford it before will still not be able to afford it and instead of passing the full cost on to the taxpayer directly will then pass it on to the insurance company(while the taxpayer picks up their premium)
-When this person gets hit with a huge bill because of things like deductibles, non-covered medicine/treatments, improperly billed items, etc, because I have insurance and I get hit with huge bills for things like this already, they will pass that direct cost on to the taxpayer when they refuse to pay
-Meanwhile, the insurance companies lose doctors because their contracts pay the doctors too little and the deadbeats still fail to pay their now potentially smaller portion of bills, so the insurance companies go to the Federal government asking for help because they have far too many liabilities, thus bringing us back to square one, but instead of having the taxpayer directly liable, instead they're liable after all the money and profits have been laundered by the insurance companies


I disagree with a lot pf your points. Point 1) is a bit subjective, but according to historical data, you are correct; they will rise. It's the extent in which they will rise that's the crux of the issue. mandatory rate filing with approved rate increases should, hopefully, curb rate increases. Insurance salesmen don't do this, underwriters and actuaries set the rate needs for a particular product on 1,2,3 and 5 year tails. (I'm an underwriter currently, and formally a medical underwriter).

Point 2) sounds like your pushing for more of a single-payer program, which I am 100% for. It's the most economical, cost-effective way to do health care in this country. And you're right about the affordability of catastrophic health policies; average Americans cannot afford their deductibles and OOP expenses. This act is nowhere near perfect, but it is (hopefully) a step in the right direction. I, personally, hope that this individual mandate will change the nations attitude toward single payer, pushing that to the forefront of future health insurance debates with serious consideration. And the payment for doctors, it is troubling and something that needs to be addressed. But with the spiraling cost of healthcare, if we do not start to pull more individuals into the risk pool, the cost of healthcare will only grow.

It's not an ideal situation, but its far, far better than the one we a currently experiencing. My only hope is that congress, and the Rugged Individualists, pull their collective heads out of their asses and start looking at this from a practical, socio-economical level rather than an ideological one.
 
2012-06-28 03:34:16 PM  

jst3p: Am I a bad person because, in my opinion, the best part about this is the fact that I can use it to stir up the Right Wing nutjobs in the cubes near me? Today is going to be fun.


This.

And I'm collecting all the good pictures here to reply to the no- doubt forthcoming Blaze/Newsmax/Heritage articles too.
 
2012-06-28 03:34:24 PM  
The_Sponge: 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.

And you don't like the end result, but still want to call him a liar based on the decision you don't agree with.
 
2012-06-28 03:34:52 PM  

bhcompy: 1) You're part of the partisan problem.

2) Pointing out that Obama is in the same situation as Bush Sr is just that.

The politics we have today are in some way derived from what happened to Bush Sr, who made a hard choice and then got crucified for it. Harry Truman would have been murdered by today's politics for decisions he had to make as president. You're partisan personal attack just show how bad off we all are. You should be ashamed


lol thanks for your unique insightful analysis on todays political landscape. Have any more gems of wisdom? Next your going to say both parties are bought and paid for and lobbyist have too much influence! Is ashamed described as laughing and enjoying the responses to a historic decision?

/ashamed
 
2012-06-28 03:35:23 PM  
I have questions about this. I don't know if any Fark Lawyers are still following this, but...

1. Couldn't the tax section in question be easily removed as an amendment to almost any legislation? I seem to remember a single line slipped into a defense bill or something, that had the effect of gutting a regulatory agency some time ago. I'm at work and can't really search for it right now. If I'm correct, that leaves the HCRA really vulnerable to the tax provision being gutted by a sneaky hanger-on.

2. If congress can't coerce states to implement the medicaid expansion, what else are the states able to ignore? Is the insurance exchange affected?

3. Can a governor (I live in Ohio, gah Kasich) simply declare that the state won't comply, and create a several-years-long trainwreck?
 
2012-06-28 03:35:34 PM  

colon_pow: d3sertion: colon_pow: d3sertion: colon_pow: i can't argue with robert's reasoning, but he should have kicked it back to congress and make them pass it as a tax.

or try to...

There's nothing in the Constitution requiring Congress to cite which part of the Constitution they're using to pass a law. Although sometimes bills will throw a jurisdictional hook in there, failing to do so has never been grounds for overturning a law -- the vast majority of legislation makes no reference to the Constitution for authority. If it was passed it was passed. Nothing about the language of the bill would change to "pass it as a tax."

when it was up for the vote, it was not defined as a tax. this whole thing is history's largest bait-and-switch.

It's not a bait and switch.... Nothing has changed about the operation of the bill. The only way the individual mandate was going to be enforced was by withholding your income tax return. They called it a fine. Roberts didn't buy that, but said it's closely enough related to Congress's power to tax and spend to be valid. It is, quite literally, nothing more than semantics.

Nothing has been "switched" here.... The law operates the exact same way as it was written to when the members of Congress voted for it and the President signed it into law.

The only way this could be a bait and switch is if no one read the damn bill. Nothing related to this part of the bill has changed at all.

except during the time leading up to the votes, the democrats kept insisting that it is not a tax. if it would have been sold as a tax at that time it would never have passed. therefore, bait-and-switch.


Get over it. I am saying this to you as someone on your side. They won. Give the plan a chance. Don't fight it, let's just see what happens.
 
2012-06-28 03:36:09 PM  

Smelly McUgly: There are a number of ways to measure health care needs and costs even if health care is collectivized under the state.


No, there aren't.

The production of health care involves millions of economic decisions every day, far beyond the decision to visit the provider -- the production of drugs, the making and distributing of the equipment, the building of the facilities, the building of the schools to train the providers, etc. Not one of those decisions can be made on the basis of economic cost and benefit without prices.

Health care will be more or less unchanged at the beginning, since the new system will inherit the mode of consumption and production that's in place as of the day the new system becomes effective. But the system will lose information, and so it will start to become unbalanced immediately, and the economic decisions that comprise the provision of medical services will become progressively discoordinated, which will be experienced as increasing costs and decreasing quality and distribution.
 
2012-06-28 03:36:11 PM  

bhcompy: Lord Dimwit: No, I get it - that's why I said "that's fine, but own up to it." If you vote Republican because you believe they are the party of "freedom", know that you're saying that your freedom to spend money is more important that your (or my or anyone else's) freedom to marry whom they choose, or deal with their own reproductive organs. That's okay if you want to believe that, though I personally think it's rather greedy and misinformed.

Actually, I voted for the Republican that was pro-prematurebabymurder, pro-homomarriage, and voted to increase taking a larger percentage of my hard earned money, but that's just me I guess.


...such a creature exists?

Seriously, good for you I guess, but the official statement of the Party is against all of those things, and by voting for that person, you gave the GOP a larger voting bloc and more power to control the legislature and/or organization to which that person was elected. It's like the people in Germany who vote for The People's Party because TPP wants to increase education spending - never mind that they also want to make sure the education is religious based and have tacitly stated that they want to murder non-Germans.
 
2012-06-28 03:36:14 PM  

The_Sponge: And how sad is it that your side had a victory today, and instead of being happy, you get pissy when somebody points out that *GASP* Obama broke a promise.


How did he break it? Obama has never said it was a tax. Hell, he specifically said in 2009 that it was not a tax. The Supreme Court called it a tax, not Obama.
 
2012-06-28 03:36:17 PM  
i645.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-28 03:36:29 PM  

Phinn: Anti_illuminati: This is patently ignorant, and as an underwriter, I can see you have no idea what your talking about and your addressing the issue in platitudes.

Your total lack of a substantive response tells me that you have no substantive response.

Either that, or you genuinely believe that retailers have the same property liability risk as owners who conduct ultra-hazardous activities such as demolition and radioactive waste disposal.

Or there's no cost difference between insuring for medical services for obese people versus fit people.


Yes there is. Should I post the math again, or are you just refusing to comprehend it? Because I won't waste my time if that's the case.
 
2012-06-28 03:36:49 PM  
Medicaid expansion:
tl:dr, Congress says this is a modification to Medicaid, but we've ruled it's really an entirely new program, so the States have to be allowed to keep the old program.

JUSTICE GINSBURG claims that Dole is distinguishable because here "Congress has not threatened to withhold funds earmarked for any other program." Post, at 47. But that begs the question: The States contend that the expansion is in reality a new program and that Congress is forcing them to accept it by threatening the funds for the existing Medicaid program. We cannot agree that existing Medicaid and the expansion dictated by the Affordable Care Act are all one program simply because "Congress styled" them as such. Post, at 49. If the expansion is not properly viewed as a modification of the existing Medicaid program, Congress's decision to so title it is irrelevant.13
Here, the Government claims that the Medicaid expansion is properly viewed merely as a modification of the existing program because the States agreed that Congress could change the terms of Medicaid when they signed on in the first place. The Government observes that the Social Security Act, which includes the original Medicaid provisions, contains a clause expressly reserving "[t]he right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision" of that statute. 42 U. S. C. §1304. So it does. But "if Congress intends to impose a condition on the grant of federal moneys, it must do so unambiguously." Pennhurst, 451 U. S., at 17. A State confronted with statutory language reserving the right to "alter" or "amend" the pertinent provisions of the Social Security Act might reasonably assume that Congress was entitled to make adjustments to the Medicaid program as it developed. Congress has in fact done so, sometimes conditioning only the new funding, other times both old and new. See, e.g., Social Security Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 1381-1382, 1465 (extending Medicaid eligibility, but partly conditioning only the new funding); Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, §4601, 104 Stat. 1388-166 (extending eligibility, and conditioning old and new funds).
The Medicaid expansion, however, accomplishes a shift in kind, not merely degree. The original program was designed to cover medical services for four particular categories of the needy: the disabled, the blind, the elderly, and needy families with dependent children. See 42
U. S. C. §1396a(a)(10). Previous amendments to Medicaid eligibility merely altered and expanded the boundaries of these categories. Under the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid is transformed into a program to meet the health care needs of the entire nonelderly population with income below 133 percent of the poverty level. It is no longer a program to care for the neediest among us, but rather an element of a comprehensive national plan to provide universal health insurance coverage.14
Indeed, the manner in which the expansion is structured indicates that while Congress may have styled the expansion a mere alteration of existing Medicaid, it recognized it was enlisting the States in a new health care program. Congress created a separate funding provision to cover the costs of providing services to any person made newly eligible by the expansion. While Congress pays 50 to 83 percent of the costs of covering individuals currently enrolled in Medicaid, §1396d(b), once the expansion is fully implemented Congress will pay 90 percent of thecosts for newly eligible persons, §1396d(y)(1). The conditions on use of the different funds are also distinct. Congress mandated that newly eligible persons receive a level of coverage that is less comprehensive than the traditional Medicaid benefit package. §1396a(k)(1); see Brief for United States 9.
As we have explained, "[t]hough Congress' power to legislate under the spending power is broad, it does not include surprising participating States with post acceptance or 'retroactive' conditions." Pennhurst, supra, at
25. A State could hardly anticipate that Congress's reservation of the right to "alter" or "amend" the Medicaid program included the power to transform it so dramatically.JUSTICE GINSBURG claims that in fact this expansion is
no different from the previous changes to Medicaid, such that "a State would be hard put to complain that it lacked fair notice." Post, at 56. But the prior change she discusses-presumably the most dramatic alteration she could find-does not come close to working the transformation the expansion accomplishes. She highlights an amendment requiring States to cover pregnant women and increasing the number of eligible children. Ibid. But this modification can hardly be described as a major change in a program that-from its inception-provided health care for "families with dependent children." Previous Medicaid amendments simply do not fall into the same category as the one at stake here.
The Court in Steward Machine did not attempt to "fix the outermost line" where persuasion gives way to coercion. 301 U. S., at 591. The Court found it "[e]nough for present purposes that wherever the line may be, this statute is within it." Ibid. We have no need to fix a line either. It is enough for today that wherever that line may be, this statute is surely beyond it. Congress may not simply "conscript state [agencies] into the national bureaucratic army," FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U. S. 742, 775 (1982) (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part), and that is what it is attempting to do with the Medicaid expansion.
 
2012-06-28 03:37:08 PM  

Biological Ali: The_Sponge: //Apparently disagreeing with Obama and pointing out a broken promise warrant a punch in the face.

[www.myfacewhen.net image 170x128]

"Hearing the same stupid thing repeated over and over again can elicit frustration and annoyance from even the most mild-mannered of listeners."


it's called the "Buzz Aldrin response.
 
2012-06-28 03:38:00 PM  

The_Sponge: And how sad is it that your side had a victory today, and instead of being happy, you get pissy when somebody points out that *GASP* Obama broke a promise.

STOP! Just stop. Let them try it out. Who knows? Maybe it will work out for the best. Stop being angry about it though. We lost. The deal is done.
 
2012-06-28 03:38:06 PM  

Parmenius: Couldn't the tax section in question be easily removed as an amendment to almost any legislation?


Someone mentioned this on twitter and their answer was no, because of the Byrd Rule.

But I'm not a legislator, so don't quote me.
 
2012-06-28 03:38:11 PM  
sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-06-28 03:38:24 PM  

MurphyMurphy: I'll bet you more of them were D's than R's.


the south was predominately democrat, so that was the power structure used - where they could get into power and it wasn't big D democratic, they were A-OK with being republican - again, it just seems like people perceive klan membership and ideology as one, when it was no such thing. the parties were both used wherever they could be used.

to torture the point even further, 100 years ago is just flat farking embarrassing for all of us honkies, but it isn't like a current ideology owns that embarrassment any more than you or i do.
 
2012-06-28 03:38:24 PM  

Parmenius: 3. Can a governor (I live in Ohio, gah Kasich) simply declare that the state won't comply, and create a several-years-long trainwreck?


Not a lawyer but I would like to comment on the last one. Even the most hardcore Conservative State in the Union likely has 30% of the population that would go ape shiat if their State was breaking the law and it was hurting their health care options in some way.
 
2012-06-28 03:38:28 PM  

NateGrey: The_Sponge: His promise was to all Americans making under 250K....it wasn't a promise to only those who were going to vote for him. Yeesh.

Show Fartbama who is boss by voting him out of office in November!

Nobama 2012.

That stupid doodyhead promise breaker! What do we do about Roberts? Is he on the ballot?


With the way my state (WA) votes, it doesn't really matter.

/But Glenn thinks that my state and 47 others will go for Romney.
//the odds are better that I will be abducted by aliens this weekend.
 
2012-06-28 03:38:36 PM  
Obamacare is worthless without single payer or at least the public option.

Canadians and Brits are laughing at America, or at least scratching their heads and wondering why.
 
2012-06-28 03:38:40 PM  

StoneColdAtheist: Then Uncle Sugar posted me to Mogadishu for 25 months. Believe me, there is nothing like living in a libertarian paradise to cure one of that disease.


Witnessing the effects of Somalia's 25 years of socialism should be enough to cure anyone of a delusional faith in socialism.
 
2012-06-28 03:39:48 PM  
The_Sponge: //Apparently disagreeing with Obama and pointing out a broken promise warrant a punch in the face

Obama promised to deliver healthcare reform that would insure 30 million low income Americans access.

He delivered on that promise despite insane obstacles.

Romney and the GOP promised to crush the reform.

They failed.

Whiny talking point is whiny and hilariously ineffectual.

Keep it up. I still got popcorn.

/Epic thread is epic.
 
Displayed 50 of 3382 comments

First | « | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | » | 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