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  
•       •       •

14918 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 | « | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | » | Last
 
2012-06-28 03:50:49 PM  

Khellendros: Try again.


ok

Link

Cost estimates have doubled. Looks like we will have hard enough time meeting past obligations but yeah lets add a bunch more people to the welfare rolls.

What IS the penalty for not buying insurance? Serious.

The penalty for a small business dumping it's employees that it currently pays coverage for? Serious.
 
2012-06-28 03:50:52 PM  

mr lawson: CPennypacker: What increased costs do they have?

The Hospitals and doctors. They will increase their prices because (1) They know that the insurance company can raise premiums (2) Increase in demand for services (they are only so many of them to go around and (3) Fark YOU! because they can, that why.


I see, so you have no idea
 
2012-06-28 03:51:11 PM  

HeartBurnKid: oh_please: 10 years down the road, your insurance rates go through the roof because all the smaller insurers have been forced out of the market, and there's only a few insurers left.

I'm sorry, did you just wake up from a 20-year coma or something?


There are still plenty of smaller insurers, it's just going to get worse.
 
2012-06-28 03:51:13 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Phinn: 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.

According to the CIA World Factbook

Government type:

no permanent national government; transitional, parliamentary federal government

If that's not small enough to drown in a bathtub, I don't know what is!


Who was in charge of Somalia's government prior to 1991, and what were his economic policies?
 
2012-06-28 03:51:32 PM  

Lord Dimwit: jshine: Lord Dimwit: You want to have sex with a llama? Well, the llama can't consent so, no dice.

What if I want to kill a cow and eat it? Does it have to consent?

You're asking a vegetarian, so...yes. :)

Seriously, though - the sex with a llama thing was only in there because of the example provided in the earlier post. Eating animals, fark animals...whatever works. Just don't eat or fark my animals.


Didn't mean to thread-jack -- just thought it was silly to ascribe to animals the *ability* to consent (to anything). That presupposes that animals have a fairly sophisticated ability to understand abstract / future concepts (like death) -- something that is probably well-beyond the cognitive capacity of a llama.

What llama-sex might look like:
www.technobuffalo.com
 
2012-06-28 03:51:35 PM  

Parmenius: Dusk-You-n-Me: 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.

Ahh, interesting, thanks. Still, such a provision would have to be found before passage, and that means they'd have to read the bill. That sounds ... occasionally unlikely.


It wouldn't be the legislators who spot it; it would probably be advocacy groups. Anyone paying enough attention would spot it when it was added as an amendment.

The Byrd Rule looks like it only applies to the reconciliation process, specifically what can and cannot be considered by the Senate under reconciliation...
 
2012-06-28 03:51:43 PM  

bhcompy: Anti_illuminati: 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.

I'm not sure if this is a better situation than what we had in 2009 before any of this legislation has passed. My year to year costs of just being insured accelerated dramatically once the legislation passed, while my coverage went down(90%->80%->70% year to year for most covered categories/procedures) for the same general Aetna PPO policy, and they have most paralleled for my family under Blue Cross/Blue Shield PPOs in the same state under a different employer. And these are large multinational companies with the capability of shopping for the best policies for their employees.

I am of the mind of either singlepayer or what we had before. You are right that this current legislation may push us to singlepayer, but I think it isn't because it will warm us to the concept and instead because this solution is the worst of both worl ...


Oh wow. There's something going on there. Ours has increased, but we've also kept our same policy terms - 80/20, 90/10(S) split, no $25 ded, no ded, $2500 max OOP.

But ultimately agreed. It's good for a interim policy for those that have insurance, children and
 
2012-06-28 03:51:44 PM  

AngryPanda:
individuals who cannot afford coverage (i.e. required contribution exceeds 8% of
household income);

Now please stop the concern trolling about how this screws over the poor - because it doesn't.


It clearly affects the poor that live in coastal urban areas.
 
2012-06-28 03:51:54 PM  
Why is Romney upset about the ACA? He was for it before he was against it, right?
 
2012-06-28 03:52:16 PM  

The Decider: "As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts ..." - MittRomney.com.

This hasn't been taken down yet, it's still there.


I really think that Obama's campaign commercials should just be six or eight five second clips or Romney talking, with every other clip contradicting the one before it.
 
2012-06-28 03:52:57 PM  

mr lawson: CPennypacker: What increased costs do they have?

The Hospitals and doctors. They will increase their prices because (1) They know that the insurance company can raise premiums (2) Increase in demand for services (they are only so many of them to go around and (3) Fark YOU! because they can, that why.



It doesn't work that way...
 
2012-06-28 03:53:12 PM  

gimmegimme: Why is Romney upset about the ACA? He was for it before he was against it, right?


He can't use all those "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" campaign commercials he had lined up now. THANKS ROBERTS
 
2012-06-28 03:53:17 PM  

Glockenspiel Hero: Actually, I think it's a net benefit for the Mittster

The right wing is going to go apeshiat over this ruling and come out in droves to make sure they get a president who won't put any more horrible liberals like Roberts on the Court


The people who care about that already hated Obama and were already motivated to vote against him. I don't see a net benefit from him.
 
2012-06-28 03:53:29 PM  
We here in Canada have Universal health care paid for by our taxes. The US has private health insurance that is paid for by a tax but not evreyone is covered. Maybe someday the US will just have Medicaid for everyone.
 
2012-06-28 03:53:51 PM  
It's a step in the right direction. Now can we please just have single payer?
 
2012-06-28 03:54:02 PM  

nickerj1: As an example of how silly Ginsburg's line of thought is, replace "medical care" with "owning footwear".

"Unlike the market for almost any other product or service, the market for footwear is one in which all individuals inevitably participate." "Virtually every person residing in the United States, sooner or later, will own a piece of footwear." And then Congress has the power to make a law that: requires everyone in the US to prove they own footwear, and fines you if you can't prove you own footwear.

Boom, Congress would now have power to regulate anything that "virtually everyone" uses/does.


Actually, that .. kinda makes sense. I mean, I'm not in favor of making people do things they don't want to do unless there's a very good reason, so you'd have to convince me that there was some reason why not owning footwear was bad (bad enough that it was in the nation's interest to pass a law about it), but ... ok.
 
2012-06-28 03:54:03 PM  

The Decider: "As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts ..." - MittRomney.com.

This hasn't been taken down yet, it's still there.


I LOL'd. Thanks for that. Need to go get a screenshot..
 
2012-06-28 03:54:28 PM  

StandsWithAFist:


Dull Cow Eyes:

Thanks for the info/input guys, I am a serial lurker and often times have questions when reading the Fark. I always figured my posts would be overlooked or bypassed because i'm not always fully informed on the subject at hand. I was actually pleasantly surprised to see that people responded to my question and even suggested a search term that would help me to find more info. Who knew that Farkers could help me expand my knowledge?!

 
2012-06-28 03:54:39 PM  

Grables'Daughter: lousyskater: I didn't really care which way this went, but man I need to get some popcorn for this one. DIS GONNA BE GOOD.

[i1089.photobucket.com image 640x423]

Here.

I made enough for everyone.

: )


Careful, you could become a meme.
 
2012-06-28 03:54:49 PM  

bongmiester: NateGrey: Democrats: Dragging the Regressive-Republicans into the modern era for over 60 years.


the democrats were the party of the KKK 100 years ago

funny how that works out


They also realized how stupid that was and abandoned it. Republicans should realize the same and abandon their goals of making everyone who's not a rich white older male sub-human and installing a Christian theocracy.
 
2012-06-28 03:55:45 PM  

frank249: We here in Canada have Universal health care paid for by our taxes. The US has private health insurance that is paid for by a tax but not evreyone is covered. Maybe someday the US will just have Medicaid for everyone.



It's getting really hard for us to evolve as a country with so many on the right being stuck in the past and trying to hold the rest of us back...
 
2012-06-28 03:55:47 PM  

Anti_illuminati: Phinn: 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.

And Sweden's...

Goddamn you are ridiculously hyperbolic.


To be fair at Phinn, I did engage in a little harmless hyperbole.

OTOH, the only thing even remotely socialistic about Somalia is that the misery is pretty much universally shared. *Sigh*
 
2012-06-28 03:55:55 PM  

mrshowrules: 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.


Yeah, I guess it's not a very likely scenario at this point. I suppose I'm trying to envision ways this as "federalize the national guard" kind of arm-twisting scenario.
 
2012-06-28 03:56:08 PM  

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

Then grow up.

Obama said he wouldn't raise our taxes. And he implemented a (Republican) insurance mandate. Which was not a tax.

And then years later, the Supreme Court is now saying, "well, what ya got there is something that could conceivably be classified as a tax, and since it's a tax, then it's okay." Which was a way for the Supreme Court to puss out and leave the law as-is, because rejecting the law would have meant that millions of insured people would be insta-screwed, instead of some people that had enough money but refused to pay for insurance in the year 2014.

And now you're complaining that Obama lied to us, because the Supreme Court re-classified an insurance mandate as a tax. Like Obama had planned this the whole time and he was trying to pull a fast one on us.

I understand you were looking forward to a whole week's worth of gloating, and the Supreme Court just ruined all those plans for you, but seriously...just grow up.


You'd have better luck taking off your shoe and talking to it, instead. So while I completely agree with everything you're saying, it's falling on deaf ears. These assholes don't care that they're wrong.
 
2012-06-28 03:56:18 PM  

oh_please: FarkLibsTM: All of you waving your dicks around, saying "HAHA SUCK IT TEABAGGERS WE WIN" may feel differently when, 10 years down the road, your insurance rates go through the roof because all the smaller insurers have been forced out of the market, and there's only a few insurers left. Or a single-payer system that makes you wait months to get anything done.


You know, this talking point really bothers me.

People are upset that since more people will be covered, people will have to wait longer for treatment.

So does that mean these same folks were ok with the private sector rationing care based on cost and perfectly fine if the people who couldn't afford treatment whitered off and died?

What kind of sick farks do we have in this country anyway?
 
2012-06-28 03:56:19 PM  

bongmiester: NateGrey: Democrats: Dragging the Regressive-Republicans into the modern era for over 60 years.


the democrats were the party of the KKK 100 years ago

funny how that works out


Yeah, they ran those guys out on a rail 60 years ago. And the Republicans snatched them up.

Funny how that works out.
 
2012-06-28 03:56:29 PM  

mr lawson: CPennypacker: What increased costs do they have?

The Hospitals and doctors. They will increase their prices because (1) They know that the insurance company can raise premiums (2) Increase in demand for services (they are only so many of them to go around and (3) Fark YOU! because they can, that why.


You do realize you're describing the state of pre-ACA health care, right?

And you forgot the literal death panels that are still run by private companies.
 
2012-06-28 03:57:08 PM  

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

Then grow up.

Obama said he wouldn't raise our taxes. And he implemented a (Republican) insurance mandate. Which was not a tax.

And then years later, the Supreme Court is now saying, "well, what ya got there is something that could conceivably be classified as a tax, and since it's a tax, then it's okay." Which was a way for the Supreme Court to puss out and leave the law as-is, because rejecting the law would have meant that millions of insured people would be insta-screwed, instead of some people that had enough money but refused to pay for insurance in the year 2014.

And now you're complaining that Obama lied to us, because the Supreme Court re-classified an insurance mandate as a tax. Like Obama had planned this the whole time and he was trying to pull a fast one on us.

I understand you were looking forward to a whole week's worth of gloating, and the Supreme Court just ruined all those plans for you, but seriously...just grow up.


You do realize the only reason it was upheld is because it IS a tax, right?
 
2012-06-28 03:57:23 PM  

Smelly McUgly: Yes, there really are. I disagree with your premise. Cost/benefit can be made through utilitarian means not related directly to prices ....


Yes, that's called "politics."

When you eliminate the objective criteria of prices to calculate cost/benefit, what you have left is political decision-making criteria, which will invariably be made on the basis of the political costs and benefits to the decision-makers, not to the consumers. That's where bureaucratic waste comes from, which then breeds bureaucratic corruption. Even Lenin figured that out pretty quickly.
 
2012-06-28 03:57:59 PM  

Brandyelf: mrshowrules: 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.

Supposedly, they're already vowing to (at least, according to this)

Seriously, I wonder sometimes how our country will make it through derp like this. Then I remember, we've been through derp before and survived; this is just the New Derp.


Looks like they're just trying to drag their feet as much as possible. I'll check Wiki later - I wonder if they'll miss any deadlines.
 
2012-06-28 03:58:13 PM  

Serious Black: Stoker: [img836.imageshack.us image 500x510]

Actually, as I pointed out upthread, each of those companies' stocks are down a minimum of 3% as of now. They're losing money fast. They did not want this ruling.


Thank god you're here, Day-to-day-stock-analysis man!
 
2012-06-28 03:58:52 PM  

CPennypacker: I see, so you have no idea


No it is YOU who do not get.

We have a shortage of Health care workers. Nothing in this bill changes that. Until something is done about the cost of health CARE (which is mostly labor related) Costs will increase. This bill just puts additional pressure on the shortage of workers. Hence prices that the insurance companies have to pay out will increase and thus premiums increases.

The only way to lower the prices is to make more health care workers. A LOT more.
 
2012-06-28 03:59:43 PM  

Mrtraveler01: What kind of sick farks do we have in this country anyway?



Really stupid ones who also happen to be afflicted with severe cognitive dissonance...
 
2012-06-28 04:00:08 PM  

mr lawson: CPennypacker: I see, so you have no idea

No it is YOU who do not get.

We have a shortage of Health care workers. Nothing in this bill changes that. Until something is done about the cost of health CARE (which is mostly labor related) Costs will increase. This bill just puts additional pressure on the shortage of workers. Hence prices that the insurance companies have to pay out will increase and thus premiums increases.

The only way to lower the prices is to make more health care workers. A LOT more.


Please tell me how this law increases the demand for healthcare
 
2012-06-28 04:00:21 PM  
pwhp_67

frank249: We here in Canada have Universal health care paid for by our taxes. The US has private health insurance that is paid for by a tax but not evreyone is covered. Maybe someday the US will just have Medicaid for everyone.


It's getting really hard for us to evolve as a country with so many on the right being stuck in the past and trying to hold the rest of us back...


It's actually you clowns that are holding us back. We are the ones having to cater to the lowest common denominator. Good try though
 
2012-06-28 04:00:24 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?


It wouldn't change... you would still have private insurance, but you can still elect to choose how you pay for any given procedure on your own. With respect to getting your insurance companies negotiated rate from the doctor, that part was at their discretion... several of the doctors I proofread contracts for offer substantial discounts for cash patients just because the administrative overhead from their end is far less.
 
2012-06-28 04:00:25 PM  

gimmegimme: You do realize you're describing the state of pre-ACA health care, right?

And you forgot the literal death panels that are still run by private companies.


yup...the entire health care system needs a major overhaul. This was not it.
 
2012-06-28 04:00:31 PM  

qorkfiend: Parmenius: Dusk-You-n-Me: 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.

Ahh, interesting, thanks. Still, such a provision would have to be found before passage, and that means they'd have to read the bill. That sounds ... occasionally unlikely.

It wouldn't be the legislators who spot it; it would probably be advocacy groups. Anyone paying enough attention would spot it when it was added as an amendment.


Still sounds vulnerable. Those bills for Defense or farming or transportation are huge.
 
2012-06-28 04:00:41 PM  

Jekylman: Serious Black: Stoker: [img836.imageshack.us image 500x510]

Actually, as I pointed out upthread, each of those companies' stocks are down a minimum of 3% as of now. They're losing money fast. They did not want this ruling.

Thank god you're here, Day-to-day-stock-analysis man!


I heard this in Colin Mocherie's voice...
 
2012-06-28 04:00:42 PM  

SouthernFriedYankee: BobBoxBody: The problem with Obamacare is that it doesn't address the main fundamental issue with healthcare: That it is expensive.

Correct. And it was never supposed to do so. All it's supposed to do is force people to either buy insurance or pay the government.

Same as it ever was...


If this keeps up, you may find yourself living in a shotgun shack, or you may find yourself in another part of the world.

Or you may find yourself in a beautiful house with a beautiful wife, and then you may ask yourself, well, how did I get here?
 
2012-06-28 04:00:46 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!


So what you're saying is that Medicaid (paid for by the federal government) will require you to justify paying for procedures? Isn't that what's called fiscal responsibility

/if you've got nothing to hide, it shouldn't be a problem
//if your clinic can't compete in teh free market, it should close
///a more efficient provider will replace you
 
2012-06-28 04:00:54 PM  

mr lawson: CPennypacker: I see, so you have no idea

No it is YOU who do not get.

We have a shortage of Health care workers. Nothing in this bill changes that. Until something is done about the cost of health CARE (which is mostly labor related) Costs will increase. This bill just puts additional pressure on the shortage of workers. Hence prices that the insurance companies have to pay out will increase and thus premiums increases.

The only way to lower the prices is to make more health care workers. A LOT more.


...so what your saying is that Obama just created thousands of jobs?
 
2012-06-28 04:00:57 PM  

mr lawson: CPennypacker: I see, so you have no idea

No it is YOU who do not get.

We have a shortage of Health care workers. Nothing in this bill changes that. Until something is done about the cost of health CARE (which is mostly labor related) Costs will increase. This bill just puts additional pressure on the shortage of workers. Hence prices that the insurance companies have to pay out will increase and thus premiums increases.

The only way to lower the prices is to make more health care workers. A LOT more.


So what you're saying is that the ACA creates a vast number of jobs in the health care field.

Thank you, Obama!
 
2012-06-28 04:01:36 PM  
dc531.4shared.com
/reposty goodness

Dance, cat, dance, for the people who originally created the individual mandate and now deny their own creation with all their beings.
[must download PDF from Hertitage Foundation page]


It was not accidental that this centerpiece of his plan originated in conservative think tanks and was supported by, among others, Senator John McCain during his run for president. President Obama went to pains to present a bipartisan solution to our health care crisis.

Republicans? They did an ideological about-face, declared their wrath against the individual mandate and voted in a block against the Affordable Care Act. Conservatives have been trying to use health care reform as a political football ever since.

Chief Justice Roberts' vote is so striking precisely because it bucks the recent trend of conservatives contorting their own past beliefs and principles to attack President Obama in any way possible.

In 2006, Mitt Romney praised the individual mandate as the solution to our nation's health care challenges. Now, he has joined the rest of his opportunistic party in condemning it.

------

The controversial individual mandate that was upheld Thursday by the U.S. Supreme Court stems back more than 20 years, believed to have originated with a prominent conservative think tank.

The mandate, requiring every American to purchase health insurance, appeared in a 1989 published proposal by Stuart M. Butler of the conservative Heritage Foundation called "Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans," which included a provision to "mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance."

The Heritage Foundation "substantially revised" its proposal four years later, according to a 1994 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. But the idea of an individual health insurance mandate later appeared in two bills introduced by Republican lawmakers in 1993, according to the non-partisan research group ProCon.org. Among the supporters of the bills were senators Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who today oppose the mandate under current law.


Dance, cat, dance!
 
2012-06-28 04:01:48 PM  

mr lawson: The only way to lower the prices is to make more health care workers. A LOT more.


States and the AMA have artificially restricted the supply of providers for about 100 years.

That's what we call a "state-sponsored cartel," boys and girls.
 
2012-06-28 04:01:57 PM  

CPennypacker: Please tell me how this law increases the demand for healthcare


err...more people covered will result in more people seeking treatment they would not have sought be for?

/is this a trick question?
 
2012-06-28 04:01:59 PM  
Republicans seen retreating to their lair, planning their next line of attack;

www.blogcdn.com
 
2012-06-28 04:02:16 PM  

Parmenius: mrshowrules: 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.

Yeah, I guess it's not a very likely scenario at this point. I suppose I'm trying to envision ways this as "federalize the national guard" kind of arm-twisting scenario.


I'm not saying the States can't make it messy but they will be making a messy for themselves also.
 
2012-06-28 04:02:31 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: oh_please: FarkConsTM: This is not the end of democracy, stop treating it like it is. Something has to be done about this problem, and I'm not sure what else we can do at this point, given what's in place.

FarkLibsTM: All of you waving your dicks around, saying "HAHA SUCK IT TEABAGGERS WE WIN" may feel differently when, 10 years down the road, your insurance rates go through the roof because all the smaller insurers have been forced out of the market, and there's only a few insurers left. Or a single-payer system that makes you wait months to get anything done.

You sound concerned.


I think it's intensely interesting, and all the Farkers here who are either predicting gloom-and-doom or claiming victory based on political affiliation are in for a huge surprise...this is neither a victory, nor is it a defeat for either side. shiat just changed, a lot. Whether our government can make it work or not, that's another story.

Personally, I can't farking stand Romney, but his campaign just got a whole lot richer.
 
2012-06-28 04:02:44 PM  

mr lawson: gimmegimme: You do realize you're describing the state of pre-ACA health care, right?

And you forgot the literal death panels that are still run by private companies.

yup...the entire health care system needs a major overhaul. This was not it.


Agreed. Single-payer works in every first-world, industrialized country in the world. Let's do that.
 
Displayed 50 of 3382 comments

First | « | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | » | Last

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report