If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

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

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


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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

Archived thread

First | « | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | » | Last
 
2012-06-28 04:02:52 PM

Coco LaFemme: These assholes don't care that they're wrong.



On the rag today, are we?
 
2012-06-28 04:02:57 PM

Phinn: Who was in charge of Somalia's government prior to 1991, and what were his economic policies?


Mohamed Siad Barre, whose policies were based on and driven by tribalism, divide and conquer and kleptocracy. There was never even the whiff of socialism operating in that country.
 
2012-06-28 04:03:01 PM

Gdalescrboz: 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


Awwwwwww, butthurt much?
 
2012-06-28 04:04:04 PM

The_Sponge: Coco LaFemme: These assholes don't care that they're wrong.


On the rag today, are we?


Project much?
 
2012-06-28 04:04:11 PM

mr lawson: 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?


People get treatment. Them being covered just means they get preventative and early treatment, lowering costs and easing the burden on hospitals and emergency workers.
 
2012-06-28 04:04:17 PM

mr lawson: 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?


You seem sad that fewer people will die earlier. Why are you bummed that there will be less pain and suffering in the country?
 
2012-06-28 04:05:00 PM

The_Sponge: Coco LaFemme: These assholes don't care that they're wrong.


On the rag today, are we?


lol going for irony? Please dont do anything stupid, you Freepers have gone insane!

I'm not buying sheat.

I'm going to default on my mortgage, go on food stamps, declare bankruptcy, secure a disability settlement, and let honest, productive, private sector Americans support my dead-assed, lazy carcass.

Its the new American way.
 
2012-06-28 04:05:10 PM

gimmegimme: Agreed. Single-payer works in every first-world, industrialized country in the world. Let's do that.



Do you honestly think our government won't screw it up? They can't even responsibly spend money now, why do you think they would do so in the future? How about we consider a single payer system AFTER the national debt is paid off?
 
2012-06-28 04:05:19 PM

Parmenius: 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.


Oh, sure. These kind of things usually get a bit of attention (especially the amendments), and someone else could slip in an amendment nullifying that amendment, or slip in an amendment to a later bill, or just drop it in conference (like the Cornhusker kickback), or do all sorts of fun things.

Come to think of it, our best bet at single payer is probably an amendment that increases or removes the cap on the Medicaid expansion.
 
2012-06-28 04:05:25 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: 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.


Not exactly. They were staunch until Barry Goldwater decided to try and attract them for votes. Nobody wants them, perhaps nobody wanted them then, but until someone actually takes them they aren't going anywhere.
 
2012-06-28 04:05:39 PM

The_Sponge: gimmegimme: Agreed. Single-payer works in every first-world, industrialized country in the world. Let's do that.


Do you honestly think our government won't screw it up? They can't even responsibly spend money now, why do you think they would do so in the future? How about we consider a single payer system AFTER the national debt is paid off?


Trick question, the debt will never be paid off.
 
2012-06-28 04:05:46 PM

StoneColdAtheist: Phinn: Who was in charge of Somalia's government prior to 1991, and what were his economic policies?

Mohamed Siad Barre, whose policies were based on and driven by tribalism, divide and conquer and kleptocracy. There was never even the whiff of socialism operating in that country.


Actually, he was anti-tribalist and overtly Marxist.
 
2012-06-28 04:06:14 PM

NateGrey: The_Sponge: Coco LaFemme: These assholes don't care that they're wrong.


On the rag today, are we?

lol going for irony? Please dont do anything stupid, you Freepers have gone insane!

I'm not buying sheat.

I'm going to default on my mortgage, go on food stamps, declare bankruptcy, secure a disability settlement, and let honest, productive, private sector Americans support my dead-assed, lazy carcass.

Its the new American way.


Heh, what makes him think we're not doing it already with his ilk? You know, the motorscooter types?
 
2012-06-28 04:06:47 PM

NateGrey: lol going for irony? Please dont do anything stupid, you Freepers have gone insane!


Rwa2play: Project much?



So somebody calls me an asshole in this thread, where I have tried to keep things civil, and you don't expect that I have an insulting retort?
 
2012-06-28 04:07:16 PM

Gdalescrboz: 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



Sure. Your party wants to rewrite the Constitution, destroy and dismantle public education, remove science from the classroom, tell us who can marry and who can't, wage wars against personal freedoms, destroy health care, all while sucking off the top 1% and you're not holding the country back...
 
2012-06-28 04:07:29 PM

The_Sponge: Do you honestly think our government won't screw it up?


No, I don't think they'll screw it up. They currently administer several coverage plans with relatively few problems.
 
2012-06-28 04:07:41 PM

The_Sponge: gimmegimme: Agreed. Single-payer works in every first-world, industrialized country in the world. Let's do that.


Do you honestly think our government won't screw it up? They can't even responsibly spend money now, why do you think they would do so in the future? How about we consider a single payer system AFTER the national debt is paid off?


Wow...how dare you imply the United States military (paid for by the government and run by civilians) is screwed up? Where, exactly, do you feel the military is wasting money? Veterans' affairs? The GI Bill? Bulletproof armor on the vehicles?

Just...wow.
 
2012-06-28 04:07:55 PM

Lord Dimwit: ..so what your saying is that Obama just created thousands of jobs?


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

Thank you, Obama!


No...it didn't. That is the problem.

Idea: The US government will provide FREE medical education (to include doctors and nurses) to all who can pass a basic intelligent test. After graduation, in exchange for the education they will work for the US government for four years in one of the thousands of newly created free clinics that provide basic health care for any and all Americans.
After the four year contract they are free to open up their own practice.
 
2012-06-28 04:08:12 PM

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


Read up on sin taxes and then get back to us.
 
2012-06-28 04:08:39 PM

muck4doo: 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.


Hmmm...not enough frothing at the mouth, foot stamping, temper tantrumming or Fartbongoing. What's the matter with you?

1/10



Seriously, I don't think anyone knows for absolute sure what this plan is going to do. It's law. Let's see if it works and if it doesn't, we can make changes to it. Isn't that how government is supposed to work?
 
2012-06-28 04:09:26 PM

gimmegimme: mr lawson: 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?

You seem sad that fewer people will die earlier. Why are you bummed that there will be less pain and suffering in the country?


lol wut?!

/i'm a little more to the left on this than you are, dumbass
 
2012-06-28 04:09:27 PM

The_Sponge: NateGrey: lol going for irony? Please dont do anything stupid, you Freepers have gone insane!

Rwa2play: Project much?

So somebody calls me an asshole in this thread, where I have tried to keep things civil, and you don't expect that I have an insulting retort?


I didn't see anyone calling YOU an asshole; she was referring to tea party types.

So, by you feeling insulted by Coco, are you admitting that you side with said tea party types?
 
2012-06-28 04:10:09 PM
OOOOH maybe if we're lucky this will get Texas to secede!!!!!
 
2012-06-28 04:10:23 PM
Farker Zotfripper pasted this into a TFD thread. It breaks it down nicely.

Here's a breakdown someone posted from over at that other place:

Taken from Reddit

Quote
Okay, explained like you're a five year-old (well, okay, maybe a bit older), without too much oversimplification, and (hopefully) without sounding too biased:
What people call "Obamacare" is actually the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, people were calling it "Obamacare" before everyone even hammered out what it would be. It's a term mostly used by people who don't like the PPACA, and it's become popularized in part because PPACA is a really long and awkward name, even when you turn it into an acronym like that.
Anyway, the PPACA made a bunch of new rules regarding health care, with the purpose of making health care more affordable for everyone. Opponents of the PPACA, on the other hand, feel that the rules it makes take away too many freedoms and force people (both individuals and businesses) to do things they shouldn't have to.
So what does it do? Well, here is everything, in the order of when it goes into effect (because some of it happens later than other parts of it):
Already in effect:

It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices)
It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less)
It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn't directly control, PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( Citation: Page 665, sec. 1181 )
It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy. ( Citation: Page 499, sec. 4205 )
It makes a "high-risk pool" for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of "pre-existing conditions" altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered "pre-existing conditions" can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them.
It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions.
It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths. ( Citation: Page 923, sec. 5000B )
It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won't get any more coverage because they have hit a "lifetime limit". Basically, if someone has paid for health insurance, that company can't tell that person that he's used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won't cover him any more. They can't do this for lifetime spending, and they're limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )
Kids can continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance until they're 26.
No more "pre-existing conditions" for kids under the age of 19.
Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans.
People in a "Medicare Gap" get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend.
Insurers can't just drop customers once they get sick. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2712 )
Insurers have to tell customers what they're spending money on. (Instead of just "administrative fee", they have to be more specific).
Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they're turned down.
New ways to stop fraud are created.
Medicare extends to smaller hospitals.
Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly.
Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly.
A new website is made to give people insurance and health information. (I think this is it: http://www.healthcare.gov/ ).
A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness.
A limit is placed on just how much of a percentage of the money an insurer makes can be profit, to make sure they're not price-gouging customers.
A limit is placed on what type of insurance accounts can be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. Basically, your insurer isn't paying for the Aspirin you bought for that hangover.
Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms.

8/1/2012

Any health plans sold after this date must provide preventative care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge.

1/1/2013

If you make over $200,000 a year, your taxes go up a tiny bit (0.9%). Edit: To address those who take issue with the word "tiny", a change of 0.9% is relatively tiny. Any look at how taxes have fluctuated over the years will reveal that a change of less than one percent is miniscule, especially when we're talking about people in the top 5% of earners.

1/1/2014
This is when a lot of the really big changes happen.

No more "pre-existing conditions". At all. People will be charged the same regardless of their medical history.
If you can afford insurance but do not get it, you will be charged a fee. This is the "mandate" that people are talking about. Basically, it's a trade-off for the "pre-existing conditions" bit, saying that since insurers now have to cover you regardless of what you have, you can't just wait to buy insurance until you get sick. Otherwise no one would buy insurance until they needed it. You can opt not to get insurance, but you'll have to pay the fee instead, unless of course you're not buying insurance because you just can't afford it.
Insurers now can't do annual spending caps. Their customers can get as much health care in a given year as they need. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )
Make it so more poor people can get Medicaid by making the low-income cut-off higher.
Small businesses get some tax credits for two years.
Businesses with over 50 employees must offer health insurance to full-time employees, or pay a penalty.
Limits how high of an annual deductible insurers can charge customers.
Cut some Medicare spending
Place a $2500 limit on tax-free spending on FSAs (accounts for medical spending). Basically, people using these accounts now have to pay taxes on any money over $2500 they put into them.
Establish health insurance exchanges and rebates for the lower and middle-class, basically making it so they have an easier time getting affordable medical coverage.
Congress and Congressional staff will only be offered the same insurance offered to people in the insurance exchanges, rather than Federal Insurance. Basically, we won't be footing their health care bills any more than any other American citizen.
A new tax on pharmaceutical companies.
A new tax on the purchase of medical devices.
A new tax on insurance companies based on their market share. Basically, the more of the market they control, the more they'll get taxed.
The amount you can deduct from your taxes for medical expenses increases.

1/1/2015

Doctors' pay will be determined by the quality of their care, not how many people they treat. Edit: a_real_MD addresses questions regarding this one in far more detail and with far more expertise than I can offer in this post. If you're looking for a more in-depth explanation of this one (as many of you are), I highly recommend you give his post a read.

1/1/2017

If any state can come up with their own plan, one which gives citizens the same level of care at the same price as the PPACA, they can ask the Secretary of Health and Human Resources for permission to do their plan instead of the PPACA. So if they can get the same results without, say, the mandate, they can be allowed to do so. Vermont, for example, has expressed a desire to just go straight to single-payer (in simple terms, everyone is covered, and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers).

2018

All health care plans must now cover preventative care (not just the new ones).
A new tax on "Cadillac" health care plans (more expensive plans for rich people who want fancier coverage).

2020

The elimination of the "Medicare gap"

.
Aaaaand that's it right there.
The biggest thing opponents of the bill have against it is the mandate. They claim that it forces people to buy insurance, and forcing people to buy something is unconstitutional. Personally, I take the opposite view, as it's not telling people to buy a specific thing, just to have a specific type of thing, just like a part of the money we pay in taxes pays for the police and firemen who protect us, this would have us paying to ensure doctors can treat us for illness and injury.
Plus, as previously mentioned, it's necessary if you're doing away with "pre-existing conditions" because otherwise no one would get insurance until they needed to use it, which defeats the purpose of insurance.
Whew! Hope that answers the question!
Edits: Fixing typos.
Edit 2: Wow... people have a lot of questions. I'm afraid I can't get to them now (got to go to work), but I'll try to later.
Edit 3: Okay, I'm at work, so I can't go really in-depth for some of the more complex questions just now, but I'll try and address the simpler ones. Also, a few I'm seeing repeatedly:

For those looking for a source... well, here is the text of the bill, all 974 pages of it (as it sits currently after being amended multiple times). I can't point out page numbers just now, but they're there if you want them.
The website that was to be established, I think, is http://www.healthcare.gov/.
A lot of people are concerned about the 1/1/2015 bit that says that doctors' pay will be tied to quality, not quantity. Because so many people want to know more about this, I've sought out what I believe to be the pertinent sections (From Page 307, section 3007). It looks like this part alters a part of another bill, the Social Security Act, passed a long while ago. That bill already regulates how doctors' pay is determined. The PPACA just changes the criteria. Judging by how professionals are writing about it, it looks like this is just referring to Medicaid and Medicare. Basically, this is changing how much the government pays to doctors and medical groups, in situations where they are already responsible for pay.

Edit 4: Numerous people are pointing out I said "Medicare" when I meant "Medicaid". Whoops. Fixed (I think).
Edit 5: Apparently I messed up the acronym (initialism?). Fixed.
Edit 6: Fixed a few more places where I mixed up terms (it was late, I was tired). Also, for everyone asking if they can post this elsewhere, feel free to.
Edit 7: Okay, I need to get to work. Thanks to everyone for the kind comments, and I hope I've addressed the questions most of you have (that I can actually answer). I just want to be sure to say, I'm just a guy. I'm no expert, and everything I posted here I attribute mostly to Wikipedia or the actual bill itself, with an occasional Google search to clarify stuff. I am absolutely not a difinitive source or expert. I was just trying to simplify things as best I can without dumbing them down. I'm glad that many of you found this helpful.
Edit 8: Wow, this has spread all over the internet... and I'm kinda' embarrassed because what spread included all of my 2AM typos and mistakes. Well, it's too late to undo my mistakes now that the floodgates have opened. I only hope that people aren't too harsh on me for the stuff I've tried to go back and correct.
Edit 9: Added a few citations (easy-to-find stuff). But I gotta' run, so the rest will have to wait.
 
2012-06-28 04:10:39 PM

The_Sponge: AFTER the national debt is paid off



Can you tell your Republican friends that we need to increase revenue (taxes on the top % and corporations) in order to pay off the debt?

Thank you...
 
2012-06-28 04:10:46 PM

L82DPRT: 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.


Let's do this again - after you link to a Sally Pipes article (avowed conservative shill), you then link to a Peter Ferarra article, as if that does better? Ferarra, a libertarian who works for a conservative think-tank (Heritage Foundation) whose early career publishing helped found the CATO institute, is your less biased source than the CBO? A guy who pushes the complete privatization of social security is going to give a fair shake to the Affordable Care Act? Again, are you farking high?

Try again. And this time, LOOK AND STUDY who is writing the article you're linking to. Find something that isn't blatantly partisan.
 
2012-06-28 04:10:49 PM

Phinn: StoneColdAtheist: Phinn: Who was in charge of Somalia's government prior to 1991, and what were his economic policies?

Mohamed Siad Barre, whose policies were based on and driven by tribalism, divide and conquer and kleptocracy. There was never even the whiff of socialism operating in that country.

Actually, he was anti-tribalist and overtly Marxist.


i3.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-06-28 04:10:50 PM

Dog Welder: Let's see if it works and if it doesn't, we can make changes to it. Isn't that how government is supposed to work?



The problem is that once government expands, it's pretty much impossible to get it to shrink back.

If it doesn't work, they'll just keep throwing money at the problem.
 
2012-06-28 04:11:02 PM
Constitutional Scholar Strikes Again!!

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it's a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.



I could care less about an alternative to HillaryCare some Libbie Republicans dreamed up that was never voted on or passed.
 
2012-06-28 04:11:22 PM

Mrtraveler01: 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?



Gosh, you must have forgotten to highlight what I said in the rest of my post, about how we need to do something about the current situation, and this decision certainly isn't the end of the world.
 
2012-06-28 04:11:22 PM

the opposite of charity is justice: "jacking up premiums"


Am I ultra-immature because that's exactly what I was thinking when he kept saying that?
 
2012-06-28 04:11:40 PM

mr lawson: Idea: The US government will provide FREE medical education (to include doctors and nurses) to all who can pass a basic intelligent test. After graduation, in exchange for the education they will work for the US government for four years in one of the thousands of newly created free clinics that provide basic health care for any and all Americans.
After the four year contract they are free to open up their own practice.


I kind of like that idea. Not bad.
 
2012-06-28 04:11:45 PM

SharkTrager: You do realize the only reason it was upheld is because it IS a tax, right?


As of today, the Supreme Court has deemed it as one, yes. But that was not the original intention.
 
2012-06-28 04:13:13 PM

Musto: ObamaCare - Explain It Like I'm Five by captainpixystick

Bob: Hi, insurance company. I'd like to buy some health insurance.

Insurance company: No. You had cancer when you were 3 years old, and the cancer could come back. We're not selling you health insurance.

Bob: It's not my fault I got cancer when I was three! Besides, that was years ago!

Insurance company: If we sell insurance to you, we'll probably lose money, and we're not doing it.

Bob: But I need insurance more than anyone! My cancer might come back!

Insurance company: We don't care. We're not selling you insurance.

Obama: Hey, that's totally not fair. Bob is right, he does need insurance! Sell Bob some insurance.

Insurance company: If we have to, I guess.

Mary: This is cool. Obama said the insurance company has to sell insurance to anyone who needs it.

Sam: Hey, I have an idea. I'm going to stop paying for health insurance. If I get sick, I can always go buy some insurance then. The insurance company won't be able to say no, because Obama's told them they have to sell it to anyone who needs it!

Dave: That's a great idea! I'm not paying for health insurance either, at least not until I get sick.

Insurance company: Hey! If everyone stops paying for insurance, we'll go bankrupt!

Obama: Oh come on Sam and Dave, that's not fair either.

Dave: I don't care. It saves me money.

Obama:(Facepalm) Oh for god's sake. Sam, Dave, you have to keep paying for health insurance, and not wait until you're sick. You too, Mary and Bob.

Mary:But I'm broke! I can't buy insurance! I just don't have any money.

Obama: Mary, show me your piggy bank.

(Mary Breaks it Open)

Obama: Oh, wow, you really are broke. Ok, tell you what. You still have to buy insurance, but I'll help you pay 95% of the cost.

Mary: Thank you!

Obama: I need an aspirin.

Insurance company: We're not paying for that aspirin.

**FLASHBACK after credits**:

All the People: Wait! Won't this just mean we all give money to the companies and they keep ...


I'm going to forward that to my dad.

Dog Welder: Fox News is running with "FARTBONGO IS A LIAR!" as their lead story.


Ahhh. Now I got it.

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: 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.


Yes, he did, but that's not what I meant. I'm glad Obama got this victory. I'm just bemoaning the spin it could produce. ........ In hindsight, though, Obama could personally cure cancer and give everyone a pony and the GOP would find a way to give it a negative spin.

:-/
 
2012-06-28 04:13:33 PM

badLogic: In opening his statement in dissent, Kennedy says: "In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety."


Congressman Kennedy speaks
 
2012-06-28 04:13:50 PM

Gdalescrboz: It's actually you clowns that are holding us back.


Please elaborate as to how non-conservatives are holding this country back.
 
2012-06-28 04:13:56 PM

Rwa2play: I didn't see anyone calling YOU an asshole; she was referring to tea party types.

So, by you feeling insulted by Coco, are you admitting that you side with said tea party types?




I doubt that, because she was referencing somebody's response to one of my posts. If she was not referring to me, then I will apologize and take back what I said.
 
2012-06-28 04:13:59 PM

Polly Ester: Bush Sr. signed a bill written by Democrats that raised taxes. He did it in the name of compromise and bipartisanship. Democrats used it against him. Republicans learned that hard lesson and now, usually, know exactly what to expect from the other side when they start braying for cooperation.

When barking for popular support, Obama did back flips to assure everyone that the public mandate was not a tax. Once it passed, he somersaulted the other way and argued it was a tax all along. So tax it is. He gets to live with the political consequences. Much like Bush Sr.


"Read my lips; no new taxes." Maybe he shouldn't have spoken in absolutes about things like that. If he said he wouldn't initiate any new taxes, wouldn't propose any, fine. But don't say that it won't happen period.

Don't make promises that there's a good chance that you'll have to compromise on that issue.
 
2012-06-28 04:14:10 PM

pwhp_67: The_Sponge: AFTER the national debt is paid off


Can you tell your Republican friends that we need to increase revenue (taxes on the top % and corporations) in order to pay off the debt?

Thank you...


No you libtard, the obvious solution is to spend even more on defense than we already do.
 
2012-06-28 04:14:13 PM

qorkfiend: The_Sponge: Do you honestly think our government won't screw it up?

No, I don't think they'll screw it up. They currently administer several coverage plans with relatively few problems.


Our Government already runs several large scale programs of this type that work no worse (and sometimes better) than those in the private sector. The groundwork already exists and in the long run this would save us money to reduce the deficit if that becomes a priority at some point.
 
2012-06-28 04:15:31 PM

NateGrey: Republicans seen retreating to their lair, planning their next line of attack;

[www.blogcdn.com image 425x230]


Would Romney be Captain Cold, Toyman, Black Manta,or Cheetah?

/no way in hell is he cool enough to be Bizarro, Solomon Grundy, Sinestro, Lex Luthor, or Gorilla Grodd
 
2012-06-28 04:15:54 PM

oh_please: Mrtraveler01: 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?


Gosh, you must have forgotten to highlight what I said in the rest of my post, about how we need to do something about the current situation, and this decision certainly isn't the end of the world.


It wasn't directed at you.

it was just something I've noticed on Fox News and throughout different comment sections.

You just reminded me of how selfish and stupid that talking point sounded. It wasn't directed solely at you.
 
2012-06-28 04:16:00 PM

xanadian: Obama could personally cure cancer and give everyone a pony and the GOP would find a way to give it a negative spin.


Think of the jobs lost at the American Cancer Society.
And the bad smell from all of the horseshiat!

/Vote republican

//lol

/j-k
 
2012-06-28 04:16:24 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Would Romney be Captain Cold, Toyman, Black Manta,or Cheetah?


i think he's stuck being C3P0 no matter what universe he's inserted into.
 
2012-06-28 04:16:44 PM

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

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

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


www.cartoonstock.com
 
2012-06-28 04:17:10 PM

Kittypie070: Dance, cat, dance!


In fairness, the GOP came up with the idea as a way of punishing poor people. Now that it looks like it might help more people then it hurts, they feel like they've been duped.
 
2012-06-28 04:17:39 PM

Rip Dashrock: What does this mean for healthcare premiums right now? Will they jack them up while they still can or???


Listening to my parents; they've been agressively jacking them up for the last few years.

St_Francis_P: I doubt Mitt actually gives a crap one way or another.


I figure that Romney is 'opposing' 'Obamacare' only as a political maneuver - He passed a very similar system into law in his home state. During the primary there were even some attack ads about 'romneycare'.
 
2012-06-28 04:17:39 PM

unyon: MythDragon: Well, since we just moved that border all the way down to Mexico, I guess I better stock up on moose quarters so I can buy poutine.

That's a Caribou on the quarter, dumbass. Although, they both feel roughly the same when you hit them with your car.


I was talking about the old style moose quarters, idiot. Before they made the switch to the new unpopular 'caribou' style. The old ones are worth more, thus allowing you to purchase larger quantities of poutine.
 
2012-06-28 04:17:44 PM

The_Sponge: Coco LaFemme: These assholes don't care that they're wrong.


On the rag today, are we?


Actually no, I'm not. I do appreciate you taking the time to inquire as to the state of my menstrual cycle, though. It shows you care. What a peach.
 
2012-06-28 04:20:30 PM

ciberido: 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.


Footwear decreases foot injuries, or the severity there of, thereby saving money in the healthcare system. If the regulations in the ACA are set up to be edited on the fly as some claim, it could be used to regulate a great many things including your diet, recreational activities, etc.
 
Displayed 50 of 3382 comments

First | « | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | » | Last

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report