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  
•       •       •

14914 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 | « | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | » | Last
 
2012-06-28 05:16:36 PM

derpdeederp: FlashHarry: derpdeederp: Personally, I think it morally wrong to take money from one group of people to pay for anothers benefits

so i assume you oppose social security on these grounds, too. and the military. let's not forget about the military. and schools (i don't have kids, so why do i have to pay property taxes!)

Actually, I view social security being paid for by everyone, or at least those of us with incomes, so Im fine with that. Im also open to a healthcare system based on a flat tax system like social security. I just think its wrong to focus taxation on the wealthiest to get benefits for others, I think the costs should be spread across all of society. Taxing the wealthy is a cope out, I would be fine paying the extra 10% of my income to pay for healthcare for myself and my fellow citizens.

The military, beyond being to large, is based on a progressive taxation system so the wealthier of us are paying the majority of that as well. Im kind of mixed on this since the wealthier benefit more from the military (protecting resources, shipping lanes, trade agreements) even though everyone has some benefit. Personally, it would be nice to have a more democratic society where we all have a more equal cost and say in society.

A big peeve of mine is the focus on making the wealthy pay their "fair share". It just seems illogical, since they seem to pay the majority of the income taxes. I believe that when government decides to provide a public good that it should be paid for by the public, not a minority of the public. If you dont make any money, you wouldnt owe anything of course. Just my personal opinion.


You kinda hit the nail on the head, though - the wealthy pay more in taxes, but they also receive more benefit. The SEC is of zero benefit to me, but a stable and well-regulated stock market for IPOs is of immense value to the one-percenters. The wealthy need roads for their fleets of trucks - I just need a road for my one car.

There's also the point that money isn't the only way to "pay your fair share". I'd be fine with, say, volunteering X number of hours a week removes X% of you tax bill (up to some maximum X), or voluntarily extending your tour of duty in the military for a year means you pay no taxes that year or something like that.

Think about it - Linus Torvalds (creator of Linux) is directly responsible for literally hundreds of billions in market capitalization, but he himself isn't insanely wealthy - but some people think that he should pay more of a percentage of his income than Paris Hilton.
 
2012-06-28 05:16:46 PM

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

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

Obama's broken lots of promises that one you mentioned, gitmo, government transperncy, debt, etc. . . most people are going to be alright with that.

Considering Congress wouldn't let him close Gitmo, how is that breaking a promise?


His mouth writing checks his ass can't cash counts as breaking a promise. I'm not arguing its out of his control, I'm arguing he promised to do something and it didn't happen.

In other words, if I promise to stop the sun from rising tomorrow, I'd be a liar when dawn came through your window.
 
2012-06-28 05:16:48 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Silly Jesus: I haven't seen this question asked / answered yet...but I may have missed it.

People are making a point of saying "now all those morans who get free care from the ER are going to have to pay for it (in the form of this mandatory healthcare thingy)
", but those people who abuse the ER are also pretty much guaranteed to be part of the 40% of the country that doesn't pay federal income taxes...so how will this tax fit into that? Will it be the only one that they pay? Won't they just continue to pay no taxes?

Quiet, you! There's end-zone dancing to do. Your pesky logic - it troubles us not!

Seriously, do you believe the folks who support this actually think this stuff through?


So, you don't care about your fellow men? "fark the poor, they can all die off"?
 
2012-06-28 05:17:31 PM

pwhp_67: I guess it stems from how a tax can "hurt" a family or not. If you make just enough to pay federal income taxes then a 3% increase, no matter what that money is to be used for, hurts. If you're in the top 5% and your rate goes up 3% your accountant just looks for more loopholes and deductions. Even if none are found, that you aren't already taking, it doesn't hurt you. It doesn't even affect you in the slightest.

It's like when the GOP rants about how high our corporate tax rate is compared to the rest of the world. They don't talk about how corporations in other countries are either paying a livable wage, paying into a national health care system, or both. So they pay a lower tax rate because of all of the other things they do pay for. We should hear that part when the right starts talking shiat about tax rates...


Im all for getting rid of the tax loopholes, Im even willing to lose the mortgage tax deduction.
 
2012-06-28 05:17:42 PM

SlothB77: i need a drink. this is a horrible, awful day for this country. This country is being destroyed.


Well, you guys may be losing the wars against gays and healthcare, but you're still doing great with the whole war on women thing, so take heart.
 
2012-06-28 05:18:14 PM
Going to be funny when people expecting this to lower health costs "by people being insured" and the costs not only remain high, but get even higher. Greed is a ugly thing.
 
2012-06-28 05:18:31 PM
Ok, now someone tell me just WhyTF these ladies are protesting in belly dance attire? I mean, I applaud the creativity, but seriously?

fark.upi.com
 
2012-06-28 05:18:36 PM

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


Some guy who let the IMF dictate his policies back around 1980, or as Wikipedia puts it


The Barre government signed a structural adjustment agreement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) during the early 1980s. This included the abolishment of some government monopolies and increased public investment. This and a second agreement were both cancelled by the mid-1980s, as the Somali army refused to accept a proposed 60 percent cut in military spending. New agreements were made with the Paris Club, the International Development Association and the IMF during the second half of the 1980s. This ultimately failed to improve the economy which deteriorated rapidly in 1989 and 1990, and resulted in nationwide commodity shortages.


Which covers the majority of Barre's less than 25 year rule.

Those IMF guys are real socialist bastards!

/Austrian School Economics, the road to Libertarian Prosperity
//Mises for the win!
 
2012-06-28 05:18:37 PM

rufus-t-firefly: 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.


content9.flixster.com

The Big Lebowski: Are you employed, sir?
The Dude: Employed?
The Big Lebowski: You don't go out looking for a job dressed like that? On a weekday?
The Dude: Is this a... what day is this?
The Big Lebowski: Well, I do work sir, so if you don't mind...
The Dude: I do mind, the Dude minds. This will not stand, ya know, this aggression will not stand, man.
 
2012-06-28 05:19:50 PM

meat0918: Ok, now someone tell me just WhyTF these ladies are protesting in belly dance attire? I mean, I applaud the creativity, but seriously?

[fark.upi.com image 301x301]


They aren't really protesting, they're AWing.
 
2012-06-28 05:20:06 PM

meat0918: Ok, now someone tell me just WhyTF these ladies are protesting in belly dance attire? I mean, I applaud the creativity, but seriously?

[fark.upi.com image 301x301]


Nevermind, they hate the mandate and want single payer.

I understand the sentiment, but you're letting perfect be the enemy of good.
 
2012-06-28 05:20:21 PM

Lord Dimwit: 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?


lol
 
2012-06-28 05:20:47 PM

gadian: So, taking the tax hit, for me, would be $800 (1% of income), if I chose to go that route. Hmm, I'd say that's a damn small price to pay for the benefits. Of course, I have health insurance that isn't going to change, so...I'm not paying anything more. That's even better.

Quit whining about the "tax", you know you don't make enough for it to really matter. If you made enough for the "tax" to matter, you would have health insurance already.


Because of course, tax rates never get raised...
 
2012-06-28 05:21:18 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Silly Jesus: I haven't seen this question asked / answered yet...but I may have missed it.

People are making a point of saying "now all those morans who get free care from the ER are going to have to pay for it (in the form of this mandatory healthcare thingy)
", but those people who abuse the ER are also pretty much guaranteed to be part of the 40% of the country that doesn't pay federal income taxes...so how will this tax fit into that? Will it be the only one that they pay? Won't they just continue to pay no taxes?

Quiet, you! There's end-zone dancing to do. Your pesky logic - it troubles us not!

Seriously, do you believe the folks who support this actually think this stuff through?


1) the 40% of the country statistic includes those who are before taxable age (0-18) and those who are retired. The real statistic that falls into this is approximately 12% last time this was pointed out.

2) Those in the "no income tax" group will be required to pay the tax in its entirety, thus bringing them out of that group, like everyone else, unless (also like everyone else) their health care costs equal 8% or more of their total income. This means if you are so poor getting flu medication is prohibitive, you can. It also means that if you are fairly well off with very expensive surgeries or conditions (like aggressive cancers) you can also receive financial assistance. These reduced costs go up to 95% of total costs for health care.

This bill actually is a Republican bill before Obama sniped it and enacted it at the national level first. Actually read it, it's pretty solidly written (and why Romney, Gingrich, and many others supported it before 2008).
 
2012-06-28 05:21:57 PM
 
2012-06-28 05:21:59 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?


Were you this bent out of shape when GWB doubled the deficit?
 
2012-06-28 05:22:15 PM

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


People who would have died homeless in the bushes behind the 7-11 will now want to see a doctor, perhaps.
 
2012-06-28 05:22:38 PM

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

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

Obama's broken lots of promises that one you mentioned, gitmo, government transperncy, debt, etc. . . most people are going to be alright with that.

Considering Congress wouldn't let him close Gitmo, how is that breaking a promise?

His mouth writing checks his ass can't cash counts as breaking a promise. I'm not arguing its out of his control, I'm arguing he promised to do something and it didn't happen.

In other words, if I promise to stop the sun from rising tomorrow, I'd be a liar when dawn came through your window.


Maybe you should talk to your Republican friends in Congress and tell them to stop being farktards. Then maybe Obama can do some of the things he promised.

See, your sun analogy falls flat because it's physically impossible to stop the Earth from spinning. Perhaps an analogy like "If I promise to save that kitten up in that tree, but when I tried the local bullies pulled me down and beat the shiat out of me, so I failed to save the kitten, and now I'm a liar because of that" would work better.
 
2012-06-28 05:23:26 PM
lol, it's a "tax" now?

3.bp.blogspot.com
SPIN MY FREEPERS! SPIIIIIN!
 
2012-06-28 05:25:09 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: Going to be funny when people expecting this to lower health costs "by people being insured" and the costs not only remain high, but get even higher. Greed is a ugly thing.



i37.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-28 05:26:27 PM

Aikidogamer: Income tax requires income. One could have a stash of money and spend it. There would be no income. Technicly it is avoidable. Wheel/car tax? Don't buy a car. Real estate tax? Don't buy a home. After today...chose not to buy insurance? We are going to tax you 2% of your income or a flat fee, whichever is more because you did not buy the product we wanted you to and you exist.


And being forced to buy insurance/pay the PPACA penalty requires income, too. If you don't have income (or have a low enough income), you are exempted from it.

Which is why this is an income tax, for all intents and purposes. Not a capitation/poll tax.

This is not idle theorizing (even though I was theorizing this 6 months ago). This is what the Chief Justice wrote and majority of the USSC agreed with.
 
2012-06-28 05:28:16 PM

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

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

Obama's broken lots of promises that one you mentioned, gitmo, government transperncy, debt, etc. . . most people are going to be alright with that.

Considering Congress wouldn't let him close Gitmo, how is that breaking a promise?

His mouth writing checks his ass can't cash counts as breaking a promise. I'm not arguing its out of his control, I'm arguing he promised to do something and it didn't happen.

In other words, if I promise to stop the sun from rising tomorrow, I'd be a liar when dawn came through your window.


One of Obama's biggest faults was assuming that Congress would be willing to behave in a sane and rational manner that would benefit the country. He was a naive idealist, and yeah, that kind of hurt him. He wasn't prepared for Congress to be full of cowardly, whiny children and people who would burn down the nation if it made him look bad.

Gitmo should have been closed, but Congress was full of petty cowards who then convinced their constituents that being a petty coward was somehow a virtue. It's also why America has prety much shrugged at all these new TSA intrusions. It makes us "feel safe" and so we let it happen because our leaders told us that we need to be afraid instead of being brave.
 
2012-06-28 05:28:47 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: Going to be funny when people expecting this to lower health costs "by people being insured" and the costs not only remain high, but get even higher. Greed is a ugly thing.


Actually, the bill has legislation that will have review boards ensuring that insurance and health care providers do not disproportionally raise costs as they are doing now, which will markedly slow the increase in costs.

Costs will likely still go up, but only a fraction of what they are now.
 
2012-06-28 05:29:25 PM
"Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it.

An "individual mandate should be applied when the larger health-care system has been fundamentally changed."

- New Gingrinch June 2007


"The idea for a health care plan [in Massachusetts] was not mine alone," Romney explained. "The Heritage Foundation - a great conservative think tank - helped on that.
I'm told Newt Gingrich, one of the very first people who came up with the idea of an individual mandate, did that years and years ago":

ROMNEY: It was seen as a conservative idea to say, you know what? People have a responsibility for caring for themselves if they can. We'll help people who can't care for themselves, but if you can care for yourself, you gotta take care of yourself and pay your own bills.
 
2012-06-28 05:31:47 PM

oh_please: I apologize if I'm having trouble keeping up; that's always a trouble in a thread like this. But it seems to be your position that we need to "do something." A similar and similarly practical philosophy was espoused by this gentleman:

[i794.photobucket.com image 500x295]

[thepennilessfoodie.files.wordpress.com image 635x346]

[www.justpressplay.net image 500x250]

Sorry, I have no idea who that dude is.

All I'm saying is this is going to be interesting. Do we need to reform the healthcare system? YES! Is this a step in the right direction? Maybe. TBH, I'm behind it, but what I was saying earlier is don't claim this as a victory, because there are a lot of things that could bite us in the ass later, especially the SCOTUS judging this as a "tax".


Aldous Snow, from Forgetting Sarah Marshall, sings a song about how we have to "do something." That's his whole plan. To "do something." The President and the Congress already did something. Give credit where credit is due and try not to sully political discussion with trite, simplistic statements that help nothing.

Surool: 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?

Were you this bent out of shape when GWB doubled the deficit?


That was Freedom SpendingTM.

///Don't forget the off-the-books trillions he spent on his wars.
 
2012-06-28 05:32:38 PM

JollyMagistrate: Actually, the bill has legislation that will have review boards ensuring that insurance and health care providers do not disproportionally raise costs as they are doing now, which will markedly slow the increase in costs.


And in some states that's already in place, since every state is free to adopt certain parts of the law at any time, just as long as it's in place by some set date. I know in Illinois the state has plowed ahead with the state level things without any concern over the fate of the actual law itself.
 
2012-06-28 05:34:19 PM

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

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

Obama's broken lots of promises that one you mentioned, gitmo, government transperncy, debt, etc. . . most people are going to be alright with that.

Considering Congress wouldn't let him close Gitmo, how is that breaking a promise?

His mouth writing checks his ass can't cash counts as breaking a promise. I'm not arguing its out of his control, I'm arguing he promised to do something and it didn't happen.

In other words, if I promise to stop the sun from rising tomorrow, I'd be a liar when dawn came through your window.

Maybe you should talk to your Republican friends in Congress and tell them to stop being farktards. Then maybe Obama can do some of the things he promised.

See, your sun analogy falls flat because it's physically impossible to stop the Earth from spinning. Perhaps an analogy like "If I promise to save that kitten up in that tree, but when I tried the local bullies pulled me down and beat the shiat out of me, so I failed to save the kitten, and now I'm a liar because of that" would work better.


What's your point? The end result is the same. He made a promise he couldn't keep. The circumstances don't matter, the promise was still broken.
 
2012-06-28 05:34:57 PM

Kittypie070: "Personal responsibility extends to the purchase of health insurance. Citizens should not be able to cheat their neighbors by not buying insurance, particularly when they can afford it, and expect others to pay for their care when they need it.

An "individual mandate should be applied when the larger health-care system has been fundamentally changed."

- New Gingrinch June 2007


"The idea for a health care plan [in Massachusetts] was not mine alone," Romney explained. "The Heritage Foundation - a great conservative think tank - helped on that.
I'm told Newt Gingrich, one of the very first people who came up with the idea of an individual mandate, did that years and years ago":

ROMNEY: It was seen as a conservative idea to say, you know what? People have a responsibility for caring for themselves if they can. We'll help people who can't care for themselves, but if you can care for yourself, you gotta take care of yourself and pay your own bills.


RINOs, the lot of 'em! A real Republican throws his fellow man under the bus at every opportunity!
 
2012-06-28 05:36:34 PM

netweavr: The circumstances don't matter, the promise was still broken.


The circumstances matter a great deal. There are two standing executive orders to shut down Gitmo, it's Congress alone that has kept it open.
 
2012-06-28 05:39:00 PM

chiefsfaninkc: 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.

Hey what ever you want to do in your private life is fine with me want to suck a "D" go ahead I don't care. Want to abort a child go ahead I may not like it but it is not my body. 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.


Suck a "D" what a great way to talk about an important issue! You must do great at parties! And "who" exactly is coming after your wallet? The G men? Give me a break crazy tin foil hat man.



My god
 
2012-06-28 05:39:03 PM

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

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

Obama's broken lots of promises that one you mentioned, gitmo, government transperncy, debt, etc. . . most people are going to be alright with that.

Considering Congress wouldn't let him close Gitmo, how is that breaking a promise?

His mouth writing checks his ass can't cash counts as breaking a promise. I'm not arguing its out of his control, I'm arguing he promised to do something and it didn't happen.

In other words, if I promise to stop the sun from rising tomorrow, I'd be a liar when dawn came through your window.


Promising to do something you have no power to do, and then failing to do so is not a "lie". You have to power to stop the sun from rising, ergo, you are not lying, because I never believed you would do it. Same way with any President who "promises" to do this or that--they have no power to do so unilaterally, therefore, I do not believe them when they say it.

It's only people like you who still believe in McDonald's hamburgers in the cafeteria every Friday, who think Obama--or indeed any president--is "lying".
 
2012-06-28 05:39:11 PM

WhyteRaven74: netweavr: The circumstances don't matter, the promise was still broken.

The circumstances matter a great deal. There are two standing executive orders to shut down Gitmo, it's Congress alone that has kept it open.


By netweavr's logic, Obama should just disband Congress. Since that is all that is holding him back from keeping his promises.
 
2012-06-28 05:39:38 PM
So being forced to give money to an already incredibly powerful oligopolistic system is somehow socialist? Please explain this stupid notion to me.
 
2012-06-28 05:41:03 PM
I am torn over this plan. It is good that you cannot deny somebody coverage because of a per-existing condition, but it seems wrong that you have to pay for something like health insurance if the government says you have to.
 
2012-06-28 05:41:28 PM

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


I'm guessing that an unconsenting llama is an unfarkcable llama.
 
2012-06-28 05:43:18 PM

Aikidogamer: After today...chose not to buy insurance? We are going to tax you 2% of your income or a flat fee, whichever is more because you did not buy the product we wanted you to and you exist. Nevermind there are some good reasons not to buy.


...unless you're too poor, then no, you don't have to buy it.
...or if you are a member of a certain religious institution, and you object to it on religious grounds.
...or if you're a prisoner.
...or if you're a member of an Indian tribe.
...or if you're in between jobs for a period of less than three months.
...or a few other things.

But yeah, for all of the rest of you, YOU ARE UNDER TOTALITARIAN DICTATOR RULE NOW, AND AMERICA IS RUINED FOREVER.
 
2012-06-28 05:43:52 PM

WhyteRaven74: JollyMagistrate: Actually, the bill has legislation that will have review boards ensuring that insurance and health care providers do not disproportionally raise costs as they are doing now, which will markedly slow the increase in costs.

And in some states that's already in place, since every state is free to adopt certain parts of the law at any time, just as long as it's in place by some set date. I know in Illinois the state has plowed ahead with the state level things without any concern over the fate of the actual law itself.


We were in Maine as well (preliminary), then LePage got elected. :\
 
2012-06-28 05:43:59 PM
Oh man, it looks like I missed an epic thread. It looks like its just trolling now.
 
2012-06-28 05:45:07 PM

oh_please: Seriously, the tards from both sides in this thread are making my head asplode.

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.

I'm crossing my fingers on this one, I actually think it's a step in the right direction. How it turns out is anyone's guess.


Riiiiight.
 
2012-06-28 05:46:23 PM

Lando Lincoln: Aikidogamer: After today...chose not to buy insurance? We are going to tax you 2% of your income or a flat fee, whichever is more because you did not buy the product we wanted you to and you exist. Nevermind there are some good reasons not to buy.

...unless you're too poor, then no, you don't have to buy it.
...or if you are a member of a certain religious institution, and you object to it on religious grounds.
...or if you're a prisoner.
...or if you're a member of an Indian tribe.
...or if you're in between jobs for a period of less than three months.
...or a few other things.

But yeah, for all of the rest of you, YOU ARE UNDER TOTALITARIAN DICTATOR RULE NOW, AND AMERICA IS RUINED FOREVER.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-06-28 05:49:09 PM

kdawg7736: I am torn over this plan. It is good that you cannot deny somebody coverage because of a per-existing condition, but it seems wrong that you have to pay for something like health insurance if the government says you have to.


The government says I have to pay to educate the children of other people, when I have none myself. How is that any different?
 
2012-06-28 05:49:36 PM

Anti_illuminati: LePage got elected. :\


That does suck.
 
2012-06-28 05:50:18 PM

Rwa2play: Gyrfalcon: Doctor Funkenstein: There is going to be some epic butthurt that is about to commence.

Shiat, now I have to go get more popcorn.

I might have to get some of the real good stuff when I get home? Suggestions people?


Kettle corn, man. THIS IS A KETTLE CORN KIND OF DAY.
 
2012-06-28 05:50:35 PM

badLogic: kdawg7736: I am torn over this plan. It is good that you cannot deny somebody coverage because of a per-existing condition, but it seems wrong that you have to pay for something like health insurance if the government says you have to.

The government says I have to pay to educate the children of other people, when I have none myself. How is that any different?


Quoth I.
 
2012-06-28 05:50:39 PM
i45.tinypic.com
 
2012-06-28 05:52:28 PM

CPennypacker: TIKIMAN87: Obama has just destroyed this country.

Feel free to leave! Take your bridge with you!


Seriously, this ruling makes me feel like I'm Lex Steele and I've just cuckolded every FARK independent that posts here while they sat on the couch and cried.

Cry moar, emo tards.
 
2012-06-28 05:54:35 PM

gimmegimme: Surool: 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?

Were you this bent out of shape when GWB doubled the deficit?

That was Freedom SpendingTM.

///Don't forget the off-the-books trillions he spent on his wars.


It isn't "off the books" anymore. The freepers call it Obama's deficit now because the administration decided it has to be counted as spending.
 
2012-06-28 05:55:01 PM
I still have my hammer and I have my box of square cut nails forged in hellfire.

There are gonna be a LOT of neo-cons with white hot iron nails smashed into their receding foreheads because they thought it oh so very convenient to deliberately "forget" that the health care bill was their own creation to begin with and now that it has been declared constitutional they want to engage in armed revolt.

Soon.
 
2012-06-28 05:55:52 PM

kdawg7736: I am torn over this plan. It is good that you cannot deny somebody coverage because of a per-existing condition, but it seems wrong that you have to pay for something like health insurance if the government says you have to.


John Chafee's GOP alternative to 'Hillarycare' in 1993 contained a provision that mandate didn't apply if you got all your healthcare via prayer. This was the plan that was the model for 'Romneycare', and Hence 'Obamacare'

Is that what you're looking for? Maybe its in PPACA too. Have to look.

/Wikipedia says its in there. Sect must be recognized by IRS as one traditionally avoiding medical care for religious reasons. Go Christian Scientist, and you're in like Flynn
 
2012-06-28 05:58:36 PM
The fact that this is even questioned shows how successful the right is at exploiting the ignorance of its degenerate white trash membership.
 
Displayed 50 of 3382 comments

First | « | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | » | Last

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report