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 | « | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | » | Last
 
2012-06-28 11:59:37 PM

Team Coors Light: Corvus: Team Coors Light: Yes, we all die...some not soon enough, others far past their prime. What is life if you are sustained by a machine in a facility...which will not happen with ZeroBamaCare...

Your point?

What are you talking about? That will work the same. Canada is not even close to the same system we will have.

You really don't understand the Affordable Care Act at all. It's not government run healthcare.



The system that you "presume" we will have...

My original post, granted 2 years late, was to try and gather a better understanding of 0bamaCare...yours doesn't give me what I was asking for...yours just gives me bullshiat.


PRESUME? The law has been around for years now READ IT FOR YOURSELF.

Why don't you stop making shiat up and find out what it actually does instead of pretending what it does to satisfy your paranoid delusions.
 
2012-06-29 12:01:43 AM

dlp211: LOL...what. Articles on the internet. Maybe you should check those links out. One is the official PPACA website and the other is the wiki for it.


Yes he lies about it and then justifies it by saying he doesn't know what's in it. Then he refuses to read information that tells him what it is.

He wants to be ignorant because he is sacred it's not as bad as he hopes it too be. He wants to hate Obama and doesn't care if it's based on lies.
 
2012-06-29 12:01:45 AM
vrax 2012-06-28 10:32:48 PM

Kittypie070: fun yarnball!

Thanks, vrax!

GOTO eat tacos now.


My kitties are always reading Fark with me and they would get grumpy if I didn't give you a nice ball of yarn.


D'aww. Give them pets for me :)
 
2012-06-29 12:07:40 AM

Team Coors Light: because you have been challenged?!



Now that's funny
 
2012-06-29 12:09:45 AM

jkusmier: pedobearapproved: NowhereMon: Suck it cons, suck it long and hard

I think the conservatives won on this one. Congress can't make you do whatever under the commerce clause.

Absolutely. Roberts will have many opportunities to flex his conservatism in the coming term.



That was never their intention in the first place. Only the individual mandate was supposed to be covered by the commerce clause
 
2012-06-29 12:10:17 AM
Damn, this thread is still going.

images2.wikia.nocookie.net

You know, it just might get there.
 
2012-06-29 12:13:14 AM
So when can I start getting dirt-cheap psych meds again? I'm unemployed and out, and don't live in Mass. any more.

Damn if I don't miss that $1 co-pay.
 
2012-06-29 12:13:24 AM
WE DRINK Team Coors Light's SUCKY BEER!!

WE DRINK IT UP!!

/and then run to the can to puke
 
2012-06-29 12:15:24 AM
img707.imageshack.us
 
2012-06-29 12:15:45 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Team Coors Light: intelligent comment below: Team Coors Light: What "free-ride" do you speak of? I have not needed medical care in 10 years?!?!

My employer will most-likley not "kick-in" anything, I have to buy something with a "high deductible" (in which case that I have to use it, I can not pay for the deductable because I am paying for the coverage...) All the while, I just want to have the money for rent, public transit, clothes from the goodwill, and the new iProduct! WTF...?!?!

You know...between you, Mojo, intelligent comment below, Keizer, and dlp...I received very different answers. Do you liberals even know what kind of shiat you are shoveling?!

Honestly?!?! Are you just behind the ideal of "change" or do you actually want to "exact" change?!

...and do not come after me...I have spent more than half my life providing services and supports for people that can not take care of themselves. I have always had the "heart" to affect change for those that cannot make it on their own. I have lived by the "whims" of the State of California...and have made things better for the "most-in-need" in our society.

...but this is wrong...and you "supporters" cannot even agree on a simple, real life, scenario.

Yes, you have been trolled...but it is obvious that you are the trolls...

/iamriite

And we're done here. Another moronic troll to add to my list

So easy for you to "dismiss" because you have been challenged?!

Keep farking though...keep farking...

You're the one who admitted you're a troll. Why should we take anything you say seriously now? Especially when you can't take five minutes to actually read up on and understand what this is.



Capture it for me, baby...capture it. That is all I asked for from jump.

...but you cannot. None of you can, really.

You scream at the sky because this is now "officially" law. You rejoice. You put down people like me that ask "honest" questions knowing that people like you will (basically) support anything this "president" does. Your fault, in my opinion, is that you do not think of the repercussions.

Never in my life would I want anyone (indigenous or otherwise) to be refused urgent medical treatment. Never.

I should not be penalized if I choose not to participate. The only reason that I am forced to is because I am having to pay for people that are:

1. Too lazy to get a job
2. Too stupid to realize that there is something better out there for them other than collecting unemployment and doing drugs
3. Not motivated because they are examples of #2
4. Cognizant of the fact that they can rob, steal, and pillage in most states because there are laws in place the preclude a "property owner" from defending his/her property
5. Claim that #s 1-4 are because of the "color" of their skin.

I am not buying it.
 
2012-06-29 12:16:24 AM

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

So your argument is those policies caused Somalia to turn bad, not an assault by Muslim extremist terrorists who caused the government to disband and create a libertarian utopia?

It's not "my argument." It's objective fact -- socialist government destroyed the Somali economy over the course of a couple of decades (as all socialist government destroys economies, the only difference being the rapidity of socialist implementation and thus the rate of destruction).

The warlords then began vying for the grand prize of being the one that got to be recognized as the Official Warlord by the Grand Warlord of them all -- the US Warlords. The US presence provided an incentive and a focus for the war that followed, right up to the point it became a political liability for Clinton.

Having been reduced to below subsistence by socialism, Somalia was not a libertarian paradise on account of the eradication of capital investment and its attending features, such as the presence of markets, not to mention a population with little experience and cultural values favoring market activity. Nevertheless, in the years following the eradication of an entity that is sufficiently well-organized to be crowned as the local "government," the anarchistic nature of Somalia has enabled minimal market activity to return, which is why we see every measurable statistic on quality of life there (birth rates, death rates, infant mortality, etc.) to begin to improve.



You have no facts. You're another sad libertarian shill

Somalia was a military dictatorship with vying warlords, and then crippling IMF policies, then an influx of foreign terrorist groups. Nothing to do with eeevil socialism

And the only thing helping Somalia today is a stronger central government, foreign troops, and social policies backed up by foreign aid

Here is the past:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Democratic_Republic

A new constitution was promulgated in 1979 under which elections for a People's Assembly were held. However, Barre's Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party politburo continued to rule.[3] In October 1980, the SRSP was disbanded, and the Supreme Revolutionary Council was re-established in its place.[5] By that time, the moral authority of Barre's government had collapsed. Many Somalis had become disillusioned with life under military dictatorship. The regime was weakened further in the 1980s as the Cold War drew to a close and Somalia's strategic importance was diminished. The government became increasingly totalitarian, and resistance movements, supported by Ethiopia, sprang up across the country, eventually leading to the Somali Civil War. Among the militia groups were the Somali Salvation Democratic Front (SSDF), United Somali Congress (USC), Somali National Movement (SNM) and the Somali Patriotic Movement (SPM), together with the non-violent political oppositions of the Somali Democratic Movement (SDM), the Somali Democratic Alliance (SDA) and the Somali Manifesto Group (SMG).
 
2012-06-29 12:17:55 AM

Team Coors Light: 1. Too lazy to get a job



Didn't you just admit you had a job but no health care??
 
2012-06-29 12:22:47 AM

intelligent comment below: You have no facts. You're another sad libertarian shill

Somalia was a military dictatorship with vying warlords, and then crippling IMF policies, then an influx of foreign terrorist groups. Nothing to do with eeevil socialism

And the only thing helping Somalia today is a stronger central government, foreign troops, and social policies backed up by foreign aid

Here is the past:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Democratic_Republic

A new constitution was promulgated in 1979 under which elections for a People's Assembly were held. However, Barre's Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party politburo continued to rule.[3] In October 1980, the SRSP was disbanded, and the Supreme Revolutionary Council was re-established in its place.


lolwhut?
 
2012-06-29 12:24:55 AM

SouthernFriedYankee: lolwhut?



You can call yourself anything you want.

Can you prove socialism brought down Somalia? No, of course not.
 
2012-06-29 12:25:19 AM

ArcadianRefugee: So when can I start getting dirt-cheap psych meds again? I'm unemployed and out, and don't live in Mass. any more.

Damn if I don't miss that $1 co-pay.


You may already know this, but you can get them for free directly from many of the manufacturers. You might want to check with your current/previous health care provider to see if they can file the paperwork or know of a clinic that can.
 
2012-06-29 12:25:34 AM
North Korea is Democratic, they said so themselves. Obviously democracy is what caused the country to be a failed state.
 
2012-06-29 12:26:15 AM

SouthernFriedYankee: intelligent comment below: You have no facts. You're another sad libertarian shill

Somalia was a military dictatorship with vying warlords, and then crippling IMF policies, then an influx of foreign terrorist groups. Nothing to do with eeevil socialism

And the only thing helping Somalia today is a stronger central government, foreign troops, and social policies backed up by foreign aid

Here is the past:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Democratic_Republic

A new constitution was promulgated in 1979 under which elections for a People's Assembly were held. However, Barre's Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party politburo continued to rule.[3] In October 1980, the SRSP was disbanded, and the Supreme Revolutionary Council was re-established in its place.

lolwhut?


This just in....calling yourself the Somali Revolutionary Socialist Party does not make you Socialist. This also just in, even if a socialist party controls the country in name, it may not have de facto control of the country if two warlords are waging war and you can't stop them.
 
2012-06-29 12:27:05 AM

Team Coors Light: Here is the difference...You sight articles on the internet to make yourself fell better....I present actual, real life scenarios of people that I know and care about that are going to be "screwed" by this...any you have no solution. By the way, the examples that I have given are people that voted for 0bama, and are not happy with this ruling. Not because they do not understand...only because they understand to well...


Except:

A) Your scenario is *not* a real life scenario, because in objective reality, the PPACA's provisions for employer-provided insurance don't apply to part-time workers, which was the crux of your scenario.
B) You're not going to be "screwed" by anything, in fact you may well get better medical care for no or low cost to yourself. For example, you can get heavily subsidized insurance and can get free preventative care, without having to pay deductibles, copays, or coinsurance. You also mitigate the financial risks associated with a severe illness or injury, which are one of the leading causes of bankruptcy.
 
2012-06-29 12:28:14 AM

Corvus: dlp211: LOL...what. Articles on the internet. Maybe you should check those links out. One is the official PPACA website and the other is the wiki for it.

Yes he lies about it and then justifies it by saying he doesn't know what's in it. Then he refuses to read information that tells him what it is.

He wants to be ignorant because he is sacred it's not as bad as he hopes it too be. He wants to hate Obama and doesn't care if it's based on lies.



Oh my...aren't you stupid. Um...I voted for 0bama. I believed the lies.

Your post above is why I love, and hate, FARK. Users make so many presumptions....and give their opinions based on their beliefs (whether sound or not).

You don't know me, I started my postes with an honest question. Pint taken, perhaps I should have read the 0bamacare document...

...perhaps I did not need to though...as I can smell a pile of sh! from a mile away.

You are stupid.

There..is that better?! Now we are in the same level. Just insulating each other. Does that make you more comfortable?
 
2012-06-29 12:32:39 AM

gimmegimme: Team Coors Light: My employer will most-likley not "kick-in" anything, I have to buy something with a "high deductible" (in which case that I have to use it, I can not pay for the deductable because I am paying for the coverage...) All the while, I just want to have the money for rent, public transit, clothes from the goodwill, and the new iProduct! WTF...?!?!

You know...between you, Mojo, intelligent comment below, Keizer, and dlp...I received very different answers. Do you liberals even know what kind of shiat you are shoveling?!

Honestly?!?! Are you just behind the ideal of "change" or do you actually want to "exact" change?!

...and do not come after me...I have spent more than half my life providing services and supports for people that can not take care of themselves. I have always had the "heart" to affect change for those that cannot make it on their own. I have lived by the "whims" of the State of California...and have made things better for the "most-in-need" in our society.

...but this is wrong...and you "supporters" cannot even agree on a simple, real life, scenario.

Yes, you have been trolled...but it is obvious that you are the trolls...

/iamriite

Please, please be very careful. If you take a wrong step and break an ankle...you're bankrupt. If you get some infection in an organ...you're bankrupt and possibly dead.

Seriously, please be careful. For what little it's worth, I wish you luck that you don't accidentally eat an undercooked burger or anything else beyond your control.



Go away...JESUS H FARKING CHRIST!

Please do not be concerned about my ankles or my ample meat...I assure you...if anything goes wrong with my ability to defend myself, my family, my home, or my ejaculate, I will count on YOUR contribution to "health care" to make everything right.

You blow Matt Lauer, don't you?!?!?!
 
2012-06-29 12:32:44 AM

Team Coors Light: So let me see if I have this straight...in the broadstrokes...

I am 29 yrs old...
I am not a student...
I work a part-time job, and am not offered benefits because I am part time...
I have no inclination to spend any of my money on Medical Insurance because I do not want to...I would rather have money for my daily expenses.

I can not be covered on my parents insurance...
I am not going back to school, and even if I did, it would not be relevenat to this argument...
I am going to continue to work my part-time job with my current employer...who will now be fined because they do not offer me insurance...
I do not want to spend my money on "affordable health care", so I am going to be subject to a tax...

As I see it, the company I work for is going to take hit, which might close it down...
...and I have to pay a tax on top of potentially losing my job because the company might dissolve because of this "progressive legislation"...

Am I "way off base" here?

If not, how does this make sense to any of you?

Just curious.


you left out the part where someone takes a baseball bat to your head and knees and they take you to the ER and the rest of society is left to pay your bills.
(replace with random car accident, hit and run, whatever scenario floats your boat)

so unless you are ok with hospitals refusing service to anyone who can not pay up front, then you dont make any sense.

so which is it?
we can let people with out insurance die in the street?
or does everyone else have to pay to cover them?

right now, everyone pays, accept for asshats like you.
 
2012-06-29 12:33:50 AM

Team Coors Light:
Never in my life would I want anyone (indigenous or otherwise) to be refused urgent medical treatment. Never.

I should not be penalized if I choose not to participate. The only reason that I am forced to is because I am having to pay for people that are:

1. Too lazy to get a job 2. Too stupid to realize that there is something better out there for them other than collecting unemployment and doing drugs 3. Not motivated because they are examples of #2 4. Cognizant of the fact that they can rob, steal, and pillage in most states because there are laws in place the preclude a "property owner" from defending his/her property 5. Claim that #s 1-4 are because of the "color" of their skin.

I am not buying it.


You being forced to stop being a freeloading loser is not in anyway an unforeseen repercussion. It is the a huge part of the purpose. And look on the bright side: anti-psychotic medications will be covered! Based on your diatribe, I think its been about 9 1/2 years too long since you've been seen by a doctor.

/ "Random" air quotes "and" overt racism "are not" signs of "mental" stability.
// Someone who only works part time, and refuses to get health insurance, probably should avoid calling others lazy, irresponsible, or unmotivated.
 
2012-06-29 12:34:10 AM
I really don't get how this is right by the people of this country. I know health care has to be reformed and sure most folks need insurance.

but I'm sure there are quite a few guys out there who almost never get sick, never go see a doctor but when they do see one they pay out of pocket.

now this person will be taxed unless he buys insurance that he doesn't need or want.

doesn't seem right.

taxing someone for not purchasing a product or service, sounds to me like a mighty slippery slope
 
2012-06-29 12:36:07 AM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Team Coors Light: intelligent comment below: Team Coors Light: What "free-ride" do you speak of? I have not needed medical care in 10 years?!?!

My employer will most-likley not "kick-in" anything, I have to buy something with a "high deductible" (in which case that I have to use it, I can not pay for the deductable because I am paying for the coverage...) All the while, I just want to have the money for rent, public transit, clothes from the goodwill, and the new iProduct! WTF...?!?!

You know...between you, Mojo, intelligent comment below, Keizer, and dlp...I received very different answers. Do you liberals even know what kind of shiat you are shoveling?!

Honestly?!?! Are you just behind the ideal of "change" or do you actually want to "exact" change?!

...and do not come after me...I have spent more than half my life providing services and supports for people that can not take care of themselves. I have always had the "heart" to affect change for those that cannot make it on their own. I have lived by the "whims" of the State of California...and have made things better for the "most-in-need" in our society.

...but this is wrong...and you "supporters" cannot even agree on a simple, real life, scenario.

Yes, you have been trolled...but it is obvious that you are the trolls...

/iamriite

And we're done here. Another moronic troll to add to my list

So easy for you to "dismiss" because you have been challenged?!

Keep farking though...keep farking...

You're the one who admitted you're a troll. Why should we take anything you say seriously now? Especially when you can't take five minutes to actually read up on and understand what this is.



You do not have to do anything...you will probably choose to pursue your faulty thoughts, but you do not actually have to...

Need a manual for human existence? Or are you waiting for 0bama to give you one...with Pelosi's clam-print on the cover...?
 
2012-06-29 12:37:57 AM

Team Coors Light: Capture it for me, baby...capture it. That is all I asked for from jump.

...but you cannot. None of you can, really.

You scream at the sky because this is now "officially" law. You rejoice. You put down people like me that ask "honest" questions knowing that people like you will (basically) support anything this "president" does. Your fault, in my opinion, is that you do not think of the repercussions.

Never in my life would I want anyone (indigenous or otherwise) to be refused urgent medical treatment. Never.

I should not be penalized if I choose not to participate. The only reason that I am forced to is because I am having to pay for people that are:

1. Too lazy to get a job
2. Too stupid to realize that there is something better out there for them other than collecting unemployment and doing drugs
3. Not motivated because they are examples of #2
4. Cognizant of the fact that they can rob, steal, and pillage in most states because there are laws in place the preclude a "property owner" from defending his/her property
5. Claim that #s 1-4 are because of the "color" of their skin.

I am not buying it.


Ah, so you're actually insane. Very good to know.
 
2012-06-29 12:38:03 AM

intelligent comment below: Team Coors Light: 1. Too lazy to get a job


Didn't you just admit you had a job but no health care??



No, I gave you an example of the people that I work with.
 
2012-06-29 12:41:37 AM

Waldo Pepper: I really don't get how this is right by the people of this country. I know health care has to be reformed and sure most folks need insurance.

but I'm sure there are quite a few guys out there who almost never get sick, never go see a doctor but when they do see one they pay out of pocket.

now this person will be taxed unless he buys insurance that he doesn't need or want.

doesn't seem right.

taxing someone for not purchasing a product or service, sounds to me like a mighty slippery slope


Like taxing someone for not having a mortgage, kids, a home office?

There are millions of things(ok maybe no millions, but a lot) that we give tax breaks for. So if it helps your little brain just think of it this way, everyone has a healthcare tax and if you have health insurance, you get a credit for the amount of the tax.
 
2012-06-29 12:41:51 AM

Waldo Pepper: I really don't get how this is right by the people of this country. I know health care has to be reformed and sure most folks need insurance.

but I'm sure there are quite a few guys out there who almost never get sick, never go see a doctor but when they do see one they pay out of pocket.

now this person will be taxed unless he buys insurance that he doesn't need or want.

doesn't seem right.

taxing someone for not purchasing a product or service, sounds to me like a mighty slippery slope


Any one of us could be hit with a six figure medical bill tomorrow due to sheer dumb luck. Each and every one of us is guaranteed by law to receive as much stabilizing care as we require in an emergency. It's not asking too much that each and every one of us contribute at least something to the pot if we can afford it. We all benefit from having a safety net if we do happen to be injured or ill.

I've paid for police and fire services for decades and never used either - it doesn't mean I "don't need" them. I've never made a claim against auto or homeowner's insurance - that doesn't mean they aren't providing me a service.
 
2012-06-29 12:42:34 AM

intelligent comment below: North Korea is Democratic, they said so themselves. Obviously democracy is what caused the country to be a failed state.



DOOD! I have a BIG FU$KING DEMOCRAT BRIDGE TO SELL YOU FOR $1!!!!!

I WILL SENT IT OVER TONIGHT!!!!

You are a biatch...a subservient biatch...and you should be ashamed of yourself...whatever "sex" you claim to be.
 
2012-06-29 12:44:04 AM

coeyagi: SilentStrider: coeyagi: FFS, what the hell about this topic couldn't be said in the first 1500 posts? Damn, people.

I was at work, i couldn't star reading till it was almost 3000.

Work stopped you from the political discussion of the year (until November)? Your boss must be very proud.


no, just strict.
 
2012-06-29 12:44:43 AM

Team Coors Light: Corvus: dlp211: LOL...what. Articles on the internet. Maybe you should check those links out. One is the official PPACA website and the other is the wiki for it.

Yes he lies about it and then justifies it by saying he doesn't know what's in it. Then he refuses to read information that tells him what it is.

He wants to be ignorant because he is sacred it's not as bad as he hopes it too be. He wants to hate Obama and doesn't care if it's based on lies.


Oh my...aren't you stupid. Um...I voted for 0bama. I believed the lies.

Your post above is why I love, and hate, FARK. Users make so many presumptions....and give their opinions based on their beliefs (whether sound or not).

You don't know me, I started my postes with an honest question. Pint taken, perhaps I should have read the 0bamacare document...

...perhaps I did not need to though...as I can smell a pile of sh! from a mile away.

You are stupid.

There..is that better?! Now we are in the same level. Just insulating each other. Does that make you more comfortable?


what presumption. You don't hate Obama? Is that why you keep using "0" in his name and calling his bills shiat?


Hmm seems I am right.


And why are you afraid to answer my questions:

If you were in car accident then you would die instead of getting ER treatment without insurance?

Why are you afraid to answer?
 
2012-06-29 12:47:42 AM

Team Coors Light: Corvus: dlp211: LOL...what. Articles on the internet. Maybe you should check those links out. One is the official PPACA website and the other is the wiki for it.

Yes he lies about it and then justifies it by saying he doesn't know what's in it. Then he refuses to read information that tells him what it is.

He wants to be ignorant because he is sacred it's not as bad as he hopes it too be. He wants to hate Obama and doesn't care if it's based on lies.


Oh my...aren't you stupid. Um...I voted for 0bama. I believed the lies.

Your post above is why I love, and hate, FARK. Users make so many presumptions....and give their opinions based on their beliefs (whether sound or not).

You don't know me, I started my postes with an honest question. Pint taken, perhaps I should have read the 0bamacare document...

...perhaps I did not need to though...as I can smell a pile of sh! from a mile away.

You are stupid.

There..is that better?! Now we are in the same level. Just insulating each other. Does that make you more comfortable?


Sorry where did I insult you? I explained what you were doing.

Did I say who you voted for last election? No I did not.

I said you want to hate Obama and that's what you are doing. You are hating him and not reading what the law actually is so you can make up things to hate. You are doing exactly what I said you are doing.
 
2012-06-29 12:47:53 AM

Team Coors Light: I should not be penalized if I choose not to participate. The only reason that I am forced to is because I am having to pay for people that are:


5: Legitimately in need, you selfish farkwit!

It's true what they say. A republican's worst fear is that someone, somewhere, is getting something they don't deserve.
 
2012-06-29 12:48:29 AM

Man On Pink Corner: Waldo Pepper: so what if you are healthy and simply pay for whatever doctor visits you need at the time you are penalized by the government for not buy a product/service?

Then you are effectively making the rest of us subsidize your insurance. Chances are very small that you can afford to fix everything that might, and eventually will, go wrong with your body.


but not asking you at all to pay, a few years later as that person gets older he/she decides to get insurance. no worries. my health care cost between the ages of 18 and 28 was maybe $100, the only 2 times I remember going to the dr were both paid either by the other guys car insurance (he hit me) or workers comp due to getting hurt on the job. why did I need insurance and better yet why tax me for a product I didn't use or need.

how is this different from a woman's right to choose, this is my body and if I don't want to insure it the government as no right telling me I must and if I don't they will tax me.
 
2012-06-29 12:49:25 AM

Waldo Pepper: taxing someone for not purchasing a product or service, sounds to me like a mighty slippery slope


It's called an excise tax. "Fail to comply" one's have existed way before Obama was in office.
 
2012-06-29 12:50:49 AM

Waldo Pepper: Man On Pink Corner: Waldo Pepper: so what if you are healthy and simply pay for whatever doctor visits you need at the time you are penalized by the government for not buy a product/service?

Then you are effectively making the rest of us subsidize your insurance. Chances are very small that you can afford to fix everything that might, and eventually will, go wrong with your body.

but not asking you at all to pay, a few years later as that person gets older he/she decides to get insurance. no worries. my health care cost between the ages of 18 and 28 was maybe $100, the only 2 times I remember going to the dr were both paid either by the other guys car insurance (he hit me) or workers comp due to getting hurt on the job. why did I need insurance and better yet why tax me for a product I didn't use or need.

how is this different from a woman's right to choose, this is my body and if I don't want to insure it the government as no right telling me I must and if I don't they will tax me.


It must suck to live in a country where you aren't the ruler.
 
2012-06-29 12:54:22 AM

Waldo Pepper: taxing someone for not purchasing a product or service, sounds to me like a mighty slippery slope


Tell that to John Adams in 1798!!

On July 14, 1798 President John Adams signed a bill called the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seaman (sailors) and it was passed by the 5th Congress that authorized:

A purchase or payment or Payroll deduction, call it what you like, through the deduction of twenty cents per month in seaman's wages for a "Medical Care Fund" to take care of their sailors who were disabled or sickened.

3) The act also spelled out a penalty for a master who failed to comply or collect the funds for the health insurance plan would be fined $100.00 dollars
 
2012-06-29 12:56:12 AM

Waldo Pepper: how is this different from a woman's right to choose, this is my body and if I don't want to insure it the government as no right telling me I must and if I don't they will tax me.


Under ACA who is telling you what you can do with your body exactly?

Buying insurance is not "Your body". It's paying for a service. Paying for something is not about "your body".
 
2012-06-29 12:58:47 AM

Waldo Pepper: but not asking you at all to pay, a few years later as that person gets older he/she decides to get insurance. no worries. my health care cost between the ages of 18 and 28 was maybe $100, the only 2 times I remember going to the dr were both paid either by the other guys car insurance (he hit me) or workers comp due to getting hurt on the job. why did I need insurance and better yet why tax me for a product I didn't use or need.


And had you had a single turn of bad luck, you could easily have also racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical expenses between 18 and 28, and without insurance it's everyone else who would have paid for you. You are asking everyone else to pay because you're gambling with their money. Just because you happened to win the wager in that particular instance doesn't mean you were right to make that bet.
 
2012-06-29 12:59:59 AM

TsukasaK: Team Coors Light: I should not be penalized if I choose not to participate. The only reason that I am forced to is because I am having to pay for people that are:

5: Legitimately in need, you selfish farkwit!

It's true what they say. A republican's worst fear is that someone, somewhere, is getting something they don't deserve.


Which is anyone but them. They have no problem when they get government hand outs because in their mind they deserve them it's "I am getting MY money back" they like to say. They think all the government money is theirs.
 
2012-06-29 01:00:04 AM

dlp211: Waldo Pepper: I really don't get how this is right by the people of this country. I know health care has to be reformed and sure most folks need insurance.

but I'm sure there are quite a few guys out there who almost never get sick, never go see a doctor but when they do see one they pay out of pocket.

now this person will be taxed unless he buys insurance that he doesn't need or want.

doesn't seem right.

taxing someone for not purchasing a product or service, sounds to me like a mighty slippery slope

Like taxing someone for not having a mortgage, kids, a home office?

There are millions of things(ok maybe no millions, but a lot) that we give tax breaks for. So if it helps your little brain just think of it this way, everyone has a healthcare tax and if you have health insurance, you get a credit for the amount of the tax.


sorry not good enough.

I choose not to have a mortgage and reap certain benefits by not owing a home.
having kids not really the same thing so leaving that one out.
a home office is a business deduction again not the same.

dlp211: Waldo Pepper: I really don't get how this is right by the people of this country. I know health care has to be reformed and sure most folks need insurance.

but I'm sure there are quite a few guys out there who almost never get sick, never go see a doctor but when they do see one they pay out of pocket.

now this person will be taxed unless he buys insurance that he doesn't need or want.

doesn't seem right.

taxing someone for not purchasing a product or service, sounds to me like a mighty slippery slope

Like taxing someone for not having a mortgage, kids, a home office?

There are millions of things(ok maybe no millions, but a lot) that we give tax breaks for. So if it helps your little brain just think of it this way, everyone has a healthcare tax and if you have health insurance, you get a credit for the amount of the tax.


not the same.

I choose to own or not own a home. there are certain benefits that come with not owning a home.

the amount one saves on the deduction for having kids doesn't come close to the cost of raising kids.

home office, i would say this doesn't affect the majority of tax payers. might this person pay taxes on his business associated with the home office?

but If I don't need insurance and I am willing to pay my health care out of my pocket, why should i be force to pay either a tax or an insurance company for something I don't need or use.
 
2012-06-29 01:00:44 AM

Waldo Pepper: hy did I need insurance and better yet why tax me for a product I didn't use or need.


Chief Justice Roberts covers that very issue in his opinion.
 
2012-06-29 01:01:55 AM

Waldo Pepper: but not asking you at all to pay, a few years later as that person gets older he/she decides to get insurance. no worries. my health care cost between the ages of 18 and 28 was maybe $100, the only 2 times I remember going to the dr were both paid either by the other guys car insurance (he hit me) or workers comp due to getting hurt on the job. why did I need insurance and better yet why tax me for a product I didn't use or need.


So then if you were in a bad car accident you would of refused medical service and demanded to be left to die instead of be taking to a hospital for services you couldn't afford?
 
2012-06-29 01:02:40 AM

Corvus: Waldo Pepper: how is this different from a woman's right to choose, this is my body and if I don't want to insure it the government as no right telling me I must and if I don't they will tax me.

Under ACA who is telling you what you can do with your body exactly?

Buying insurance is not "Your body". It's paying for a service. Paying for something is not about "your body".


no you are telling me I must insure my body (health) or pay a tax. it is the same thing.
 
2012-06-29 01:03:09 AM

Waldo Pepper: but If I don't need insurance and I am willing to pay my health care out of my pocket, why should i be force to pay either a tax or an insurance company for something I don't need or use.


And if you end up with a few hundred grand in medical expenses then what? I seriously doubt you have that much in liquid assets. And if you did, the cost of insurance wouldn't be enough to worry about and you'd likely have it already anyways.
 
2012-06-29 01:05:21 AM

Waldo Pepper: Corvus: Waldo Pepper: how is this different from a woman's right to choose, this is my body and if I don't want to insure it the government as no right telling me I must and if I don't they will tax me.

Under ACA who is telling you what you can do with your body exactly?

Buying insurance is not "Your body". It's paying for a service. Paying for something is not about "your body".

no you are telling me I must insure my body (health) or pay a tax. it is the same thing.


Yes we are saying you must insure your body (that's not forcing you to do anything with your body), why should others have to be financially responsible for your health bills?

Why should we pay for you if you got in an accident?

You don't seem to explain why we should pay for you being irresponsible.
 
2012-06-29 01:05:56 AM
What's funny is that if Eisenhower or Nixon had had their way, none of this would be an issue. Yeah, two Republican presidents who if they had their way, we wouldn't be having this issue now.
 
2012-06-29 01:07:15 AM

Waldo Pepper: Corvus: Waldo Pepper: how is this different from a woman's right to choose, this is my body and if I don't want to insure it the government as no right telling me I must and if I don't they will tax me.

Under ACA who is telling you what you can do with your body exactly?

Buying insurance is not "Your body". It's paying for a service. Paying for something is not about "your body".

no you are telling me I must insure my body (health) or pay a tax. it is the same thing.


Can you answer my question? Or you want to keep dodging?


Under ACA who is telling you what you can do with your body exactly?

Buying health insurance does not do ANYTHING to your body. It forces you to pay for yourself instead of the handouts of others.
 
2012-06-29 01:07:18 AM
 
2012-06-29 01:07:35 AM

Corvus: Waldo Pepper: but not asking you at all to pay, a few years later as that person gets older he/she decides to get insurance. no worries. my health care cost between the ages of 18 and 28 was maybe $100, the only 2 times I remember going to the dr were both paid either by the other guys car insurance (he hit me) or workers comp due to getting hurt on the job. why did I need insurance and better yet why tax me for a product I didn't use or need.

So then if you were in a bad car accident you would of refused medical service and demanded to be left to die instead of be taking to a hospital for services you couldn't afford?


that is a "what if" situation which is bogus to the argument. I have the right to determine what chances I'm taking with my health care.

okay so let's say i'm wealthy (i wish) and I choose to be self insured so I know that anything that comes up even tragic disease I can cover out of pocket. why do I have to pay a tax on a service I don't need.

this is a what if situation, okay so they fix me up and I pay. You know funny about insurance and cost of health care. If we didn't have insurance companies the cost would be no where near the high levels they are at.
 
Displayed 50 of 3382 comments

First | « | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | » | Last

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report