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

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

14920 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Jun 2012 at 10:27 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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

Archived thread

First | « | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | » | Last
 
2012-06-29 01:08:11 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.


If that's the way things work in your bizzaro world, then have fun!
 
2012-06-29 01:09:45 AM  
Has anyone heard of a someone who said "No No! Don't give me medical help, I don't want to be a burden on others who pay their health insurance!"

I haven't, so stop the lies that that is what people actually want and do.
 
2012-06-29 01:09:58 AM  

WhyteRaven74: 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.


again not the point. no most folks who have money don't waste money on something they don't need.
 
2012-06-29 01:11:24 AM  

Waldo Pepper: 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.


WHAT IF? This happens all the time.

WHY DO YOU GET TO GAMBLE WITH MY MONEY??


Are you going to answer my question or dodge it?

Would you refuse ER care and die when you had no insurance? Or would you leech off the rest of us?
 
2012-06-29 01:11:59 AM  

Corvus: 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.


why do you assume someone who doesn't have insurance is requiring others to pay for his/her coverage.

it is the insurance companies that have helped drive up the high price of medical care and now we reward them with requiring everyone to have insurance.
 
2012-06-29 01:12:03 AM  

Waldo Pepper: why do I have to pay a tax on a service I don't need.


If you were self insured you wouldn't be paying a tax. Also if paying for insurance would be more than 8% of your gross income then you don't face any penalty for not having insurance. And it will be a lot easier for you to get insurance.

If we didn't have insurance companies the cost would be no where near the high levels they are at.

Perhaps true, but we'd also have a lot of people who wouldn't be able to afford medical care.
 
2012-06-29 01:12:41 AM  

Waldo Pepper: WhyteRaven74: 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.

again not the point. no most folks who have money don't waste money on something they don't need.


So if you got in a car accident when you had no insurance you would of chosen to die instead of being taken to the ER?

Because you said you "don't need the insurance" because you were willing to die?
 
2012-06-29 01:12:43 AM  

intelligent comment below: SouthernFriedYankee: lolwhut?


You can call yourself anything you want


So many possibilites for a response here. But none of them have anything to do with reasoned discussion. And since you've been one of the few on theFark- left actually willing to engage in such a thing, I'll merely note that this is true, but that I don't imaging I'd have to dig very deep to find examples of command economy in that country at that time. the Thug-in-Chief might not have been very good at the actual commanding part, but sometimes it really is the thought that counts.

Human nature is to want to own your own stuff and make your own way. It isn't 100%, but it's close enough that unless you're dealing with small, homogenous populations that prioritize education and a strong sense of community and shared experience (none of which describes America, BTW), socialism can't really work. In a country like I just described, very few game the system; they know their asses are all on the line if they do. In America, gaming the system is seen as a big game, a challenge. Ultimately, collectivism cannot work here, and the attempts to force feed it to us have done a whole lot of harm.
 
2012-06-29 01:12:56 AM  

Waldo Pepper: no most folks who have money don't waste money on something they don't need.


So you you can see the future and see you'll never incur any medical expenses?
 
2012-06-29 01:13:37 AM  

Corvus: Waldo Pepper: 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.

WHAT IF? This happens all the time.

WHY DO YOU GET TO GAMBLE WITH MY MONEY??

Are you going to answer my question or dodge it?

Would you refuse ER care and die when you had no insurance? Or would you leech off the rest of us?


I don't answer folks who shout.
 
2012-06-29 01:14:00 AM  

Waldo Pepper: why do you assume someone who doesn't have insurance is requiring others to pay for his/her coverage.


Who do you think pays for it now when someone can't afford to pay their bill and has no insurance?
 
2012-06-29 01:14:10 AM  

SouthernFriedYankee: gaming the system is seen as a big game,


And yet few individuals ever do so.
 
2012-06-29 01:15:07 AM  

Waldo Pepper: Corvus: Waldo Pepper: 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.

WHAT IF? This happens all the time.

WHY DO YOU GET TO GAMBLE WITH MY MONEY??

Are you going to answer my question or dodge it?

Would you refuse ER care and die when you had no insurance? Or would you leech off the rest of us?

I don't answer folks who shout.


Ok why do you think it's ok to gamble with our money?

Why do you refuse to pay for your own ER services that you may need and instead would force others to pay for you?
 
2012-06-29 01:16:46 AM  

Waldo Pepper: that is a "what if" situation which is bogus to the argument.


You honestly think people don't get in accidents and can't pay their medical bills?

Are you aware medical bills are the #1 cause of bankruptcy in the United States?

I guess not.
 
2012-06-29 01:20:24 AM  

WhyteRaven74: And yet few individuals ever do so.


[smh.jpg]
 
2012-06-29 01:23:34 AM  

Corvus: Waldo Pepper: WhyteRaven74: 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.

again not the point. no most folks who have money don't waste money on something they don't need.

So if you got in a car accident when you had no insurance you would of chosen to die instead of being taken to the ER?

Because you said you "don't need the insurance" because you were willing to die?


well actually my car insurance would pay for the medical and since I part of getting a license was the understanding I had to have insurance that is okay.

it is easy to play the what if game but that is not what this is about. I'm not gambling with anyones money if I take the responsibility with paying out of pocket.

who is to say if something tragic happens, then i lost my gamble and have to figure out how to pay.

again I said I am all for health care reform but forcing folks to have to buy a service/product just in case they needed and if they don't buy it then we tax the seems very wrong and seems to be playing into the hands of the insurance companies
 
2012-06-29 01:24:39 AM  

Corvus: Waldo Pepper: why do you assume someone who doesn't have insurance is requiring others to pay for his/her coverage.

Who do you think pays for it now when someone can't afford to pay their bill and has no insurance?


again I was talking about someone willing to pay their own way and not freeloaders.
 
2012-06-29 01:26:03 AM  

Corvus: Waldo Pepper: Corvus: Waldo Pepper: 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.

WHAT IF? This happens all the time.

WHY DO YOU GET TO GAMBLE WITH MY MONEY??

Are you going to answer my question or dodge it?

Would you refuse ER care and die when you had no insurance? Or would you leech off the rest of us?

I don't answer folks who shout.

Ok why do you think it's ok to gamble with our money?

Why do you refuse to pay for your own ER services that you may need and instead would force others to pay for you?


what makes you think I refuse to pay for anything?
 
2012-06-29 01:26:32 AM  

Team Coors Light: 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.



So your solution is to "get a job, deadbeat" when you yourself have witnessed people who work hard, but still don't have insurance?

Is that your final answer?
 
2012-06-29 01:27:18 AM  

Team Coors Light: 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.



what is this I don't even
 
2012-06-29 01:30:45 AM  

Sum Dum Gai: 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.


actually I was right to make a bet as it was my health and money I was gambling with and yes it paid off when It could have easily have gone the other way.

I guess I just think this whole thing is a scam and we are all being taken for a ride.
 
2012-06-29 01:30:58 AM  

SouthernFriedYankee:

So many possibilites for a response here. But none of them have anything to do with reasoned discussion. And since you've been one of the few on theFark- left actually willing to engage in such a thing, I'll merely note that this is true, but that I don't imaging I'd have to dig very deep to find examples of command economy in that country at that time. the Thug-in-Chief might not have been very good at the actual commanding part, but sometimes it really is the thought that counts.

Human nature is to want to own your own stuff and make your own way. It isn't 100%, but it's close enough that unless you're dealing with small, homogenous populations that prioritize education and a strong sense of community and shared experience (none of which describes America, BTW), socialism can't really work. In a country like I just described, very few game the system; they know their asses are all on the line if they do. In America, gaming the system is seen as a big game, a challenge. Ultimately, collectivism cannot work here, and the attempts to force feed it to us have done a whole lot of harm.



You are a huge failure at economics and common sense and you should feel bad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_p e r_capita

1 Luxembourg 113,533 2011
2 Qatar 98,329 2011
3 Norway 97,255 2011
4 Switzerland 81,161 2011
5 United Arab Emirates 67,008 2011
6 Australia 65,477 2011
7 Denmark 59,928 2011
8 Sweden 56,956 2011
9 Canada 50,436 2011
10 Netherlands 50,355 2011
11 Austria 49,809 2011
12 Finland 49,350 2011
13 Singapore 49,271 2011
14 United States 48,387 2011
 
2012-06-29 01:31:29 AM  

Waldo Pepper: again I was talking about someone willing to pay their own way and not freeloaders.


So people who get stuck with $300,000 in medical bills and can't pay it off are freeloaders, really?
 
2012-06-29 01:31:53 AM  
A bad day for freeloaders and future deadbeats.
 
2012-06-29 01:33:03 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.


I wouldn't waste my time with facts, logic, or reason in this thread, we were well past that probably 10 pages into this thread. People are too busy turning this to the same tired "us versus them" argument we get in all these threads only this has been dialed up to 11 big time. But if you are interested in hearing a reasonable and logical approach to handling this that doesn't require government intervention (and in fact requires the opposite of what they are doing here) then check out Clayton Christensen's work.
 
2012-06-29 01:33:19 AM  

Waldo Pepper: I guess I just think this whole thing is a scam and we are all being taken for a ride.


Yes because we're all as dumb as you to think "Well hey, nothing's gonna happen to me, and regular doctor visits? For pussies".
 
2012-06-29 01:35:32 AM  

Waldo Pepper: Corvus: Waldo Pepper: why do you assume someone who doesn't have insurance is requiring others to pay for his/her coverage.

Who do you think pays for it now when someone can't afford to pay their bill and has no insurance?

again I was talking about someone willing to pay their own way and not freeloaders.


You really think that "rich" people don't buy health insurance? Do you really think that people like Bill Gates, Mitt Romney, and Dimon don't have health insurance? They all do, you want to know why, it's called a hedge. It is cheaper for them if something does happen.

There are very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very.........(n-1)very, (n)very few people that have the kind of money to self insure against the likes of cancer, an automobile accident, or some other catastrophic incident. And yes, those people get to pay to, because that is how society works.

Seriously, all you libertarians please move somewhere where libertarianism is embraced.

/oh that place doesn't exist, hmm I wonder why
 
2012-06-29 01:43:03 AM  

dlp211: You really think that "rich" people don't buy health insurance?


What's funny, I have a friend who has enough money that they could pay for any medical care they might ever need out of pocket. Easily. Yeah he has health insurance. Funny how that goes.
 
2012-06-29 01:43:39 AM  
Oh joy, here's Waldo Pepper, using the exact same tactics as he does in the religion threads. And it's working out the exact same way, showing everyone what a complete farking nutter he is. And that's on top of the selfish, deluded, "fark the world it's all about me" people in here.

How we react to the welfare and lives of others truly is the best way to separate the decent human beings from the abhorrent animals.
 
2012-06-29 01:44:21 AM  

BobBoxBody: I wouldn't waste my time with facts, logic, or reason in this thread,



You have no idea who you're replying to.
 
2012-06-29 01:45:44 AM  
I already heard Medved crowing that Obamacare is such a terrible misnomer.

They are just throwing shiat against the wall again
 
2012-06-29 01:45:46 AM  

Waldo Pepper: I guess I just think this whole thing is a scam and we are all being taken for a ride.



Cool story bro, you don't have to base any of that on facts, just feelings. It's the new cool thing.
 
2012-06-29 01:48:41 AM  

WhyteRaven74: Waldo Pepper: I guess I just think this whole thing is a scam and we are all being taken for a ride.

Yes because we're all as dumb as you to think "Well hey, nothing's gonna happen to me, and regular doctor visits? For pussies".


Solving our healthcare woes is a problem with business model. I answered this question at length like four or five pages back but I guess everyone was too busy fecklessly arguing that it got lost in there.

He is right though, this is a scam. It's a preemptive bailout for the health insurance industry because they are trying to protect themselves from low-market alternatives from rising up and disrupting them. This doesn't even solve the fundamental issue that healthcare is too expensive. The only way to address that is via disruption not making everyone have healthcare which is just going to turn into a massive clusterfark at the end of the day for everyone financially. That's the short uncomplicated answer. Adding more debt on the existing deficit is not the solution, and since people are now more educated via the internet and are wising up to the need for financial education, people are recognizing this bullshiat for what it is, hence the outrage.

I used to be 20 years old and a dumb naive idealist who worshiped Michael Moore but then I actually learned about how the world and realized something: You can't spend what you don't have. If we follow through on this (which I highly doubt this is likely going to get shot down before it even gets a chance to take effect) then it will only make things worse down the road rather than better for reasons that I already elaborated on in an earlier post so go back and read that if you want a more comprehensive view of how to fix this shiat and why Obamacare doesn't work.
 
2012-06-29 01:50:17 AM  

Sum Dum Gai: 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.


well I think there is a difference for paying for police and fire services. first off I would say even if you have never called the police you have benefited from their services and the same with the fire dept if they have ever put out a fire on a government building that part of your taxes went to build. when you got your license doing so you knew u were required to get auto insurance and driving is a privilege and not a right same with owning a home.

I never said having insurance is a stupid thing. I've been hit with unexpected disease (incurable blood thing..no cure) so I know all about how having insurance saved my financial butt.

my question was pose not from my own life but as a question of why should i be required by our government to buy a product/service that I plan on paying out of pocket only if I need it.

I also said I'm all for health care reform.

does anyone have a clue what the tax will be if you don't have insurance?

what happens if you go to the ER without insurance under this law?

lets be honest, if it cost me $200 a year in a tax to not have insurance and I can still go to the ER and be treated for free passing the cost on to everyone else. Did this law solve anything other than putting more money into the insurance company pockets/

just asking
 
2012-06-29 01:53:22 AM  

BobBoxBody: You can't spend what you don't have.



Except the mandate makes sure people spend what they don't have, unlike the current unsustainable and most expensive system in the world.

Another libertarian moran to tag
 
2012-06-29 01:54:09 AM  
Except the mandate makes sure people spend what they do have
 
2012-06-29 01:55:08 AM  

BobBoxBody: The only way to address that is via disruption not making everyone have healthcare which is just going to turn into a massive clusterfark at the end of the day for everyone financiall


Well making it so hospitals and doctors aren't left with billions in unpaid medical bills cumulatively will go a long way towards helping the cost issue. Of course not allowing insurance to have set rates of payment in the first would have kept things better.

Waldo Pepper: does anyone have a clue what the tax will be if you don't have insurance?


2.5% of your gross adjusted income.
 
2012-06-29 01:57:31 AM  

Waldo Pepper: well I think there is a difference for paying for police and fire services. first off I would say even if you have never called the police you have benefited from their services and the same with the fire dept if they have ever put out a fire on a government building that part of your taxes went to build. when you got your license doing so you knew u were required to get auto insurance and driving is a privilege and not a right same with owning a home.


And by the same token, even if you haven't used health insurance, you have benefited from it. It allows the birth of future generations to be affordable, provides for vaccinations, ensures that a workforce is healthy enough to be at work and when they do get sick, get early treatment to return to work. And now, you can't go bankrupt if you do have insurance because there is no lifetime limit which again is a benefit to all of society.

Are you really that dumb to not understand that a healthy population is a productive population and by extension a rich population? They teach this in Macroeconomics 102, seriously, take an economics course.
 
2012-06-29 01:58:14 AM  

Team Coors Light: 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?!?!?!


Medical costs are the number one cause of bankruptcy in this country. (Not in any other first-world country, of course.) I don't want you or your family to suffer the consequences that bankruptcy can have.

I hope that you don't get sick before single-payer goes into effect. It would cost me much less if you go to a doctor under those conditions. People who go to the emergency room today require a lot more of my contributions.

Sorry...you can't stop me from caring about my fellow man.

//Why did you mention your ejaculate? No offense...I don't want to have anything to do with your ejaculate.
 
2012-06-29 01:58:25 AM  

dlp211: And now, you can't go bankrupt if you do have insurance because there is no lifetime limit which again is a benefit to all of society.


Also you can't be dropped when you do get sick/hurt.
 
2012-06-29 01:59:19 AM  

Waldo Pepper: I also said I'm all for health care reform.

does anyone have a clue what the tax will be if you don't have insurance?

what happens if you go to the ER without insurance under this law?

lets be honest, if it cost me $200 a year in a tax to not have insurance and I can still go to the ER and be treated for free passing the cost on to everyone else. Did this law solve anything other than putting more money into the insurance company pockets/

just asking



Most of us agree with you. It's time for single-payer!
 
2012-06-29 02:00:08 AM  

WhyteRaven74: dlp211: And now, you can't go bankrupt if you do have insurance because there is no lifetime limit which again is a benefit to all of society.

Also you can't be dropped when you do get sick/hurt.


Which basically means the gene pool just ran out of chlorine.
 
2012-06-29 02:00:55 AM  

WhyteRaven74: BobBoxBody: The only way to address that is via disruption not making everyone have healthcare which is just going to turn into a massive clusterfark at the end of the day for everyone financiall

Well making it so hospitals and doctors aren't left with billions in unpaid medical bills cumulatively will go a long way towards helping the cost issue. Of course not allowing insurance to have set rates of payment in the first would have kept things better.

Waldo Pepper: does anyone have a clue what the tax will be if you don't have insurance?

2.5% of your gross adjusted income.


I'm really confused about this. My understanding is that it's 2.5% like you said, but only if you make above a certain threshold. I've seen 50K/single thrown about as the cutoff. But there was no context. Is that 50K AGI, or simply gross income? Are there children adjustments, etc?

I've also read, the Obama administration saying if you make less than 250K, no worries. I doubt it's clear and easy, but is there some guide.

/disclaimer: I've got insurance, and as far as I know, I'm good. No changes for me.
 
2012-06-29 02:01:06 AM  

intelligent comment below: BobBoxBody: You can't spend what you don't have.


Except the mandate makes sure people spend what they don't have, unlike the current unsustainable and most expensive system in the world.

Another libertarian moran to tag


Please. Spending over three years learning about disruption as it relates to business, society, and politics as a whole gives me a bit more insight into the finer nuances and enormity of what's really going on here over the longterm than probably 95% of the people posting in this thread. The old industrial ways are dying out and the political machines that were built around them are dying out with them. This simply the politicians way of trying to put a soon-to-be-failing industry on life support. It's just another bailout before things get bad enough for people to protest. Only people realize it, and if you thought people were getting uppity before, just wait till you see what people start throwing the politicians' way now.
 
2012-06-29 02:01:28 AM  

Waldo Pepper: again not the point. no most folks who have money don't waste money on something they don't need.


That's correct. And among those who make over $100,000 per year, they almost universally have medical insurance (<2% uninsured compared to >40% uninsured at the lowest income brackets). They certainly see the benefit of having insurance.

Waldo Pepper: actually I was right to make a bet as it was my health and money I was gambling with and yes it paid off when It could have easily have gone the other way.


No, it was our money you were gambling with, because the minute you had expenses that you couldn't pay, we would be picking up your bills.
 
2012-06-29 02:01:46 AM  
We get it. He's black.
 
2012-06-29 02:02:19 AM  

BobBoxBody: Please. Spending over three years learning about disruption as it relates to business, society, and politics as a whole gives me a bit more insight into the finer nuances and enormity of what's really going on here over the longterm than probably 95% of the people posting in this thread. The old industrial ways are dying out and the political machines that were built around them are dying out with them. This simply the politicians way of trying to put a soon-to-be-failing industry on life support. It's just another bailout before things get bad enough for people to protest. Only people realize it, and if you thought people were getting uppity before, just wait till you see what people start throwing the politicians' way now.



I think that's enough alcohol for you tonight
 
2012-06-29 02:04:17 AM  

Nightmaretony: We get it. He's black.


No, "black" people know their place. He's the other kind.
 
2012-06-29 02:05:58 AM  

dlp211: Waldo Pepper: Corvus: Waldo Pepper: why do you assume someone who doesn't have insurance is requiring others to pay for his/her coverage.

Who do you think pays for it now when someone can't afford to pay their bill and has no insurance?

again I was talking about someone willing to pay their own way and not freeloaders.

You really think that "rich" people don't buy health insurance? Do you really think that people like Bill Gates, Mitt Romney, and Dimon don't have health insurance? They all do, you want to know why, it's called a hedge. It is cheaper for them if something does happen.

There are very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very.........(n-1)very, (n)very few people that have the kind of money to self insure against the likes of cancer, an automobile accident, or some other catastrophic incident. And yes, those people get to pay to, because that is how society works.

Seriously, all you libertarians please move somewhere where libertarianism is embraced.

/oh that place doesn't exist, hmm I wonder why


did I say I was a libertarian?

I don't what bill gates does with his money but I'm sure there are quite a few very wealthy folks who are self insured when it comes to health care.

why is there such hatred and mean spirited discussion in a tread where there should be good civilized discussion about the issue.

I simply said "i don't get it, how can the government require me to buy a service"

I understand the need for health insurance and I understand anything can happen at any time but really the big health emergencies aren't the ones breaking the system it is all those folks nickel and diming the system with wasteful medical services only because their insurance will pay for it and since they don't have insurance they go to the freaking ER for a sore throat and a dr.'s note to miss work for a few days. (freeloaders) or doctors who know your insurance will cover some test or procedure that really isn't needed but they see the easy money.

this is where the reform is needed not by making it mandatory that everyone is covered.
 
2012-06-29 02:07:48 AM  

Waldo Pepper: lets be honest, if it cost me $200 a year in a tax to not have insurance and I can still go to the ER and be treated for free passing the cost on to everyone else. Did this law solve anything other than putting more money into the insurance company pockets/


The "free" treatment you are guaranteed under EMTALA is quite limited. Yes, the ED must stabilize you in an emergency. Stabilize being the key word. If you have a heart attack, they will treat you until you are immediately out of danger, but they won't give you a bypass or an angioplasty or medication beyond that which you get while in the ED. The underlying heart problem is still there (and worse than ever), but all they must do for you is stop it from immediately killing you. If you want long-term care, you better hope you have insurance.

And of course they can still bill you and come to collect; they can send you through collections and ruin your credit rating. They cannot refuse to stabilize you because you can't pay, but that hardly means they cannot seek to collect on your debt.
 
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 »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report