Do you have adblock enabled?
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 3337
    More: NewsFlash, obamacare, supreme courts, Mitt Romney, supreme court ruling  
•       •       •

14932 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Jun 2012 at 10:27 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

3337 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | » | Last
 
2012-06-29 02:37:58 AM  
Well fark ate my comment.

Basically what I said, Productivity Per Person doesn't matter, what we need to look at is total productivity. If you are healthy and can work more, you will do more and thus are more productive, but not per hour.

Also, France and Germany are not that far behind on a productivity per capita statistic. Sweden, the UK and Ireland are all within striking distance as well.
 
2012-06-29 02:38:07 AM  

Waldo Pepper: johne3819: Waldo Pepper: johne3819: intelligent comment below: Waldo Pepper: (you can opt out of SS)

Um, no

kinda, sorta. If you have a certain government job, you don't pay into SS, you pay into their fund(s).

if you are self employed you can opt out and not pay SS at all.

How does that work? Do you have to be a sole proprietor/partnership, or can some Corp types do that as well?

my dad was a pastor and was considered self employed he could have paid the full 15% SS tax or opt out but not be able to collect off the years of opting out (he put in full 30+ years military/gov so he had that time in ss)


I think he was using a religious exemption not a business one. However, I know not tax law.
 
2012-06-29 02:40:36 AM  

vernonFL: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the things that people don't like about Obamacare is that they'll be required to buy health insurance that they feel they don't need as they are in generally good health?

That is the whole issue. Say you're 25 and you say, "I'm young and healthy, I don't need insurance." So you don't buy any. Then, you get cancer and you try to get insurance, nobody will insure you because you have cancer.


True, there is that as well as you never know when an accident will happen
 
2012-06-29 02:40:44 AM  

Waldo Pepper: and england, canada, france?. seems our workers do a pretty good job at begin productive without socialized medicine


Not really. And also productivity is a rather tricky measuring stick when a huge number of people aren't working manufacturing or agricultural jobs. There's no real way to measure productivity for an accountant, computer programmer and others. Hell one could argue certain jobs aren't productive at all. Plus there are also factors like hours worked in a week and other things, where the US does not look good at all.
 
2012-06-29 02:43:03 AM  

Waldo Pepper: dlp211: 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.

are you really so rude to call me dumb? i'm asking questions that I want answer to and posing a statement that I think is serious.

funny your first paragraph was great I'm reading thinking okay this is making sense and then wham "are you really that dumb".

now as far as economics and healthy workforce, how do socialist medicine countries rate on productivity vs the U.S and other countries without socialized medicine.


Taken from WSJ. French and German workers are as productive, on a per hour basis, as US workers, although US workers tend to work more hours per year, which leads to greater GDP per worker per year. Two effects worth noting: (1) workers who work fewer hours should be more productive per hour, as one's effectiveness tends to degrade over a long workday (2) excluding less productive workers (i.e. having a higher unemployment rate, as Germany and France do at 9-10% vs 5% here) should lead to higher average productivity.

duende.uoregon.edu
From here
http://infoproc.blogspot.com/2004/11/eu-v s-us-labo r-and-productivity-data.html
 
2012-06-29 02:44:15 AM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: vernonFL: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't one of the things that people don't like about Obamacare is that they'll be required to buy health insurance that they feel they don't need as they are in generally good health?

That is the whole issue. Say you're 25 and you say, "I'm young and healthy, I don't need insurance." So you don't buy any. Then, you get cancer and you try to get insurance, nobody will insure you because you have cancer.

True, there is that as well as you never know when an accident will happen


That's why you need the mandate (though single payer would have been cleaner). Everyone would wait to buy insurance until they got sick, Since there would be no Pre-Existing Condition, insurers would have to take you on. Someone has to pay.

/Yeah Chief Justice Roberts!
 
2012-06-29 02:44:27 AM  

Waldo Pepper: people will still come to work sick so they can save their sick days for their kids


Except for those people who don't get sick days or have to get doctor's notes for sick days. US labor laws need serious overhauls, yet we have a bunch of people too afraid to do it and others who cry bloody murder whenever it's suggested.

Waldo Pepper: thank you. well said


It's well said that he said you can't spend what you don't have, yet the legislation makes sure no one spends what they don't have?
 
2012-06-29 02:44:45 AM  

Waldo Pepper: really has nothing to do with his argument about gambling with his money.

whether I won the gamble or not doesn't change the fact that I was Free to do with my money what I wanted and not forced to buy a service that I didn't feel I needed at that point in my life nor did get taxed for taking that gamble.

I don't think my dad was too concerned about me getting sick and having a long hospital stay, He was more concerned that I would do something stupid and die so he did have life insurance on me which would have been enough to bury me LOL


Even if your parents could have afforded $500,000 in medical bills, why on Earth would you hang that sword of Damocles over their heads? Especially because if they agree to act as a guarantor of your bills, they assume legal liability for the repayment - so if the bills climb too high and they can't pay, they are forced to declare bankruptcy, so it ruins their credit as well as your own.
 
2012-06-29 02:47:24 AM  

Waldo Pepper: I meant your post LOL


ohhhhhh :)
 
2012-06-29 02:49:37 AM  

TenJed_77: Waldo Pepper: dlp211: 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.

are you really so rude to call me dumb? i'm asking questions that I want answer to and posing a statement that I think is serious.

funny your first paragraph was great I'm reading thinking okay this is making sense and then wham "are you really that dumb".

now as far as economics and healthy workforce, how do socialist medicine countries rate on productivity vs the U.S and other countries without socialized medicine.

Taken from WSJ. French and German workers are as productive, on a per hour basis, as US workers, although US workers tend to work more hours per year, which leads to greater GDP per worker per year. Two effects worth noting: (1) workers who work fewer hours should be more productive per hour, as one's effectiveness tends to degrade over a long workday (2) excluding less productive workers (i.e. having a higher unemployment ra ...


In other words, the US is better at exploiting their workforce, whereas Europe is better at giving their workforce the ability to do their job well.

People as people vs. people as "human capital".
 
2012-06-29 02:54:40 AM  

Waldo Pepper: my dad was a pastor



And yet you still hold these ridiculous libertarian views
 
2012-06-29 02:54:56 AM  

Waldo Pepper: WhyteRaven74: Waldo Pepper: and england, canada, france?. seems our workers do a pretty good job at begin productive without socialized medicine

Not really. And also productivity is a rather tricky measuring stick when a huge number of people aren't working manufacturing or agricultural jobs. There's no real way to measure productivity for an accountant, computer programmer and others. Hell one could argue certain jobs aren't productive at all. Plus there are also factors like hours worked in a week and other things, where the US does not look good at all.

I know that, i work retail and if I take my divided by 40 hours not so bad but divided by the hours I work UGH.

I read something about the french work 35 hour weeks but are as if not more productive than us as they don't spend hours during the week doing personal things at work as they have enough time to do it at home.


It's more complicated than that, but it is the general idea. I'm from Illinois originally, I've been living in France since 1996. My official work week is 37 hours, I get 1 non-cumulative day off every month of the year except for August, and I finish early on Friday. I also have five weeks vacation, national health care that pays for 70% of costs, a health insurance program from my job, that pays for the other 30% and for stuff like glasses or contacts and full dental. And overtime hours are exonerated from income taxes, which was cool because as a systems engineer(that is my actual job title) I've been making about 3000 to 4000 thousand a year in overtime, because some work has to be done outside of business hours.
 
2012-06-29 02:59:12 AM  

Waldo Pepper: you were never young and invincible lol

really get off it, I was making a point about why I didn't feel I needed insurance and I under stand it was a gamble that paid off.

heck for all I know my dad had medical insurance on me in case something happen yet nothing did so I never knew about it.

doesn't change the fact that I was able to make the choice with my money and not the government telling me what to do with it.


But it's clearly not just your money. The fact your plan B was "drive family into financial ruin" doesn't really make it any better than "stick taxpayers with the bill". You're still leaving someone else holding the bag.

Unless you are in the top 1% of the US population, you cannot take the full risk of being uninsured upon yourself, because you don't have the assets to back that up if things go wrong. You can talk about gambling with 'your money' when you become wealthy enough to independently finance all possible contingencies without relying on anyone else.
 
2012-06-29 04:58:05 AM  

ialdabaoth: People as people vs. people as "human capital".


As a dirty commie-socialist-liberal-Yurpean, I am moved to ask: you don't work for my employer, do you? The only time I've seen 'Human Capital' used as a term was in the new employee handbook...

That said, we're a multinational. When I mentioned the term to my friends here (all in professional occupations, one way or another), they were all appropriately horrified.

Mind you, we are all horrified about the state of US healthcare. Anecdotal, but recently my employer offered me a transfer to the US West Coast - a nicer climate, a bigger house, and a nice raise. Didn't take it up in the end, and one of the core reasons why was the healthcare provisioning. It wasn't a bad plan by US standards, but against the background of "100% coverage, no fees", it looked terrible. I wonder sometimes if the US actually undercuts itself economically by not providing national healthcare - it certainly kept several other members of my team from US transfers, and I expect a similar story is played out in other multinationals.

Another little vignette from the 'socialised medicine' section - when ym wife first arrived here, she went for a routine medical checkup, and then stopped at their reception on the way out. Eventually they asked her what she wanted, and she asked what her co-pay was. And then had to explain what a co-pay was. They looked at her like she had two heads, and sent her on her way.
 
2012-06-29 07:03:02 AM  

CroakerBC: ialdabaoth: People as people vs. people as "human capital".

As a dirty commie-socialist-liberal-Yurpean, I am moved to ask: you don't work for my employer, do you? The only time I've seen 'Human Capital' used as a term was in the new employee handbook...

That said, we're a multinational. When I mentioned the term to my friends here (all in professional occupations, one way or another), they were all appropriately horrified.


I'm a USAian, where terms like "Human Capital", "Human Resources", "Downsizing", "Outsourcing", and the like were invented. You're being exposed to those terms because most "multinational" corporations take their marching orders from New York.

Mind you, we are all horrified about the state of US healthcare. Anecdotal, but recently my employer offered me a transfer to the US West Coast - a nicer climate, a bigger house, and a nice raise. Didn't take it up in the end, and one of the core reasons why was the healthcare provisioning. It wasn't a bad plan by US standards, but against the background of "100% coverage, no fees", it looked terrible. I wonder sometimes if the US actually undercuts itself economically by not providing national healthcare - it certainly kept several other members of my team from US transfers, and I expect a similar story is played out in other multinationals.

Well, yes, but the problem is that we don't CARE about our economy; we only care about siphoning it off to gain more international power. A few thousand people in this country matter; the rest of us are plebs. It's astoundingly feudal.

Another little vignette from the 'socialised medicine' section - when ym wife first arrived here, she went for a routine medical checkup, and then stopped at their reception on the way out. Eventually they asked her what she wanted, and she asked what her co-pay was. And then had to explain what a co-pay was. They looked at her like she had two heads, and sent her on her way.

Heh. Around here, average co-pay is a few hundred dollars for most "important" procedures, and even then they'll only cover the next $1500 or so. Need a kidney and your children will be poor for the rest of their lives; it literally makes more sense to kill yourself.
 
2012-06-29 07:12:51 AM  

Keizer_Ghidorah: Small government doesn't declare who you can sleep with, who you can love, and who you can marry. Small government doesn't demonize the non-white non-older non-male non-Christians. Small government doesn't tell women what to do with their bodies or try to shame and humiliate them for not following what Christians think. Small government isn't turning America into a Christian theocracy.


^^^^^^^ Partly why I want Smaller government.^^^^^^^

intelligent comment below: L82DPRT: Here I was hoping President Jackwagon's legacy would be getting us off foreign oil.

Some 'Let's put a man on the moon" Moment but nope just another massive expansion of the Welfare State any Farking TOTUS could put his BHO on.

Congrats Way To Go Big Dreamer.


Right. Nothing says welfare state like buying private insurance plans...

Why lower costs for skyrocketing health care costs when we can put a man on the moon? Now THAT'S IMPORTANT! Idiot


No, nothing says Welfare State like entitling an additional 30M people to be eligible but you BELIEVE Obamacare will lower HC costs so nevermind.


Khellendros: L82DPRT: The mandate is a tax the IRS is forbidden to collect or seek criminal or civil penalties for not paying.

Suck it, Responsible Insurance Purchasers.

Linking to "Real Clear Politics", now. You're nothing if not consistent.


It's Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC. Is he wrong?
 
2012-06-29 08:02:12 AM  
I see a school bus driving towards the edge of a cliff.

The driver just put the accelerator to the floor, and the window lickers in the back started cheering.
 
2012-06-29 08:06:08 AM  

RamblinMan: I see a school bus driving towards the edge of a cliff.

The driver just put the accelerator to the floor, and the window lickers in the back started cheering.


-1/10
 
2012-06-29 08:13:32 AM  

jkusmier: TIKIMAN87: Obama has just destroyed this country.

You obviously have no understanding of the dimensions of the health care crisis in this country, or of the savings the Act will eventually realize. HINT: the taxpayers are already footing the bill, which grows ever larger every year. Oh well.


Hmm, and now just by being alive you have to purchase something or get fined.

In 2009 Obama said it was not a tax, yet his lawywers in the SCOTUS argued it WAS a tax.

Obama just raised taxes on everyone in the united states.

It's disgusting how much our a*shole president lies.
 
2012-06-29 08:29:24 AM  
RamblinMan:
i39.tinypic.com
I see a school bus driving towards the edge of a cliff.

The driver just put the accelerator to the floor, and the window lickers in the back started cheering.

i43.tinypic.com

I'm sure you do. *pats head*
 
2012-06-29 08:37:29 AM  

TIKIMAN87: Hmm, and now just by being alive you have to purchase something or get fined.

In 2009 Obama said it was not a tax, yet his lawywers in the SCOTUS argued it WAS a tax.

Obama just raised taxes on everyone in the united states.

It's disgusting how much our a*shole president lies.



U mad.

farm2.staticflickr.com

More Republican tears please.

/Vote Republican
 
2012-06-29 08:52:28 AM  

L82DPRT: Khellendros: L82DPRT: The mandate is a tax the IRS is forbidden to collect or seek criminal or civil penalties for not paying.

Suck it, Responsible Insurance Purchasers.

Linking to "Real Clear Politics", now. You're nothing if not consistent.

It's Lawrence O'Donnell of MSNBC. Is he wrong?



You really don't get it, do you? You're linking to an ultra-right rag quoting a partisan left "journalist". This is a person who refers to himself as a "practical European Socialist", and the slobbering right political blog is using it as fuel against reasonable policy. Mixing raw sewage and nuclear waste doesn't suddenly create potable water. Fact does not exist on a spectrum between right and left.

For the fourth time, try again. Stop linking to partisan bullshiat. On either side of the political spectrum.
 
2012-06-29 08:56:56 AM  

NateGrey: TIKIMAN87: Hmm, and now just by being alive you have to purchase something or get fined.

In 2009 Obama said it was not a tax, yet his lawywers in the SCOTUS argued it WAS a tax.

Obama just raised taxes on everyone in the united states.

It's disgusting how much our a*shole president lies.


U mad.

[farm2.staticflickr.com image 400x300]

More Republican tears please.

/Vote Republican


Of course dumb f*ck liberals like yourself agree with anything other liberals say. Especially when they take away liberties.

COme November when your president gets voted out as a failure, U will be mad.
 
2012-06-29 09:10:54 AM  

TIKIMAN87: NateGrey: TIKIMAN87: Hmm, and now just by being alive you have to purchase something or get fined.

In 2009 Obama said it was not a tax, yet his lawywers in the SCOTUS argued it WAS a tax.

Obama just raised taxes on everyone in the united states.

It's disgusting how much our a*shole president lies.


U mad.

[farm2.staticflickr.com image 400x300]

More Republican tears please.

/Vote Republican

Of course dumb f*ck liberals like yourself agree with anything other liberals say. Especially when they take away liberties.

COme November when your president gets voted out as a failure, U will be mad.


LOL @ you thinking Romney stands an ice cube's chance in hell at being elected president. People in his own party can't stand this joke of a candidate.
 
2012-06-29 09:18:41 AM  

Khellendros: reasonable policy


Policy that used every gimmick in the book like using projected cuts that will never materialize to make it appear cost effective, that it's own supporters admit will not lower costs, that doesn't reform shiat but instead solidifies the current bloated bureaucratic system, that is a sop to the private insurance industry, that adds to an already unsustainable welfare state, that passed without a single vote from the opposition party, that passed without knowing what was in it, that contains according to O'Donnell no significant penalty for not buying insurance? That "reasonable policy"?
 
2012-06-29 09:21:45 AM  
I'm curious... do people scream "socialism!!!" when they're mandated by their state governments to have car insurance? Do people scream "socialism!!!" when they're mandated to pay income tax? Social security tax?
 
2012-06-29 09:27:39 AM  

L82DPRT: Khellendros: reasonable policy

Policy that used every gimmick in the book like using projected cuts that will never materialize to make it appear cost effective, that it's own supporters admit will not lower costs, that doesn't reform shiat but instead solidifies the current bloated bureaucratic system, that is a sop to the private insurance industry, that adds to an already unsustainable welfare state, that passed without a single vote from the opposition party, that passed without knowing what was in it, that contains according to O'Donnell no significant penalty for not buying insurance? That "reasonable policy"?


Again, even in this opinion rant, you're using partisan hacks to demonstrate your opinions, then repeating them over and over again. Please use facts and sources without significant bias.

Have you noticed I've stated the same challenge each time you've done this (since you disputed a CBO study with a series of opinion pieces from right-wing think tanks), and you keep doing the same thing? Are you noticing a pattern? I'm far beyond believing you're going to be reasonable about this, but others may learn from your poor example. We're up to number 5 at this point. I'm happy to keep going.

Can you point to sources that demonstrate your points that aren't openly pushing a political agenda? My guess is that you don't read any, but perhaps I'm wrong.
 
2012-06-29 09:28:17 AM  

silgryphon: Well we can only hope Mitt gets elected and does better than this


Sure, right Mitt's will do a bang up job. Meaning: He'll do whatever his magic underwear wearing masters tell him to do.
 
2012-06-29 09:28:28 AM  

TIKIMAN87: NateGrey: TIKIMAN87: Hmm, and now just by being alive you have to purchase something or get fined.

In 2009 Obama said it was not a tax, yet his lawywers in the SCOTUS argued it WAS a tax.

Obama just raised taxes on everyone in the united states.

It's disgusting how much our a*shole president lies.


U mad.

[farm2.staticflickr.com image 400x300]

More Republican tears please.

/Vote Republican

Of course dumb f*ck liberals like yourself agree with anything other liberals say. Especially when they take away liberties.

COme November when your president gets voted out as a failure, U will be mad.


Are we all going to get RomneyCare under a President Romney?

Reporter: "What will you replace it with?"
Rmoney Spokesman: "Now isnt the time for specifics"
 
2012-06-29 09:33:24 AM  

Justiceforme: I'm curious... do people scream "socialism!!!" when they're mandated by their state governments to have car insurance? Do people scream "socialism!!!" when they're mandated to pay income tax? Social security tax?


Yes. And if you look back to when Social Security became law, you saw a lot of what we're seeing now. The parallels between then and now are not obscure.

People are going to rant about it, then most people are going to figure out that they are better off under this new policy. They'll either grudgingly admit that maybe it isn't the end of the world, or act like they never opposed it in the first place now that it's working for them.
 
2012-06-29 09:36:37 AM  

silgryphon: Well we can only hope Mitt gets elected and does better than this


Isn't he promising to replace this current law with the exact same law, except that he won't include the part that actually pays for it?
 
2012-06-29 09:39:55 AM  
Most people don't know that the GOP screamed bloody murder and fought tooth and nail to prevent Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid from becoming the law of the land.

They labeled all of these as socialism and efforts to destroy our great nation and when they were inevitably passed even in the face of their screaming, pants-wetting defiance, the GOP eventually started pretending as if they never opposed them.

And that's what they're going to do here, too.
 
2012-06-29 09:48:24 AM  

Waldo Pepper: soporific: Justiceforme: I'm curious... do people scream "socialism!!!" when they're mandated by their state governments to have car insurance? Do people scream "socialism!!!" when they're mandated to pay income tax? Social security tax?

Yes. And if you look back to when Social Security became law, you saw a lot of what we're seeing now. The parallels between then and now are not obscure.

People are going to rant about it, then most people are going to figure out that they are better off under this new policy. They'll either grudgingly admit that maybe it isn't the end of the world, or act like they never opposed it in the first place now that it's working for them.

Driving a car is not a right as is is a privilege so having to buy insurance to go with your decision to own and drive a car wouldn't fall under socialism. We are not forced to pay for airplane, train, subway, bus or taxi insurance as we neither own or operate this mode of transportation.

I feel for the first few years or so there will be this nice grace period where everything will seem to working just fine with healthcare and then we will start seeing the effect this program will have will lousy service, coverage lacking for procedures which used to be paid and the admin side getting rich and bloated off our forced payments into the system.


You do realize that private companies are still running the insurance business, right? The government isn't running insurance, it's just regulating how the insurance business must operate. And to pay for those very good regulations, everyone's got to be in on it. This isn't socialized medicine, this is the kind of plan that conservative Republicans have been championing for decades, only to oppose when the Democrats used it for their plan.
 
2012-06-29 10:00:12 AM  

Waldo Pepper: soporific: Justiceforme: I'm curious... do people scream "socialism!!!" when they're mandated by their state governments to have car insurance? Do people scream "socialism!!!" when they're mandated to pay income tax? Social security tax?

Yes. And if you look back to when Social Security became law, you saw a lot of what we're seeing now. The parallels between then and now are not obscure.

People are going to rant about it, then most people are going to figure out that they are better off under this new policy. They'll either grudgingly admit that maybe it isn't the end of the world, or act like they never opposed it in the first place now that it's working for them.

Driving a car is not a right as is is a privilege so having to buy insurance to go with your decision to own and drive a car wouldn't fall under socialism. We are not forced to pay for airplane, train, subway, bus or taxi insurance as we neither own or operate this mode of transportation.

I feel for the first few years or so there will be this nice grace period where everything will seem to working just fine with healthcare and then we will start seeing the effect this program will have will lousy service, coverage lacking for procedures which used to be paid and the admin side getting rich and bloated off our forced payments into the system.


1) The law requires that 80%+ of the money going into insurance companies have to be used for medical care. Any money not spent on medical care is returned to the insurance holder at the end of the year in the form of a voucher.

2) This means that Insurance companies will be making far less profit, PER PERSON, than they are now. This will be countered by the fact that 40 million more customers are now being put into the system.
 
2012-06-29 10:05:57 AM  

Khellendros: that aren't openly pushing a political agenda?


It's all someones opinion my friend. Every opinion takes a side. CBO crunches out numbers biased by boundaries set by the way the legislation is written. I have pointed to opinions on the left and right stating why this legislation sucks. Ezra Klein essentially agreeing w/ O'Donnell?

*spits out hook*

Bye.
 
2012-06-29 10:13:41 AM  

Waldo Pepper: Infernalist: Waldo Pepper: soporific: Justiceforme: I'm curious... do people scream "socialism!!!" when they're mandated by their state governments to have car insurance? Do people scream "socialism!!!" when they're mandated to pay income tax? Social security tax?

Yes. And if you look back to when Social Security became law, you saw a lot of what we're seeing now. The parallels between then and now are not obscure.

People are going to rant about it, then most people are going to figure out that they are better off under this new policy. They'll either grudgingly admit that maybe it isn't the end of the world, or act like they never opposed it in the first place now that it's working for them.

Driving a car is not a right as is is a privilege so having to buy insurance to go with your decision to own and drive a car wouldn't fall under socialism. We are not forced to pay for airplane, train, subway, bus or taxi insurance as we neither own or operate this mode of transportation.

I feel for the first few years or so there will be this nice grace period where everything will seem to working just fine with healthcare and then we will start seeing the effect this program will have will lousy service, coverage lacking for procedures which used to be paid and the admin side getting rich and bloated off our forced payments into the system.

1) The law requires that 80%+ of the money going into insurance companies have to be used for medical care. Any money not spent on medical care is returned to the insurance holder at the end of the year in the form of a voucher.

2) This means that Insurance companies will be making far less profit, PER PERSON, than they are now. This will be countered by the fact that 40 million more customers are now being put into the system.

I believe I stated at first this program will work well heck like it supposed to, but like anything that is required by our government the powers that be will find a way to make their obscene money off the ...


And what is this belief based on? Because if you want to see working examples of this system in action, you can look at other nations around the world who have functional systems that are very close to this one.

You 'believe' that it's going to go to hell after a few years....In spite of reality saying otherwise. Really?
 
2012-06-29 10:27:27 AM  

L82DPRT: Khellendros: that aren't openly pushing a political agenda?

It's all someones opinion my friend. Every opinion takes a side. CBO crunches out numbers biased by boundaries set by the way the legislation is written. I have pointed to opinions on the left and right stating why this legislation sucks. Ezra Klein essentially agreeing w/ O'Donnell?

*spits out hook*

Bye.


Ezra Klein - liberal blogger.

And in your final post, you reaffirm why your opinion has no merit - you think that a series of "opinions" from the right and left somehow mean something. That mixing half-truths and lies from both sides somehow comes to truth. There's no mathematical backing. There's no walk-through of policies and how the affect the bottom line. There's your initial opinion, and you fish for whatever sources back it up - no matter how disingenuous they are. No matter how clearly they state how biased and slanted they are.

I sided with the CBO figures initially because it's a very factual set of data. They clearly lay out their projections and the historical backing for why they are a realistic and reasonable set of scenarios. They have a track record of success at bounding risk. Better than nearly any financial analyst firm in the market today.

So no, every opinion doesn't take a side. At least not a political side. Your sources were blatant and open in who they were backing and why, and you use them in the factual discussion of whether the ACA will save money on the federal deficit. I didn't "hook" you - you showed how gullible you are for swallowing the political shiatstorm and buying in.

Learn how to assemble an informed opinion. It's clearly a skill you are lacking.
 
2012-06-29 11:03:28 AM  

Justiceforme: I'm curious... do people scream "socialism!!!" when they're mandated by their state governments to have car insurance? Do people scream "socialism!!!" when they're mandated to pay income tax? Social security tax?


Car insurance is liability insurance. It exists in order to protect against the harm that at-fault drivers cause to innocent third parties. It's purpose is (arguably) not to assert more governmental control over people's daily lives, but to require harm-causers to guard against imposing costs on innocent people.

Driving a car could be fairly characterized as an ultrahazardous activity, especially considering that it kills 100 people every day, and has done so for about 30-40 years. It is the No. 1 cause of death for all age groups under age 45, which the effects of sloth and gluttony start to cause deaths by heart disease.

Let's consider for a moment, the fact that (a) the government is directly responsible for these deaths inasmuch as it designs, builds, maintains and polices the roads where 100 people per day are killed, and that it has utterly failed to prevent what (in any other context) would be immediately recognized as a bloodbath; and (b) the causes of death after age 45 are directly caused by poor personal choices such as lack of exercise and poor diet.

The only rational conclusion we can draw from these facts is that the US government has decided to do nothing about the massive number of deaths and life-altering dismemberments and injuries occurring daily on its property (government roads) in which a contributing cause is its road-design and regulation policies, while instead deciding to enact sweeping economic controls over health care where the majority of costs (for which I am now expected to pay) are directly attributable to other people's sloth and gluttony.

If the government genuinely wanted to save lives, it would have started with addressing traffic.

If the government genuinely wanted to save lives while cutting health care costs, it would use the trillions of dollars of taxpayer money now to be spent on treating the inevitable effects of being lazy fat-asses, and instead address obesity and sedentary lifestyles.

Instead, it chose to enact ObamaTax, and thereby assert yet more control over the economy.

It's obvious that economic control was the politicians' intentions all along, and the assertion of control over health care is merely the pretext for doing so.

soporific: You do realize that private companies are still running the insurance business, right? The government isn't running insurance, it's just regulating how the insurance business must operate. And to pay for those very good regulations, everyone's got to be in on it. This isn't socialized medicine, this is the kind of plan that conservative Republicans have been championing for decades, only to oppose when the Democrats used it for their plan.


Control is the whole point of ownership. The government realized a long time ago that it doesn't need to own companies in order to control them. So, it maintains the fiction of private ownership, while the incidents of ownership (control) rest with the government.

Infernalist: This means that Insurance companies will be making far less profit, PER PERSON, than they are now. This will be countered by the fact that 40 million more customers are now being put into the system.


Profit is necessary to a functioning economy. It provides information -- it tells business executives what decisions are economically beneficial and which are wasteful.
 
2012-06-29 11:16:01 AM  

L82DPRT: No, nothing says Welfare State like entitling an additional 30M people to be eligible but you BELIEVE Obamacare will lower HC costs so nevermind.



Welfare state?

It currently is, with freeloaders getting free care that YOU end up paying for.

This will make everyone pay, and lower costs in the long term.

Unless you have stats that show otherwise, I'll trust the CBO over idiots like yourself. So nevermind.
 
2012-06-29 11:16:38 AM  

TIKIMAN87: jkusmier: TIKIMAN87: Obama has just destroyed this country.

You obviously have no understanding of the dimensions of the health care crisis in this country, or of the savings the Act will eventually realize. HINT: the taxpayers are already footing the bill, which grows ever larger every year. Oh well.

Hmm, and now just by being alive you have to purchase something or get fined.

In 2009 Obama said it was not a tax, yet his lawywers in the SCOTUS argued it WAS a tax.

Obama just raised taxes on everyone in the united states.

It's disgusting how much our a*shole president lies.



Cool (lying) story bro
 
2012-06-29 11:18:10 AM  

TIKIMAN87: Especially when they take away liberties.



Take away liberties by enacting a health care plan created and supported by Republicans for almost 2 decades?

/why do Republicans hate liberties?
 
2012-06-29 11:18:56 AM  

L82DPRT: Policy that used every gimmick in the book like using projected cuts that will never materialize to make it appear cost effective,



citations needed
 
2012-06-29 11:20:19 AM  

Waldo Pepper: I feel for the first few years or so there will be this nice grace period where everything will seem to working just fine with healthcare and then we will start seeing the effect this program will have will lousy service, coverage lacking for procedures which used to be paid and the admin side getting rich and bloated off our forced payments into the system.



You just described the status quo, and apparently this is what you want to keep.
 
2012-06-29 11:24:38 AM  

intelligent comment below: TIKIMAN87: Especially when they take away liberties.


Take away liberties by enacting a health care plan created and supported by Republicans for almost 2 decades?

/why do Republicans hate liberties?


No more gravy train for you.
 
2012-06-29 11:31:15 AM  

TIKIMAN87: It's disgusting how much our a*shole president lies.


If you hate liars, then you're really going to hate Romney.
 
2012-06-29 12:00:03 PM  

TIKIMAN87: No more gravy train for you.


Why did they repeal Obamacare?

Oh wait...too soon? LOL
 
2012-06-29 12:20:59 PM  

TIKIMAN87: No more gravy train for you.



So a gravy train is not the current status quo of walking into a hospital and getting care but never having to pay the bill?

You'd think personal responsibility fark independents would LOVE 0bamacare because it makes everyone pay into the system they use.
 
2012-06-29 12:24:23 PM  

Infernalist: Most people don't know that the GOP screamed bloody murder and fought tooth and nail to prevent Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid from becoming the law of the land.

They labeled all of these as socialism and efforts to destroy our great nation and when they were inevitably passed even in the face of their screaming, pants-wetting defiance, the GOP eventually started pretending as if they never opposed them.

And that's what they're going to do here, too.


You forgot to point out the irony of the GOP scaring senior citizens by telling them it would take away the same Medicare/Medicaid that they used to fight against.
 
2012-06-29 12:34:47 PM  

intelligent comment below: So a gravy train is not the current status quo of walking into a hospital and getting care but never having to pay the bill?

You'd think personal responsibility fark independents would LOVE 0bamacare because it makes everyone pay into the system they use.


That's where you'd be wrong. If that's how you define the problem with health care (and I agree it is one of them), then ObamaTax is not how a rational person would go about solving it.

To solve the problem of unpaid bills by indigents, you would begin by expanding indigent benefits. It's welfare, and thus a political landmine inasmuch as it would be more obvious to the average low-information taxpaying voter that he's being forced to pay for other people's stuff, but it would be a lot cheaper than running the entire nation, by force, through insurers.

Or, you'd stop subsidizing health care insurers, and sever it from employment, and watch as health care costs come down, thus becoming more affordable.

Or, you'd open up the supply of medical care providers, especially for low-end routine matters, thus breaking the government-sponsored protectionist cartel that has driven up costs for 100 years. (You don't need 14 years of higher education to treat the sniffles.)

Or, you'd spend these trillions of taxpayer dollars that being spent on care for obesity- and sloth-caused ailments, and use them to promote healthy lifestyles, which would avoid or mitigate about 70% of what medical dollars are spent to treat.

Or, you'd reform the government's control over pharmaceuticals, and thus stop driving up those costs.

Or, or, or, or ...

The fact that the Left chose to run with ObamaTax shows where its intentions were actually focused -- comprehensive economic control over this sector.
 
2012-06-29 12:37:29 PM  

intelligent comment below: L82DPRT: Policy that used every gimmick in the book like using projected cuts that will never materialize to make it appear cost effective,


citations needed


He'll give you several. All of them slobbering partisan hacks that have credibility lower than Jose Canseco. But since they agree with his opinion, he gives them weight against credible institutions. He'll ignore that they work for fringe think-tanks and push agendas, but on this they're right on!
 
Displayed 50 of 3337 comments

First | « | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | » | Last

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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