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 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 09:11:03 AM  

intelligent comment below: Waldo Pepper: my dad was a pastor


And yet you still hold these ridiculous libertarian views


TsukasaK: Keizer_Ghidorah: And no matter how many times you call it that, it's still not a tax.

Ok this is a serious post now, but didn't SCOTUS just rule that the only way the individual mandate can be enforced is as a tax? Or am I missing something here..

/been a long day at work
//be gentle


Sum Dum Gai: 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.


you are still missing the point. the freedom to take the gamble is my right. you say someone else would be stuck with paying, well if it is my family and they accept the gamble how is this wrong?

If I die and I have no money to pay for burial who pays for taking care of my dead body, If I have a kids and no life insurance who pays? next will I be forced to have life insurance?

funny how this wasn't an issue until the insurance companies and hospitals drove up the cost of medical care and now they get what they want by forcing everyone to pay for their product/service and be taxed.
 
2012-06-29 09:17:22 AM  

TenJed_77: 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.


how is the health care? I once talked with a man who's wife was from sweden or switzerland (i don't recall) and he said they had socialized medicine which was great most of the time, but that his father-in-law died from a heart problem and that had he been in the U.S health care industry He felt he would still be alive as he would have had more options and quicker care.
.
 
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 09:41:01 AM  

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.
 
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 10:06:03 AM  

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 deal and the quality of service will go down.
 
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 10:29:31 AM  

Infernalist: 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 ...


I guess you missed how well fannie mae and freddy mac took care of us a few years back.

Look I hope this works out and i'm wrong but after the past 10 years or so I've have less and less faith in our government and companies working together for our so called great good.
 
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!
 
2012-06-29 01:05:03 PM  

soporific: 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.


You mean like the banks?
 
2012-06-29 01:26:25 PM  

Waldo Pepper: johne3819: 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.

maybe and I also believe if you incorporate yourself you may opt out.


Apologies for keeping this thread going, but incorporation won't allow you to opt out of SS. There exists a particular strategy for reducing SS payments that calls for you to incorporate yourself, but you can't legally "opt out". There are a few states that have alternatives to SS payments if you work in government, and there's a religious exemption, but that's about it.
 
2012-06-29 01:42:12 PM  

Jekylman: Waldo Pepper: johne3819: 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.

maybe and I also believe if you incorporate yourself you may opt out.

Apologies for keeping this thread going, but incorporation won't allow you to opt out of SS. There exists a particular strategy for reducing SS payments that calls for you to incorporate yourself, but you can't legally "opt out". There are a few states that have alternatives to SS payments if you work in government, and there's a religious exemption, but that's about it.


thank you for correcting my error.
 
2012-06-29 02:18:53 PM  

NateGrey: U mad.

[farm2.staticflickr.com image 400x300]

More Republican tears please.

/Vote Republican Quimby


FTFY
 
2012-06-29 02:19:07 PM  
hinten [TotalFark] 2012-06-28 02:21:39 PM

So, the other day, the government decides to increase my taxes. Simply because I rent my house and didn't buy it. Why do all those home owners have to pay less taxes?

Then, not only did they increase taxes for not owning a home, they also increased taxes on me because I don't have children. The act of not doing something (farking for procreation) caused the government to increase my taxes.

Now, the trifecta, my inaction to procure health insurance caused the government to raise my taxes again.

That's it, Canada, the capitalism capital of the world, here I come!



I'm assuming that you....
- drive on roads that get to your rented home
- receive goods, services and information from those children you didn't personally educate
- will also receive healthcare services from those same children - all grown up now.

What dunderheads like you refuse to understand is that no man is an island unto himself. Unless you're gonna go live on a deserted island, you benefit in ways large and small from the overall tax structure - and yes, that will include the new healthcare system even if you don't see it yet.
 
2012-06-29 02:36:42 PM  

Rapmaster2000: TIKIMAN87: Obama has just destroyed this country.

The country was already pretty messed up. That's why I always throw my cigarette butts out the window.


You just made my faves :)
I am getting a sailboat once the wife finishes her PhD. I can't wait to use it and leave her and this shiathole behind. Farkin illegals marrying gay octomom houseplants. It really doesn't help living near Detroit. Kinda like reading the first 4 fark comments on any given article. I think TFership now requires dutch ruddering each other's neck beards over a picture of Romney all the while chanting "cool beans" and "faux news" until they both become funny again.

/anyone who has worked in healthcare as it is currently and knows the govt's ability to fark things up should know that this will be hilarious in about 2 years.
//$60,000/yr janitor in my hospital? It's more likely than you think, taxpayer.
 
2012-06-29 02:57:23 PM  

Phinn: 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.)


True you don't need to go to a doctor for stuff like that.

But I also wouldn't trust my health to someone whose highest degree was earned at Hollywood Upstairs Medical College.
 
2012-06-29 03:29:09 PM  

Phinn: 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.



You don't go about solving the problem of people receiving free care paid for by your tax dollars by making them pay into the system? Yeah you're just going to spin spin spin like an ice skater. Good day
 
2012-06-29 05:03:13 PM  

Mrtraveler01: But I also wouldn't trust my health to someone whose highest degree was earned at Hollywood Upstairs Medical College.


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-06-29 06:03:45 PM  

kimmygibblershomework: Rapmaster2000: TIKIMAN87: Obama has just destroyed this country.

The country was already pretty messed up. That's why I always throw my cigarette butts out the window.

You just made my faves :)
I am getting a sailboat once the wife finishes her PhD. I can't wait to use it and leave her and this shiathole behind. Farkin illegals marrying gay octomom houseplants. It really doesn't help living near Detroit. Kinda like reading the first 4 fark comments on any given article. I think TFership now requires dutch ruddering each other's neck beards over a picture of Romney all the while chanting "cool beans" and "faux news" until they both become funny again.

/anyone who has worked in healthcare as it is currently and knows the govt's ability to fark things up should know that this will be hilarious in about 2 years.
//$60,000/yr janitor in my hospital? It's more likely than you think, taxpayer.


So... clearly, there's a lot of unrelated stuff that gets rolled into the PPACA / Obamacare discussion, and the discussion of its constitutionality.

Personally, I think when you shave off all the unrelated stuff, the whole health care reform process is going pretty much the way it should. I think that includes the peculiar shadings of the Supreme Court decision on the matter.

/last post
 
2012-06-29 06:14:25 PM  

Waldo Pepper: TenJed_77: 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.

how is the health care? I once talked with a man who's wife was from sweden or switzerland (i don't recall) and he said they had socialized medicine which was great most of the time, but that his father-in-law died from a heart problem and that had he been in the U.S health care industry He felt he would still be alive as he would have had more options ...


I doubt that. European countries will not just let someone die especially for health reasons. I'm not doubting that they said this to you; I am doubting this on what I've seen for my on health problems; 3 week s of for sciatica all paid; motorcycle accident 3 weeks; ex-mother in law 8 weeks for farking hemorrhoids, same for my brother in law. At the end of the day, American health care is 17% of gdp France is about 9 the last time I looked. This is something that is good for buisiness
 
2012-06-29 07:12:21 PM  

Waldo Pepper: you are still missing the point. the freedom to take the gamble is my right


Not anymore. Now you can be a responsible human being or pay a bit extra on your taxes. And if you can't afford it, it's still provided for you.

You lose. Good day sir.
 
2012-06-29 08:05:12 PM  
sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net
 
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


Report