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

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

14913 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Jun 2012 at 10:27 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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

Archived thread

First | « | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | » | Last
 
2012-06-28 07:31:50 PM

intelligent comment below: Why lower costs for skyrocketing health care costs


Question: Why do you think health care cost have been skyrocketing? (They have, but WHY?)
 
2012-06-28 07:32:15 PM

WorldKnowledge: Welcome to the USSA comrade!


You're not often accused of being smart are you?
 
2012-06-28 07:33:34 PM
OK, I go play with happy fun yarn ball mow.
 
2012-06-28 07:34:21 PM

jigger: Eh, someone brought up federal murder laws and I was just wondering if anyone had a constitutional justification for those laws that weren't covered by the above.


Murder on federal lands, where the federal government holds sole jurisdiction, murder involving interstate abduction where the feds hold jurisdiction as the crime involves more than one state, murder of federal employees and officials.
 
2012-06-28 07:34:35 PM
gods damn keyb

[gnaw]

me GOTO yarnball
 
2012-06-28 07:34:49 PM

jigger: Go look in the constitution. Find the place that authorizes murder laws other than those places.


They can also ban interstate murder-for-hire, under the commerce clause; plus exclusive legislation applies to military bases as well as to DC.
 
2012-06-28 07:35:02 PM

Kittypie070: ball mow.


Did reading the comments here just give you a stroke? I hope not.
 
2012-06-28 07:36:25 PM

WhyteRaven74: Kittypie070: ball mow.

Did reading the comments here just give you a stroke? I hope not.


Though it would be understandable.
 
2012-06-28 07:36:52 PM

LockeOak: Though it would be understandable.


most certainly
 
2012-06-28 07:38:54 PM

intelligent comment below: tkwasny: Can't wait for the reaction from the Catholic church when the IRS thugs show up at the Cardinals home with guns drawn and force him to sign his checkbook to fund baby murders. Got popcorn?


You milk the government tit with your easy job, and now you're asking for my tax dollars to pay for popcorn too?


I ??? milk the govts. tit just because I'm a full time contractor through a private company working for the FedGov? Salaried exempt, I might add. Which means I work 45-60 hours a week and only get paid for 40 and I expected to. I do the work of 3 typical active duty, knowing that having been one for 20 years. My retirement is a retainer because a stroke of the pen and I'm back active duty FOR LIFE.
 
2012-06-28 07:39:20 PM
Damnit, Republicans. We're going to drag you out of the Stone Age if it kills you.
 
2012-06-28 07:39:45 PM
Okay, someone tell me if I am wrong here. Roberts decided to make certain that the issue was not decided under the Commerce Clause and invented the issue as a Tax. Deciding to not appear the Court look partisan, he sided with the Liberals. In doing so, he changes their argument that the penalty was not a penalty, but a tax, thus negating the Commerce Clause argument.

I have read that Roberts wanted to roll back congressional intrusion under the Commerce Clause. So be that.

Now, since the law is a Tax, and all Tax bills need to come from the House and not the Senate, then this bill is this bill now unlawful because of that procedure taken by Harry Reid so many months ago.

So can the bill now be rolled back because from whence it came?


 
2012-06-28 07:40:44 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Only evil people would think that helping others is the wrong thing to do.


[post type="devils-advocate" derp="100%"]

It's not help if it's mandated. Which do you think carries more value, contributing to a charity out of the kindness of your heart or paying a tax at gunpoint?

[/post]
 
2012-06-28 07:40:54 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: jigger: LockeOak: jigger: I can't imagine young contract workers being better off under this one. Oh sure, now they have health insurance because they have a new bill to pay, or they have a higher tax bill to pay. It's like someone said not too long ago, "If things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn't."

Perhaps those contract workers should get together into some sort of group so they can negotiate a better rate with their employers or the insurance companies. They could probably get a better bargain if they operated... collectively.

Holy shiat! That's genius! If they just used their own time and money to form an organization that charged them money, they might save money!

Nothing we do is the right thing to do! Let's all just commit suicide right now!

WorldKnowledge: [i1139.photobucket.com image 640x800]

Welcome to the USSA comrade!

Only evil people would think that helping others is the wrong thing to do.


Funny how fast Republicans/Conservatives take out their bibles to chastise others for certain policies(Sex Rights, Women Rights, Civil Rights, etc.) but when it comes down to basic healthcare for your fellow man/woman they suddenly go sacrifice a goat to worship Satan and discard Jesus and his teachings. Get ready to face your worst fear Conservatives. A Sense of Community and care for all people..
4.bp.blogspot.com

Y U HATE PEOPLE REPUBLICANS?!?!?!?!111
 
2012-06-28 07:42:16 PM

NateGrey: Now, since the law is a Tax, and all Tax bills need to come from the House and not the Senate, then this bill is this bill now unlawful because of that procedure taken by Harry Reid so many months ago.


Eh?
 
2012-06-28 07:44:16 PM

ignatius_crumbcake: Two Free Republic headlines got the outcome wrong. The comments are hilarious as they go from smug to petulant as they realize it was wrong:


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2900385/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2900380/posts


Gabby Giffords was dead for a while too. Can't believe anything I see or hear anymore.
 
2012-06-28 07:45:20 PM

TsukasaK: Keizer_Ghidorah: Only evil people would think that helping others is the wrong thing to do.

[post type="devils-advocate" derp="100%"]

It's not help if it's mandated. Which do you think carries more value, contributing to a charity out of the kindness of your heart or paying a tax at gunpoint?

[/post]


Stop being selfish and shiatty and maybe we won't force you to help others. And no matter how many times you call it that, it's still not a tax.
 
2012-06-28 07:50:47 PM

mr lawson: Question: Why do you think health care cost have been skyrocketing? (They have, but WHY?)


I'd say for many reasons, some of them being:

1. Artificially low number of doctors due to limits on medical school class sizes & residencies.

2. Uninsured lacking access to preventative care for chronic diseases. Chronic disease care is by far the most expensive part of medical care, and it's the area most open to prevention.

3. Lack of competition among insurers - most people can't afford any plan except their employer's so they can't really shop around.

4. Lack of focus on patient-centered care instead of episodic care; reimbursement schemes that reward doing more things rather than getting better outcomes.

I'd say the law addresses #2 and #3 adequately, with some promise of addressing #4 (via the emphasis on ACOs).
 
2012-06-28 07:52:31 PM

Kittypie070: gods damn keyb

[gnaw]

me GOTO yarnball


i45.tinypic.com
 
2012-06-28 07:52:35 PM

NateGrey: Now, since the law is a Tax, and all Tax bills need to come from the House and not the Senate, then this bill is this bill now unlawful because of that procedure taken by Harry Reid so many months ago.


What procedure are you discussing? The Senate wrote the bill pretty much fresh, but it was passed, officially, as an amendment to HR 3590 (unrelated bill). This (totally revised) HR 3590 and the House-passed health care bill then went to conference, the House passed the consolidated bill, and the Senate passed it by budget reconciliation. But, by procedure, it was a House bill all along.
 
2012-06-28 07:55:49 PM
The creeping horror washing over the conservatives warms my heart. This is the first step to true, universal healthcare, and it has survived the SCOTUS challenge.

Next up - diverting resources from defense to infrastructure, because no matter how many guns you have, a nation with a decaying infrastructure isn't going to stay strong for long. Transportation, energy, communications, water, waste, education, social supports - it's time.
 
2012-06-28 07:56:29 PM

EvilIguana966: Follow my train of thought for a moment.

Our constitution never mentions healthcare as an industry that the government should control. It also states that every activity not specifically mentioned is reserved for the states or the people themselves to take care of.


your train is broken
therefore, each state is required to control: drugs, air travel, air waves, anything with electricity, pollution, trash, genetics, medicine, pretty much EVERYTHING

THIS is why the commerce clause gets used so much. The air waves cross state borders, therefore the feds MUST get involved, esp to deal with cities near each other but on opposite borders.

this idea that STATES should decide things at this point in time is such an outdated concept.
liquor laws? sure fine
prostitution? fine
drugs? see liquor
gambling? yup

but car safety standards?
OF COURSE the feds should set the standards
what about train track gauge?

/back to your regularly scheduled derp
 
2012-06-28 07:57:42 PM
Okay, I have been wandering the woods all day and just got back to internet service. How in the fark did people get this messed up?
 
2012-06-28 07:58:00 PM

NateGrey: Now, since the law is a Tax, and all Tax bills need to come from the House and not the Senate, then this bill is this bill now unlawful because of that procedure taken by Harry Reid so many months ago.


OMG, you are an Official Constitution Super Genius! You should tell that to the Supreme Court so that they change their mind and they tell everyone that they were wrong and that the Official Constitution Super Genius fixed it for them. And then Sarah Palin and Rand Paul will get married and be Mr. and Mrs. President of the United States!
 
2012-06-28 07:58:42 PM
i49.tinypic.com.
 
2012-06-28 07:59:09 PM

FormlessOne: The creeping horror washing over the conservatives warms my heart. This is the first step to true, universal healthcare, and it has survived the SCOTUS challenge.

Next up - diverting resources from defense to infrastructure, because no matter how many guns you have, a nation with a decaying infrastructure isn't going to stay strong for long. Transportation, energy, communications, water, waste, education, social supports - it's time.


lol
 
2012-06-28 07:59:22 PM

FormlessOne: Next up - diverting resources from defense to infrastructure, because no matter how many guns you have, a nation with a decaying infrastructure isn't going to stay strong for long. Transportation, energy, communications, water, waste, education, social supports - it's time.


WOW
imagine if we invested in the energy infrastructure? new and better transmission lines?
massive increases in fission power plants in "safe" locations with power being transmitted to the 4 corners rather than little local fiefdoms with no competition? LOL

oooooo EPA being able to regulate fraking ??? bwhahahhahahahahahaha
farking chenney loophole ...

/on the other hand, that loophole has led to a HUGE oil/gas boom in the US
 
2012-06-28 08:00:32 PM
i47.tinypic.com.
 
2012-06-28 08:00:37 PM

Sum Dum Gai: mr lawson: Question: Why do you think health care cost have been skyrocketing? (They have, but WHY?)

I'd say for many reasons, some of them being:

1. Artificially low number of doctors due to limits on medical school class sizes & residencies.

2. Uninsured lacking access to preventative care for chronic diseases. Chronic disease care is by far the most expensive part of medical care, and it's the area most open to prevention.

3. Lack of competition among insurers - most people can't afford any plan except their employer's so they can't really shop around.

4. Lack of focus on patient-centered care instead of episodic care; reimbursement schemes that reward doing more things rather than getting better outcomes.

I'd say the law addresses #2 and #3 adequately, with some promise of addressing #4 (via the emphasis on ACOs).


It isn't that complicated. If use the free market to price something with an inelastic demand it won't work. If I had a pill that would save your life, what would you pay me for it? Free market works well for things that have elastic demand. Think of police and fire services as an example of something that makes more sense to use a socialized model, extend that to emergency care and you will start to see why every other industrialized country in the world has some type of universal care model.
 
2012-06-28 08:01:54 PM

The Larch: NateGrey: Now, since the law is a Tax, and all Tax bills need to come from the House and not the Senate, then this bill is this bill now unlawful because of that procedure taken by Harry Reid so many months ago.

OMG, you are an Official Constitution Super Genius! You should tell that to the Supreme Court so that they change their mind and they tell everyone that they were wrong and that the Official Constitution Super Genius fixed it for them. And then Sarah Palin and Rand Paul will get married and be Mr. and Mrs. President of the United States!


Actually, it looks like you were reposting something from a freeper-style page, and I had a quote fail. Sorry, man.

// But Mrs. President Palin-Paul would be totally awesome regardless.
 
2012-06-28 08:02:23 PM
And the best one of all

i50.tinypic.com
 
2012-06-28 08:03:50 PM

gimmegimme: Duh, that was HIS WIFE, not HIM. Under what kind of moral code would spouses be considered one being, one unit no man can tear asunder? And it's not as though marriage is a legal partnership that is incentivized through the tax code, thereby imposing an unfair tax on those who don't wish to enter such a partnership.


Oh. You're right. It's only his WIFE that took 1.5 mill for a no-show job from interests that have cases before her husband. Right.
 
2012-06-28 08:04:31 PM

WhyteRaven74: BobBoxBody: how unsustainable and how damaging this legislation will be to the country's longterm economic health

Making sure people don't go bankrupt due to medical expenses is bad for long term economic health? Really?


Okay, fine, I'll answer to be the best of my ability, though I warn you it's gonna get wordy.

The problem here is taht you guys are trying to argue this as though this were a moral issue when it's really an issue of business model. The reason our healthcare system is so borked is because it's centralized. Big monolithic hospitals trying to do everything at once which makes them good at nothing and causes the prices to go up when people keep having to go back due to inefficient analysis and care.

Simply shoehorning in more bureaucracy on top of existing bureaucracy isn't going to fix this problem in the longterm.

The only way to address the expensive healthcare issue is through low-market solutions via disruptive innovation which makes it possible for nurse-practitioners to do what normally required doctors to do, and enabling doctors to do what normally required a hospital to do. A good example of this is Minute Clinic where you can go into a kiosk and if you have a typical illness within the spectrum that they can easily treat, they diagnose you, get you your medication on the spot, and send you on your way in minutes for the fraction of a cost to see doctor in his office for something simple, which frees the doctors up to treat more serious or pressing things. Minute Clinic's business model allows them to take in a high volume of traffic which means they can make their money in volume which means they can sell their services for cheap.

What will help further this along the line is technological breakthroughs that will allow advanced diagnosis technology to let a nurse-practitioner do what normally required a well-trained doctor, and likewise technological breakthroughs will allow those well-trained doctors to do procedures and analysis that once took hospitals or highly-trained specialists to do. A good example is the use of stints to treat heart problems instead of using open-heart surgery, making the treatment more available with less training (compared to the surgeon).

Another issue is that of decentralization. What will need to be done is that medical treatment for more chronic and pervasive issues will have to divided up into analysis and then specialized treatment. Places that focus specifically on diagnosing chronic health problems and their root cause will be cheaper and thus save time and money in the longterm because you'll not be getting bounced around from doctor to doctor as is typical when people are suffering from chronic illness and will be able to get their problems treated sooner as a result.

The big problem right now is the economy. Our deficit has stalled our economic growth. Nobody's hiring or creating jobs, or as inclined to, and Obamacare is merely going to make this worse, especially by making it more lucrative for businesses to throw out their insurance plans and simply let Uncle Sam foot the bill even with the fines factored in by--you guessed it--downsizing their workforces so that there are fewer fines to pay it'll still be cheaper than having an insurance option. All this is going to do is stall economic growth and make it even harder to find a halfway decent job than it already was.

The real roadblock here is that our machine politicians are extremely hostile to disruption as it leads to creative destruction (ala going from an agricultural society to an industrialized one). When creative destruction occurs a shift in values occurs along with it. Political powers are transformed or destroyed, and parts of the country that were boomtowns suddenly become more like ghost towns. We're seeing this happen as the old industrialized hotspots of the US enter steep decline (Detroit, California, the Northeast) and we're seeing a shift in growth from those places to the south where it's more economically lucrative and where there is some economic growth (such as Texas, Georgia, Alabama). The big issue here though is thanks to the advent of the Silicon Age more people are realizing that they must become more business and especially financially educated.

Another issue of creative destruction though is that since the politicians are all stuck in the Old Way of doing things the constituency is ahead of the curve and will start sending tsunamis to the political parties. We're already seeing this with the Tea Party upsetting the old McKinley Elitist establishment a nice big middle finger. We'll likely see the same begin to happen to the Democrats thanks to Obama. Either way, the political parties are going to have to match their values to that of their constituents but--especially for the McKinley Republican Machine--they would likely rather immolate themselves than become one with the hoi polloi. The Democratic Machine really is no different. Both have the same goals: To keep the voters poor and uneducated so that they can keep their political power in check, but disruption, creative destruction, and economic prosperity are anathema to this, which is why they've been vehemently anti-disruption (shooting down attempts to put greater emphasis on decentralizing education via computer learning). The big issue will be if they try to target and prevent low-market solutions, which is possible if it isn't happening already.

There's also the issue of immigration. Immigrants have become a hot topic lately despite being biatched about but ignored by politicians. The reason was that both parties thought they could manipulate Latinos and leverage them into voting for one party or another, but unlike Mexico, the Latinos are able to actually democratically combat corruption without the threat of death so they vote against the machine candidates, just like the rest of us are. Now that both parties realize that the Latinos refuse to be leveraged they're magically trying send them back home, nevermind that the influx of immigrants is helping to mitigate a similar population decline that other countries like Japan are suffering right now, and these influx of immigrants are more likely to become educated and become builders or engineers as they seek to escape the foul taste of poverty.

As David Bohm said you can't fix societal problems by fixating only one thing. All problems stem from a root cause, and what is the most basic and root cause for our economic woes today? It's financial. We're in the midst of recession and our government continues to spend and tax which is just making it worse. The only way to reverse this is to cut spending and cut taxes to make it easier to create jobs and spur economic growth. This extends to the citizenry, as well: We have to learn to not just be employees but to become employers. Entertainment would be a good example as we see musicians become decentralized from the music industry, making it easier for them to profit from their work and easier to get their music out there. The next step would be for television and film to do the same thing.

One thing is for certain though, what we need is spending cuts (and no I'm not saying cut spending on welfare or SS if we can help it, I'm do believe in safety nets but--) because the more we pile onto this deficit, the worse the recession becomes, and the less effectual this so-called "healthcare reform" becomes compared to simply doing everything we can to encourage economic growth. Taxing needs to be cut as well. I imagine people are only going to become more hostile to the political machines as time goes on, until they either get with the program or people start voting these old cronies out for people more in alignment with their values. People were wondering why congress and the senate have seen huge turnovers in reps and senators, and the reason is the voters are sending a message, and both parties are hearing it, and they sure as shiat don't like it.
 
2012-06-28 08:05:09 PM

The Larch: The Larch: NateGrey: Now, since the law is a Tax, and all Tax bills need to come from the House and not the Senate, then this bill is this bill now unlawful because of that procedure taken by Harry Reid so many months ago.

OMG, you are an Official Constitution Super Genius! You should tell that to the Supreme Court so that they change their mind and they tell everyone that they were wrong and that the Official Constitution Super Genius fixed it for them. And then Sarah Palin and Rand Paul will get married and be Mr. and Mrs. President of the United States!

Actually, it looks like you were reposting something from a freeper-style page, and I had a quote fail. Sorry, man.

// But Mrs. President Palin-Paul would be totally awesome regardless.


Why do you say things that my mind cannot unsee?
 
2012-06-28 08:08:04 PM

Antimatter: GBB: david_gaithersburg: Has anyone here ever opted to purchase the COBRA offered by their employer? Bwahahahaha! Its now THE LAW suckhars.

As a matter of fact, Yes, I have. Disney (WDW) offers some of the cheapest premiums of any employer that is not the Federal Government. I can't remember the exact amount, but damn, was it cheap!! Most of the time, when you are offered COBRA, you pay the full amount and then discover how much your employer has been kicking in for you. I can only assume that because of how many employees they have, and they are unionized, the premiums are so cheap that Disney (WDW) doesn't chip in at all.

A+++++ Will do again.

But, yes, I know what you are getting at; COBRA is an unaffordable option for someone that is no longer employed.

which is where the exchanges and such come in. Hopefully they have a cheap HSA plan in there somewhere to cover folks who don't have employer insurance, but don't get sick often enough to need a traditional health care plan.


This is what I'm hoping for (I currently don't have health insurance).

Before I was laid off, I paid $54 a month for a Blue Shield plan. Post-layoff, I got COBRA coverage (still Blue Shield) for $413 a month. Six months later, that was increased to $457 a month, my copays increased from $30 to $40 per visit, along with increases in prescription costs. At least mammograms and pap smears were still "free."

My COBRA coverage ended in February. I can't get affordable health care right now due to a pre-existing condition. It really sucks because I'm just about to knock over 50, and am entering that stage of life when having health care is EXTREMELY important. At least I can get low-cost "female services" at Planned Parenthood. I just hope that I don't have any costly medical emergencies between now and January, 2014.
 
2012-06-28 08:10:23 PM

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


If everybody doesn't pay in, and nobody can be denied for existing conditions, people would just wait until they had cancer to sign up for insurance. The insurance companies would go bankrupt because insurance works by having a massive pool of people paying into the system while only a few are being paid out to. If you have one, you have to have the other for this to work.
 
2012-06-28 08:15:29 PM

BobBoxBody: WhyteRaven74: BobBoxBody: how unsustainable and how damaging this legislation will be to the country's longterm economic health

Making sure people don't go bankrupt due to medical expenses is bad for long term economic health? Really?

Okay, fine, I'll answer to be the best of my ability, though I warn you it's gonna get wordy.

The problem here is taht you guys are trying to argue this as though this were a moral issue when it's really an issue of business model. The reason our healthcare system is so borked is because it's centralized.


tl;dr.

The problem is the GOP is treating people's health like a business model and not a freakin human right, like the rest of the civilized world. The reason our healthcare system is so borked is because the freakin lawyers have farked up the prices so much that it's not sustainable any more.
 
2012-06-28 08:16:45 PM

bhcompy: There is no right to maintain your life. If I lose my job and cannot achieve the same level of income there is no right that I should be able to keep my Corvette, my McMansion, and eat prime steaks even though I can't afford to maintain it, because that would be maintaining. Right to life is the right to forge your own destiny, not a right to free healthcare.



There is no logic in this. You are a horrible hateful jealous person and you should feel bad.
 
2012-06-28 08:18:31 PM
This thread has been incredibly helpful updating my ignore list.
Thanks everyone!
 
2012-06-28 08:18:34 PM

NateGrey: Teabaggers want to protest but they are all on Disability. NO JOKE


I was going to comment to the freepers re: their pants on head comments, but when I tried o got this response
i232.photobucket.com
The funny thing is the one time I did post there it was a nonassholish challenging of ideas.
Oh well, I guess I should take it as a badge of honor.
 
2012-06-28 08:19:28 PM
After hearing the news reports on the radio driving home tonight (NPR, Clear Channel, Cox, missed Salem) as well as a short 10 min of Sean Hannity, I have deepened my understanding of Chief Justice John Roberts. It seems that he has a very nuanced approach to conservatism. He is able to resist the urge to make a powerful message and instead show an extremely high level of wisdom at the balance he has achieved. Whoever vetted this guy for George W Bush deserves some serious respect! He was able to make several important and difficult points in his ruling. He was able to build the respect level for the court at the same time letting his Associate Justices say as they wish.
If I were any of the other 8 Justices, I would have some serious love for this guy. He let them say what was in their hearts, and at the same time builds both respect and gives them a favor to claim in the future if needed.

/I am seriously on the liberal side for those of you who don't already know. Anyway this was my opinion.
 
2012-06-28 08:19:43 PM

Corvus: AtlanticCoast63: ....Okay:

1. Card-carrying Republican here.
2. I didn't agree with the individual mandate - still don't - but the SCOTUS ruling was reasoned and clear.
3. They've spoken, and now we need to get on with it.

/If I'm supposed to be all kinds of butthurt about this, let me know

You're a good guy. It just seem to me a lot of good guys are there anymore in the Republican Party. Or maybe the assholes are being so loud they are drowning the good ones out.


Many of us "good guys" still hanging onto the Republican Party are getting sick of their shiat. The Fundies and / or TeaBaggers have pretty much wrecked the place, and it's going to be at least 12 years before things are sane again.
 
2012-06-28 08:20:12 PM

jevanpe5: My Dad has cancer. It's a very aggressive cancer. After the first 3 months of chemo, they just did another pet scan the other day and found out that it is not shrinking... They're not sure what to do now because the insurance company doesn't want to pay for another scan like the first two... And it's costing him alot of the money that worked so hard for all of his life... Average cost is about $5000...
Since your so into all of this, could you please send me $5000 so I can make sure my Dad get's the scan that is deemed proper??? Thanks and glad you saved him..
Looking forward to your donation, lib...



Wow, if only Obamacare addressed this problem of dropping coverage on expensive patients...

/you clueless hateful farking moran
 
2012-06-28 08:21:45 PM

inner ted: intelligent comment below: inner ted: //would love it if the government mandated you had to buy my products.


Open a car insurance company

/waiting for conservatards to cry how that's un-Constitutional as well

your comment fails to live up to your handle.



I addressed your "gotcha" remark with a factual statement proving you wrong, and this is all you can say in response? How old are you? 12?
 
2012-06-28 08:22:03 PM

mrshowrules: It isn't that complicated. If use the free market to price something with an inelastic demand it won't work. If I had a pill that would save your life, what would you pay me for it? Free market works well for things that have elastic demand. Think of police and fire services as an example of something that makes more sense to use a socialized model, extend that to emergency care and you will start to see why every other industrialized country in the world has some type of universal care model.


I would love to see universal health care. Maybe sometime in my lifetime I will. Certainly not today.

The PPACA is better than the old status quo by a lot. It won't solve every problem, but it will help a lot of people. I think this also makes it more likely to someday see universal health care in this nation.
 
2012-06-28 08:22:38 PM

rev. dave: After hearing the news reports on the radio driving home tonight (NPR, Clear Channel, Cox, missed Salem) as well as a short 10 min of Sean Hannity, I have deepened my understanding of Chief Justice John Roberts. It seems that he has a very nuanced approach to conservatism. He is able to resist the urge to make a powerful message and instead show an extremely high level of wisdom at the balance he has achieved. Whoever vetted this guy for George W Bush deserves some serious respect! He was able to make several important and difficult points in his ruling. He was able to build the respect level for the court at the same time letting his Associate Justices say as they wish.
If I were any of the other 8 Justices, I would have some serious love for this guy. He let them say what was in their hearts, and at the same time builds both respect and gives them a favor to claim in the future if needed.

/I am seriously on the liberal side for those of you who don't already know. Anyway this was my opinion.


I really didn't get the hate for Roberts during his nomination process. Everything I read about the guy seemed pretty reasonable. Yeah, he's conservative, but in the sense he believes in the U.S. Constitution. He made a solid, well-reasoned ruling on this.

I'm really not sure what Scalia's problem has been recently. He's gone off the deep end.
 
2012-06-28 08:22:47 PM

Quince: BobBoxBody: WhyteRaven74: BobBoxBody: how unsustainable and how damaging this legislation will be to the country's longterm economic health

Making sure people don't go bankrupt due to medical expenses is bad for long term economic health? Really?

Okay, fine, I'll answer to be the best of my ability, though I warn you it's gonna get wordy.

The problem here is taht you guys are trying to argue this as though this were a moral issue when it's really an issue of business model. The reason our healthcare system is so borked is because it's centralized.

tl;dr.

The problem is the GOP is treating people's health like a business model and not a freakin human right, like the rest of the civilized world. The reason our healthcare system is so borked is because the freakin lawyers have farked up the prices so much that it's not sustainable any more.


Yeah, of course, why did I bother try and explain it. Then again, i was once young and naive myself....
 
2012-06-28 08:25:53 PM
For those farkers calling this a tax on the middle class.

Yes it is. But ask yourself who is going to pay this tax? The people who will have to pay for this are the freeloaders who think they don't need health insurance. The right wing should be happy with that outcome.

How many of the very rich don't have health insurance? I'm guessing not very many. But then how many of us just struggling to get by decide that we'd rather have a new car or iphone than pay for health insurance? Those are the freeloaders whom this tax is aimed at. It would be a different story if, when these losers got hit by a bus we just left them to die on the curb. But we don't, and those of us responsible enough to buy our luxury items *after* we pay for our essentials (like helath insurance) are the ones who end up footing the bill for the people who figure that they are somehow invincible and that they really do need an iphone sooner rather than later.

In the long run, this should make health insurance cheaper for everyone. Health insurance depends on healthy people paying into the system as well as people with chronic illness. Otherwise, premiums will continue to skyrocket until only the very rich can afford health care, making the problem even worse.

So yes, if you don't already have health insurance, it's a tax on you. And it's about time.
 
2012-06-28 08:25:58 PM

mjjt: [i47.tinypic.com image 600x485].


thank you
that is an AMAZING image

This christian nation lost sight of what we were talking about and what we were doing and why we were doing it. The idea that charity or magic would take care of these people was proven false over the last 100 years. Time to grow up and help those that can not help themselves.
 
2012-06-28 08:26:01 PM

bwilson27: armoredbulldozer: Paging Mr. Harrelson.....

Kagan should have recused herself. The racist Sotomayor sucks Donkey cock!

Yeeees, let the hate flow....


You bet your ass SCOTUS farked America!
 
Displayed 50 of 3382 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 »






Report