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.

(Guardian)   Americans unable to explain Obamacare, nor why they hate it   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 287
    More: Interesting, obamacare  
•       •       •

3129 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Jun 2012 at 9:13 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-29 10:11:22 AM
Something else I noticed this morning - LOTS of regular city newspapers are using "Obamacare," some in their bolded, Big News headlines. Not FOX, but the same paper that used to deliver you reasonable news 15 years ago.

What the fark is that all about? What's wrong with a factual "Obama's healthcare reform law" or "health care bill"? What about the actual farking acronym? "Obamacare" is a pejorative that has no business in headlines, and yet here we are.

/I already know the answer - it just pisses me off
 
2012-06-29 10:11:35 AM

scarmig: Karac: scarmig: Seriously, why do we need health insurance for cuts and scrapes, common illnesses and the occasional broken bone? These should be easy and cheap to fix. Keep the insurance for the big stuff.

Step 1: Go outside, fall out of a tree and break your leg.
Step 2: Hitch a ride to the ER and have them set and plaster it. Then take your painkiller prescription down to the pharmacy and get some meds.
Step 3: Get back to us about how the bill for all that wouldn't fall under the heading of 'big stuff'.

Been there. Done that. Except mine was a wrist.

I'm not expert. I admit that. But I do think we have people in this country who are smart enough to find solutions that don't expand government power, or force people to do things against their will.


I'm almost certain that there are people in this country smart enough to figure out how to eradicate poverty, balance the budget, cure cancer, and solve healthcare, without any compulsion or intervention by the big bad government. The only reason it hasn't happened yet is because the government is bad at everything.

I'd like to ask you a serious question -- what do you think the government's role is? Do you really see the government as a benevolent entity that is just supposed to make sure everyone is happy and give everyone free stuff, without asking for any sacrifice on the part of its citizens? I guess that's what we get for having 8 years of Bush, with his "starting 2 wars while cutting taxes" approach to governing.
 
2012-06-29 10:11:52 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Yeah it is. But the problem is that tax isn't high enough.


It is if the tax is anything less than the cost of the cheapest plan available.
 
2012-06-29 10:13:18 AM

make me some tea: Dusk-You-n-Me: I_C_Weener: Also, Obama was naive saying it wasn't a tax. He will find himself defending that for the remainder of this year.

Then so will Romney.

Weaver95: this is fascinating to watch.

Indeed. It's rather odd that both candidates have been responsible for similar legislation. I still don't understand how Romney can legitimately speak out against something he implemented while in office and be taken seriously.


It's because his supporters are willing to suspend disbelief purely because he has an (R) next to his name.
 
2012-06-29 10:14:42 AM

sweetmelissa31: All taxes are legal theft, right?


don't forget legal rape, murder, arson, and double parking
 
2012-06-29 10:14:43 AM

dickfreckle: "Obamacare" is a pejorative that has no business in headlines, and yet here we are.


I used to think the same thing, but I've come to not mind the term. The Obama camp has as well.

"Can you imagine if the opposition called Social Security "Roosevelt Security"? Or if Medicare was "LBJ-Care"? Seriously, have these guys ever heard of the long view?" - David Axelrod Link

He has a point.
 
2012-06-29 10:16:28 AM

make me some tea: Dusk-You-n-Me: I_C_Weener: Also, Obama was naive saying it wasn't a tax. He will find himself defending that for the remainder of this year.

Then so will Romney.

Weaver95: this is fascinating to watch.

Indeed. It's rather odd that both candidates have been responsible for similar legislation. I still don't understand how Romney can legitimately speak out against something he implemented while in office and be taken seriously.


His official governor's portrait. See that folder under his wife's picture? The one with the caduceus on it?

dailydish.typepad.com
 
2012-06-29 10:16:39 AM

sweetmelissa31: make me some tea: Indeed. It's rather odd that both candidates have been responsible for similar legislation. I still don't understand how Romney can legitimately speak out against something he implemented while in office and be taken seriously.

The only way he could possibly get away with it is to say that people in MA wanted it but people in the country overall do not want it. He'd still have to admit that it was good legislation though. Of course he's not willing to do this, he just says it sucks overall.


And I should add that since all three branches of government have now upheld Fartcare, it's hard to argue that people do not support it.
 
2012-06-29 10:16:59 AM

dickfreckle: Something else I noticed this morning - LOTS of regular city newspapers are using "Obamacare," some in their bolded, Big News headlines. Not FOX, but the same paper that used to deliver you reasonable news 15 years ago.

What the fark is that all about? What's wrong with a factual "Obama's healthcare reform law" or "health care bill"? What about the actual farking acronym? "Obamacare" is a pejorative that has no business in headlines, and yet here we are.



The Administration started making an effort "take back" that word at the beginning of the year. Also, maybe now that the specter of it being overturned is behind us, they are cool with calling it Obamacare.
 
2012-06-29 10:17:12 AM

dickfreckle: Something else I noticed this morning - LOTS of regular city newspapers are using "Obamacare," some in their bolded, Big News headlines. Not FOX, but the same paper that used to deliver you reasonable news 15 years ago.

What the fark is that all about? What's wrong with a factual "Obama's healthcare reform law" or "health care bill"? What about the actual farking acronym? "Obamacare" is a pejorative that has no business in headlines, and yet here we are.

/I already know the answer - it just pisses me off


Super liberal bias NPR has been using "Obama's healthcare reform law" or "health care bill" for years now. Most of the Republican guests they have on there call it Obamacare but most of the NPR corespondents use some sort of factual name.
 
2012-06-29 10:17:18 AM

scarmig: kronicfeld: scarmig: Maybe, all health-care expenses for everyone are tax-free.

The Wal-Mart cashier making a single-digit hourly wage will be relieved to hear that he does not have to pay taxes on the money he spends from his own pocket on his $500,000 liver transplant.

So, private medical charity + hardship cost reductions offered by the medical providers + government writing off $500,000 worth of income for that person, year over year. They may never pay an income tax again. And, you, being the great believer in helping those in need, would glad contribute to a medical charity that helps those in need, right?

There *are* solutions that don't require government expansion. I may not be smart enough to come up with them. But I'd like to think someone out there is.


Kicking apart the employer-insurance system. Either shake up or dismantle the FDA. Sink the AMA.
 
2012-06-29 10:17:37 AM

Jackson Herring: don't forget legal rape, murder, arson, and double parking


and unlicensed dog owning
 
2012-06-29 10:18:01 AM
chakru.com
 
2012-06-29 10:18:23 AM
People fear what they do not understand.

Except women, since they are cuddly.
 
2012-06-29 10:18:40 AM

sweetmelissa31: Fartcare


ugh typical childish lib... use the bill's REAL name, Fartbananagramscare.
 
2012-06-29 10:20:47 AM

dickfreckle: Something else I noticed this morning - LOTS of regular city newspapers are using "Obamacare," some in their bolded, Big News headlines. Not FOX, but the same paper that used to deliver you reasonable news 15 years ago.

What the fark is that all about? What's wrong with a factual "Obama's healthcare reform law" or "health care bill"? What about the actual farking acronym? "Obamacare" is a pejorative that has no business in headlines, and yet here we are.

/I already know the answer - it just pisses me off


Reappropriation is the cultural process by which a group reclaims-re-appropriates-terms or artifacts that were previously used in a way disparaging of that group.

You wanted it to be called Obamacare, GOP? We'll make sure it's called Obamacare until long after you die.
 
2012-06-29 10:21:02 AM

dickfreckle: Something else I noticed this morning - LOTS of regular city newspapers are using "Obamacare," some in their bolded, Big News headlines. Not FOX, but the same paper that used to deliver you reasonable news 15 years ago.

What the fark is that all about? What's wrong with a factual "Obama's healthcare reform law" or "health care bill"? What about the actual farking acronym? "Obamacare" is a pejorative that has no business in headlines, and yet here we are.

/I already know the answer - it just pisses me off


Even the dem party structure uses it now. I can see it in the emails they send asking for money. That's the name. Cope.
 
2012-06-29 10:21:23 AM

scarmig: Karac: scarmig: Seriously, why do we need health insurance for cuts and scrapes, common illnesses and the occasional broken bone? These should be easy and cheap to fix. Keep the insurance for the big stuff.

Step 1: Go outside, fall out of a tree and break your leg.
Step 2: Hitch a ride to the ER and have them set and plaster it. Then take your painkiller prescription down to the pharmacy and get some meds.
Step 3: Get back to us about how the bill for all that wouldn't fall under the heading of 'big stuff'.

Been there. Done that. Except mine was a wrist.

I'm not expert. I admit that. But I do think we have people in this country who are smart enough to find solutions that don't expand government power, or force people to do things against their will.


Such as?
How are you going to control costs, without government intervention? Train more doctors, I've heard. How are you going to get the AMA to open up licensing, without government intervention? They won't just do it for fun.
How are you going to prevent recissions, or lack of coverage due to pre-existing conditions, without government intervention? How are you going to make coverage affordable, without government intervention? The insurance companies won't do it on their own; they have no reason to.

We've been trying to do this without government intervention for decades. It doesn't work.
 
2012-06-29 10:21:35 AM
Obvious tag still waiting for the plan to kick in so it can get coverage?
 
2012-06-29 10:21:37 AM
I'm thinking of trolling the tea party protests this weekend a la Dr. Brule. Any ideas?

I was thinking a sign something like:

I'm a doctor and I like to get paid by people. Goverment has branches like a tree and tees don't have money ya dungos!
 
2012-06-29 10:21:57 AM

sweetmelissa31: and unlicensed dog owning


quelle horreur!
 
2012-06-29 10:22:36 AM

scarmig: So, private medical charity


Not a solution, since it doesn't fix the problem.
 
2012-06-29 10:23:35 AM
All because 45 million people which includes illegal aliens, people who think thy are young and indestructable and dont need insurance, people who can afford insurance but don;t bother with it, and people who already qualify for government health care but don;t pursue it......so in reality this all encompassing legislation is because 10 million people dont have the means to purchase insurance......and probably still wont when the exchanges are active.


Why does this cost 1.8 trillion dollars again?
 
2012-06-29 10:23:37 AM

sweetmelissa31: make me some tea: Indeed. It's rather odd that both candidates have been responsible for similar legislation. I still don't understand how Romney can legitimately speak out against something he implemented while in office and be taken seriously.

The only way he could possibly get away with it is to say that people in MA wanted it but people in the country overall do not want it. He'd still have to admit that it was good legislation though. Of course he's not willing to do this, he just says it sucks overall.


I've seen the talking point "most Americans oppose ObamaCare" from the Right, but plain and simple, that is completely false. Even when speaking to conservatives about most of the provisions in that legislation, they agree that it's good stuff when it comes down to it.
 
2012-06-29 10:26:57 AM

scarmig: kronicfeld: scarmig: Maybe, all health-care expenses for everyone are tax-free.

The Wal-Mart cashier making a single-digit hourly wage will be relieved to hear that he does not have to pay taxes on the money he spends from his own pocket on his $500,000 liver transplant.

So, private medical charity + hardship cost reductions offered by the medical providers + government writing off $500,000 worth of income for that person, year over year. They may never pay an income tax again. And, you, being the great believer in helping those in need, would glad contribute to a medical charity that helps those in need, right?

There *are* solutions that don't require government expansion. I may not be smart enough to come up with them. But I'd like to think someone out there is.


Have you heard of a phenomenon called supply-driven demand? Basically, in some commercial areas, increasing the supply for a good also increases the demand for that good. This happens quite frequently in health care. Ever hear of Drs. Moon and Realyvasquez? They performed tons of completely unnecessary cardiac procedures almost entirely because they had unused time in their schedule and wanted to fill it with surgeries that would make them money.
 
2012-06-29 10:29:29 AM

scarmig: There *are* solutions that don't require government expansion. I may not be smart enough to come up with them. But I'd like to think someone out there is.


I don't think it's a matter of intelligence. It's a matter of asking insurance companies to behave in what would resemble (to most people) a humane fashion. And it's trickier than you think. Rule number one is: Left to their own devices, they won't.

Hence the need for government coercion.

This is why we can't have nice things.
 
2012-06-29 10:30:28 AM
Then let me explain: THE TAX IS SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THE COST OF BUYING INSURANCE.

They wanted a government takeover of healthcare and single payer and ^THAT^ is what gets them there.

If it is cheaper for individuals and employers to drop insurance and fall into the government plans, that is the most likely behavior.

You were played like fiddles and didn't even know it.
 
2012-06-29 10:30:56 AM

dickfreckle: /I already know the answer


"band-aid"

George Carlin would have told you: he who controls words, controls thought.
 
2012-06-29 10:31:52 AM
The average American hates Obamacare because a radio talk show host told them to. That's the basis for most people's beliefs, which they then share with their imaginary friends on FaceBook. Facts don't mean squat and you'd be wrong to use facts to argue your points with the againsters. Facts are not relevant.
 
2012-06-29 10:31:52 AM
I work with someone who was initially excited about Obamacare. Now she's not so hot on it because it's taking too long to implement. I pointed out to her that it's an overhaul of our medical system. It can't happen overnight but over years. That didn't seem to mean much to her. So...yeah.
 
2012-06-29 10:32:00 AM

pregerstheHobo: I'm thinking of trolling the tea party protests this weekend a la Dr. Brule. Any ideas?

I was thinking a sign something like:

I'm a doctor and I like to get paid by people. Goverment has branches like a tree and tees don't have money ya dungos!


Poe's Law works both ways. Do you really think you can come up with something so stupid they wouldn't embrace you for it?
 
2012-06-29 10:32:17 AM

cchris_39: Then let me explain: THE TAX IS SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THE COST OF BUYING INSURANCE.

They wanted a government takeover of healthcare and single payer and ^THAT^ is what gets them there.

If it is cheaper for individuals and employers to drop insurance and fall into the government plans, that is the most likely behavior.

You were played like fiddles and didn't even know it.


Played like fiddles? Liberals want single payer.
 
2012-06-29 10:34:13 AM

cchris_39: Then let me explain: THE TAX IS SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THE COST OF BUYING INSURANCE.

They wanted a government takeover of healthcare and single payer and ^THAT^ is what gets them there.

If it is cheaper for individuals and employers to drop insurance and fall into the government plans, that is the most likely behavior.

You were played like fiddles and didn't even know it.


Oh no! Universal health care and a single payer system because when the government intervenes it demonstrates that it can provide a necessary service better than the free market, which ultimately decides whether private insurance fails? That's horrible!

fark me, that's not the plan, that's the best possible OUTCOME of the plan. It's a planned upgrade, not a bug.
 
2012-06-29 10:34:13 AM
Doesn't matter if it's healthcare or green energy are you Farkers really ok with the ruling of the SCotUS that we can be taxed for not buying something? What else can you be taxed for (not fined) if you don't purchase?
 
2012-06-29 10:35:31 AM

TheHappTroll: Doesn't matter if it's healthcare or green energy are you Farkers really ok with the ruling of the SCotUS that we can be taxed for not buying something? What else can you be taxed for (not fined) if you don't purchase?


Having kids. Owning a house. These examples have been given and they're basically the same farking thing.

There's also the detail that if you can demonstrate you can't find an affordable plan or get one yourself... YOU'RE EXEMPT.
 
2012-06-29 10:36:26 AM

TheHappTroll: Doesn't matter if it's healthcare or green energy are you Farkers really ok with the ruling of the SCotUS that we can be taxed for not buying something? What else can you be taxed for (not fined) if you don't purchase?


Children, mortgages, all sorts of things.

If you don't have a mortgage, you pay more in taxes.
If you don't have children, you pay more in taxes.
If you don't have health insurance, you pay more in taxes.
 
2012-06-29 10:36:26 AM

qorkfiend: cchris_39: Then let me explain: THE TAX IS SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THE COST OF BUYING INSURANCE.

They wanted a government takeover of healthcare and single payer and ^THAT^ is what gets them there.

If it is cheaper for individuals and employers to drop insurance and fall into the government plans, that is the most likely behavior.

You were played like fiddles and didn't even know it.

Played like fiddles? Liberals want single payer.


Or at the very least an infinitely more sane private market like those in Switzerland, Germany, and the Netherlands.
 
2012-06-29 10:36:44 AM

holeinthedonut: Facts don't mean squat and you'd be wrong to use facts to argue your points with the againsters.


FIFTY: The very essence of the "Party of 'No'".

(I kinda like that word though... "againsters")
 
2012-06-29 10:37:39 AM

TheHappTroll: are you Farkers really ok with the ruling of the SCotUS that we can be taxed for not buying something?


When your not buying something affects the prices for the rest of us who do, yes, I'm OK with making you buy it, or offset those costs by paying a penalty for your irresponsibility.
 
2012-06-29 10:40:19 AM

sweetmelissa31: And I should add that since all three branches of government have now upheld Fartcare, it's hard to argue that people do not support it.


That does not fly with me since only one branch upholds things. The other two just try and see what they can get away with. And in this case the Chief Justice deferred to Congress because of judicial restraint (something I want less off).

So yeah, a hard argument but not impossible.
 
2012-06-29 10:40:55 AM

TheHappTroll: Doesn't matter if it's healthcare or green energy are you Farkers really ok with the ruling of the SCotUS that we can be taxed for not buying something? What else can you be taxed for (not fined) if you don't purchase?


The tax code is already laden with trillions of dollars of tax expenditures that indirectly tax people for not doing something, and many of these are supported on a wide, bipartisan basis.
 
2012-06-29 10:42:03 AM

Bloody William: pregerstheHobo: I'm thinking of trolling the tea party protests this weekend a la Dr. Brule. Any ideas?

I was thinking a sign something like:

I'm a doctor and I like to get paid by people. Goverment has branches like a tree and tees don't have money ya dungos!

Poe's Law works both ways. Do you really think you can come up with something so stupid they wouldn't embrace you for it?


I know. But getting people to embrace the Brule as a champion of their cause would be hilarious.
 
2012-06-29 10:42:05 AM

cchris_39: Then let me explain: THE TAX IS SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THE COST OF BUYING INSURANCE.

They wanted a government takeover of healthcare and single payer and ^THAT^ is what gets them there.

If it is cheaper for individuals and employers to drop insurance and fall into the government plans, that is the most likely behavior.


What government plan could you now fall into if you drop your insurance?
Medicare - if you could get into that, you could have done it without PPACA.
Medicaid - if you could get into that, then you don't make enough / you job sucks enough that you didn't have insurance to drop in the first place. Not to mention that if you could get medicaid now, you could have gotten it before PPACA.
VA system or tricare? Same thing, PPACA didn't change how you get into those programs a bit.

The only possible 'program' you could fall into by dropping your insurance would be a state insurance exchange where you would end up .... buying insurance to replace the plan you just dropped.

My boss just spewed this same nonsense.
Him: Obama just gave all the lazy shiftless coke addicts free health care paid for by increasing my paxes.
Me: You have insurance, your taxes aren't going to go up. And if that laze cokehead shows up at the ER, he'll still get a bill, same as he would have five years ago.
Him: Yeah, but now he won't have to pay for it.
Me: Would he have had to pay for it then? At least this way the government jacks up his taxes on April 15th for not having the insurance to pay his hospital bill.
Him: What taxes? He wasn't paying any to begin with.
Me: You know that tax refund he gets? That just went down by however much PPACA charges for non-compliance.
Him: Yeah, but then they'll just give him more food stamps so the lazy bum doesn't starve.

At which point I gave up trying to chip away at the encrusted Rush-isms on his brainpan.
 
2012-06-29 10:44:19 AM

Serious Black: You wanted it to be called Obamacare, GOP? We'll make sure it's called Obamacare until long after you die.


I'm one step ahead of you. I'm going to call Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance "Roosecurity."
 
2012-06-29 10:45:00 AM
Forgive me if this doesn't work under tax code, but couldn't it be reworded that everybody gets a flat tax across the board to pay for this, but that people who have or can't afford health insurance get a tax credit in this exact amount?
 
2012-06-29 10:46:10 AM

Karac: Medicaid - if you could get into that, then you don't make enough / you job sucks enough that you didn't have insurance to drop in the first place. Not to mention that if you could get medicaid now, you could have gotten it before PPACA.
VA system or tricare? Same thing, PPACA didn't change how you get into those programs a bit.


False. The Medicaid expansion raises the cap for Medicaid eligibility, and extends it to cover adults without children.
 
2012-06-29 10:46:19 AM
www.metal-archives.com
Grim Reaper... for Obamacare
 
2012-06-29 10:47:27 AM

TheHappTroll: Doesn't matter if it's healthcare or green energy are you Farkers really ok with the ruling of the SCotUS that we can be taxed for not buying something? What else can you be taxed for (not fined) if you don't purchase?


My taxes have gone up to pay for people who get tax breaks because they've spawned, or they bought a first house, or because filling your bank account with dividends and stock options is somehow nobler and less tax-worthy than filling it with blue-collar paychecks. I'm not all that upset that someone's taxes go up for making my insurance premiums rise by not buying his own.
 
2012-06-29 10:48:30 AM
fark.upi.com

LOL the Easy DZs. Or did your school call them the Sleazy DZs?
 
2012-06-29 10:48:34 AM
Before, your health coverage was dictated by the whims of big business and politicians. Now it'll be dictated by the whims of politicians and big business.

Only a fool could fail to see how super-awesome things will be now.
 
Displayed 50 of 287 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report