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

(Facebook)   Obamacare explained like you're a 5 year old or a Republican   (facebook.com) divider line 482
    More: PSA, obamacare, Republican, chronic illnesses, tanning booth, health information  
•       •       •

12826 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Jul 2012 at 8:16 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-01 09:58:30 PM  
Each time the trolls pass off the thread to the next guy, they get stupider and more prolific.
 
2012-07-01 09:58:33 PM  

IronTom: Cyclometh: IronTom: First, after Obama is re-elected, they TAX the everloving shiat out of the middle class

Look at how stupid you are.

If you make it up to middle class, you'll see.


How much more in taxes have you paid in the last three years?
 
2012-07-01 10:00:08 PM  

Nightmaretony: bugontherug: Ringshadow: My brother just found a provision in it that, supposedly, allows the RFID chipping of humans.


Link

Your brother must be a Tea Partier, he didn't bother to read the third line which said about that claim: FALSE


Ringshadow's brother purportedly found the provision. I provided a link Ringshadow might like to show to her brother.
 
2012-07-01 10:00:56 PM  

vegasj: I saw an easier one...

so easy even a liberal can understand it.


[sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net image 432x392]


Yeah, except for the part where if you don't buy gum and have something go medically wrong with you, everyone else is paying for your care..... those are EXACTLY the same!
 
2012-07-01 10:01:28 PM  

vegasj: I saw an easier one...

so easy even a liberal can understand it.


[sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net image 432x392]


"I do not wish to purchase a home with a loan."

"OK. The tax on that will be $57,000 over the next 30 years."
 
2012-07-01 10:01:36 PM  

bugontherug: link


Yeah I thought that was suspicious as all hell but I was too dumbstruck to look it up myself. Thanks.

I love people who think the government is capable of conspiracy. They couldn't conspire their ways out of a paper bag.
 
2012-07-01 10:02:29 PM  

Biological Ali: Man, you people are easily trolled.


Nah, at this point, Winterwhile Microman is more of a walking joke than a troll.
 
2012-07-01 10:04:18 PM  
Can't we just have single payer already? You'd think employers would be clamoring to get health care off their books.
 
2012-07-01 10:05:00 PM  

wildcardjack: Long explanation short. At least my Freakonomic minded prediction of how things are going.

Obama sold your ass to the insurance companies who are allowed to keep up to a fifth of premiums. The way insurance companies can make more money now is to encourage doctors to perform more billable procedures. Doctors have already been doing this since the prevalence of insured patients meant they had to nit pick to maximize the total before insurance shaves it down.

Now we get into the "I've been watching too much Metalocalypse" phase. Insurance rates go up well beyond what that penalty would cost, hundreds of millions go without insurance. Doctors keep billing higher and higher amounts because the pool of insured are shrinking, and the insurance companies collapse, resulting in single payer healthcare funded by an annual head tax. If you don't pay the tax you get sent to a work camp in South Dakota. Soon South Dakota becomes the most populous state in the union until a harsh winter freezes everyone. "Rescue" teams go into the ice block and start to harvest organs and make haggis out of the rest.


Heh, I think I crapped my pants, a little.
 
2012-07-01 10:05:39 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: Biological Ali: Man, you people are easily trolled.

Nah, at this point, Winterwhile Microman is more of a walking joke than a troll.


Obama's election has cranked the volume on American crazy all the way up. His administration has been worth it just for the lulz at how ape sh*t the right has turned.
 
2012-07-01 10:07:18 PM  

cretinbob: Teabaggers still won't get it


Maybe if we tried petroglyphs?
 
2012-07-01 10:07:36 PM  

microman: so we finally have an honest Liberal here on Fark.

Obamacare is going to cost big, the cost will be way over 1 Trillion. Thanks for pointing that out.

Fark it, its all free anyway.


Oh for fark's sake are you really that interested in seeing people screwed over? I don't understand how republicans can push for wars like they're free, and object to money actually spent helping Americans. Money for bombs? Absolutely! Money for roads, schools, healthcare? Fark no! We spent a trillion dollars fighting for the freedom of Iraq (which didn't net us jack squat), but heaven forbid we invest it in our own people.

NOTHING is free, you moron. And yes, it will INITIALLY cost money to impliment this healthcare law. Change isn't going to happen instantaneously but that doesn't mean we sit on our asses and leave things as they are. That is a stupid argument. As more and more people are covered by insurance, the cost per person WILL go down becuase those expenses will NOT be passed on to the people who do have coverage.
 
2012-07-01 10:08:25 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: Biological Ali: Man, you people are easily trolled.

Nah, at this point, Winterwhile Microman is more of a walking joke than a troll.


Huh, no wonder I could only read two of his posts before plonking him.

/very low tolerance for fools
 
2012-07-01 10:09:06 PM  

Ambivalence: I don't understand how republicans can push for wars like they're free, and object to money actually spent helping Americans.


Have you considered the possibility they're just bad people?
 
2012-07-01 10:10:10 PM  

vegasj: I saw an easier one...

so easy even a liberal can understand it.


[sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net image 432x392]


Because health insurance works the same way as a pack of gum?

But that's ok, you just support a bunch of people who stay uninsured and then leech off the people who actually do have insurance anytime they go to an Emergency Room.

I thought you guys were all about personal responsibility?
 
2012-07-01 10:10:54 PM  

MrEricSir: Can't we just have single payer already? You'd think employers would be clamoring to get health care off their books.


Republicans are the reason why we can't have nice things.
 
2012-07-01 10:11:39 PM  

Tahs4Evar: Nicely explained. It all seems pretty mild - to an outsider who lives in a country with full health cover. Now can any American give me a similarly short and to the point explanation of why this is so vigorously opposed?

/I know this is a "That's the joke son" thing, but I have to ask.


I, too, would appreciate such an explanation.
 
2012-07-01 10:13:46 PM  

MrEricSir: Can't we just have single payer already? You'd think employers would be clamoring to get health care off their books.


Ya, I've never understood why employers would want the hassle of providing health insurance to their employees? Even more perplexing, why anyone would be happy allowing their employer to make decisions about their health care?
 
2012-07-01 10:14:34 PM  

vegasj: I saw an easier one...

so easy even a liberal can understand it.


[sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net image 432x392]


Yeah, so no trips to the emergency room for you then. Pseduocons will never get a clue.
 
2012-07-01 10:14:54 PM  

IronTom: Searched on penalty and on tax, but nothing about making you pay *it* if you don't buy insurance, or else go to jail. Let's skip that little detail shall we now? Maybe they couch it in other terms.


There's no teeth in the enforcement side. If you don't pay it they can't arrest you, take it from your wages, etc. If you aren't carefully they may send you a strongly worded letter.
 
2012-07-01 10:15:14 PM  

bulldg4life: Each time the trolls pass off the thread to the next guy, they get stupider and more prolific.


But some of them aren't trolls, they are just that stupid.
 
2012-07-01 10:16:08 PM  
this thread is trolls most of the way down.....
 
2012-07-01 10:16:12 PM  

Ambivalence: the cost per person WILL go down becuase those expenses will NOT be passed on to the people who do have coverage.


The people who do have coverage will see their rates rise to compensate for the new crop of people who are now covered. Just because someone got a subsidy for a policy doesn't mean they are in the game and helping to spread the risk. Their entry into the insurance market came off the back of the guy who buys his own insurance.

Just think: From each according to his means, to each according to his needs.
 
2012-07-01 10:16:21 PM  
One correction on your headline subby. Because an over simplified bullet point list that focused on the "oh yeah, that sounds great" upside of the act without dealing with the inevitable downside and unintended consequences is perfect for a
5 year old, it's also perfect for a democrat.

Now, you can easily come up with a list of anti-obamacare talking points that focus on the negative aspects without discussing the positives that
would be perfect for 5 year old republicans, but this ain't it.
 
2012-07-01 10:17:48 PM  

o5iiawah: The people who do have coverage will see their rates rise to compensate for the new crop of people who are now covered.


Yes, it's obviously much better that we keep denying insurance to people and letting them depend on the ER as their only source of health care.
 
2012-07-01 10:18:05 PM  

o5iiawah: Just because someone got a subsidy for a policy doesn't mean they are in the game


The insurance company, who sets the rates, doesn't care whether a person's bill comes out of their paycheck, their savings account, or a government subsidy.
 
2012-07-01 10:18:14 PM  

o5iiawah: Ambivalence: the cost per person WILL go down becuase those expenses will NOT be passed on to the people who do have coverage.

The people who do have coverage will see their rates rise to compensate for the new crop of people who are now covered. Just because someone got a subsidy for a policy doesn't mean they are in the game and helping to spread the risk. Their entry into the insurance market came off the back of the guy who buys his own insurance.

Just think: From each according to his means, to each according to his needs.


So your solution is people who can't afford health insurance are just shiat out of luck?
 
2012-07-01 10:18:15 PM  

Ambivalence: Your 25 year old has a family of 4? And, pray tell, why is it "banned" by the health care law. Is it actual insurance or a health savings account. Becuase that's not a "policy".


So-called "catastrophic" plans don't count. Plans that don't cover medical care except for extreme issues. Essentially you have to have plans that cover "well care" also. That may be what the OP was talking about. Though the plans aren't going ti be "banned." They'll either be upgraded to meet the minimum requirements of the law or they'll continue as they are but you'll still need to pay the tax.
 
2012-07-01 10:19:37 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: One correction on your headline subby. Because an over simplified bullet point list that focused on the "oh yeah, that sounds great" upside of the act without dealing with the inevitable downside and unintended consequences is perfect for a
5 year old, it's also perfect for a democrat.

Now, you can easily come up with a list of anti-obamacare talking points that focus on the negative aspects without discussing the positives that
would be perfect for 5 year old republicans, but this ain't it.


Go ahead. I want to see this fact-filled list of anti-obamacare talking points you can easily come up with.
 
2012-07-01 10:22:07 PM  

o5iiawah: The people who do have coverage will see their rates rise


wow, that's never happened.

it's always humorous to see the detractors of a change point to the outcome of the status quo, and proclaim that the end result of the change.

if that isn't clear enough, YOUR RATES HAVE BEEN RISING FOR DECADES. STUPIDLY.
 
2012-07-01 10:23:51 PM  

Pincy: Ya, I've never understood why employers would want the hassle of providing health insurance to their employees? Even more perplexing, why anyone would be happy allowing their employer to make decisions about their health care?


They only do it thanks to our farked up tax code. Individuals should be able to purchase health insurance the same way they buy car insurance. It should be portable and those who want simple plans with high deductibles should be able to have them. My employer offers me an excellent health insurance plan but I'd rather have the extra money and then go buy a plan better suited for an unmarried and otherwise healthy dude who is 27.

yes, I know I need treatment some day. There's even a slim chance I might need something soon. That is what a high deductible is for and I'd have the extra money to help pay for it.

Oh, but I forgot. There is no "I, me or My" in healthcare.
 
2012-07-01 10:25:20 PM  

MrEricSir: Can't we just have single payer already? You'd think employers would be clamoring to get health care off their books.


Think about it as if you are a greedy business owner:

You can get someone to work for you at minimum wage with the promise of health insurance after their 60 day probationary period. That person would gladly work for your competitor down the street that pays minimum +X, but they need insurance which your competitor doesn't offer.

Then after the 60 days, you can either cut their hours so that they're not eligible, fire them, or even (if they're a decent worker) extend the probationary period for another 30 or 60 days. Repeat for every new hire.
 
2012-07-01 10:25:51 PM  

microman: o5iiawah: A new tax on pharmaceutical companies.
A new tax on the purchase of medical devices.
A new tax on insurance companies based on their market share. Basically, the more of the market they control, the more they'll get taxed.
The amount you can deduct from your taxes for medical expenses increases.

Hint:

Companies dont pay taxes. They build the taxes into the prices of their goods and services which customers then pay. Someone please explain how prices are going to be lower. Show your work.

but but but

to a Liberal those are just class warfare lines. Now stop destroying their logic.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- - ------------------------------------

Companies exploit the differential between one or more markets. For example, say there is a baseball bat company. It buys on the "wood" market (and the "labor" market), and sells on the "baseball bats" market. The difference is it's profit.

If a company could sell for a higher price on the "baseball bats" market than it currently is (before any tax goes into effect), then it clearly would already be doing so. So when the tax rate goes up, the supply/demand point doesn't change, and the company has to pay the tax out of their own pocket. Which is why, of course, they rail about how awful it all is. (And how they're going to raise prices even though they don't).

Now this doesn't mean that business taxes have absolutely no effect. Investors naturally consider the return on their dollar when making investment decisions. So if you have a company that (due to a pretty substantial levy), gives you a ROI (Return on Investment) that is less than you can get elsewhere, then you're not going to put your money there. This can, in theory, impede businesses ability to raise capitol. However, in the United States, the effective corporate tax rate (with loopholes) at present is so low that it makes no measurable difference. There is an argument over whether it makes a difference even at Europe's higher effective tax rate.

/ I'm not sure why I responded to a couple of uninformed partisan political loons, but I did take a number of econ courses in college, and there's that old XKCD "Someone is wrong on the internet" thing. I guess I fell for it this time.
 
2012-07-01 10:27:33 PM  

o5iiawah: Ambivalence: the cost per person WILL go down becuase those expenses will NOT be passed on to the people who do have coverage.

The people who do have coverage will see their rates rise to compensate for the new crop of people who are now covered. Just because someone got a subsidy for a policy doesn't mean they are in the game and helping to spread the risk. Their entry into the insurance market came off the back of the guy who buys his own insurance.

Just think: From each according to his means, to each according to his needs.


You are going to need more than a pithy quote to explain how the world works. As much as you wish Marx was the fouding father of the left, he is not. You want to look at the founding fathers of the left? Look at Ben Franklin. Look at Thomas Jefferson. Hell, look, at Abraham Lincoln (I don't care if he was a republican, the modern republican party has gone 180 from what it was in Lincoln's time). Look at FDR.

You wanting to invoke the father of Communism as if he has ANYTHING to do with democrats or liberals or progressives just goes to show that you don't have the foggiest clue what Communism actually is. It also goes to show that you don't know what liberals actually want.

There are some things worth spending money on. Healthcare is one of them. (wars of political expediance, is not)
 
2012-07-01 10:30:01 PM  

the_geek: Ambivalence: Your 25 year old has a family of 4? And, pray tell, why is it "banned" by the health care law. Is it actual insurance or a health savings account. Becuase that's not a "policy".

So-called "catastrophic" plans don't count. Plans that don't cover medical care except for extreme issues. Essentially you have to have plans that cover "well care" also. That may be what the OP was talking about. Though the plans aren't going ti be "banned." They'll either be upgraded to meet the minimum requirements of the law or they'll continue as they are but you'll still need to pay the tax.


If you have a family of 4, you are not looking for just "catastrophic" plans. I guarantee.
 
2012-07-01 10:31:18 PM  

bugontherug: Nightmaretony: bugontherug: Ringshadow: My brother just found a provision in it that, supposedly, allows the RFID chipping of humans.


Link

Your brother must be a Tea Partier, he didn't bother to read the third line which said about that claim: FALSE

Ringshadow's brother purportedly found the provision. I provided a link Ringshadow might like to show to her brother.




Ah, ok. thanks. It will help when that derp starts running round FB as well.
 
2012-07-01 10:31:46 PM  

loonatic112358: this thread is trolls most of the way down.....


First of the month. Summer payroll kicked in.
 
2012-07-01 10:34:08 PM  

Nightmaretony: Ah, ok. thanks. It will help when that derp starts running round FB as well.


Sometimes it feels like fingers in a dam trying to keep the derp from drowning us all.
 
2012-07-01 10:34:41 PM  

IronTom: First, after Obama is re-elected, they TAX the everloving shiat out of the middle class


I thought that was the Republican plan. And even Romney did not call it a tax. Is it?
 
2012-07-01 10:36:36 PM  

Lost Thought 00: The insurance company, who sets the rates, doesn't care whether a person's bill comes out of their paycheck, their savings account, or a government subsidy.


It is good to see that the insurance companies are going to be taken care of.

heap: if that isn't clear enough, YOUR RATES HAVE BEEN RISING FOR DECADES. STUPIDLY.


And there are no valid arguments as to how rates will fall under this plan. I presented a question about 40 posts ago which curiously, nobody has taken a guess at.

Pincy: So your solution is people who can't afford health insurance are just shiat out of luck?


So I get central healthcare planning or mogadishu? There's absolutely nothing in between? Ever stop to think that a big reason why people cant afford health insurance is because they are being taxed to pay for other people to have health insurance? It doesnt' make sense any more for a single mom to work an extra job to get health insurance. Fark it, someone else will pay for it. We have budget surpluses to take care of everyone, right?

Mrtraveler01: Yes, it's obviously much better that we keep denying insurance to people and letting them depend on the ER as their only source of health care.


If someone is that poor that they are given Medicaid, they should at least use the preventative services that it offers. I'd like to see a way to prevent ER abuse which would keep costs down for those who do NEED the ER on occasion. Besides that, though i am curious as to what point, Group A became indebted to Group B simply because group B exists. We expect group A to pay more, deal with plans they dont want all while promising largess to group B and expecting nothing in return. This isn't white-knighting for the uber rich. This law is seriously going to fark over the middle class, eventually pushing them into the system, which is ultimately what the government wants in the first place....
 
2012-07-01 10:37:00 PM  

microman: you do realize, that folks are going to stop paying their Health Insurance, and just pay the new tax?


Why would I do that? I like having health insurance. If my employer quits offering subsidized insurance, I'll join one of the exchanges.
 
2012-07-01 10:37:44 PM  

Pharque-it: IronTom: First, after Obama is re-elected, they TAX the everloving shiat out of the middle class

I thought that was the Republican plan. And even Romney did not call it a tax. Is it?


That was the justification the Supreme Court gave for upholding it. It didn't fall under congress's interstate commerce authority, but on congress's authority to levy taxes.

Now everyone is calling it a tax.
 
2012-07-01 10:38:00 PM  

Graffito: microman: you do realize, that folks are going to stop paying their Health Insurance, and just pay the new tax?

Why would I do that? I like having health insurance. If my employer quits offering subsidized insurance, I'll join one of the exchanges.


you don't actually "join" an exchange. The exchange just gives you a way that is supposed to help shopping for insurance
 
2012-07-01 10:39:37 PM  

o5iiawah: If someone is that poor that they are given Medicaid, they should at least use the preventative services that it offers. I'd like to see a way to prevent ER abuse which would keep costs down for those who do NEED the ER on occasion. Besides that, though i am curious as to what point, Group A became indebted to Group B simply because group B exists. We expect group A to pay more, deal with plans they dont want all while promising largess to group B and expecting nothing in return. This isn't white-knighting for the uber rich. This law is seriously going to fark over the middle class, eventually pushing them into the system, which is ultimately what the government wants in the first place..


So should Group A just let Group B die?
 
2012-07-01 10:40:34 PM  

Tor_Eckman: Go ahead. I want to see this fact-filled list of anti-obamacare talking points you can easily come up with.


Point one would be about how it doesn't really do anything to truly attack the costs of health care insurance while the other 30 points would be varying degrees of complaints about government over-reach, tax increases, and government being unable to handle it
 
2012-07-01 10:40:51 PM  

skullkrusher: Graffito: microman: you do realize, that folks are going to stop paying their Health Insurance, and just pay the new tax?

Why would I do that? I like having health insurance. If my employer quits offering subsidized insurance, I'll join one of the exchanges.

you don't actually "join" an exchange. The exchange just gives you a way that is supposed to help shopping for insurance


Yeah.

I don't see why people are trying to paint these exchanges as something evil and sinister.
 
2012-07-01 10:41:55 PM  

o5iiawah: And there are no valid arguments as to how rates will fall under this plan.


and no valid arguments for how the status quo will alter it's status quo-i-ness and end up w/ constant or reduced rates, either.

with the side effect of 30 million uninsured, pre-existing conditions, and medical bankruptcy as a normal course of action.

there are a pisspot full of detractions in 'change nothing' - you make no case for that being a satisfactory outcome, either.
 
2012-07-01 10:42:16 PM  

o5iiawah: Ever stop to think that a big reason why people cant afford health insurance is because they are being taxed to pay for other people to have health insurance?


Do you not understand what health insurance pays for now?
 
2012-07-01 10:42:48 PM  

Mrtraveler01: skullkrusher: Graffito: microman: you do realize, that folks are going to stop paying their Health Insurance, and just pay the new tax?

Why would I do that? I like having health insurance. If my employer quits offering subsidized insurance, I'll join one of the exchanges.

you don't actually "join" an exchange. The exchange just gives you a way that is supposed to help shopping for insurance

Yeah.

I don't see why people are trying to paint these exchanges as something evil and sinister.


cmon man, it's a suicide pact
 
2012-07-01 10:43:11 PM  
But Obama still wants to take away our guns!

Oh wait:

''(c) PROTECTION OF SECOND AMENDMENT GUN RIGHTS.-øAs
added by section 10101(e)(2)¿
''(1) WELLNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAMS.-A wellness
and health promotion activity implemented under subsection
(a)(1)(D) may not require the disclosure or collection of any
information relating to-
''(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully-possessed
firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property
of an individual; or
''(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm
or ammunition by an individual.
''(2) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION.-None of the
authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made by that
Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used for the
collection of any information relating to-
''(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm
or ammunition;
''(B) the lawful use of a firearm or ammunition; or
''(C) the lawful storage of a firearm or ammunition.
''(3) LIMITATION ON DATABASES OR DATA BANKS.-None of
the authorities provided to the Secretary under the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment made
by that Act shall be construed to authorize or may be used
a firearm or ammunition.
''(4) LIMITATION ON DETERMINATION OF PREMIUM RATES OR
ELIGIBILITY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE.-A premium rate may not
be increased, health insurance coverage may not be denied,
and a discount, rebate, or reward offered for participation in
a wellness program may not be reduced or withheld under
any health benefit plan issued pursuant to or in accordance
with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an
amendment made by that Act on the basis of, or on reliance
upon-
''(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm
or ammunition; or
''(B) the lawful use or storage of a firearm or ammunition.
''(5) LIMITATION ON DATA COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR
INDIVIDUALS.-No individual shall be required to disclose any
information under any data collection activity authorized under
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or an amendment
made by that Act relating to-
''(A) the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm
or ammunition; or
''(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm
or ammunition.

page 19. HUMONGOUS PDF WARNING
 
Displayed 50 of 482 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report