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  
•       •       •

12824 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 11:34:32 PM

coeyagi: skullkrusher: bulldg4life: Again, given the political climate, I find it hard to bash the PPACA for not solving the rising costs of health care insurance when it does actually help solve several other problems.

I don't have a problem bashing it for that.

So throw it out if it doesn't address costs but addresses many other issues.

Dude, you're heading towards "best part... forever" territory.


who says anything about throwing it out? Oh, I get it, you made that up. Gold star for you.
 
2012-07-01 11:35:11 PM

Biological Ali: [quizzical_dog.jpg]


placing the blame and removing those to blame doesn't make the bill fix the real problem
 
2012-07-01 11:35:40 PM

skullkrusher: but a shiatty bandaid to alleviate what is largely a symptom of the real issue isn't gonna change a thing


this shiatty bandaid means my cousin can get coverage when it goes in to place, and won't die from an absolutely treatable ailment.

this shiatty bandaid seems a lot better than a bare festering wound.

matter of fact, this shiatty bandaid actually seems like a good thing. thank you, band aid.
 
2012-07-01 11:36:22 PM

punistation: Obama will lose this election. and that's sad.

Simply because there's more passion on the other side. First time, people were PASSIONATE about electing him. but they did it. Done. Those people are gonna stay home this time. Meanwhile, there's far more people who are PASSIONATE about making him a 1-term president.

So very sad.


Indeed. because people are SOooooo passionate about Romney. Romney can't win a presidential election by only being the "Not-Obama". Almost no one is excited to vote for him and he needs people to vote FOR him more than he needs people to vote against Obama.
 
2012-07-01 11:36:27 PM

coeyagi: skullkrusher: coeyagi: skullkrusher: bulldg4life: And here I thought the main issue was 30m people without health care insurance. Thanks for setting us straight.

yeah, you were incorrect. See, if insurance were more affordable, we wouldn't have such a large number of uninsured. You address the main issue of cost and you also reduce the issue of people who cannot afford insurance. Now most people will have insurance but we will still be paying far too much for it. We didn't address the primary issue but we did address what is largely a symptom of the primary issue.

I'll remind my sister with the pre-existing of that fact.

the pre-existing condition issue is a problem but it is not the primary cause of uninsured people so while it makes for more emotional stories, it isn't the primary problem and it can certainly be addressed in an initiative which also addresses costs

I think the point is that everyone who isn't blinded by FW: FW: FW: and its cousin Fox News has something to gain from PPACA. It is better than the status quo.

Now, keep fixing rather than throw out. Why is the right so hell bent on taking a step backward, then doing nothing to go forward again and yet all their supporters, who have nothing to gain from that course of action, keep drooling and nodding?




Because Obama is black, that's why. tis simply racism and revenge, nothing more.
 
2012-07-01 11:36:29 PM

skullkrusher: you can call it disingenuous all you'd like. The main issue is cost. It does not do NEARLY enough to address this issue. It does cover virtually everyone. That's a good thing. It doesn't make the cost problem go away, however, and your constant handwaving pretending that this bill is anything but a shiatty bandaid to alleviate what is largely a symptom of the real issue isn't gonna change a thing


I'm not sure I have ever done something different. In this very thread I have said that the PPACA could've been better and I even mentioned a few things that should've been different. Personally, Ron Wyden's bipartisan bill would've been a great idea to start with, but Obama shot it down as it looked too much like single payer.

I DO think it is a shiatty bandaid. However, I don't discount that it is a bandaid. I am willing to admit that it is a first step. It isn't a big first step, but it is a step in the right direction.

You seem hellbent on bashing it because it wasn't a big enough first step. And, along the way, you have repeatedly brushed off the positives.
 
2012-07-01 11:37:01 PM

heap: this shiatty bandaid means my cousin can get coverage when it goes in to place, and won't die from an absolutely treatable ailment.


this is a good thing. It doesn't make the bill impervious to criticism.

heap: this shiatty bandaid seems a lot better than a bare festering wound.


better than the status quo doesn't make the bill impervious to criticism.

heap: matter of fact, this shiatty bandaid actually seems like a good thing. thank you, band aid.


that kicks the can down the road...
 
2012-07-01 11:38:08 PM
And now we're back where we started. I'm going to bed.
 
2012-07-01 11:40:40 PM

bulldg4life: You seem hellbent on bashing it because it wasn't a big enough first step.


the thing is, i can absolutely agree with that. it wasn't a big enough first step.

i can't ignore political reality, tho - think about it for a second - this wasn't a big enough first step, yet it's sent half of the political world off the freaking rails into crazy town.

is it even sane to say 'well, they should have taken a bigger first step, since this too-small step obviously went over like gangbusters'.

just for examples sake, i could even agree to subsidizing medical training for indentured service at a federal hospital in return - but not even in my most depraved hallucinatory binge state can i say it's a political possibility.
 
2012-07-01 11:40:41 PM

skullkrusher: coeyagi: skullkrusher: bulldg4life: Again, given the political climate, I find it hard to bash the PPACA for not solving the rising costs of health care insurance when it does actually help solve several other problems.

I don't have a problem bashing it for that.

So throw it out if it doesn't address costs but addresses many other issues.

Dude, you're heading towards "best part... forever" territory.

who says anything about throwing it out? Oh, I get it, you made that up. Gold star for you.


skullkrusher: bulldg4life: skullkrusher: bulldg4life: Again, given the political climate, I find it hard to bash the PPACA for not solving the rising costs of health care insurance when it does actually help solve several other problems.

I don't have a problem bashing it for that.

Yes, I can see that.

And, I don't have a problem calling you disingenuous when you brush off the things that the PPACA actually does do while sticking your fingers in your ears and going "but but but, this could've been different"

you can call it disingenuous all you'd like. The main issue is cost. It does not do NEARLY enough to address this issue. It does cover virtually everyone. That's a good thing. It doesn't make the cost problem go away, however, and your constant handwaving pretending that this bill is anything but a shiatty bandaid to alleviate what is largely a symptom of the real issue isn't gonna change a thing


"In 1879, chemist Constantin Fahlberg did not wash his hands before lunch and became aware that the chemicals on his hands were making his food all taste sweeter. The chemical was saccharin and has since become synonymous with artificial sweetener."

Please tell us what a f*uckup at handwashing Constantin Fahlberg is.
 
2012-07-01 11:41:18 PM

skullkrusher: this is a good thing. It doesn't make the bill impervious to criticism.


'shiatty bandaid' isn't criticism, it's dismissal.
 
2012-07-01 11:41:44 PM

bulldg4life: You seem hellbent on bashing it because it wasn't a big enough first step. And, along the way, you have repeatedly brushed off the positives.


He's very concerned.
 
2012-07-01 11:42:23 PM

skullkrusher: Biological Ali: [quizzical_dog.jpg]

placing the blame and removing those to blame doesn't make the bill fix the real problem


They are the real problem. If they had been removed before this bill was debated and passed, this bill would be better now. Similarly, if they are removed now, the next bill will be better (at least, as compared to a different reality where they're not removed).
 
2012-07-01 11:43:06 PM
So a five year old can understand it. Ok let me give it a shot.

1. You're going to buy insurance.
2. If you don't we're going to take your money.
3. When we decide that you should buy something else, we'll let you know.
4. Unless you're a union or other big contibutor, then you will get a waiver.
5. Or some other eternally downtrodden politically correct victim that we so depend on for votes, then we'll get you out of it too.

Alrighty, thread over!
 
2012-07-01 11:44:08 PM

Ambivalence: punistation: Obama will lose this election. and that's sad.

Simply because there's more passion on the other side. First time, people were PASSIONATE about electing him. but they did it. Done. Those people are gonna stay home this time. Meanwhile, there's far more people who are PASSIONATE about making him a 1-term president.

So very sad.

Indeed. because people are SOooooo passionate about Romney. Romney can't win a presidential election by only being the "Not-Obama". Almost no one is excited to vote for him and he needs people to vote FOR him more than he needs people to vote against Obama.


Bingo.

Romney has all of Kerry's problems with "elitism", half his likability, and twice his flip-floppiness. Plus, he's running as a Republican, so his Mormonism is a problem with the fundies, and he, as I mentioned, created Romneycare. Plus, he's going against the most effective campaigner in decades.

It'll take a disaster of epic proportions for Romney to win. Something on a scale of 9/11, that can be perceived as a farkup by the Obama administration. And Republicans are praying for it.
 
2012-07-01 11:44:18 PM

cchris_39: So a five year old can understand it. Ok let me give it a shot.

1. You're going to buy insurance.
2. If you don't we're going to take your money.
3. When we decide that you should buy something else, we'll let you know.
4. Unless you're a union or other big contibutor, then you will get a waiver.
5. Or some other eternally downtrodden politically correct victim that we so depend on for votes, then we'll get you out of it too.

Alrighty, thread over!


0/10. Freepland has some more talking points, get it up to 15 before you get above zero.
 
2012-07-01 11:44:47 PM

cchris_39: So a five year old can understand it. Ok let me give it a shot.

1. You're going to buy insurance.
2. If you don't we're going to take your money.
3. When we decide that you should buy something else, we'll let you know.
4. Unless you're a union or other big contibutor, then you will get a waiver.
5. Or some other eternally downtrodden politically correct victim that we so depend on for votes, then we'll get you out of it too.

Alrighty, thread over!


Congratulations, five year olds would consider you an idiot.
 
2012-07-01 11:45:07 PM

heap: skullkrusher: this is a good thing. It doesn't make the bill impervious to criticism.

'shiatty bandaid' isn't criticism, it's dismissal.


did I hurt the bill's feelings?
 
2012-07-01 11:45:28 PM

coeyagi: "In 1879, chemist Constantin Fahlberg did not wash his hands before lunch and became aware that the chemicals on his hands were making his food all taste sweeter. The chemical was saccharin and has since become synonymous with artificial sweetener."

Please tell us what a f*uckup at handwashing Constantin Fahlberg is.


...or Albert Hofmann. *cough*
 
2012-07-01 11:46:33 PM

skullkrusher: heap: skullkrusher: this is a good thing. It doesn't make the bill impervious to criticism.

'shiatty bandaid' isn't criticism, it's dismissal.

did I hurt the bill's feelings?


.....yah, i'll pass. conversing with some people is as as rewarding as dry humping sandpaper, i just need reminded from time to time.
 
2012-07-01 11:46:59 PM

coeyagi: skullkrusher: coeyagi: skullkrusher: bulldg4life: Again, given the political climate, I find it hard to bash the PPACA for not solving the rising costs of health care insurance when it does actually help solve several other problems.

I don't have a problem bashing it for that.

So throw it out if it doesn't address costs but addresses many other issues.

Dude, you're heading towards "best part... forever" territory.

who says anything about throwing it out? Oh, I get it, you made that up. Gold star for you.

skullkrusher: bulldg4life: skullkrusher: bulldg4life: Again, given the political climate, I find it hard to bash the PPACA for not solving the rising costs of health care insurance when it does actually help solve several other problems.

I don't have a problem bashing it for that.

Yes, I can see that.

And, I don't have a problem calling you disingenuous when you brush off the things that the PPACA actually does do while sticking your fingers in your ears and going "but but but, this could've been different"

you can call it disingenuous all you'd like. The main issue is cost. It does not do NEARLY enough to address this issue. It does cover virtually everyone. That's a good thing. It doesn't make the cost problem go away, however, and your constant handwaving pretending that this bill is anything but a shiatty bandaid to alleviate what is largely a symptom of the real issue isn't gonna change a thing

"In 1879, chemist Constantin Fahlberg did not wash his hands before lunch and became aware that the chemicals on his hands were making his food all taste sweeter. The chemical was saccharin and has since become synonymous with artificial sweetener."

Please tell us what a f*uckup at handwashing Constantin Fahlberg is.


what does that have to do with your "throwing it out" strawman? What does that have to do with anything for that matter?
 
2012-07-01 11:47:32 PM

LordJiro: Ambivalence: punistation: Obama will lose this election. and that's sad.

Simply because there's more passion on the other side. First time, people were PASSIONATE about electing him. but they did it. Done. Those people are gonna stay home this time. Meanwhile, there's far more people who are PASSIONATE about making him a 1-term president.

So very sad.

Indeed. because people are SOooooo passionate about Romney. Romney can't win a presidential election by only being the "Not-Obama". Almost no one is excited to vote for him and he needs people to vote FOR him more than he needs people to vote against Obama.

Bingo.

Romney has all of Kerry's problems with "elitism", half his likability, and twice his flip-floppiness. Plus, he's running as a Republican, so his Mormonism is a problem with the fundies, and he, as I mentioned, created Romneycare. Plus, he's going against the most effective campaigner in decades.

It'll take a disaster of epic proportions for Romney to win. Something on a scale of 9/11, that can be perceived as a farkup by the Obama administration. And Republicans are praying for it.


And if you add the relatively close polling to the mix, it just goes to show you how programmed to hate Obama the Right is. Half the Facebook images I see from conservatives have "Get rid of Obama" as part of their list of planks for the platform, and if you ask them why, they give you nuanced answers in the vein of a MAC truck. SOSHULIZM!

It's not that they're completely impervious to facts, it's that fear and anger has completely shut off that part of the brain that could absorb anything resembling truth.
 
2012-07-01 11:48:17 PM

cchris_39: 5. Or some other eternally downtrodden politically correct victim that we so depend on for votes, then we'll get you out of it too.


Dog whistle - DRINK!
 
2012-07-01 11:48:23 PM

Ambivalence: ndeed. because people are SOooooo passionate about Romney. Romney can't win a presidential election by only being the "Not-Obama". Almost no one is excited to vote for him and he needs people to vote FOR him more than he needs people to vote against Obama.


Another thing in Obama's favor: When asked who is more likable, people prefer Obama over Romney by a double-digit margin.

That's the who-would-I-rather-have-a-beer-with vote sitting square in Obama's pocket.
 
2012-07-01 11:48:25 PM

heap: skullkrusher: heap: skullkrusher: this is a good thing. It doesn't make the bill impervious to criticism.

'shiatty bandaid' isn't criticism, it's dismissal.

did I hurt the bill's feelings?

.....yah, i'll pass. conversing with some people is as as rewarding as dry humping sandpaper, i just need reminded from time to time.


you're the one getting bent out of shape because I am criticizing this bill that doesn't address the underlying issues while agreeing that it does do some good things yet I am the poor conversationalist? You're a special little guy.
 
2012-07-01 11:50:18 PM

coeyagi: And if you add the relatively close polling to the mix, it just goes to show you how programmed to hate Obama the Right is. Half the Facebook images I see from conservatives have "Get rid of Obama" as part of their list of planks for the platform, and if you ask them why, they give you nuanced answers in the vein of a MAC truck. SOSHULIZM!

It's not that they're completely impervious to facts, it's that fear and anger has completely shut off that part of the brain that could absorb anything resembling truth.


That is what is so disturbing about politics right now. There is such a large percentage of people completely out of their god-damned minds and they have an equal say in how the country should run.

I swear, if Obama came out against child abuse you'd have republicans screaming for the right to hit their children. They are THAT reactionary and mindless right now.
 
2012-07-01 11:51:09 PM
Well, while all you assholes argue back and forth, I'll go ahead and treat all the jerkoffs who come in to my ED and get all ya'll to pay for their bill.

For the record, I get way more McCain/Palin voters who freeload their asses, or come in for COPD exacerbation, sign out AMA just to smoke a cigarette, and then check back in almost dead because of it. But no socioeconomic/political group is immune.
 
2012-07-01 11:51:56 PM

skullkrusher: coeyagi: skullkrusher: coeyagi: skullkrusher: bulldg4life: Again, given the political climate, I find it hard to bash the PPACA for not solving the rising costs of health care insurance when it does actually help solve several other problems.

I don't have a problem bashing it for that.

So throw it out if it doesn't address costs but addresses many other issues.

Dude, you're heading towards "best part... forever" territory.

who says anything about throwing it out? Oh, I get it, you made that up. Gold star for you.

skullkrusher: bulldg4life: skullkrusher: bulldg4life: Again, given the political climate, I find it hard to bash the PPACA for not solving the rising costs of health care insurance when it does actually help solve several other problems.

I don't have a problem bashing it for that.

Yes, I can see that.

And, I don't have a problem calling you disingenuous when you brush off the things that the PPACA actually does do while sticking your fingers in your ears and going "but but but, this could've been different"

you can call it disingenuous all you'd like. The main issue is cost. It does not do NEARLY enough to address this issue. It does cover virtually everyone. That's a good thing. It doesn't make the cost problem go away, however, and your constant handwaving pretending that this bill is anything but a shiatty bandaid to alleviate what is largely a symptom of the real issue isn't gonna change a thing

"In 1879, chemist Constantin Fahlberg did not wash his hands before lunch and became aware that the chemicals on his hands were making his food all taste sweeter. The chemical was saccharin and has since become synonymous with artificial sweetener."

Please tell us what a f*uckup at handwashing Constantin Fahlberg is.

what does that have to do with your "throwing it out" strawman? What does that have to do with anything for that matter?


You said it has little chance of being changed. You don't like it. It does many good things and yet you still whine about 1 item. If you aren't advocating for its dismissal you really are just pouting.

Going to bed. Fight the good concerned fight, citizen! Because if you can't nail it the first time.... it's utter shiat!
 
2012-07-01 11:52:02 PM

Ambivalence: I swear, if Obama came out against child abuse you'd have republicans screaming for the right to hit their children.


naw, they'd just change the definition so 'child abuse' means being a single parent, or gay.

and no, i'm not kidding
 
2012-07-01 11:54:02 PM

coeyagi: You said it has little chance of being changed. You don't like it. It does many good things and yet you still whine about 1 item. If you aren't advocating for its dismissal you really are just pouting.


yeah, I complain that it doesn't address the actual farking problem. Call me kooky.

coeyagi: Going to bed. Fight the good concerned fight, citizen! Because if you can't nail it the first time.... it's utter shiat!


Yeah, I'm concerned that it doesn't fix our problems. You're content with the "win". Loser.
 
2012-07-01 11:54:46 PM

vegasj: I saw an easier one...

so easy even a liberal can understand it.


sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net


If you don't buy a pack of gum, and your lack of gum resulted in my having to pay for your far more expensive emergency care bills because you cannot afford to go to a regular doctor's office because, you know, you lack gum, well you might have some semblance of a point.

Since that isn't what happens at all, your little sign is just stupid. Jaw-droppingly stupid. Stupid on a level that it is a wonder you can turn on your computer in order to post such dreck. And I think I phrased that clearly enough that anyone at any part of the political spectrum can understand it. Even you.
 
2012-07-01 11:54:48 PM

ragekage: Well, while all you assholes argue back and forth, I'll go ahead and treat all the jerkoffs who come in to my ED and get all ya'll to pay for their bill.

For the record, I get way more McCain/Palin voters who freeload their asses, or come in for COPD exacerbation, sign out AMA just to smoke a cigarette, and then check back in almost dead because of it. But no socioeconomic/political group is immune.


does it chafe your ass that you have to treat them AND pay their bill? At least I just have to pay their bill.
 
2012-07-02 12:00:45 AM

Ambivalence: I swear, if Obama came out against child abuse you'd have republicans screaming for the right to hit their children. They are THAT reactionary and mindless right now.


Aw hell, that's not even the tip of the iceberg. If Obama came out against burning churches to the ground and constructing mosques over the rubble, you'd have Republicans buying matches and gasoline by the tankard, and engineers with experience in dome construction would have no trouble finding work.
 
2012-07-02 12:00:52 AM

ragekage: Well, while all you assholes argue back and forth, I'll go ahead and treat all the jerkoffs who come in to my ED and get all ya'll to pay for their bill.

For the record, I get way more McCain/Palin voters who freeload their asses, or come in for COPD exacerbation, sign out AMA just to smoke a cigarette, and then check back in almost dead because of it. But no socioeconomic/political group is immune.


So do you even remember the reasons why you wanted to become a doctor in the first place?
 
2012-07-02 12:02:17 AM

The Name: Ambivalence: ndeed. because people are SOooooo passionate about Romney. Romney can't win a presidential election by only being the "Not-Obama". Almost no one is excited to vote for him and he needs people to vote FOR him more than he needs people to vote against Obama.

Another thing in Obama's favor: When asked who is more likable, people prefer Obama over Romney by a double-digit margin.

That's the who-would-I-rather-have-a-beer-with vote sitting square in Obama's pocket.


Especially since Romney doesn't drink beer. Then again neither did Bush (supposedly).
 
2012-07-02 12:05:22 AM

EnviroDude: vpb: EnviroDude: Let me get this straight . . .

We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't, which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that didn't read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a... President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke!!!!

What the h*ll could possibly go wrong?'

Donald Trump

No you didn't get it strait. Only financially irresponsible people get fined. Ask a five year old to explain it to you.

You mean self employed types that might have to choose between food or insurance. Or people with HSAs that now have to buy a product they don't want.

Please continue


I'm self-employed, I haven't gone without coverage for 10 years. I live within my means and that includes accounting for the $1200 I pay for it every month.
 
2012-07-02 12:08:58 AM

EbolaNYC: EnviroDude: vpb: EnviroDude: Let me get this straight . . .

We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't, which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that didn't read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a... President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke!!!!

What the h*ll could possibly go wrong?'

Donald Trump

No you didn't get it strait. Only financially irresponsible people get fined. Ask a five year old to explain it to you.

You mean self employed types that might have to choose between food or insurance. Or people with HSAs that now have to buy a product they don't want.

Please continue

I'm self-employed, I haven't gone without coverage for 10 years. I live within my means and that includes accounting for the $1200 I pay for it every month.


And your insurance should go down when Obamacare is fully enacted. For most of the self-employed, and definitely for small businesses, the cost of insurance will go down. That is a huge boon to the middle class. I don't get why more people do not see that.
 
2012-07-02 12:12:05 AM

EnviroDude: Let me get this straight . . .

We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't, which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that didn't read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a... President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that's broke!!!!

What the h*ll could possibly go wrong?'

Donald Trump


It's the thought that counts, you ungrateful ass.
 
2012-07-02 12:15:20 AM

jjorsett: Fluorescent Testicle: /Yes, that's the only reason.
//They'll stammer, lie and obfuscate, but it always boils down to that.

No, what it boils down to is the majority of the people don't believe government could organize a ham sandwich, much less handle something as serious as controlling and regulating all of health care. I wouldn't trust George Bush or Ronald Reagan with that responsibility either, and they were at least competent former governors, as opposed to the empty suit now in the White House.


Why does dislike of PPACA always eventually turn into the opponent eventually revealing that his real issue is that he just doesn't like Obama? It always wanders off the impact of policy and eventually turns into another "Obama is a smelly poopyhead" assertion without really discussing particulars and concerns.

I get it, you don't like the guy. But if you want to change my mind, I'm gonna need more than that.
 
2012-07-02 12:19:08 AM
Let's not even discuss this matter with Republicans anymore. It's a waste of time, an exercise in futility.
Let them rage and gnash their teeth, let them. They're babies who refuse to see reality.
fark em.
 
2012-07-02 12:21:09 AM

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.

Tax did come up many times. As did that taxulty if you have a business with more than 50 people but don't buy their (or some) product for everybody.


IronTom, you should go to the hospital immediately, even if you don't have medical insurance. Based on your writing I think you might be in the middle of having a stroke.
 
2012-07-02 12:23:05 AM

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.


*** Scans thread***

So I'll take that as a "No" then...
 
2012-07-02 12:27:05 AM

Tahs4Evar: 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.

*** Scans thread***

So I'll take that as a "No" then...


Because 0bama and socialism. Why don't you understand? There's a damn nig...um, socialist in the White House!
 
2012-07-02 12:28:14 AM
DeaH


Smartest
Funniest

2012-07-01 11:54:46 PM

vegasj: I saw an easier one...

so easy even a liberal can understand it.


sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net

If you don't buy a pack of gum, and your lack of gum resulted in my having to pay for your far more expensive emergency care bills because you cannot afford to go to a regular doctor's office because, you know, you lack gum, well you might have some semblance of a point.

Since that isn't what happens at all, your little sign is just stupid. Jaw-droppingly stupid. Stupid on a level that it is a wonder you can turn on your computer in order to post such dreck. And I think I phrased that clearly enough that anyone at any part of the political spectrum can understand it. Even you.



Indeed. This screams much more of omfg I have to pay taxes for the fire department. (it's basically what it is, just without the word tax, cause taxes are bad) . Then when your house catches fire you see the benefit of your tax dollars. It's just another essential service, kind of what you would expect from a 1st world country.
 
2012-07-02 12:28:20 AM

Tahs4Evar: So I'll take that as a "No" then...


There are only so many ways you can say "Americans, as a nationality, are completely farking retarded", you know.
 
2012-07-02 12:48:37 AM

Pincy: ragek


Of course I remember why I got into emergency medicine. Doesn't make the fact that all anyone is willing to do is kneejerk about it back and forth any better. I used to be a diehard Republican. I caucused for Lamar Alexander. I gave money to McCain in 2000. Hell, I still get mailers from Tom Petri for all the money I gave him. But fark those guys now. Lewis Black said it right- the Democrats may be the party of BAD ideas, but the Republicans are the party of NO ideas. Something needs to be done. If we now get a cut from the lady who called 911 to get pregnancy tested (and, oh, yeah, suddenly developed chest pains) because her boyfriend refused to believe she didn't fake her pregnancy test, more the better.
 
2012-07-02 12:55:15 AM

ragekage: Pincy: ragek

Of course I remember why I got into emergency medicine. Doesn't make the fact that all anyone is willing to do is kneejerk about it back and forth any better. I used to be a diehard Republican. I caucused for Lamar Alexander. I gave money to McCain in 2000. Hell, I still get mailers from Tom Petri for all the money I gave him. But fark those guys now. Lewis Black said it right- the Democrats may be the party of BAD ideas, but the Republicans are the party of NO ideas. Something needs to be done. If we now get a cut from the lady who called 911 to get pregnancy tested (and, oh, yeah, suddenly developed chest pains) because her boyfriend refused to believe she didn't fake her pregnancy test, more the better.


So vote republican?
 
2012-07-02 12:55:20 AM

Endactam: This screams much more of omfg I have to pay taxes for the fire department. (it's basically what it is, just without the word tax, cause taxes are bad)


That's exactly what it is. On the other hand, if the government forced me to pay a private company that would profit from finding ways not to put out fires, I'd feel like I got farked on that deal.

The only way this thing is going to work right is if we regulate all the profit out of it, and when we get that done we won't have insurance companies anymore. I'm not saying that's a bad thing either. But the race to the bottom for the insurance companies to extract whatever profit they can from us before they go under isn't going to be pretty. There isn't any substitute for single payer.
 
2012-07-02 12:58:10 AM
I love the other great new recycled talking point by the righties.

"Did you actually READ the entire Obamacare bill??? Well if you didn't read it then you don't know what you are talking about."

And just like always we're having the best ice cream argument.
 
2012-07-02 12:58:15 AM

Tahs4Evar: *** Scans thread***

So I'll take that as a "No" then...


Because, despite the name, this bill has little to do with care, and everything to do with insurance. If you think the insurance companies are solely responsible for health care inflation over the past two decades, forcing everyone to buy in, or taxing those who don't, may seem like a reasonable solution, If, on the other hand, you believe the problem is $900 x-rays and $7,000 MRI, forcing consumer to buy into a flawed system is a stopgap solution at best. Worse, the legislation is particularly hard on a wide segment of some of the most challenged. The exchanges will theoretically make insurance cheaper, but limits on "basic" plans serve to offset that to a significant extent, as does the addition of high-risk patients to a shared pool.
 
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 »






Report