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
    More: PSA, obamacare, Republican, chronic illnesses, tanning booth, health information  
•       •       •

12840 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Jul 2012 at 8:16 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2012-07-01 04:15:14 PM  
7 votes:

miss diminutive: the usual warrrrgaarrrbl.


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

2012-07-01 04:05:20 PM  
6 votes:
Very informative. Nice to see some information without the usual warrrrgaarrrbl.
2012-07-01 11:54:46 PM  
5 votes:

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 09:17:49 PM  
5 votes:

jjorsett: Because Tea Party opposers are desperately thrashing around in an effort to find a way to marginalize a grass-roots movement they hate and fear? Just a guess.


Grass roots? LOL

A movement that didn't gain any traction until corporate interests and right-wing media got behind it does NOT make it a grassroots movement.
2012-07-01 06:46:59 PM  
5 votes:

Tahs4Evar: Now can any American give me a similarly short and to the point explanation of why this is so vigorously opposed?


He's black.

/you made it too easy
2012-07-01 10:07:36 PM  
4 votes:

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 08:52:09 PM  
4 votes:

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?


2.bp.blogspot.com

/Yes, that's the only reason.
//They'll stammer, lie and obfuscate, but it always boils down to that.
2012-07-01 08:33:48 PM  
4 votes:
I can't believe there are people who still respond to EnviroDerp. I understand the notion that it is sometimes necessary to respond to trolls to counter disinformation, but nothing that neanderfark says could possibly be taken seriously by anyone. There's no need to "refute" his logorrhea, because it's self-refuting.
2012-07-01 06:25:41 PM  
4 votes:

Party Boy: Reddit to Facebook to Fark


img1.fark.net It's not a competition.

/ :"OMG! This story was posted somewhere else first! That means no one else can share it without being utter failures!"
2012-07-01 11:01:53 PM  
3 votes:

o5iiawah: You've created a construct that doesn't exist - even at present.


Your right. It doesn't because we have a safety net to prevent that from happening.

Congrats, you just realized the value of a safety net.

o5iiawah: let not the poor man tear down the house of the rich, let him labor to build his own


Lincoln didn't say that


Actually a statement by William J. H. Boetcker known as "The Ten Cannots" (1916), this has often been misattributed to Lincoln since 1942 when a leaflet containing quotes by both men was published.

o5iiawah: Read up this post for MrTraveler's response as to the morality of taking property from one group of people to pay for another.


*Rolls eyes*
2012-07-01 09:40:05 PM  
3 votes:

bugontherug: It never stops making me laugh how rightists always, without fail, think the problem with the world is that someone else just isn't taking enough personal responsibility. Never have I heard a rightist say "you know, I think I'M going to make better choices and take more personal responsibility."


I have actually heard republicans say something along the lines of "I don't want to pay for anyone else's healthcare and I don't want anyone else to pay for mine".

Of course when the rubber meets the road and you're looking at the option between bancruptcy and paying for your child's chemotherapy, despite how conscientious you were in life, you may feel differently.

That's the problem with a lot of republican rhetoric. It all sounds so nice in ABSTRACT, but when the shiat hits home they run to the government for help just like everyone else.
2012-07-01 09:26:32 PM  
3 votes:
How long before we seen Republican butthurt because Obama had the gall to name his wonderful, awesome healthcare package championed by Republicans after himself. Such arrogance!
2012-07-01 09:16:54 PM  
3 votes:
Republicans: We hate Obama, and we can't come up with a good reason. But we're not racist, how dare you infer that!

Republicans: Reward us for hating Obama. Reward us for running this country into the ground, and then stonewalling the reconstruction.

Republicans: We have lies and money. Give us what we demand, or else! OR ELSE!
2012-07-01 09:07:12 PM  
3 votes:

jjorsett: 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.


Yeah.

America sucks. They can't do anything other countries can. Third-world losers.

/this message brought to you by 30 years of GOP propaganda.
2012-07-01 08:30:06 PM  
3 votes:

EnviroDude: Or people with HSAs that now have to buy a product they don't want.


Ha ha! you know how I know you don't have an HSA? No one, short of some mental disability, would prefer an HSA over actual health insurance. HSAs are shiat.
2012-07-01 07:05:41 PM  
3 votes:

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


1. If you have health insurance already, you're in compliance.
2. Congress will be required to buy from the same insurance exchange as everyone else
3. The health care law doesn't work without the individual mandate because if that wasn't in place, people wouldn't buy insurance until they get sick
4. Whenever someone who doesn't have insurance uses a medical service (which they will, sooner or later) and skips out on the bill, the rest of us have to pick up the tab. That's why aspirin costs $10 a pill at the hospital.
5. Switzerland and Massachusetts ("Romneycare") already have this in place. Massachusetts works so well that 98% of their residents have health insurance. in Switzerland, people have so many choices for health insurance, they may not be making the best choice for their situation.
2012-07-01 06:21:18 PM  
3 votes:
Reddit to Facebook to Fark

ಠ_ಠ
2012-07-02 04:12:42 AM  
2 votes:

vygramul: Mr.Insightful: but I did take a number of econ courses in college,

You seem to have forgotten your micro.

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.

Not true. The consumer and the corporation both suffer a difference. p* goes up. q* shifts left. Fewer units are sold, at a higher price. The consumers pay more and the company gets less. The government collects q*t in taxes, and you get some amount of deadweight loss.


P* only goes up when you get to negative profits. By definition, this doesn't happen when you are talking about a tax ON profits, since they must be positive for there to be a tax. Ergo, a tax on profits does not allow the company to "pass on" the tax to the consumer, unless for some strange reason they were not already charging as much as the market would bear - which is absurd. A per-item tax will also not shift P*, so long as the good or service remains profitable.

For non-economists, let me explain it this way. Say it was your business to go to the beach every day and sell hotdogs. Your vendor brings back $100 in profit, selling 100 hot dogs for $2 each. You know for a fact that if you raise your price to $3, you will sell so many fewer hot dogs, that you won't make that $100 in profit. Selling 100 hot dogs for $2 each is the perfect price point.

Now the mean old U.S. government comes along and taxes you at the rate of $10 per day, for beach cleanup. Are you going to raise your price? Fire your vendor? You're still making $90 per day. And the same rules apply: if you raise your prices, you will still be making less than if you keep them exactly where they are.

Now if the government starts taxing you at $90 per day, then you might start thinking about another line of work. And if they tax you at $120 per day, you're being literally taxed out of business. But this simply doesn't happen these days. Most of this whining is about very small percentages.

Mind you, that beach cleanup isn't necessarily bad. If a large number of customers start coming in to the now clean beaches, then you may end up making a larger profit than you would have otherwise. In the case of a health care tax, it might lower your vendor costs.

This depends on the exact situation, however, how the tax is applied, what exactly it is used for. And anyone who makes a grand sweeping generalization "government good"/"government bad" is completely talking out of their ass.
2012-07-02 01:15:13 AM  
2 votes:

TheLalagah: If you think other people should be forced to provide healthcare for you, then you think it's ok for other people to be your slaves. Think about it, then realize how angry someone might get about that. There is really nothing else to say.


If you think other people should be forced to not murder you, then you think it's ok for other people to be your slaves. Think about it, then realize how stupid your argument is. There is really nothing else to say.
2012-07-01 11:44:47 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:35:40 PM  
2 votes:

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 11:04:12 PM  
2 votes:
Continuing on your point, if we proclaimed (like you seem to be doing) that PPACA was designed to provide health care insurance to more people, we must conclude that it is a huge success as more people will have health insurance in 2014 than currently and it will probably be directly traced back to the bill.

Man, this argument stuff is easy.
2012-07-01 10:49:24 PM  
2 votes:

Ambivalence: 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.


I think part of the problem with the Teabaggers is that everyone else has been too polite to call them out individually for their stupidity.

When people on my FB post particularly derpy things, especially racial insults of Obama, I like to make a screencap of it, full name and all, and post it on my FB and my twitter, and pretty much any other place where it will be seen by the general public.

/just, you know, throwing ideas out there . . .
2012-07-01 10:46:46 PM  
2 votes:

One Big Ass Mistake America: [i.imgur.com image 400x400]


Yeah, I'd rather piss away my tax money blowing up another Middle Eastern country instead of providing health care to citizens in THIS COUNTRY!!!

/Goddamn retarded meme is goddamn retarded
2012-07-01 10:43:55 PM  
2 votes:
For all you complaining "I've seen this before" shut up. We should see it everywhere. The news should be informing people on this but it's not. Most people have no clue what's in the ACA.
2012-07-01 10:25:20 PM  
2 votes:

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 10:04:18 PM  
2 votes:
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 10:01:36 PM  
2 votes:

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 09:47:43 PM  
2 votes:

dustman81: 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

1. If you have health insurance already, you're in compliance.
2. Congress will be required to buy from the same insurance exchange as everyone else
3. The health care law doesn't work without the individual mandate because if that wasn't in place, people wouldn't buy insurance until they get sick
4. Whenever someone who doesn't have insurance uses a medical service (which they will, sooner or later) and skips out on the bill, the rest of us have to pick up the tab. That's why aspirin costs $10 a pill at the hospital.
5. Switzerland and Massachusetts ("Romneycare") already have this in place. Massachusetts works so well that 98% of their residents have health insurance. in Switzerland, people have so many choices for health insurance, they may not be making the best choice for their situation.


No use, man. Some people simply do not have the mental capability or maturity of a 5 year old to understand what you explained.
2012-07-01 09:47:01 PM  
2 votes:

microman: That are going to cost an family of 4?? What? Around $15,000 a year?


How the blue bloody f*ck much do you think it costs now?
2012-07-01 09:43:53 PM  
2 votes:

topcon: Ambivalence: EnviroDude: Or people with HSAs that now have to buy a product they don't want.

Ha ha! you know how I know you don't have an HSA? No one, short of some mental disability, would prefer an HSA over actual health insurance. HSAs are shiat.

Uh, no. I've got an HSA, and I'm quite happy with it. As someone who is in their 30's with no health problems and never goes to the doctor, my HSA is just fine, thanks. Thousands of dollars in a bank account I could take out any time I want to buy ANYTHING (And pay taxes on it, of course?) Oh, what horror, and a $500? $1000? deductible health plan on top of that? (I don't even know, I don't use it.) Whatever the deductible is, it's covered by the money in the HSA anyway.


You say that now but if your health did take a turn for the worst. You'd be SOL.

Which is why I'll never buy a HSA unless I'm forced to. I'll take the comprehensive insurance over the HSA anyday.
2012-07-01 09:26:10 PM  
2 votes:

TheManofPA: I had a wife of a high school friend who was rambling on about how her business might as well close now thanks to these new laws and that Obama wanted her on welfare. Another friend pointed out that there wouldn't be any particular impact since her company size is so small and it could be beneficial to her in the long run. The response was simply, "yeah, but what about when the death panels start then."


Tell her not to worry about it, the wonderful Republican paradise of Texas has had Death Panels for the last 13 years. And if we have them, here, it should be kosher with all the rest of the conservative in the US.
2012-07-01 08:46:07 PM  
2 votes:
Five-year-olds tend to be inquisitive, hungry for knowledge and open to new ideas.

Republicans consider those three traits to be the mark of an elitist.
2012-07-01 08:38:03 PM  
2 votes:

EnviroDude: No. Let's say that you are self employed as a government contractor. The years have been good. Good enough thay you over qualify. Suddenly, the government cancels your contract. Now you have to decide what you are going to pay for. Because you made to much money year to date, you fail to qualify for assistance.


I guess my first question would be why didn't you be more boostrappy and create a savings account...

My second question would be, if you don't have the money to pay for a plan through an exchange, what difference does it make? You wouldn't have been in any different situation without Obamacare anyway.
2012-07-01 08:33:54 PM  
2 votes:

Ambivalence: EnviroDude: Or people with HSAs that now have to buy a product they don't want.

Ha ha! you know how I know you don't have an HSA? No one, short of some mental disability, would prefer an HSA over actual health insurance. HSAs are shiat.


THIS!

My employer offers me a choice between the two. And even though I'm 24, I still can't figure out why someone would pick something as worthless as an HSA over traditional more comprehensive insurance.
2012-07-01 08:27:14 PM  
2 votes:
Obamacare = Romneycare without the abortion funding
2012-07-01 08:23:17 PM  
2 votes:

EnviroDude: You mean self employed types that might have to choose between food or insurance.


Are you talking about someone that is so poor that they would probably be qualified for subsidies to purchase insurance?
2012-07-01 08:18:48 PM  
2 votes:

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


So, please tell us what percent of the middle class will have to pay one penny extra, after all the tax breaks are considered. Seriously. What percentage of the population will suffer any "penalty"?

Here's a hint: it's less than one.
2012-07-01 07:46:06 PM  
2 votes:

kmmontandon: but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents,

Oh, look, a blatant Teabagger lie!

F*ck off, threadshiatter.


Yup.
2012-07-01 05:43:07 PM  
2 votes:
The reddit post is substantially more informative as well as footnoted, which is nice. Also, the reply beneath the initial contribution (the MD mentioned in the article) is equally important, as it's a discussion of the reimbursements to doctors, and how the ACA will change them based on outcomes that may not be doctor-dependent.

Good stuff.
2012-07-01 04:17:11 PM  
2 votes:

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


Aren't you one of the tards who vote for the people that complain that 53% of the country doesn't pay enough in taxes, and are a bunch of freeloaders?
2012-07-02 08:48:28 AM  
1 vote:

vegasj: I saw an easier one...

so easy even a liberal can understand it.


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


OR, after not getting that pack of gum or health insurance, you have to go to the emergency room for a shattered tibia. After a couple of days in the hospital, two surgeries to insert a rod and many pins, you get a bill for $50,000 that you can't possibly pay. The hospital writes most of it off.

Now I know you don't know what this means, but I'll spell it out.
That makes you a F R E E L O A D E R
2012-07-02 08:44:49 AM  
1 vote:
obamacarefacts.com

The only reason anyone seems to actually dislike the HCR bills.
2012-07-02 08:37:52 AM  
1 vote:

Debeo Summa Credo: After ACA is in effect, your premium would increase because you'd have to, in effect, subsidize the cost of insuring the very high risk individuals who were previously uninsurable.

That may be okay (healthy people subsidizing sicker people), but thats what they mean by your rates are going to increase.


Except that's why there's a mandate. All the young 27 year-olds who don't feel like getting insurance because they are young and healthy Will now have to get insurance, and they will therefore lower the rates, more than making up for the high-risk people.
2012-07-02 08:16:41 AM  
1 vote:

INeedAName: Stop using facts. This thread is about randomly throwing around garbage and hoping something sticks.


The level of misinformation coming from the opponents of this law is astounding...

We heard all the same criticisms is Massachusetts when MAssHealth was instituted. They mostly turned out to be bullshiat.

I suspect that will be the case with the ACA, too.

I used the MA health Connector to purchase our current plan (which, as I've said, is actually superior to our previous employer provided plan). We saw no loss in quality of care. We didn't even have to switch doctors. Our co-pays went down or remained the same. Prescription costs went down dramatically ($50 vs $3.65 per month for one of my medications), AND I actually have dental and eye coverage for the first time in my life.

Oh, and as I pointed out above, Insurance companies in MA are about to pay out 12 million in rebates because they didn't meet the requirements for the percentage of money required to be spent on health care, not "administrative costs".

My own personal experience, of course, but listening to all the Chicken Littles on Fark makes me laugh in light of those experiences with "socialized medicine" (Dun dun duuuunnnnnnnn).

On a related note, the wife and I lived in Ireland for about five years and I have experience with actual socialized medicine, and, I can tell you, it's pretty damn good.
2012-07-02 07:37:35 AM  
1 vote:

dletter: DamnYankees: Lots of pretty good stuff in there.

I liked just about everything in there except for the $2,500 limit on FSAs. Not saying there shouldn't be some limit on FSA accounts, but, $2,500 seems low.


Except that FSAs were intended to cover what insurance won't. And with the law, insurance can only leave you high and dry for $2500.

Allowing people to put more aside before taxes could turn into a tax shelter.
2012-07-02 03:41:04 AM  
1 vote:

acefox1: 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.


Tell them that yes, you did... and even if you could only read three pages a day, you'd be done by now too.
2012-07-02 02:28:29 AM  
1 vote:

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.


Because a certain Senator McCartney fueled his political career by turning Communism into a boogeyman, and we still haven't quite recovered from it.
2012-07-02 01:11:48 AM  
1 vote:

DeaH: 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.


THIS.

The fact that these jackholes are screaming about how coverage is going to get more expensive is infuriating to me as someone who has paid out of pocket for a decade. IT ALREADY GOES UP, EVERY YEAR! I pay more than 2x what it was in 2002 so what the fark are they talking about??
2012-07-02 12:28:14 AM  
1 vote:
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 12:23:05 AM  
1 vote:

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 12:15:20 AM  
1 vote:

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.
2012-07-01 11:44:08 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:36:22 PM  
1 vote:

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 11:33:06 PM  
1 vote:

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.


Oh yes, the Republicans are so passionate about electing a Mormon governor of Massachusetts who created the healthcare plan "Obamacare" is based on, and has all the charisma of cardboard.
2012-07-01 11:31:32 PM  
1 vote:

bulldg4life: Most people are aware that the PPACA won't lower cost. However, outside of you, the rest of us are able to see that it will create more insured, protects many from bankruptcy, among a whole host of other things.


more than anything, (and to beat the phrase to death), it just seems like a first step.

give me a better one that's actually possible, or somehow convince me that leaving things as they are is A-OK - acting like the perfect is the enemy of the good solves something doesn't really do much for me.
2012-07-01 11:31:18 PM  
1 vote:

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"
2012-07-01 11:29:35 PM  
1 vote:

skullkrusher: The GOP. Great. Now what does that do to alleviate the problem? Nothing, but in the world of sidelines political cheerleaders I guess that's a win.


Well, to alleviate the problem, I'd vote for less GOP politicians. But, again, you seem to be missing the point that several others are making. I'm not sure if it is intentional or not.

Most people are aware that the PPACA won't lower cost. However, outside of you, the rest of us are able to see that it will create more insured, protects many from bankruptcy, among a whole host of other things.
2012-07-01 11:27:25 PM  
1 vote:

skullkrusher: If we have government hospitals and doctors


again, you're just flat out ignoring political reality. like i said, i can see several theoretical options that are far and away better than the status quo, and better than the PPACA as it stands.

that doesn't mean they are actually options. it has to actually survive political reality to be an option.
2012-07-01 11:27:24 PM  
1 vote:

skullkrusher: 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.


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.

But, the goddamn goose doesn't lay GOLDEN eggs!

You have stated several ideas for alternate health care plans...but we were left with the democrats attempting to solve the problem and the GOP kicking and screaming for things to stop. In the end, we were left with trying to fix what we could.

That is and will continue to be better than the status quo.
2012-07-01 11:25:37 PM  
1 vote:

skullkrusher: Now what does that do to alleviate the problem?


ok, now that you've acknowledged that problem, how will any solution you've suggested make it past that problem?

for real, you suggested federal government doctors - how do you expect to make that a reality when what has been attempted doesn't go that far, yet drew the tard brigade out in droves?
2012-07-01 11:25:18 PM  
1 vote:

Graffito: 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.


Optimally, such an explanation would be in-depth.
But in reality, it's not all that involved.
Actually, it's really quite simple.
Mainly, they just don't like the name of the person attached to it.
Alternatively, just read the first letters of each sentence of this post.
2012-07-01 11:24:07 PM  
1 vote:

skullkrusher: See, if insurance were more affordable, we wouldn't have such a large number of uninsured.


this is so circular, if i hadn't talked to you previously... i'd honestly assume a mental defect.
2012-07-01 11:21:40 PM  
1 vote:

skullkrusher: I would have taken a different first step. A public healthcare system, for starters. Expand the VA, offer subsidies for medical school in exchange for working as a federal government doctor for a certain number of years. Encourage the creation of non-prof coops. Allow people to buy catastrophe insurance rather than full coverage. Allow the reentry of generic drugs. There are a lot of things we could have done to address the cost of healthcare that we didn't do to a significant degree.


the uninsured and pre-existing conditions? how do we 'encourage' the alteration of that?

you do realize that whole 'federal government doctor' thing is exactly what *isn't* in the PPACA, yet people are frothing at the mouth in fear of?

politically, i don't see it happening. practically, i don't see it solving the actual problems.
2012-07-01 11:20:46 PM  
1 vote:

o5iiawah: .Ambivalence: Look at Thomas Jefferson. Hell, look, at Abraham Lincoln

If you think Jefferson and Lincoln were leftist progressives then I have a bridge to sell you. Lincoln's "let not the poor man tear down the house of the rich, let him labor to build his own" quote would be interpreted by progressives as insensitive, suggesting that No man deserves a house while another man is out in the cold and what, should the man without a house just whither in the field and die? Want proof? Read up this post for MrTraveler's response as to the morality of taking property from one group of people to pay for another. Lincoln was a statist but that doesn't make him a bad dude. FDR was a raving progressive liberal. you're not making news with that suggestion.

You were probably thinking Hamilton.


Again, I don't think you understand what the left is actually all about.

Franklin was all about "doing well by doing good". He was a strong supporter of public institutions like libraries and fire fighting and mail service in the pre-independance colonies. He was also an all around awesome fellow and he is solidy ours.

Jefferson was a very strong supporter of REAL religious freedom "It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my back to say there is one God or no God." He was the first person to translate the Koran into English. Keith Ellison was actually sworn into congress on Jefferson's Koran.

Lincoln spent his one term in the house of representatives (his only federal level office before being elected president) to fight AGAINST a war of political expediance against Mexico. His extremly vocal opposition is actually credited as the reason the declaration of war never passed. I'm sure I don't need to mention his strong unionist stances. While he shyed away from a war for profit, he was quite willing to fight a war to preserve the union. He was deeply anti-seccession (which doesn't appear to be a republican value anymore).

And FDR, well, he created social security and the New Deal which is the part of leftism you seem to be fixating most on but is only part of the whole.

I should also mention Teddy Roosevelt and his monopoly/corporatist busting and environmentalism. I forgot him in the last list (shame on me).

Some of the greatest leaders in this country's history have espoused modern leftist agendas.
2012-07-01 11:20:26 PM  
1 vote:

bulldg4life:
For fear of being branded as biased by Fox News and the GOP, everybody else is forced to allow the "other side" equal time in expressing their ideas or with respect to compromise...no matter how idiotic.


The problem, in general, with modern conservatism is that it thinks its histrionic screeching deserves to be on the same pedestal as rational thought. In the abstract, I personally don't have any problem with conservative ideology; it's their methodology I find so utterly revolting these days.

And it ultimately does a disservice to themselves, as well as the country as a whole. Through logical inquiry, an intelligent person can come to conclusions about policy that fall on the 'conservative' side. When it's done as a result of soaking up FOXNEWS, Limbaugh, Beck, or any of the other sideshow freaks, the arguments made end up sounding ridiculous to independents (a crucial voting bloc). Here's an example:

"We should carefully consider the effects that unchecked illegal immigration may have on our state budgets, healthcare, and crime statistics."
/
upload.wikimedia.org

VS.

"Fartbong0 is letting more browns in becuz he's brown himself. My dog is a sekrit muslin too...I shake him for answers. Where is my medication?"
/
wonkette.com
2012-07-01 11:19:36 PM  
1 vote:

o5iiawah: How can you suggest that? A company relies on profit to expand, weather the market or invest in R&D. A tax on profit would affect the price of goods since companies depend on a certain level of profit in order to remain open. A company that requires $10M to expand into a new location that is assessed a 35% tax on that saved-up amount would then have to either raise its prices or delay expansion.


If the company is attempting to maximize profits, the people running it will know that the price at which they maximize profits will be the same regardless of whether they're being taxed at 1% or 99%. If a company could raise profits by raising prices, they would have done so already (or will do so, once they determine that it is possible) regardless of what the tax rate on profits is.
2012-07-01 11:18:15 PM  
1 vote:

skullkrusher: bulldg4life: skullkrusher: except that was a stated purpose of it.

And, you seem to be brushing off the other stated goals and/or minimizing them. It is quite disingenuous of you since the same person has repeated the other (successful) goals multiple times.

there's nothing disingenuous about criticizing this bill's failure to address the main issue.


again, i absolutely disagree that it IS the main issue. compare your insurance rates to having to unplug granny because they decided she had a pre-existing condition. compare your insurance rates to having an illness and being unable to get coverage. compare your insurance rates to death.

when 'leave things as they are' has the side effect of your insurance rates going sky high anyway, i fail to see why this is the main issue.
2012-07-01 11:05:50 PM  
1 vote:

skullkrusher: heap: skullkrusher: of course, the status quo didn't have a stated primary purpose of reducing the cost of health insurance so we'll be a little more likely to forgive the status quo for failing to reduce the cost of insurance than we're willing to forgive the health care reform for it

and the 30 million uninsured, medical bankruptcy as a normal course of action, etc, etc, etc?

for real, i have to guess that some kinda case could be made that 'leave things how they are!' is a good course of action, but i've yet to actually hear it.

our system as it stands is frigged. arguing to go back to the 'good old days' that weren't good in any shape or form is kinda lost on me.

I wasn't aware the options we were limited to doing nothing at all and the bill we have.


make a case for something then. nobody ever does - they just act as if the problems we have now are the fault of something that hasn't been enacted yet - and do so almost explicitly to act as if we don't currently have a plethora of problems.

solve them.

until i see a better option actually become a possibility, i'm fine with the alterations being done - i'm not a fan of all of them, but in totality, it looks like a step forward. give me some reason to think there's a better place to put that first foot, and i'll listen.
2012-07-01 11:02:40 PM  
1 vote:

o5iiawah: Mandating an insurance company cover those who are already sick will inevitably cause them to have to reduce the level of care and/or raise prices on healthy individuals.


So the really sick are just SOL and don't deserve access to health insurance then correct?
2012-07-01 11:02:25 PM  
1 vote:

skullkrusher: Has it addressed the primary issue? No. Is it legitimate to criticize the medication for failing to achieve its stated purpose? Of course it is.


Well, if we're going to boil PPACA down to saying its focus was to lower health care costs and condemn it for not doing so, then that makes the argument easier.

Of course, the would be ridiculous since the bill was designed to provide health insurance to more people and make it attainable for those that otherwise may not be able to get it.
2012-07-01 11:02:16 PM  
1 vote:

skullkrusher: However, if you take medicine for an ulcer and it doesn't get rid of your ulcer but it does reduce your chance of a heartattack, has the medicine been a success?


i'm sorry, i actually thought the 30 million people uninsured, the lack of available or even financially possible coverage for anybody with an ailment, and a litany of other problems still playing themselves out today was the problem.

i'll have to only care about account rates rising, because that wasn't happening before, or anything.
2012-07-01 11:00:25 PM  
1 vote:

IronTom: I suppose if you went on the dole, and foodstamps etc, your healthcare would be free. Lets have a foodstamp party!!! Drop out, dole in, wuldn't it be wunderful.


I'm amazed that you hang around to post the most idiotic things hundreds of posts after your original (blah) comment. And, you always post in the same way. Just ridiculous, pointless, nothing comments.

The only thing I can assume is that you drink and your comments slowly become more hilarious to you.
2012-07-01 10:59:01 PM  
1 vote:

o5iiawah: I absolutely understand what it pays for.


Yes, but your point was something about being taxed to pay for someone else's health care insurance. We already pay for other people's health insurance.

Hospitals don't turn people away at the door.
2012-07-01 10:55:24 PM  
1 vote:

bulldg4life: heap: or, like McConnel et al....really, really, really sheltered.

I'm pretty sure he could be classified as a lying idiot. My point still stands.


a lying idiot still tries to lie to their own benefit.

it takes a truly sheltered lying idiot to say '30 million uninsured? that's not the point'

you can't just visit the echo chamber and come out with that as commentary - you have to live in there.

i'm willing to compromise - he's a steak covered in shiat.
2012-07-01 10:55:24 PM  
1 vote:

RockChalkH1N1: Mrtraveler01: One Big Ass Mistake America: [i.imgur.com image 400x400]

Yeah, I'd rather piss away my tax money blowing up another Middle Eastern country instead of providing health care to citizens in THIS COUNTRY!!!

/Goddamn retarded meme is goddamn retarded

You mad bra?


Meh, it was just a really stupid meme. But then again what else would I expect from the right-wing amiright? ;)
2012-07-01 10:52:44 PM  
1 vote:

heap: or, like McConnel et al....really, really, really sheltered.


I'm pretty sure he could be classified as a lying idiot. My point still stands.
2012-07-01 10:51:42 PM  
1 vote:

The Name: I think part of the problem with the Teabaggers is that everyone else has been too polite to call them out individually for their stupidity.


For fear of being branded as biased by Fox News and the GOP, everybody else is forced to allow the "other side" equal time in expressing their ideas or with respect to compromise...no matter how idiotic.

As a Farker once said, when asking two people what to have for dinner, if one says "steak" and one says "a bowl of shiat"....the reasonable compromise is not a steak covered in shiat.
2012-07-01 10:50:35 PM  
1 vote:

Pincy: topcon: Uh, no. I've got an HSA, and I'm quite happy with it. As someone who is in their 30's with no health problems and never goes to the doctor, my HSA is just fine, thanks.

Exactly, that's the point we've been making, as long as you are lucky and don't have major medical expenses then HSAs are just fine. Now I personally do not wish you any ill-will, but if you were unlucky enough to come down with some condition that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars (and no, that is not an unrealistic amount) then I really hope you have a lot saved up.


Okay, maybe I'm just completely clueless about my own insurance here, but I've got Blue Cross and Blue Shield, along with the HSA. As far as I know, I have health insurance just like anyone else who has health insurance, with a slightly higher deductible. Is there something I'm not getting here? It's not as if I'm just covered by the money in my HSA. I think some of you are making blanket statements about HSAs and how they work for everyone.

I know when I talked to the insurance guy who came to our office, he had a shiatload of different plans.
2012-07-01 10:50:33 PM  
1 vote:

bulldg4life: People who say that the status quo is fine and/or the American health care system is awesome are lying. And, they are idiots.


or, like McConnel et al....really, really, really sheltered.
2012-07-01 10:48:26 PM  
1 vote:

heap: for real, i have to guess that some kinda case could be made that 'leave things how they are!' is a good course of action, but i've yet to actually hear it.


People who say that the status quo is fine and/or the American health care system is awesome are lying. And, they are idiots.
2012-07-01 10:47:29 PM  
1 vote:

skullkrusher: of course, the status quo didn't have a stated primary purpose of reducing the cost of health insurance so we'll be a little more likely to forgive the status quo for failing to reduce the cost of insurance than we're willing to forgive the health care reform for it


and the 30 million uninsured, medical bankruptcy as a normal course of action, etc, etc, etc?

for real, i have to guess that some kinda case could be made that 'leave things how they are!' is a good course of action, but i've yet to actually hear it.

our system as it stands is frigged. arguing to go back to the 'good old days' that weren't good in any shape or form is kinda lost on me.
2012-07-01 10:46:42 PM  
1 vote:

skullkrusher: of course, the status quo didn't have a stated primary purpose of reducing the cost of health insurance so we'll be a little more likely to forgive the status quo for failing to reduce the cost of insurance than we're willing to forgive the health care reform for it


Did you miss his point about all the other things it DOES do as compared to the status quo? Surely you didn't miss that line. It's right above the one you responded to
2012-07-01 10:45:32 PM  
1 vote:
Since this bill doesn't do anything to lower costs, it is bad. Therefore, we should repeal it.

Brought to you by the people that burn their house down because the heat doesn't work anymore.
2012-07-01 10:44:49 PM  
1 vote:
i.imgur.com
2012-07-01 10:44:08 PM  
1 vote:

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?


Is that why Blue Cross and Blue Shield deny insurance coverage to people they consider to be too sick to cover?

The stupidity that you have constantly posted so far in this thread continues to astound me.
2012-07-01 10:42:16 PM  
1 vote:

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 10:39:37 PM  
1 vote:

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 10:37:00 PM  
1 vote:

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 10:30:01 PM  
1 vote:

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 10:27:33 PM  
1 vote:

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 10:22:07 PM  
1 vote:

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 10:19:37 PM  
1 vote:

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 10:18:15 PM  
1 vote:

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 10:18:14 PM  
1 vote:

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 10:17:48 PM  
1 vote:

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 10:15:14 PM  
1 vote:

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 10:10:10 PM  
1 vote:

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 10:09:06 PM  
1 vote:

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 10:02:29 PM  
1 vote:

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 10:00:08 PM  
1 vote:

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 09:58:30 PM  
1 vote:
Each time the trolls pass off the thread to the next guy, they get stupider and more prolific.
2012-07-01 09:57:32 PM  
1 vote:

microman: bulldg4life: microman: That are going to cost an family of 4?? What? Around $15,000 a year?

How the blue bloody f*ck much do you think it costs now?

For a 25Y old of Mine just got a $129/month policy with USAA. Thats not 15K/year.

Best part? That type of policy is banned by Obamcare. Forever.

I just love those kids who voted for Obama who now have to now fork over $500/month so I can enjoy my low $500/month policy.

I just love them kids.


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".
2012-07-01 09:57:26 PM  
1 vote:
I saw an easier one...

so easy even a liberal can understand it.


sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net
2012-07-01 09:55:28 PM  
1 vote:

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


Yes, because people will PREFER not to have health insurance (en masse apparently). Indeed.

I have seen people put up with the worst shiat jobs JUST because it has health insurance. I think you under estimate how important it is to people to be covered. People are not going to pay a penalty for the HONOR of having absolutely no health coverage. They may pay to keep their HSAs, but not nearly at the numbers you're thinking.

And those who cannot afford insurance will be given subsidies to make it more affordable. That is part of what makes the healthcare law work. They aren't just mandating everyone have insurance and leaving it up to their own devices to pay for it.
2012-07-01 09:53:28 PM  
1 vote:

microman: coeyagi: microman:

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

That is simply the most retarded thing ever. I have health insurance, but I don't like how much it is, so I am going to pay a tax... and get nothing out of it?

Best part... forever.

Yep, do the math, if you get sick, just buy a policy. Cheep. Then cx it when you are fixed.

Money in the bank, baby.


That doesn't work if you get in a car accident, moron.
2012-07-01 09:53:08 PM  
1 vote:

microman: Yep, do the math, if you get sick, just buy a policy. Cheep. Then cx it when you are fixed.


You are a very bad troll. And, people will be ultra-pissed when they realize that insurance policies will have enrollment periods or phase in events preventing such actions.
2012-07-01 09:52:12 PM  
1 vote:

microman: bulldg4life: microman: That are going to cost an family of 4?? What? Around $15,000 a year?

How the blue bloody f*ck much do you think it costs now?

For a 25Y old of Mine just got a $129/month policy with USAA. Thats not 15K/year.

Best part? That type of policy is banned by Obamcare. Forever.

I just love those kids who voted for Obama who now have to now fork over $500/month so I can enjoy my low $500/month policy.

I just love them kids.


i.imgur.com

English?
2012-07-01 09:52:08 PM  
1 vote:

microman: That are going to cost an family of 4??


microman: For a 25Y old


These two are not equal. Your a idiot. Now, pick one of these situations and stick with it.

microman: Best part? That type of policy is banned by Obamcare. Forever.


This doesn't even make any sense.
2012-07-01 09:48:46 PM  
1 vote:
You know, if you're going to create a new account and start thread shiatting this much, you should be forced to learn how to use the quote button properly. You shouldn't be allowed to create these giant mass posts of 20 people calling you a retard only to throw in a one-liner that is factually wrong.

That is lazy and no fun. Put a music lyric in there or something.
2012-07-01 09:48:41 PM  
1 vote:

topcon: Uh, no. I've got an HSA, and I'm quite happy with it. As someone who is in their 30's with no health problems and never goes to the doctor, my HSA is just fine, thanks.


Exactly, that's the point we've been making, as long as you are lucky and don't have major medical expenses then HSAs are just fine. Now I personally do not wish you any ill-will, but if you were unlucky enough to come down with some condition that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars (and no, that is not an unrealistic amount) then I really hope you have a lot saved up.
2012-07-01 09:46:48 PM  
1 vote:

microman: Mrtraveler01: microman: cretinbob: Teabaggers still won't get it

thats because its all free, no one has to pay, except the rich

something the guy forgot to say

People still have to pay for the insurance dumbass.

Ah yes, the Insurance in those so called exchanges?

That are going to cost an family of 4?? What? Around $15,000 a year?

Can I have more of that please?


citation needed
2012-07-01 09:42:23 PM  
1 vote:

coeyagi: 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.

I am glad that you are basing your sole argument on your gut feeling. That's really helpful to the cause of political rhetoric.


Apparently, $200k is middle class.
2012-07-01 09:38:36 PM  
1 vote:

microman: cretinbob: Teabaggers still won't get it

thats because its all free, no one has to pay, except the rich

something the guy forgot to say


People still have to pay for the insurance dumbass.
2012-07-01 09:37:36 PM  
1 vote:
Christ all Friday. I can't even stomach the derp anymore. People can't even listen to reason anymore. I think it's some sort of mental impairment that's become pervasive in the past 10 years. I'm thinking it's fatal to the country. So, let Romney win and the poor get poorer. I'll go live with the in-laws on the beach in Sri Lanka.
2012-07-01 09:34:24 PM  
1 vote:

Mrtraveler01: acefox1: You would think Republicans would be creaming their pants to keep free-riders from gaming the system and raising the cost of car and premiums for everybody else.

Republicans never hold themselves to the high standard that they set for everyone else.


It never stops making me laugh how rightists always, without fail, think the problem with the world is that someone else just isn't taking enough personal responsibility. Never have I heard a rightist say "you know, I think I'M going to make better choices and take more personal responsibility."
2012-07-01 09:30:01 PM  
1 vote:
FTA: "It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices)"

WHY DO REPUBLICANS STAND AGAINST THIS? WHY DO THEY HATE COMPETITION IN THE MARKET? ARE THEY GOD-HATING COMMUNISTS?

THAT WAS RHETORICAL; THE ANSWER IS YES THEY ARE!
2012-07-01 09:25:49 PM  
1 vote:

acefox1: You would think Republicans would be creaming their pants to keep free-riders from gaming the system and raising the cost of car and premiums for everybody else.


Republicans never hold themselves to the high standard that they set for everyone else.
2012-07-01 09:24:16 PM  
1 vote:
What happened to the days when Republians were the party of "Personal ResponsibilityTM??

You would think Republicans would be creaming their pants to keep free-riders from gaming the system and raising the cost of car and premiums for everybody else. Oh, wait, Obama and the Dems are in favor of it now? No wonder the red-staters are being pants-on-the-head retarded about this.
2012-07-01 09:23:03 PM  
1 vote:

Fluorescent Testicle: jjorsett: Because Tea Party opposers are desperately thrashing around in an effort to find a way to marginalize a grass-roots movement they hate and fear? Just a guess.

Hahahaha... Ohh... Hahahahahahahaha. Wow.

You should go into stand-up comedy.


I clicked the funny button for that post for that comedic gem.

I never knew jjorsett was a comedian.
2012-07-01 09:19:41 PM  
1 vote:
cloudfront.mediamatters.org

Grassroots!
2012-07-01 09:19:13 PM  
1 vote:

jjorsett: Ambivalence: That is how it works. Now some of the "taxes" you listed are not real. If you have to pull stuff out of your fevered imagination...well...maybe you should just have a seat over there and argue with yourself.

Which ones "are not real"?


There is not a separate tax for "itemizing your medical deductions". You may end up paying more by itemizing your medical deductions but that is not the same thing as there being an "itemized medical deductions tax". If you pay less by NOT itemizing then DON'T. People like to think that everything that comes out of your pocket to the government is a tax. It's not. Fines are not taxes. Fees are not taxes. False equivalence is false.
2012-07-01 09:18:22 PM  
1 vote:

jjorsett: Because Tea Party opposers are desperately thrashing around in an effort to find a way to marginalize a grass-roots movement they hate and fear? Just a guess.


So Fox News is a grass-roots movement now?
2012-07-01 09:07:47 PM  
1 vote:

jjorsett: Pincy: jjorsett: Mrtraveler01: jjorsett: Decide not to buy health insurance? Tax. Have a "Cadillac" high-cost health plan? Tax. Have capital gains or dividends? Tax. Use a tanning booth? Tax. Use your employer's healthcare Flexible Spending Account? Tax. Itemize your medical deductions? Tax. Are you an insurance provider? Tax. Manufacturer of medical devices? Tax.

Good thing I don't have or do any of those things then.

But I'm sure Obamacare will be bad for me somehow for some reason or another right?

In other words, it doesn't affect you so screw everyone else? Most of these taxes are not going to affect me either because I've structured my affairs to avoid them, but I don't take your callous attitude. I actually care that my fellow citizens who can't do what I've done are going to get clobbered.

And which fellow citizens are those? The one who tan every day?

If you can't be bothered to read and understand my point, even if you disagree with it, please just butt out so that you don't embarrass yourself.


Like I said before, you only care about your citizens when they are negatively impacted by a policy you don't like.

If they're negatively impacted by a policy that you do like, you wouldn't give a flying fark about them.

Why do you think the joke motto of the Tea Party is: "Got mine. Fark you"?
2012-07-01 09:07:14 PM  
1 vote:
I am impressed how you two coordinated the shift change for trolling this thread. Why, people hardly even notice which tard is throwing shiat against the wall.
2012-07-01 09:02:48 PM  
1 vote:

jjorsett: In other words, it doesn't affect you so screw everyone else?


No, more like "it doesn't affect the vast majority of people, so screw the few who just feel like they can take and take and take with no consequences".

Also, it doesn't help that most of what you posted is manipulative bullshiat.
2012-07-01 09:01:57 PM  
1 vote:

gingerjet: I totally get the confusion over health plans - I work for a health insurance company. But HSA's aren't "worthless". In general - HSA's are cheaper, the savings account is not tied to your employer, and its tax deductible. If your health expenses are low - HSA's saves money and gives you more insight into what the health expenses really are.

/the confusion over plans is largely due to fark'd up government rules
//obamacare will neither improve or make this worse


HSAs may not be worthless, but they are markedly inferior to health insurance. That's why it's so much cheaper. When you have a company that offers ONLY HSAs for its employees "If your health expenses are low" is never going to be a given among all employees meaning someone is going to get screwed. HSAs are not an adequate substitution, in general.

Sure, HSAs may be fine if you only have to deal with the occasional checkup or doctor visit, but good luck to you if you develop a medical condition. Even a moderate medical condition can be prohibitively expensive under an HSA.

And I always hate it when people use the argument that the money saved by going HSA could pay for additional medical expenses. The money saved by having an HSA is almost never actually SAVED, it's almost always spent on something else.
2012-07-01 08:52:12 PM  
1 vote:

jjorsett: Decide not to buy health insurance? Tax. Have a "Cadillac" high-cost health plan? Tax. Have capital gains or dividends? Tax. Use a tanning booth? Tax. Use your employer's healthcare Flexible Spending Account? Tax. Itemize your medical deductions? Tax. Are you an insurance provider? Tax. Manufacturer of medical devices? Tax.

All of these apply to people with sub-$250K incomes, the last two indirectly thru higher prices.


Decide to have kids? tax credits. Decide to go back to school? Tax credits.

I could go on and on. Tax policy has always been used to INFLUENCE (as opposed to control, I don't want you mistaking the two) behavior of people and businesses. They tax certain things they want people to do less of, like smoking and drinking. They give tax credits for certain things they want you to do more of, like going to school or buying energy efficient appliances.

That is how it works. Now some of the "taxes" you listed are not real. If you have to pull stuff out of your fevered imagination...well...maybe you should just have a seat over there and argue with yourself.
2012-07-01 08:51:17 PM  
1 vote:

Tahs4Evar: Now can any American give me a similarly short and to the point explanation of why this is so vigorously opposed?


The biggest reason is because american politics have shifted so far to the right that moderately conservative views are seen as radical. GOP ideas from 15-20 years ago are seen as wildly liberal in our current political environment.

That's really what we have.

Combine that with a dangerously uninformed or misinformed populace that is highly partisan because of a bad economic situation combined with two wars and a massive terrorist attack that have caused serious distrust and fear when considering federal and state government issues on top of the ever growing social issues forcing bigotry and racism to bubble back up to the surface....well, there's no stopping it.

I blame 24/7 cable news.
2012-07-01 08:46:39 PM  
1 vote:

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.


A Democrat took a Republican proposal and in the process removed yet another plank from the GOP party platform they could run on as an alternative when contrasting with the Democratic party.
2012-07-01 08:43:37 PM  
1 vote:

BMulligan: I can't believe there are people who still respond to EnviroDerp. I understand the notion that it is sometimes necessary to respond to trolls to counter disinformation, but nothing that neanderfark says could possibly be taken seriously by anyone. There's no need to "refute" his logorrhea, because it's self-refuting.


Yes, but I am bored.

EnviroDude: No. Let's say that you are self employed as a government contractor. The years have been good. Good enough thay you over qualify. Suddenly, the government cancels your contract. Now you have to decide what you are going to pay for. Because you made to much money year to date, you fail to qualify for assistance.


So, someone has made something like $45,000 through a fraction of the year and now they are destitute?

How did their contract deal with early termination?
2012-07-01 08:41:17 PM  
1 vote:
One really important thing that's missing is limiting how much an insurance company can charge for a policy. All the other measures designed to keep an insurance company from gouging the shiat out of you don't really mean anything until that's done.
2012-07-01 08:31:19 PM  
1 vote:

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


Because people going to the emergency room with no insurance is freeeeeeeeeeeeee!
2012-07-01 08:25:38 PM  
1 vote:
This is going on my fb page first thing tomorrow morning (to maximize page views).
2012-07-01 07:36:53 PM  
1 vote:

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,


Hmmm ... if only businesses had some way of adding employees in the face of an increase in customers.

We could call it "hiring."

but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents,

Oh, look, a blatant Teabagger lie!

F*ck off, threadshiatter.
2012-07-01 07:27:09 PM  
1 vote:
http://www.reddit.com/tb/vbkfm
2012-07-01 06:53:59 PM  
1 vote:
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
2012-07-01 06:45:36 PM  
1 vote:
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.
2012-07-01 05:08:15 PM  
1 vote:

corq: Heh, not to give FB too much due, but I read that thread earlier on Reddit, at lease where a devil's advocate perspective survives with balanced dialogue for more than 10 minutes. Usually.


the post on reddit also talks about some of the myths surrounding Obamacare. Whoever posted that facebook note should definitely include that part as well.
2012-07-01 05:00:50 PM  
1 vote:
Heh, not to give FB too much due, but I read that thread earlier on Reddit, at lease where a devil's advocate perspective survives with balanced dialogue for more than 10 minutes. Usually.
2012-07-01 04:59:46 PM  
1 vote:
.9% tax increase for those making $200,000. How will they survive????
2012-07-01 04:23:55 PM  
1 vote:
This is a terrific breakdown.
Thank you, Subby.
2012-07-01 04:23:16 PM  
1 vote:
Holy +1, Batman!

Thank you for doing that Facebook person!
2012-07-01 04:15:31 PM  
1 vote:
Thanks. I just posted this to my FB page. Earlier today, a friend posted some Ron Paul crap about Obamacare. It pissed me off, but I didn't comment on it (said friend doesn't know that I've lost my health insurance and can't get coverage due to pre-existing conditions).
 
Displayed 144 of 144 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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