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.

(The Gateway Pundit)   In case you thought Obamacare was a great way to soak the rich and stick it to the corporations, think again, former middle-class sucker   ( thegatewaypundit.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, obamacare, Daily Caller, Fox and Friends, middle class  
•       •       •

3378 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Jul 2012 at 9:50 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



432 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-07-02 08:00:53 AM  
images.sodahead.comView Full Size
 
2012-07-02 08:21:37 AM  
sooo...the people who will be using that system the most, will be paying for it and...this is a bad thing?
 
2012-07-02 08:26:24 AM  

WE GET IT, IT'S A TAX.

 
2012-07-02 08:26:52 AM  

BillCo: WE GET IT, IT'S A TAX.


...and...?
 
2012-07-02 08:27:21 AM  
I have to assume that with the median income being about $50k, that has to be 90% or so of the population. Sounds like a decent deal.
 
2012-07-02 08:36:01 AM  
Bad form disguising a Gateway Pundit link as a WSJ link, Deceitmitter.
 
2012-07-02 08:42:48 AM  
I don't think anyone actually thought that.
 
2012-07-02 08:43:47 AM  
4 years ago, ACA was the Republican plan for healthcare reform

/now FOAD you lying POS
 
2012-07-02 08:44:45 AM  

Aarontology: I don't think anyone actually thought that.


Obviously someone thought someone thought it, so someone must have thought it, or else someone who thought someone thought it wouldn't have thunk it.

QED.
 
2012-07-02 08:48:52 AM  
The PPACA farking requires people to give money to corporations. Who the fark thought it would hurt them?
 
2012-07-02 08:54:38 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Aarontology: I don't think anyone actually thought that.

Obviously someone thought someone thought it, so someone must have thought it, or else someone who thought someone thought it wouldn't have thunk it.

QED.


Right! *clink*
 
2012-07-02 08:58:42 AM  

BillCo: WE GET IT, IT'S A TAX.



WE GET IT, IT'S THE MOST HORRIBLE THING TO EVER HAPPEN AND MARKS THE DEATH OF AMERICA.

 
2012-07-02 09:03:41 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: WE GET IT, IT'S THE MOST HORRIBLE THING TO EVER HAPPEN AND MARKS THE DEATH OF AMERICA.


OBAMACARE IS WORSE THAN HITLER AND STALIN RAPING THE STATUE OF LIBERTY WHILE CHAIRMAN MAO TAKES PICTURES!
 
2012-07-02 09:03:59 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: QED.


DAMN YOU FARTBONGO!
 
2012-07-02 09:04:37 AM  
Did we really need ANOTHER health care greenlight?
 
2012-07-02 09:05:39 AM  

Some Bass Playing Guy: Did we really need ANOTHER health care greenlight?


yes. yes we do.
 
2012-07-02 09:09:05 AM  
Oh and as always the comments at sites like the one linked to are the best part. I want to believe that there are at least one or two trolls who commented, but sadly, I realize that people actually think that way.
 
2012-07-02 09:11:07 AM  

Some Bass Playing Guy: Did we really need ANOTHER health care greenlight?


You can bet the White House wishes it would just quietly go away. O is falling all over himself trying to explain how this is not a tax that will be paid mostly by middle class Americans.
 
2012-07-02 09:12:21 AM  
If this means Obama raised taxes then so did Romney as Governor. So yeah. Next.
 
2012-07-02 09:14:04 AM  

BillCo: Some Bass Playing Guy: Did we really need ANOTHER health care greenlight?

You can bet the White House wishes it would just quietly go away. O is falling all over himself trying to explain how this is not a tax that will be paid mostly by middle class Americans.


Now they'll have some skin in the game, amirite?
 
2012-07-02 09:18:41 AM  

Aarontology: Now they'll have some skin in the game, amirite?


No. The uninsured should get their health care in emergency rooms, paid for with increased premiums to those with insurance.

That's the way the Founders intended.
 
2012-07-02 09:19:35 AM  
washingtonpost.comView Full Size


So no, the Affordable Care Act isn't the "biggest tax hike in history." It's not even the biggest tax hike in the past 60 years. Or 50 years. Or 30 years. Or 20 years. Link
 
2012-07-02 09:23:25 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: [www.washingtonpost.com image 640x440]

So no, the Affordable Care Act isn't the "biggest tax hike in history." It's not even the biggest tax hike in the past 60 years. Or 50 years. Or 30 years. Or 20 years. Link


well - so much for THAT talking point then...
 
2012-07-02 09:28:25 AM  

BillCo: Some Bass Playing Guy: Did we really need ANOTHER health care greenlight?

You can bet the White House wishes it would just quietly go away. O is falling all over himself trying to explain how this is not a tax that will be paid mostly by middle class Americans.


HA! Have you heard Romney's crew trying to rip Obama on establishing a tax, but insisting that what Romney did in Mass. is not a tax?

Now that's hilarious

If anyone wants this to just go away, it's Romney and his lackeys. They simply cannot attack this without attacking Mitt. It's fun to watch 'em try, though.
 
2012-07-02 09:30:21 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: [www.washingtonpost.com image 640x440]

So no, the Affordable Care Act isn't the "biggest tax hike in history." It's not even the biggest tax hike in the past 60 years. Or 50 years. Or 30 years. Or 20 years. Link


Sure was a lot of taxes in the 80s. What tax and spend liberal was in charge back then?
 
2012-07-02 09:31:15 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: [www.washingtonpost.com image 640x440]

So no, the Affordable Care Act isn't the "biggest tax hike in history." It's not even the biggest tax hike in the past 60 years. Or 50 years. Or 30 years. Or 20 years. Link


Yeah but look at all the other taxes. You have to admit that this is the only one with "Obama" in its name.
 
2012-07-02 09:32:56 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Sure was a lot of taxes in the 80s. What tax and spend liberal was in charge back then?


I can't recall, but I'm sure he was some sort of super Socialist that today's GOP would never worship.
 
2012-07-02 09:40:13 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Dusk-You-n-Me: [www.washingtonpost.com image 640x440]

So no, the Affordable Care Act isn't the "biggest tax hike in history." It's not even the biggest tax hike in the past 60 years. Or 50 years. Or 30 years. Or 20 years. Link

Sure was a lot of taxes in the 80s. What tax and spend liberal was in charge back then?


You forgot Obama has a time machine.
 
2012-07-02 09:42:42 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: If this means Obama raised taxes then so did Romney as Governor. So yeah. Next.


GET OUT IN FRONT OF IT

--

TODD: The governor does not believe the mandate is a tax? That is what you're saying?

[Romney adviser] FEHRNSTROM: The governor believes that what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the Court's ruling that the mandate is not a tax.

TODD: But he agrees with the president that it is not - and he believes that you should not call the tax penalty a tax, you should call it a penalty or a fee or a fine?

FEHRNSTROM: That's correct. But the president also needs to be held accountable for his contradictory statements.

Link
 
2012-07-02 09:51:29 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Aarontology: Now they'll have some skin in the game, amirite?

No. The uninsured should get their health care in emergency rooms, paid for with increased premiums to those with insurance.

That's the way the Founders intended.


Federalist Papers #16 were actually about waiting for your heart condition to become a heart attack instead of getting cholesterol medication earlier.
 
2012-07-02 09:54:09 AM  
Soak the rich? I think I speak for most progressives when I say we supported the law for the death panels, not the taxes. Not that taxes aren't great, but it's not the most important element in implementing stalinist purges on peace loving patriots.
 
2012-07-02 09:55:05 AM  

BillCo: Some Bass Playing Guy: Did we really need ANOTHER health care greenlight?

You can bet the White House wishes it would just quietly go away.


Yeah they are simply devastated by this massive victory.
 
2012-07-02 09:55:15 AM  

Aarontology: I don't think anyone actually thought that.


Most people thought it was free.

Oh look, we can keep our kids on our plan...yeah...you also need to keep paying for the family plan too.
 
2012-07-02 09:56:08 AM  
How can you be pro life and anti health care?
 
2012-07-02 09:56:35 AM  
Heroic blogger-patriot in question:

4.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size
 
2012-07-02 09:57:01 AM  
BillCo: Wahhhhhh, my welfare is being taken away. Now I can't just walk into an ER and have others pay for my treatment when I slam my head into the bouncy wall too hard.

FTFY
 
2012-07-02 09:58:33 AM  

Aarontology: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Aarontology: Now they'll have some skin in the game, amirite?

No. The uninsured should get their health care in emergency rooms, paid for with increased premiums to those with insurance.

That's the way the Founders intended.

Federalist Papers #16 were actually about waiting for your heart condition to become a heart attack instead of getting cholesterol medication earlier.


From Federalist XVI:

"Whensoever the market determines that one's contribution to society is expressed through his ability to produce, it is but only reflecting the manifest nature of humanity as endowed by our creator. That such judgment shall take form in the relative disadvantage of one's already-experienced malady is the clearest of indicators of the divine wisdom of the marketplace; its purity self-evident, and superseding all law to be writ by man."
 
2012-07-02 09:59:54 AM  
The party of personal responsibility doesn't like... personal responsibility?
 
2012-07-02 09:59:56 AM  
Yeah, no one has ever thought that. The opposition is (largely) based around it being a handout to big insurance, for fark's sake.
 
2012-07-02 10:00:06 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: --

TODD: The governor does not believe the mandate is a tax? That is what you're saying?

[Romney adviser] FEHRNSTROM: The governor believes that what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the Court's ruling that the mandate is not a tax.

TODD: But he agrees with the president that it is not - and he believes that you should not call the tax penalty a tax, you should call it a penalty or a fee or a fine?

FEHRNSTROM: That's correct. But the president also needs to be held accountable for his contradictory statements.

Link


If the President were to be held accountable for his contradictory statements, he'd face maybe a fine or a community service.

If Romney were to be held accountable for his contradictory statements, he'd face the death penalty.
 
2012-07-02 10:02:27 AM  

Hobodeluxe: How can you be pro life and anti health care?


The same way you can be pro-choice (abortion) and pro-health care, I suppose.
 
2012-07-02 10:02:33 AM  
Maybe some people don't pass legislation or elect certain officials for the primary function of "sticking it to" somebody I don't politically agree with. But, what do I know? I'm a typical Midwest coast, state college educated, Monday-through-Friday job liberal elitist.
 
2012-07-02 10:03:12 AM  
Why are conservative suddenly worried that poor and middle class folks will be paying higher taxes? Isn't their philosophy that everyone should have the same "skin in the game," so - if anything - raising taxes on the poor and middle class is more fair?

I think I know why - because anything is bad if they can blame it on Obama.
 
2012-07-02 10:03:57 AM  

BillCo: Some Bass Playing Guy: Did we really need ANOTHER health care greenlight?

You can bet the White House wishes it would just quietly go away. O is falling all over himself trying to explain how this is not a tax that will be paid mostly by middle class Americans.


Yup, bet they are really scared my Republican friend.
 
2012-07-02 10:04:11 AM  
Nope... Never though that.

Any other retarded theories you'd like dispelled?
 
2012-07-02 10:04:25 AM  

BillCo: WE GET IT, IT'S A TAX.


All taxes are legal theft... forever!

 
2012-07-02 10:05:33 AM  

bartink: BillCo: WE GET IT, IT'S A TAX.

Douchebag righty. Claims to think Americans should take responsibility for themselves. Complains when Democrats make them do just that.


You shouldn't have to be FORCED BY THE GUVMINT to take responsibility for yourself!
 
2012-07-02 10:05:34 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Aarontology: I don't think anyone actually thought that.

Most people thought it was free.

Oh look, we can keep our kids on our plan...yeah...you also need to keep paying for the family plan too.


Where have you been! I thought Obamacare took you away.

How you holding up?
 
2012-07-02 10:05:44 AM  

bartink: BillCo: WE GET IT, IT'S A TAX.

Douchebag righty. Claims to think Americans should take responsibility for themselves. Complains when Democrats make them do just that.


The party of "personal responsibility" seems to have no sense of responsibility whatsoever. How else can you explain starting 2 wars while cutting taxes, and now taking the position that they want to keep all of the benefits of Obamacare, while getting rid of the unpopular individual mandate.


The right is seriously a bunch of spoiled children. You'd think they never had to do anything like a responsible adult in their entire life.
 
2012-07-02 10:06:21 AM  

Aarontology: I don't think anyone actually thought that.


That's what conservatives think that liberals think.
 
2012-07-02 10:06:53 AM  

physt: BillCo: WE GET IT, IT'S A TAX.

All taxes are legal theft... forever!


You left out an important part - it should be "all taxes that I have to pay are legal theft... forever!"
 
2012-07-02 10:06:54 AM  

sigdiamond2000: Heroic blogger-patriot in question:

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 342x398]


If we cover the costs of a hair transplant procedure in the new healthcare deal, he'll jump aboard.
 
2012-07-02 10:07:00 AM  

qorkfiend: Yeah, no one has ever thought that. The opposition is (largely) based around it being a handout to big insurance, for fark's sake.


not really. on their part they'll have to cover more people,for more things,with fewer exceptions and their profit margins capped.
so while they'll get more money they'll pay even more out.
hardly a "hand out"
 
2012-07-02 10:07:33 AM  
i258.photobucket.comView Full Size


Subby, umad?
 
2012-07-02 10:07:40 AM  

clancifer: I have to assume that with the median income being about $50k, that has to be 90% or so of the population. Sounds like a decent deal.


If $50k is the median its about 50% of the nation. Or were you implying those making

Dusk-You-n-Me: [www.washingtonpost.com image 640x440]

So no, the Affordable Care Act isn't the "biggest tax hike in history." It's not even the biggest tax hike in the past 60 years. Or 50 years. Or 30 years. Or 20 years. Link


I think they are yelling about the actual dollar amount, not % of GDP. Its kind of like when every other summer we have a revenue breaking movie come out, with inflation and population growth the revenue are always larger than the previous years.
 
2012-07-02 10:08:03 AM  
So people who don't take health insurance will pay a fine, and the big shocking news is that these people are predominantly not rich?
 
2012-07-02 10:08:32 AM  
suddenly republicans care about the middle class? what a freakin joke
 
2012-07-02 10:08:38 AM  

Weaver95: Dusk-You-n-Me: [www.washingtonpost.com image 640x440]

So no, the Affordable Care Act isn't the "biggest tax hike in history." It's not even the biggest tax hike in the past 60 years. Or 50 years. Or 30 years. Or 20 years. Link

well - so much for THAT talking point then...


Numbers mean what ever you want depending on how you look at them. Facts are relative.
 
2012-07-02 10:09:08 AM  
I can't believe it isn't obvious to everyone that the reason the right is against this law is that it caps insurance companies' profit margins. Everything else is just noise.
 
2012-07-02 10:10:15 AM  
Who pays 75% of the weight of current healthcare?

Derp.

Meaningless statistic is meaningless without something to compare it to.

I've yet to hear one good argument about why it's worse than our current system, and even a half ass plan to make a better system. No matter the spin, its better than what we currently have. If you didn't buy insurance before, you were leeching off the rest of us who did. It makes sense that this was the original Republican plan - it stops freeloading the system, especially poor people.

And yet, here they are crying. About what? I just see more and more whining with no real reason why this is the "end of freedom" etc...
 
2012-07-02 10:10:32 AM  
FTFA: Stephen Moore, Senior Economics Writer with the Wall Street Journal, told FOX and Friends[...]

So, effectively, this entire story is Rupert Murdoch masturbating.
 
2012-07-02 10:11:25 AM  

physt: bartink: BillCo: WE GET IT, IT'S A TAX.

Douchebag righty. Claims to think Americans should take responsibility for themselves. Complains when Democrats make them do just that.

You shouldn't have to be FORCED BY THE GUVMINT to take responsibility for yourself!


What? Is this a serious comment? You all biatch about people getting free shiat and when they're forced to pay for it...what? You don't seem to understand that you'll be paying for this one way or anther. The President is just trying to make it mandatory for those who WON'T pay to pony up so that YOUR cost are REDUCED. You're NEVER going to live in a SOCIETY where you take and never give.
 
2012-07-02 10:12:18 AM  

Hobodeluxe: qorkfiend: Yeah, no one has ever thought that. The opposition is (largely) based around it being a handout to big insurance, for fark's sake.

not really. on their part they'll have to cover more people,for more things,with fewer exceptions and their profit margins capped.
so while they'll get more money they'll pay even more out.
hardly a "hand out"


The main detriment to insurance companies is that they won't be able to f*ck over consumers as easily as in the past. Insurance in this country has become very profit-driven, when in most contexts it is, and should be viewed as, providing a public service. Insurers will deny claims just to give themselves room to whittle down the amounts, and force their insured to accept less than what was promised.

The argument that insurance regulation drives up prices is complete and utter bullshiat. Most loosely regulated insurance companies make billions of dollars in profits and draw thousands of customer complaints each year. The only ones benefiting from lax regulation are the insurance companies.

We need regulation of all insurance on the federal level - health insurance is a good start.
 
2012-07-02 10:12:51 AM  

Headso: suddenly republicans care about the middle class? what a freakin joke


well, they sort of care. a little. maybe.

ok, the GOP doesn't care about the middle class, ok? look - they need us for the moment and they plan on dumping us soon as they don't need us around anymore but for RIGHT NOW they really care, ok!? that matters! it's important! Obamacare! socialisms! [wave flag]. you can trust them because they're rich and rich people are morally upstanding! sure, you'll be dumped on the street corner like a cheap, used hooker once the GOP is done with you but dammit - it's for your own good!
 
2012-07-02 10:13:24 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: FEHRNSTROM: That's correct. But the president also needs to be held accountable for his contradictory statements.


Did the Romney campaign just divide by zero?
 
2012-07-02 10:14:05 AM  

HeartBurnKid: FTFA: Stephen Moore, Senior Economics Writer with the Wall Street Journal, told FOX and Friends[...]

So, effectively, this entire story is Rupert Murdoch masturbating.


Nice! Well actually not nice at all. But you know what I mean.
 
2012-07-02 10:14:06 AM  

Truncks1: And yet, here they are crying. About what?


because they're afraid people will like it and the Dems will be able to campaign on it for decades.
 
2012-07-02 10:14:29 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: physt: bartink: BillCo: WE GET IT, IT'S A TAX.

Douchebag righty. Claims to think Americans should take responsibility for themselves. Complains when Democrats make them do just that.

You shouldn't have to be FORCED BY THE GUVMINT to take responsibility for yourself!

What? Is this a serious comment? You all biatch about people getting free shiat and when they're forced to pay for it...what? You don't seem to understand that you'll be paying for this one way or anther. The President is just trying to make it mandatory for those who WON'T pay to pony up so that YOUR cost are REDUCED. You're NEVER going to live in a SOCIETY where you take and never give.


My comment wasn't serious. The word GUVMINT should have been a tip off.
 
2012-07-02 10:14:41 AM  

Truncks1: Who pays 75% of the weight of current healthcare?

Derp.

Meaningless statistic is meaningless without something to compare it to.

I've yet to hear one good argument about why it's worse than our current system, and even a half ass plan to make a better system. No matter the spin, its better than what we currently have. If you didn't buy insurance before, you were leeching off the rest of us who did. It makes sense that this was the original Republican plan - it stops freeloading the system, especially poor people.

And yet, here they are crying. About what? I just see more and more whining with no real reason why this is the "end of freedom" etc...



This This and so much this.

It's like saying that raising taxes on "job creators" will stifle the economy. If that's the case, why hasn't the economy taken off in the last ten years, a period of time when the rich have gotten richer than at any other point in American history?

It's just noise to attempt to justify the rich getting richer at the expense of everyone else.
 
2012-07-02 10:15:34 AM  
Labeling a Gateway Pundit Link as "Some Wall Street Journal Guy"? That's some might trollin', Louadmin.
 
2012-07-02 10:15:40 AM  

doyner: I can't believe it isn't obvious to everyone that the reason the right is against this law is that it caps insurance companies' profit margins. Everything else is just noise.


Oops. I meant this this and so much this.
 
2012-07-02 10:16:18 AM  

Weaver95: Dusk-You-n-Me: [www.washingtonpost.com image 640x440]

So no, the Affordable Care Act isn't the "biggest tax hike in history." It's not even the biggest tax hike in the past 60 years. Or 50 years. Or 30 years. Or 20 years. Link

well - so much for THAT talking point then...


Thank god that the truth will instantly silence talking points.
 
2012-07-02 10:16:53 AM  
Now watch while they beat this strawman to fake-death and simultaneously decry ACA as socialized medicine.
 
2012-07-02 10:17:04 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Aarontology: I don't think anyone actually thought that.

Most people thought it was free.

Oh look, we can keep our kids on our plan...yeah...you also need to keep paying for the family plan too.


So... you think keeping the family plan so your kids stay insured through college is horrible, and you shouldn't have to pay it.

You sound like an awesome parent. Parent of the Year nominee right here...
 
2012-07-02 10:17:19 AM  

Weaver95: sooo...the people who will be using that system the most, will be paying for it and...this is a bad thing?


Party of "personal responsibility" doesn't want deadbeats to be penalized for not paying for their own up-keep. Instead, the Republicans want us to pay emergency room bills for the asswipes who are too irresponsible to get coverage they can afford. The Republican Party is all about protecting slackers and deadbeats, and forcing the rest of us to pay for their irresponsibility.
 
2012-07-02 10:20:00 AM  

Xcott: So people who don't take health insurance will pay a fine, and the big shocking news is that these people are predominantly not rich?


A fine that is less than the cost of health insurance, not to be paid by people with low incomes and those who can't find health insurance that costs less than 8% of their income.
 
2012-07-02 10:20:13 AM  
has anyone mentioned that ACA was the GOP plan until they veered hard right?

'cause that's the truth, and it's hard evidence of the GOP's transformation...keep pretending everyone else has moved to the left though. A lot of people seem to be buying your misinformation.
 
2012-07-02 10:20:56 AM  

physt: DROxINxTHExWIND: physt: bartink: BillCo: WE GET IT, IT'S A TAX.

Douchebag righty. Claims to think Americans should take responsibility for themselves. Complains when Democrats make them do just that.

You shouldn't have to be FORCED BY THE GUVMINT to take responsibility for yourself!

What? Is this a serious comment? You all biatch about people getting free shiat and when they're forced to pay for it...what? You don't seem to understand that you'll be paying for this one way or anther. The President is just trying to make it mandatory for those who WON'T pay to pony up so that YOUR cost are REDUCED. You're NEVER going to live in a SOCIETY where you take and never give.

My comment wasn't serious. The word GUVMINT should have been a tip off.


Oh, well then...carry on.
 
2012-07-02 10:21:07 AM  

BillCo: WE GET IT, IT'S A TAX.


We get it: the Republican Party has become the party of Personal Irresponsibility.

The Republicans want deadbeats to be protected from being penalized if they try to stick the rest of us with their emergency room bills when the deadbeat can afford to buy insurance.
 
2012-07-02 10:21:13 AM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: Labeling a Gateway Pundit Link as "Some Wall Street Journal Guy"? That's some might trollin', Louadmin.


What, was subby just supposed to say "that tired hack pundit from the Wall Street Journal who can't even keep a straight face while reciting the same pro-Friedman bullshiat he's been parroting for some 20 years, but wears a bowtie and glasses so you know he's smart?"
 
2012-07-02 10:23:11 AM  
*Floats mouse pointer over link*

Gateway Pundit?

Nope.
 
2012-07-02 10:24:30 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: [www.washingtonpost.com image 640x440]

So no, the Affordable Care Act isn't the "biggest tax hike in history." It's not even the biggest tax hike in the past 60 years. Or 50 years. Or 30 years. Or 20 years. Link


Nooooooooo!!! You've ruined hyperbole forever!!!
 
2012-07-02 10:26:21 AM  

BillCo: WE GET IT, IT'S A TAX.


we get it. the GOP has veered so far to the right that they are literally calling for armed revolt because their own plan from only a few years back has been made law.

you can't explain that....

seriously, some GOP farker please address this, is there a GOP response to this?
I have yet to hear it.
 
2012-07-02 10:27:29 AM  
It's interesting...

Back in the day, right after the government started functioning in 1789 after ratifying the Constitution, they were forced to pass a new tax to cover their expenses.

See, before 1789, the Federal government was barred by law from passing taxes. it was left up to THE STATES, who ignored the problem, naturally. They were up to their eyeballs in debt, so the Fed had to pass the Whiskey Tax.

Then, as now, people didn't like taxes, so they got their panties in a twist.

Then, as now, the protesters demanded a compromise and they got it. Just like today.

And just like now, the protesters weren't satisfied with the compromise.

Violence broke out as the protesters attacked government officials while disguised.

Protests continued and the protesters grew more and more radical, all the while, professing to be modeling their efforts after the American Revolution.

Of course, the protesters at that time stood no chance and escaped death only because the government gave them mercy.

In the end, the leaders of the protest fled and left their followers to fend for themselves. In the end, they were known as cowards and selfish fools who cared only about their pocketbooks.

They murdered men, even officers of the Federal government, and only two men were sentenced to death, and 'they' were pardoned by the President.

Moral of the story? A resistance to paying taxes, protesting stupidly about it, and then running like scared little girls at the first sign of aggression is ingrained upon the American public. It's part of our legacy.
 
2012-07-02 10:28:04 AM  
maybe they'd be happier if the Dems funded this the same way they did Medicare part D?
which is to not fund it (like the wars) but let it add to the debt until some poor sap like Obama comes along and then you suddenly become concerned about the debt.
 
2012-07-02 10:30:36 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Bad form disguising a Gateway Pundit link as a WSJ link, Deceitmitter.


THIS

F*CK YOU DREW
 
2012-07-02 10:31:44 AM  
What the fark is up with the weepy "It's your plan! Why don't you love it/us?" shiat?

Liberals, the Republicans are the right party. If you move right, they do too. This is not a repeat from every year since Nixon.
 
2012-07-02 10:32:33 AM  

BillCo: WE GET IT, IT'S A TAX.


I'm not sure you get how the "we get it" thing works.
 
2012-07-02 10:34:24 AM  

unexplained bacon: I have yet to hear it.


That is the response. They're hoping that if they just keep ignoring that the majority of this plan (most notably the oh-so-hated individual mandate) is the direct result of the combined efforts of the conservative Heritage Foundation and Clinton-era republicans in Congress that it will just go away and voters will be none the wiser. They've basically chosen the "peek-a-boo" strategy on this: if I can't see it, it's not there.

Meanwhile they're trying to fill the deafening silence with nonsense. Hence the pounding of "IT'S A TAX" as if by magic people have to pay more just because the bill, which remains entirely unchanged no matter what you call it, says "tax" instead of "penalty". And look at tenpoundsofcheese trying to argue this is bad because people who choose to keep their family plan will have to keep paying for their family plan as if there were some widespread misconception that you'd suddenly get free insurance because your kids turned 18.

It's like some absurd circus act. In the ten years I've been paying attention to politics I've never seen the GOP so helpless and flailing. I think hearing that ruling must have given Rove a concussion or something, because the republican response has just been complete gibberish. They really are just wandering completely in the dark in this.

I think this may well be the issue when their blizzard of lies strategy finally turns around and leaves them completely blind because I don't think there's any direction they can turn on this that doesn't result in them running straight into a huge wall of blatant hypocrisy.
 
2012-07-02 10:35:20 AM  
I have to stop clicking on FoxNews links. They make my brain hurt. I swear I can feel an aneurism coming on when I see/read their stuff. Take this fine example...

They say, "...nearly 75% of Obamacare costs will fall on the backs of those Americans making less than $120,000 a year," and then they have a graphic that states/shows that by 2016, 4 million Americans will penalty/tax and that 75% make less than 120k a year.

Now, I'm no mathematician, but I'm pretty sure that 75% of 4 million people paying the penalty/tax (which is like $95.00, if I remember correctly) does not equal 75% of the cost of insuring 300 million(ish) Americans.
 
2012-07-02 10:35:40 AM  

Ned Stark: What the fark is up with the weepy "It's your plan! Why don't you love it/us?" shiat?

Liberals, the Republicans are the right party. If you move right, they do too. This is not a repeat from every year since Nixon.


At least you Republicans admit, there is no chance in meeting in the middle and compromising.

/Vote Republican
 
2012-07-02 10:35:44 AM  
the guy gets his "news" from Fauxnews. I am not impressed.
 
2012-07-02 10:36:01 AM  
If Obamacare does nothing else, it will teach Americans that living in a community has certain responsibilities and that no economics works in a vacuum.

It sucks to have to give money to corporations (though that would also apply to paying directly for any health care in most places sadly), but since we have no other option yet it's necessary, simply because of the need for a large risk pool to join regulations to push down the cost of coverage. Maybe this "injustice" will help teach people that it's necessary to make health care a public good that we all contribute to to limit individual costs instead of keeping it the employer-provided luxury it's been for decades.

I doubt it, but still.
 
2012-07-02 10:36:44 AM  

Ned Stark: What the fark is up with the weepy "It's your plan! Why don't you love it/us?" shiat?

Liberals, the Republicans are the right party. If you move right, they do too. This is not a repeat from every year since Nixon.


So, if the Dems adopt a 'pro-death penalty' stance, the GOP will move to the right and propose new laws that allow the states to round up people for preemptive Death Sentencing? "Kill em before they can kill!"

Oh, maybe if the Dems take a hardline against illegal drugs, the GOP will take a hardline against legal drugs? Three aspirin = Life in prison!
 
2012-07-02 10:40:04 AM  

NateGrey: Ned Stark: What the fark is up with the weepy "It's your plan! Why don't you love it/us?" shiat?

Liberals, the Republicans are the right party. If you move right, they do too. This is not a repeat from every year since Nixon.

At least you Republicans admit, there is no chance in meeting in the middle and compromising.

/Vote Republican


"You Republicans". Nope not me. Im a lefty wackadoodle. Good effect fort though.
 
2012-07-02 10:40:24 AM  

Ned Stark: What the fark is up with the weepy "It's your plan! Why don't you love it/us?" shiat?


Because it's relevant to point out that Barack Obama virtually handed them their own idea and they've still had an absolute catastrophic meltdown that it passed?

Because it's relevant that the plan is a virtual copy of the plan that the current Republican presidential candidate - the man who has gone on record as saying one of his first acts as president would be to try and repeal the federal plan - passed in Massachusetts?

Because it's relevant to point out that if the individual mandate in Obama's plan is a tax, and you're going to attack him for it, then the individual mandate in Romney's plan is also a tax and that means the republicans are being hypocritical?

As usual, the republicans' only plan of attack is "THE DEMOCRAT DID IT" and, as usual, that means that every time they turn a corner on this issue they're walking smack into their own wall of words.
 
2012-07-02 10:40:27 AM  

Aarontology: I don't think anyone actually thought that.


THIS.
 
2012-07-02 10:41:18 AM  

Infernalist: Ned Stark: What the fark is up with the weepy "It's your plan! Why don't you love it/us?" shiat?

Liberals, the Republicans are the right party. If you move right, they do too. This is not a repeat from every year since Nixon.

So, if the Dems adopt a 'pro-death penalty' stance, the GOP will move to the right and propose new laws that allow the states to round up people for preemptive Death Sentencing? "Kill em before they can kill!"

Oh, maybe if the Dems take a hardline against illegal drugs, the GOP will take a hardline against legal drugs? Three aspirin = Life in prison!


You dont hear anything when both parties agree, they seem to want to make a big deal out of the things they dont agree on so no one pays attention to the things they do agree on.
 
2012-07-02 10:41:26 AM  
"In case you thought Obamacare was a great way to soak the rich and stick it to the corporations, think again, former middle-class sucker"

You totally misunderstood the concept, idiot! Otherwise - great Freudian slip right there, douche!
 
2012-07-02 10:42:00 AM  

Ned Stark: What the fark is up with the weepy "It's your plan! Why don't you love it/us?" shiat?


That's called being facetious. Merely highlighting that there is nothing for the GOP to truly dislike, it was their goddamned plan. That's actually one of the reasons the president went this route, he figured they could get on board and have some meaningful input. There is something about this president though, something that makes them reflectively oppose everything he says or does. I can't put my finger on it, but it has to be something that makes him different from past presidents.
 
2012-07-02 10:42:25 AM  
These poor, beknighted souls who're exposed to the possibility of a tax increase in two years ONLY IF they fail to get themselves some health insurance between now and then - does anyone here know who they actually are? Anyone? Class?

They're the 20-something / 30-something douchebags who right now don't carry insurance, yet when they get sick or get hurt unexpectedly go to an urgent care or emergency facility to get treated for free, the cost of which gets passed on to you and I as insurance carriers. Excuse me if I fail to weep for irresponsible youth & young adults being prodded to cover their own health costs rather than soak the system.
 
2012-07-02 10:43:15 AM  

Cinaed: The party of personal responsibility doesn't like... personal responsibility?


They like it when it's proposed by Bill Bennett or some other Republican.

When it's proposed by BallSack FARTSSEIN Zerobammey it's basically the Holocaust, except worse.
 
2012-07-02 10:43:53 AM  
And here I was thinking Obamacare was a great way for millions of Americans to get healthcare.
 
2012-07-02 10:45:53 AM  

God's Hubris: And here I was thinking Obamacare was a great way for millions of Americans to get healthcare.


Single payer would be a great way. This is merely better than the GOP's "die in the street like a stray dog" plan.
 
2012-07-02 10:46:19 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Ned Stark: What the fark is up with the weepy "It's your plan! Why don't you love it/us?" shiat?

That's called being facetious. Merely highlighting that there is nothing for the GOP to truly dislike, it was their goddamned plan. That's actually one of the reasons the president went this route, he figured they could get on board and have some meaningful input. There is something about this president though, something that makes them reflectively oppose everything he says or does. I can't put my finger on it, but it has to be something that makes him different from past presidents.


Yeah, I don't know why Republicans can't get behind Obama, even when he's supporting their causes and platforms.

it's almost as if a dark cloud hangs over him. Like he casts a black eye on the entire country. Kenya hear what I'm saying?
 
2012-07-02 10:47:10 AM  
When I see liberals marching and chanting (or belly dancing or whatever) for ObamaCare, I have to wonder... why?

I know that the liberals of Fark.com are the most intelligent people on earth, so I pose this question to their collective brilliance: If Obama 'gave you healthcare', as you claim, what do you now have that you didn't have before? I mean, ObamaCare is nothing more than a new tax on you if you can't afford insurance, along with a slew of new rules that make insurance more expensive.

How is that 'giving you healthcare'?
 
2012-07-02 10:47:24 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Dusk-You-n-Me: FEHRNSTROM: That's correct. But the president also needs to be held accountable for his contradictory statements.

Did the Romney campaign just divide by zero?


I think when you couple this with the Mitch McConnell interview linked here yesterday, they may have actually divided by DERP.
 
2012-07-02 10:47:30 AM  
your blog sucks submitter
 
2012-07-02 10:48:05 AM  

Sgt Stubby: If Obama 'gave you healthcare', as you claim


I never claimed that. Next.
 
2012-07-02 10:48:17 AM  

BillCo: Some Bass Playing Guy: Did we really need ANOTHER health care greenlight?

You can bet the White House wishes it would just quietly go away. O is falling all over himself trying to explain how this is not a tax that will be paid mostly by middle class Americans.


How is it a tax? I have HI as part of my compensation package. What extra tax will I be paying?

// I am paying extra taxes for not being married, for not having kids, for not having mortgage interest, for not owning farm equipment, for not being a business...
// so that's nice
// it's only a tax if you don't get HI - and it'd be cheaper to pay the penalty (but without the added benefit of, you know, having insurance)
 
2012-07-02 10:48:28 AM  
What's silly about this objection is that the alternate John Galt plan---make uninsured people pay out of pocket for their emergency room bills or turn them away---sticks even poorer people with even bigger bills.

It also goes a lot farther than any "death panel." It's more of a death receptionist.
 
2012-07-02 10:48:33 AM  

sigdiamond2000: Heroic blogger-patriot in question:

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 342x398]


looks like he jizzed in his pants
 
2012-07-02 10:48:35 AM  

Sgt Stubby: When I see liberals marching and chanting (or belly dancing or whatever) for ObamaCare, I have to wonder... why?

I know that the liberals of Fark.com are the most intelligent people on earth, so I pose this question to their collective brilliance: If Obama 'gave you healthcare', as you claim, what do you now have that you didn't have before? I mean, ObamaCare is nothing more than a new tax on you if you can't afford insurance, along with a slew of new rules that make insurance more expensive.

How is that 'giving you healthcare'?


God, it's got to hurt to pretend to be that dumb to support your party.
 
2012-07-02 10:49:01 AM  

doyner: I can't believe it isn't obvious to everyone that the reason the right is against this law is that it caps insurance companies' profit margins. Everything else is just noise.


Biggity Bingo. Insurers can still make bank, but can no longer pad their costs. Which saves so much money it makes the right's ideas about using "malpractice reform" to make it impossible to sue bad docs look like the chump change it is.
 
2012-07-02 10:50:04 AM  

Sgt Stubby: When I see liberals marching and chanting (or belly dancing or whatever) for ObamaCare, I have to wonder... why?

I know that the liberals of Fark.com are the most intelligent people on earth, so I pose this question to their collective brilliance: If Obama 'gave you healthcare', as you claim, what do you now have that you didn't have before? I mean, ObamaCare is nothing more than a new tax on you if you can't afford insurance, along with a slew of new rules that make insurance more expensive.

How is that 'giving you healthcare'?


Does it hurt to be that stupid?

Because I already have insurance because I'm not a young moron who wants to risk their life not having insurance.
 
2012-07-02 10:50:06 AM  

Sgt Stubby: When I see liberals marching and chanting (or belly dancing or whatever) for ObamaCare, I have to wonder... why?


When I see conservatives marching and chanting (or calling in death threats or whatever) for ObamaCare, I have to wonder ... why?
 
2012-07-02 10:50:24 AM  
But I was assured that Obamacare would make a healthcare free! The writer of the article is just racist.
 
2012-07-02 10:50:45 AM  

Hobodeluxe: Truncks1: And yet, here they are crying. About what?

because they're afraid people will like it and the Dems will be able to campaign on it for decades.


Yeah, but they won't say that. ;)

I'm sure in a few years, Republicans will re-write history to show that they were the ones who in fact invented it and so it was their victory. They just didn't like *insert random unpopular provision* and that's why they opposed it so vehemently.
 
2012-07-02 10:51:07 AM  

Sgt Stubby: If Obama 'gave you healthcare', as you claim


Who claimed this? I personally already have insurance.
 
2012-07-02 10:51:36 AM  
It's "make up things liberals said about Obamacare" day. Apparently.
 
2012-07-02 10:51:51 AM  

Sgt Stubby: When I see liberals marching and chanting (or belly dancing or whatever) for ObamaCare, I have to wonder... why?

I know that the liberals of Fark.com are the most intelligent people on earth, so I pose this question to their collective brilliance: If Obama 'gave you healthcare', as you claim, what do you now have that you didn't have before? I mean, ObamaCare is nothing more than a new tax on you if you can't afford insurance, along with a slew of new rules that make insurance more expensive.

How is that 'giving you healthcare'?


1) Those that can't afford it will get it subsidized through the government or they'll be included into the expanded Medicare/Medicaid.

2) Those that 'can' afford it, 'will' get it, and due to the huge pools of buyers, their premiums will be lower than they would be right now if they went out to buy insurance.

3) The only people who will be hit with this tax are those who 'can' afford it, but choose not to buy it. Selfish people, mostly.
 
2012-07-02 10:52:25 AM  
I love how conservatives are still trying to get this "NEW TAX!" thing to work, because they don't understand that, outside of their little circle of crazy, taxes are not the worst thing in the world, and that if taxes can offset our astronomically high health care costs or otherwise keep us better covered, they're actually worth it.
 
2012-07-02 10:52:48 AM  

sigdiamond2000: Heroic blogger-patriot in question:

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 342x398]


ERMERGERD

4.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size


RERBERTS SERD THERS ERS TERXERS

 
2012-07-02 10:52:49 AM  
Says FOX NEWS. Known for telling truths.

Also, when you count ALL taxes paid (payroll deductions for medicare, social security, property taxes, sales taxes, etc.) it's always been true that the majority of taxes are already paid by the middle class because there's SO MANY OF THEM.

So telling us that the middle class will pay the most means nothing because they already are. Plus most people have no idea how much they and their employer pay for health care, so it's impossible to get them to understand that this additional cost would be INSTEAD of current costs instead of ON TOP OF current costs.
 
2012-07-02 10:52:50 AM  
Is this where we liberals have to explain "personal responsibility" to the so-called conservatives?
 
2012-07-02 10:52:51 AM  

Sgt Stubby: When I see liberals marching and chanting (or belly dancing or whatever) for ObamaCare, I have to wonder... why?

I know that the liberals of Fark.com are the most intelligent people on earth, so I pose this question to their collective brilliance: If Obama 'gave you healthcare', as you claim, what do you now have that you didn't have before? I mean, ObamaCare is nothing more than a new tax on you if you can't afford insurance, along with a slew of new rules that make insurance more expensive.

How is that 'giving you healthcare'?


beta_plus: But I was assured that Obamacare would make a healthcare free! The writer of the article is just racist.


Is there a "Most Dumb Assed Post" contest going on?
 
2012-07-02 10:54:05 AM  

geek_mars: They say, "...nearly 75% of Obamacare costs will fall on the backs of those Americans making less than $120,000 a year," and then they have a graphic that states/shows that by 2016, 4 million Americans will penalty/tax and that 75% make less than 120k a year.


well gee that makes sense because 90% of Americans make less than 120k/yr
and 4 million in 2016 is like 1% of the population.
and a lot of those will fall into the expanded medicaid category or get their penalty will be lessened by their low income.

so the greatest tax in history is at most 2.5% on a whopping .25% of the population
 
2012-07-02 10:54:09 AM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle:

It's like some absurd circus act. In the ten years I've been paying attention to politics I've never seen the GOP so helpless and flailing. I think hearing that ruling must have given Rove a concussion or something, because the republican response has just been complete gibberish. They really are just wandering completely in the dark in this.

I think this may well be the issue when their blizzard of lies strategy finally turns around and leaves them completely blind because I don't think there's any direction they can turn on this that doesn't result in them running straight into a huge wall of blatant hypocrisy.


I've been a Republican since 1987, and I've never seen the GOP in a frenzy like this. They have a plan that they were all for, which got enacted by their current Presidential Candidate in Massachusetts, then bogarted by the Democrats and enacted federally. They can't complain about this without their current hopes for the White House being caught up in the poo-flinging.

And the beautiful thing is that these fundamentalist, obstructionist nitwits are so gung-ho to get Obama out of the White House, that they flinging the poo. The problem they're having is that they're throwing the poo into a super powerful fan that's turned back on them, and they're being covered in it.

If you're a foreigner following all of this silliness, or simply someone who likes watching politics, this has to be mind-boggling.

See also: the GOP reaction to Osama Bin Laden's death.
 
2012-07-02 10:55:00 AM  

Sgt Stubby: When I see liberals marching and chanting (or belly dancing or whatever) for ObamaCare, I have to wonder... why?

I know that the liberals of Fark.com are the most intelligent people on earth, so I pose this question to their collective brilliance: If Obama 'gave you healthcare', as you claim, what do you now have that you didn't have before? I mean, ObamaCare is nothing more than a new tax on you if you can't afford insurance, along with a slew of new rules that make insurance more expensive.

How is that 'giving you healthcare'?


Wanna know how I know you've never been denied coverage for a pre-existing condition?
 
2012-07-02 10:56:03 AM  
From wikipedia:

Stephen Moore (born February 16, 1960) is an American economic writer and policy analyst who founded and served as president of the Club for Growth from 1999 to 2004.

The Club for Growth is a politically conservative 527 organization active in the United States of America, with an agenda focused on taxation and other economic issues, and with an affiliated political action committee (PAC). The Club advocates lower taxes, limited government, less government spending, free trade, and economic liberalism (libertarianism). Its PAC endorses and raises money for conservative candidates.

The Club invented the "RINO Watch" list - RINO being a pejorative acronym for Republican In Name Only - to monitor what it describes as "Republican office holders around the nation who have advanced egregious anti-growth, anti-freedom or anti-free market policies." The list has focused on Republicans who voted against tax changes and budget cuts supported by the Club.

In addition, the Club for Growth also makes independent expenditures to pressure certain moderate Republicans to vote more conservatively (e.g. running ads against Senators George Voinovich of Ohio, Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island after these Senators objected to certain aspects of President Bush's tax cuts).

Moore is currently a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board and frequently opines on the pages of their op-ed section. Moore is known for advocating free-market policies and supply-side economics.

He is currently a partner in the econometrics firm Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics. He also writes for the National Review. So basically the guy is a Republican supply-side economics shill with ties to conservative PACs. Chief economist my ass.
 
2012-07-02 10:56:09 AM  

Sgt Stubby: When I see liberals marching and chanting (or belly dancing or whatever) for ObamaCare, I have to wonder... why?

I know that the liberals of Fark.com are the most intelligent people on earth, so I pose this question to their collective brilliance: If Obama 'gave you healthcare', as you claim, what do you now have that you didn't have before? I mean, ObamaCare is nothing more than a new tax on you if you can't afford insurance, along with a slew of new rules that make insurance more expensive.

How is that 'giving you healthcare'?


I may have missed it but when did anyone say Obama was giving us healthcare?

3.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size

 
2012-07-02 10:56:24 AM  

Sgt Stubby: When I see liberals marching and chanting (or belly dancing or whatever) for ObamaCare, I have to wonder... why?

I know that the liberals of Fark.com are the most intelligent people on earth, so I pose this question to their collective brilliance: If Obama 'gave you healthcare', as you claim, what do you now have that you didn't have before? I mean, ObamaCare is nothing more than a new tax on you if you can't afford insurance, along with a slew of new rules that make insurance more expensive.

How is that 'giving you healthcare'?


If you can't afford insurance, you get a rebate or will qualify for the expanded medicaid. My brother will already benefit from Obamacare by being covered by my parents' health insurance until he is 26 or can find insurance himself. And I will benefit from preexisting conditions slowly being eliminated.

"Slew of new rules to make insurance more expensive" - And a slew of new rules to make insurance cheaper, such as more people being in the insurance pool and freeloaders getting taxed if they didn't buy insurance.

How about a real discussion about pros and cons instead of parroting rhetoric?
 
2012-07-02 10:57:08 AM  

Bloody William: I love how conservatives are still trying to get this "NEW TAX!" thing to work,


Not to mention for people who already have insurance it isn't anything.
 
2012-07-02 10:58:32 AM  

Truncks1: Sgt Stubby: When I see liberals marching and chanting (or belly dancing or whatever) for ObamaCare, I have to wonder... why?

I know that the liberals of Fark.com are the most intelligent people on earth, so I pose this question to their collective brilliance: If Obama 'gave you healthcare', as you claim, what do you now have that you didn't have before? I mean, ObamaCare is nothing more than a new tax on you if you can't afford insurance, along with a slew of new rules that make insurance more expensive.

How is that 'giving you healthcare'?

If you can't afford insurance, you get a rebate or will qualify for the expanded medicaid. My brother will already benefit from Obamacare by being covered by my parents' health insurance until he is 26 or can find insurance himself. And I will benefit from preexisting conditions slowly being eliminated.

"Slew of new rules to make insurance more expensive" - And a slew of new rules to make insurance cheaper, such as more people being in the insurance pool and freeloaders getting taxed if they didn't buy insurance.

How about a real discussion about pros and cons instead of parroting rhetoric?


They don't 'want' a debate, they just want page hits.
 
2012-07-02 10:59:14 AM  

Sgt Stubby: When I see liberals marching and chanting (or belly dancing or whatever) for ObamaCare, I have to wonder... why?


pixel.nymag.comView Full Size


The West Virginia Belly Dancers for Single Payer gyrated outside of the Supreme Court this morning in opposition to Obamacare, the destruction of which, they hope, will lead to Congress enacting a single-payer (that single payer being the federal government) health-care system...

1 - you're a dumbass that wouldn't know nuance if "Nuance" was the name of the trucker that sucked you off at a rest stop.

2 - there is no #2.
 
2012-07-02 11:00:34 AM  

Weaver95: sooo...the people who will be using that system the most, will be paying for it and...this is a bad thing?


It's good thing.

It will come as a major shock to Democrat constituents, but it's a good thing.
 
2012-07-02 11:01:43 AM  

Aarontology: I don't think anyone actually thought that.


That man over there did. The one made out of straw.
 
2012-07-02 11:02:24 AM  

cchris_39: Weaver95: sooo...the people who will be using that system the most, will be paying for it and...this is a bad thing?

It's good thing.

It will come as a major shock to Democrat constituents, but it's a good thing.


Hate to break it to you, sparky, but there's only one political party that has labeled taxes as an evil thing, and it's not the Democrats.
 
2012-07-02 11:02:33 AM  

beta_plus: But I was assured that Obamacare would make a healthcare free! The writer of the article is just racist.


No you weren't
But I guess if you got nuthin you need to make stuff like this up

Honestly the GOP farkers seem to be without an actual argument here.
 
2012-07-02 11:03:50 AM  

BillCo: Some Bass Playing Guy: Did we really need ANOTHER health care greenlight?

You can bet the White House wishes it would just quietly go away. O is falling all over himself trying to explain how this is not a tax that will be paid mostly by middle class Americans.


Unlike your political party, Obama's did not sign a tax pledge to a egomaniac, so none of us really see your point here. Of course I'm probably the idiot for assuming you have one.
 
2012-07-02 11:04:07 AM  

make me some tea: Aarontology: I don't think anyone actually thought that.

That's what conservatives think that liberals think.


There are usually errors in logic and horrible consequences when this happens.
 
2012-07-02 11:04:22 AM  
WSJ, from Gateway Pundit, from Fox News.
Couldn't you just found this at Fox? And although the story sounds about like you would expect (who's really paying for it) it came from Fox News. So can I really believe it?

And although someone cried for the insurance companies when I last threw this out, I believe this is true. The insurance companies just picked up millions of new healthy customers (besides the others they would rather not carry). They didn't have to pay any salesmen (just those members of Congress) to get the sale.

Suddenly all those health insurance sales people are going to get a pay reduction since they are not really needed to sell anymore, they are just paper-pushers now.

img836.imageshack.usView Full Size


I just wonder how this is going to affect the "price reductions" between the hospitals and the insurance companies.
Will the market work it's self out?
 
2012-07-02 11:04:54 AM  

Infernalist: Hate to break it to you, sparky, but there's only one political party that has labeled taxes as an evil thing, and it's not the Democrats.


They really have no comprehension that outside of their political circles taxes are not the worst thing ever and that amicable exchanges could be made where higher taxes are preferable if we see benefit from them.
 
2012-07-02 11:05:04 AM  

EyeballKid: Vegan Meat Popsicle: Labeling a Gateway Pundit Link as "Some Wall Street Journal Guy"? That's some might trollin', Louadmin.

What, was subby just supposed to say "that tired hack pundit from the Wall Street Journal who can't even keep a straight face while reciting the same pro-Friedman bullshiat he's been parroting for some 20 years, but wears a bowtie and glasses so you know he's smart?"


If subby were honest, it would say "some sucky blog."

If adminny were honest, it would be red.

If Drew meant what he said in his book, adminny would be gone.
 
2012-07-02 11:05:24 AM  
No, doyner, I have never been denied coverage for a pre-existing condition. Similarly, I have never wrecked a car and then suddenly decided I needed to buy insurance and demand that they fix it or give me a new one. But if you tell insurance companies that they must cover you even though you didn't have insurance, that simply jacks up the premiums for everyone else. Most employed liberals don't care because they'll just sneer, "I already have insurance at my job, so I don't care." That's because they really don't care.

But for the self-employed or the unemployed, this new punishment tax (along with skyrocketing premiums) is a crushing burden. Of course, liberals don't care. They'll just keep chanting, 'Obama gave me healthcare!' Of course, employers can only sustain so many attacks from the government before they just stop offering coverage at all.

But the ones who will get screwed are supposedly Obama's biggest supporters. Wait'll they learn the truth...
 
2012-07-02 11:05:56 AM  

Sgt Stubby: When I see liberals marching and chanting (or belly dancing or whatever) for ObamaCare, I have to wonder... why?

I know that the liberals of Fark.com are the most intelligent people on earth, so I pose this question to their collective brilliance: If Obama 'gave you healthcare', as you claim, what do you now have that you didn't have before? I mean, ObamaCare is nothing more than a new tax on you if you can't afford insurance, along with a slew of new rules that make insurance more expensive.

How is that 'giving you healthcare'?


Hi, you must be new here. Whenever I see a new Farker drone on about "Liberals" I generally get the idea that they're either being paid by the word (your post wasn't very long though) or a real moron who believes the spew that comes out of their mouths.

So, welcome! I look forward to people proving you a narrow-minded idiot again and again!

/Love, trotsky.
 
2012-07-02 11:06:46 AM  

Sgt Stubby: Wait'll they learn the truth...


You're an internet dentist?
 
2012-07-02 11:08:00 AM  

bdub77: He is currently a partner in the econometrics firm Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics. He also writes for the National Review. So basically the guy is a Republican supply-side economics shill with ties to conservative PACs. Chief economist my ass.


Ugh. If ever there was a "I'm with stupid sign." that would be it right there.
 
2012-07-02 11:08:02 AM  

Sgt Stubby: No, doyner, I have never been denied coverage for a pre-existing condition. Similarly, I have never wrecked a car and then suddenly decided I needed to buy insurance and demand that they fix it or give me a new one. But if you tell insurance companies that they must cover you even though you didn't have insurance, that simply jacks up the premiums for everyone else. Most employed liberals don't care because they'll just sneer, "I already have insurance at my job, so I don't care." That's because they really don't care.

But for the self-employed or the unemployed, this new punishment tax (along with skyrocketing premiums) is a crushing burden. Of course, liberals don't care. They'll just keep chanting, 'Obama gave me healthcare!' Of course, employers can only sustain so many attacks from the government before they just stop offering coverage at all.

But the ones who will get screwed are supposedly Obama's biggest supporters. Wait'll they learn the truth...


I'm glad that we agree that we need a single-payer system.
 
2012-07-02 11:08:27 AM  

EyeballKid: Sgt Stubby: Wait'll they learn the truth...

You're an internet dentist?


He's just mad that pretend dentistry isn't covered.
 
2012-07-02 11:09:37 AM  

physt: Sgt Stubby: When I see liberals marching and chanting (or belly dancing or whatever) for ObamaCare, I have to wonder... why?

I know that the liberals of Fark.com are the most intelligent people on earth, so I pose this question to their collective brilliance: If Obama 'gave you healthcare', as you claim, what do you now have that you didn't have before? I mean, ObamaCare is nothing more than a new tax on you if you can't afford insurance, along with a slew of new rules that make insurance more expensive.

How is that 'giving you healthcare'?

I may have missed it but when did anyone say Obama was giving us healthcare?

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 450x599]


I don't think Sgt Stubby is aware of what a fallacy is or that his entire post was a text book example.

In response to your derp Sgt Stubby....I would hope that many of the positive things like the pre-existing condition changes are something that even partisan mouthpoopers can agree are good.
 
2012-07-02 11:10:20 AM  

Dr Dreidel: BillCo: Some Bass Playing Guy: Did we really need ANOTHER health care greenlight?

You can bet the White House wishes it would just quietly go away. O is falling all over himself trying to explain how this is not a tax that will be paid mostly by middle class Americans.

How is it a tax? I have HI as part of my compensation package. What extra tax will I be paying?

// I am paying extra taxes for not being married, for not having kids, for not having mortgage interest, for not owning farm equipment, for not being a business...
// so that's nice
// it's only a tax if you don't get HI - and it'd be cheaper to pay the penalty (but without the added benefit of, you know, having insurance)


Its a tax because thats what SCOTUS claims it to be and the only way that it is legal. Is this really that hard?
 
2012-07-02 11:12:21 AM  

cchris_39: Weaver95: sooo...the people who will be using that system the most, will be paying for it and...this is a bad thing?

It's good thing.

It will come as a major shock to Democrat constituents, but it's a good thing.


i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2012-07-02 11:13:38 AM  

Sgt Stubby: They'll just keep chanting, 'Obama gave me healthcare!'


But that never happened, so they can't "keep" chanting it.

Of course, employers can only sustain so many attacks from the government before they just stop offering coverage at all.

Employers offer healthcare to attract talent.
 
2012-07-02 11:14:09 AM  

derpdeederp: Dr Dreidel: BillCo: Some Bass Playing Guy: Did we really need ANOTHER health care greenlight?

You can bet the White House wishes it would just quietly go away. O is falling all over himself trying to explain how this is not a tax that will be paid mostly by middle class Americans.

How is it a tax? I have HI as part of my compensation package. What extra tax will I be paying?

// I am paying extra taxes for not being married, for not having kids, for not having mortgage interest, for not owning farm equipment, for not being a business...
// so that's nice
// it's only a tax if you don't get HI - and it'd be cheaper to pay the penalty (but without the added benefit of, you know, having insurance)

Its a tax because thats what SCOTUS claims it to be and the only way that it is legal. Is this really that hard?


He already has health insurance, thus he's in no danger of being hit with the tax.

Only those who can afford it but choose to not cover themselves will be hit with the tax, as they should be. Selfish gits.
 
P0e
2012-07-02 11:14:34 AM  
I see its "pull facts out of my ass, ignore reality, and blame Obama" time.

The ACA is funded by a tax increase that will take place beginning the 2013 calendar year. This tax increase is point nine percent (.9%). This tax increase is only on income greater than $200,000/year. For people making $1,000,000 a year, this represents a tax increase of $7,200 a year.
If the tradeoff is that the richest
The individual mandate is NOT meant to be a tax like the above. It is not meant to generate revenue, nor is it meant to punish people who cannot pay it.

The point of the individual mandate is so that people are not able to forgo paying for insurance until they are sick. If that was possible, no one would pay for insurance at all until they needed care, and then they would get insurance. Because of the ban on pre-existing conditions, insurance companies would not be able to refuse these people, and would be forced to cover people only when the expenditures on these people would be far greater than they could charge for premiums. That is not fair to the Insurance companies, and would force them out of business.

Secondly, the price of insurance will go down. There are 2 major reasons for this:
1) The health insurance exchanges, when set up, will help promote competition between insurance companies for your business. In addition, the exchanges will allow people to select coverage plans tailored to what they need based on their health.
2) Insurance company expenditures are now capped at 20% of all spending. If an insurance company's expenditure on patients drops below 80% of all spending, they must issue rebates to reestablish the ratio. This ensures that people receive the coverage that they pay for.

Even after the price drops, if people cannot afford the insurance on the exchanges, there will be assistance available to people to help pay for insurance. The law does not expect everyone to be able to afford insurance, and sets up ways for the insurance coverage to be subsidized.

The fact that the commenter in the video has such a WRONG understanding of the facts of the actual law that was implemented should cast deep doubt on his credibility. Because of his hyper-focus on one specific part of the bill (albeit an important part of the bill), he shows that he has one of three serious flaws:
1) He lacks the ability to read and comprehend what he is reading
2) He can understand what he reads, but chooses to interpret it in a way that is factually incorrect.
3) He hasn't read the law at all, and relies on what other people tell him about things without doing independant research.

Either way, he is wrong, insists on continuing to be wrong. The ACA is a great thing, and the country will be better off because of it.
 
2012-07-02 11:17:11 AM  
That's right, dumbfarkmitter, the point of the thing is not to combat rising healthcare costs or to see that more Americans have coverage. The point of it is to ZOMG GET DOSE RICH GUYS. Because that's all anything the left ever does is about. Ever.

/seriously, go stab yourself in the eye
 
2012-07-02 11:17:44 AM  

Sgt Stubby: No, doyner, I have never been denied coverage for a pre-existing condition. Similarly, I have never wrecked a car and then suddenly decided I needed to buy insurance and demand that they fix it or give me a new one. But if you tell insurance companies that they must cover you even though you didn't have insurance, that simply jacks up the premiums for everyone else. Most employed liberals don't care because they'll just sneer, "I already have insurance at my job, so I don't care." That's because they really don't care.

But for the self-employed or the unemployed, this new punishment tax (along with skyrocketing premiums) is a crushing burden. Of course, liberals don't care. They'll just keep chanting, 'Obama gave me healthcare!' Of course, employers can only sustain so many attacks from the government before they just stop offering coverage at all.

But the ones who will get screwed are supposedly Obama's biggest supporters. Wait'll they learn the truth...


Then shut the fark up. The mandate that you're biatching about resolves the rest of derp. Without the mandate you'd be right, but the GOP lost that battle in the SCOTUS so get over it.
 
2012-07-02 11:19:58 AM  

Infernalist: derpdeederp: Dr Dreidel: BillCo: Some Bass Playing Guy: Did we really need ANOTHER health care greenlight?

You can bet the White House wishes it would just quietly go away. O is falling all over himself trying to explain how this is not a tax that will be paid mostly by middle class Americans.

How is it a tax? I have HI as part of my compensation package. What extra tax will I be paying?

// I am paying extra taxes for not being married, for not having kids, for not having mortgage interest, for not owning farm equipment, for not being a business...
// so that's nice
// it's only a tax if you don't get HI - and it'd be cheaper to pay the penalty (but without the added benefit of, you know, having insurance)

Its a tax because thats what SCOTUS claims it to be and the only way that it is legal. Is this really that hard?

He already has health insurance, thus he's in no danger of being hit with the tax.

Only those who can afford it but choose to not cover themselves will be hit with the tax, as they should be. Selfish gits.


True, but technically speaking, its a tax, per the SCOTUS ruling.
 
2012-07-02 11:20:04 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: It's "make up things liberals said about Obamacare" day. Apparently.


That's pretty much been every day since the PPACA was introduced, including the name. It isn't called Obamacare.
 
2012-07-02 11:20:12 AM  
I still haven't formed an opinion about the ACA. I think I need a few more days of shouting. That should help.
 
2012-07-02 11:20:13 AM  

David Axelrod: words


But socialism?
 
2012-07-02 11:20:19 AM  
stfu and pay your tax.

and eat your broccoli.

and put down the soda.
 
2012-07-02 11:20:26 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Employers offer healthcare to attract talent.


In this economy... employers offer employment to attract talent.
 
2012-07-02 11:22:26 AM  

derpdeederp: Infernalist: derpdeederp: Dr Dreidel: BillCo: Some Bass Playing Guy: Did we really need ANOTHER health care greenlight?

You can bet the White House wishes it would just quietly go away. O is falling all over himself trying to explain how this is not a tax that will be paid mostly by middle class Americans.

How is it a tax? I have HI as part of my compensation package. What extra tax will I be paying?

// I am paying extra taxes for not being married, for not having kids, for not having mortgage interest, for not owning farm equipment, for not being a business...
// so that's nice
// it's only a tax if you don't get HI - and it'd be cheaper to pay the penalty (but without the added benefit of, you know, having insurance)

Its a tax because thats what SCOTUS claims it to be and the only way that it is legal. Is this really that hard?

He already has health insurance, thus he's in no danger of being hit with the tax.

Only those who can afford it but choose to not cover themselves will be hit with the tax, as they should be. Selfish gits.

True, but technically speaking, its a tax, per the SCOTUS ruling.


yeah.

And? What's your point? It's a tax that'll hit a tiny percentage of lazy-assed people who can afford it, but instead choose not to. It's a tax aimed right at people who DESERVE to be taxed for their stupidity and selfishness.

Yes, it's a tax. What's your farking point?
 
2012-07-02 11:23:00 AM  

Curse of the Goth Kids: That's right, dumbfarkmitter, the point of the thing is not to combat rising healthcare costs or to see that more Americans have coverage. The point of it is to ZOMG GET DOSE RICH GUYS. Because that's all anything the left ever does is about. Ever.

/seriously, go stab yourself in the eye


It does use a progressive tax system to pay for it. Personally, I would have preferred a flat tax system such as SS to pay for Healthcare, would have been way better than this thing, but guess we will have this for the next 50-60 years or so.
 
2012-07-02 11:23:20 AM  

PanicMan: It isn't called Obamacare.


Officially, no. I did not like the term when it first come into existence a few year ago. I've since warmed to it. And part of the reason for that is David Axelrod's point here:

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

In 10 or 20 years Republicans will be trying to take credit for this reform. Count on that.
 
2012-07-02 11:24:41 AM  
Yeah, it's a tax. But paying that tax does not provide one with health insurance. So, those people will still not have health insurance, but will be forced to pay $700 per year.
 
2012-07-02 11:25:04 AM  

Infernalist:
True, but technically speaking, its a tax, per the SCOTUS ruling.

yeah.

And? What's your point? It's a tax that'll hit a tiny percentage of lazy-assed people who can afford it, but instead choose not to. It's a tax aimed right at people who DESERVE to be taxed for their stupidity and selfishness.

Yes, it's a tax. What's your farking point?


I was correcting people who were claiming it wasnt a tax, you know, so I can be right about something on the internet. THIS IS SERIOUS BUSINESS!
 
2012-07-02 11:25:39 AM  

sarek_smile: Yeah, it's a tax. But paying that tax does not provide one with health insurance. So, those people will still not have health insurance, but will be forced to pay $700 per year.


Seems silly to not get insurance, eh?
 
2012-07-02 11:26:14 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: PanicMan: It isn't called Obamacare.

Officially, no. I did not like the term when it first come into existence a few year ago. I've since warmed to it. And part of the reason for that is David Axelrod's point here:

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

In 10 or 20 years Republicans will be trying to take credit for this reform. Count on that.


Translation:

"It's ok, we're taking it back."

/Fark is slipping today
 
2012-07-02 11:26:24 AM  

sarek_smile: Yeah, it's a tax. But paying that tax does not provide one with health insurance. So, those people will still not have health insurance, but will be forced to pay $700 per year.


And when they need health insurance, they can get it. Its a sweet deal.
 
2012-07-02 11:27:27 AM  

Mrtraveler01: "It's ok, we're taking it back."


Co-opted!
 
2012-07-02 11:27:58 AM  

sarek_smile: Yeah, it's a tax. But paying that tax does not provide one with health insurance. So, those people will still not have health insurance, but will be forced to pay $700 per year.


Those are what we call idiots.
 
2012-07-02 11:29:40 AM  
I don't get it, how come having an ever increasing in cost (disproportionate to other goods and services) system where one pays an insurer (which amazingly is synonymous with health care...crazy) an outrageous amount of money in profits to just write checks and so they can essentially dedicate themselves to signing death sentences when they decide not to pay in the name of "efficiency" and you still have to pay large sums before they'll cover a dime is better than the government collecting a tax (less than you would pay privately) to cover everything for everyone?

Someone explain what I'm missing. What do insurers do that you stupid Americans think they are worth literally dying for?
 
2012-07-02 11:29:41 AM  
No, doyner, I am NOT for government-run healthcare - i.e. single payor. The reason ObamaCare is so hated by the majority of Americans is because is just another massive, bureaucratic nightmare that only the hard-left could love. It was rammed down the country's throat solely by the democrat party and created the democrat election disaster in 2010. BTW, that's going to happen again.

The whole damned thing should have been struck down by the Supreme Court as 'void for vagueness', since so much of it will simply be made up as they go along in the future. The thing is larded with 'The Secretary shall determine' bs through and through, so nobody knows where the next attack will come from. And smug liberals in this thread are making a BIG assumption that the states will go along with the expanded Medicaid command from Obama. Already half say they will not.

What needs to happen is the government getting out of the way. The reason auto insurance is so competetive is because the government doesn't restrict purchasing of it like they do with health insurance. Also, on-the-job health insurance isn't taxed as income (though I bet liberals would love that), so the self-employed, unemployed ot those without covereage at work should be able to deduct their premiums.

Sorry, liberals. Americans want more freedom, not more government control via an expanded gestapo - i.e. the hard-left's beloved IRS. That's why you were crushed in 2010, and it's why you'll lose again in November. America HATES ObamaCare.


By the way, I'm getting called an idiot and so on in this thread, you I haven't called anyone names like that. I'm even being called a 'dentist'. Is that some kind of inside joke? But anyway, be as hateful as you like. It's really persuasive and it's why liberal news has such a huge audience!
 
2012-07-02 11:29:44 AM  

Mrtraveler01: sarek_smile: Yeah, it's a tax. But paying that tax does not provide one with health insurance. So, those people will still not have health insurance, but will be forced to pay $700 per year.

Those are what we call idiots.


As long as they feel like they've won.
 
2012-07-02 11:30:04 AM  

Mrtraveler01: sarek_smile: Yeah, it's a tax. But paying that tax does not provide one with health insurance. So, those people will still not have health insurance, but will be forced to pay $700 per year.

Those are what we call idiots.


Why? Can't you just pay the $700, wait til you get injured/sick and then get insurance? I assume this will largely be the young with few yearly healthcare costs. People will always find ways to trick the system.
 
2012-07-02 11:30:23 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: [www.washingtonpost.com image 640x440]

So no, the Affordable Care Act isn't the "biggest tax hike in history." It's not even the biggest tax hike in the past 60 years. Or 50 years. Or 30 years. Or 20 years. Link


are these adjusted for inflation?
 
2012-07-02 11:31:22 AM  

derpdeederp: sarek_smile: Yeah, it's a tax. But paying that tax does not provide one with health insurance. So, those people will still not have health insurance, but will be forced to pay $700 per year.

And when they need health insurance, they can get it. Its a sweet deal.


Except they'll still be paying, every year, for something that they don't need. The tax ensures that even 'if' they don't pay into the system by buying Health Insurance, that they're still paying into the system via the tax.

They're GOING to pay their way whether they want to or not. They're not going to be allowed to freeload off of others any longer.

And yes, when they do need it, they'll get health insurance that they've been paying for all along.
 
2012-07-02 11:31:44 AM  

pippi longstocking: What do insurers do that you stupid Americans think they are worth literally dying for?


They get freedoms all up in the markets, you stupid commie bastard. Our markets are soaked in freedom jizz like a 13 year old Thai whore.
 
2012-07-02 11:32:29 AM  

colon_pow: stfu and pay your tax.

and eat your broccoli.

and put down the soda.


Got nothIng to talk about?
Seems to be going around

Here's a topic for you
The ACA is an idea championed by republicans just a few years back. Discuss if you dare. Seems to be a topic the GOP types want nothing to do with but you're a brave one so go ahead tell me why it was good then and bad now
 
2012-07-02 11:35:01 AM  

sarek_smile: Yeah, it's a tax. But paying that tax does not provide one with health insurance. So, those people will still not have health insurance, but will be forced to pay $700 per year.


The people paying this "tax" are people that a) can afford health insurance and b) choose not to purchase health insurance. They clearly intend to utilize the emergency room; they've made the conscious decision to not carry health insurance and are attempting to avoid their personal responsibility and offload the costs on to everyone else.
 
2012-07-02 11:35:35 AM  

moistD: are these adjusted for inflation?


I do not know. There's a few source links in that article if you want to do some digging.
 
2012-07-02 11:36:06 AM  

BillCo: WE GET IT, IT'S A TAX.

On the very people Republicans WANT taxes raised on.
 
2012-07-02 11:36:17 AM  

Infernalist:
They're GOING to pay their way whether they want to or not. They're not going to be allowed to freeload off of others any longer.

And yes, when they do need it, they'll get health insurance that they've been paying for all along.


Well I spend significantly more than $700 a year on healh insurance now, though dont go to the doctor regularly. I was simply trying to illustrate that for some people it will be more cost effective for them to pay the penalty and when they get sick/hurt sign up for insurance to cover that costs.
 
2012-07-02 11:36:43 AM  

Sgt Stubby: No, doyner, I am NOT for government-run healthcare - i.e. single payor. ...By the way, I'm getting called an idiot and so on in this thread, you I haven't called anyone names like that. I'm even being called a 'dentist'. Is that some kind of inside joke? But anyway, be as hateful as you like. It's really persuasive and it's why liberal news has such a huge audience!


Do I know you?

So how do you address the pre-existing condition problem?

And no, I'm not in on the "inside joke."
 
2012-07-02 11:37:42 AM  

qorkfiend: sarek_smile: Yeah, it's a tax. But paying that tax does not provide one with health insurance. So, those people will still not have health insurance, but will be forced to pay $700 per year.

The people paying this "tax" are people that a) can afford health insurance and b) choose not to purchase health insurance. They clearly intend to utilize the emergency room; they've made the conscious decision to not carry health insurance and are attempting to avoid their personal responsibility and offload the costs on to everyone else.


It will mostly hit young people who dont have any healthcare costs, imo.
 
2012-07-02 11:41:06 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: BillCo: WE GET IT, IT'S A TAX. On the very people Republicans WANT taxes raised on.



WE GET IT, IT'S A TAX. On the very people Obama declared taxes WOULDN'T be raised on.

/FTFY
 
2012-07-02 11:42:23 AM  

LivingDeadX1: PC LOAD LETTER: BillCo: WE GET IT, IT'S A TAX. On the very people Republicans WANT taxes raised on.


WE GET IT, IT'S A TAX. On the very people Obama declared taxes WOULDN'T be raised on.


Which people?
 
2012-07-02 11:43:06 AM  

Sgt Stubby: No, doyner, I have never been denied coverage for a pre-existing condition. Similarly, I have never wrecked a car and then suddenly decided I needed to buy insurance and demand that they fix it or give me a new one.


You know that's not always how it works, right?

My girlfriend (and future wife-to-be) had a stroke several years ago. When she was 23 . (due to the incredible doctors at UNC-Chapel Hill, she's fine now).

She had insurance at the time through her parents. As she approached her 26th birthday (well, rather, about a year prior to it) she started looking for health insurance, since she'd be off her parents policy when she turned 26.

No one would take her. Due to a prexisting condition caused by no fault of her own. The only way we were able to get her insurance *at all* was the fortunate fact that she can count as my domestic partner (since we've lived together for a while) and I can get her on my grad student insurance.

So is your argument, then, that we should live the rest of our lives worrying that coverage could be dropped at any time due to this prexisting condition? That we should never be able to have children, to have a family, without worrying the health insurance could be yanked from under us? That we should never be able to change jobs, since the swapping of health insurnace that would entail would likely fark her?

Screw you. Sorry man, but 'Free market" doesn't work on a good that has *literally* 0 Elasticity. "Pay this or you die" doesn't really allow for a market based solution.
 
2012-07-02 11:43:28 AM  

LivingDeadX1: PC LOAD LETTER: BillCo: WE GET IT, IT'S A TAX. On the very people Republicans WANT taxes raised on.


WE GET IT, IT'S A TAX. On the very people Obama declared taxes WOULDN'T be raised on.

/FTFY


WE GET IT. IT'S PETTY SEMANTICS. Because the costs were never hidden, and the program still functions the same as when it was passed.
 
2012-07-02 11:43:37 AM  

colon_pow: stfu and pay your tax.

and eat your broccoli.

and put down the soda.


I had my fill of Republican tears last week, but if you are offering, sure I will have some more!
 
2012-07-02 11:45:21 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: BillCo: WE GET IT, IT'S A TAX. On the very people Republicans WANT taxes raised on.


you don't have to pay the tax as long as you pay for something that costs more than the tax.
 
2012-07-02 11:45:56 AM  

derpdeederp: qorkfiend: sarek_smile: Yeah, it's a tax. But paying that tax does not provide one with health insurance. So, those people will still not have health insurance, but will be forced to pay $700 per year.

The people paying this "tax" are people that a) can afford health insurance and b) choose not to purchase health insurance. They clearly intend to utilize the emergency room; they've made the conscious decision to not carry health insurance and are attempting to avoid their personal responsibility and offload the costs on to everyone else.

It will mostly hit young people who dont have any healthcare costs, imo.


And when that those young people suffer some sort of cataclysmic injury, which is more or less a permanent and continuous risk, then...?
 
2012-07-02 11:47:02 AM  

skullkrusher: PC LOAD LETTER: BillCo: WE GET IT, IT'S A TAX. On the very people Republicans WANT taxes raised on.

you don't have to pay the tax as long as you pay for something that costs more than the tax.


Wow a Republican that actually gets it, now say it more clearly.

If you have insurance, which every Republican already does, your taxes are the same.
 
2012-07-02 11:47:02 AM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: moistD: are these adjusted for inflation?

I do not know. There's a few source links in that article if you want to do some digging.


I did some digging and could find anything saying if they were or not. Would be interesting if they were not...
 
2012-07-02 11:47:20 AM  

LivingDeadX1: PC LOAD LETTER: BillCo: WE GET IT, IT'S A TAX. On the very people Republicans WANT taxes raised on.


WE GET IT, IT'S A TAX. On the very people Obama declared taxes WOULDN'T be raised on.

/FTFY


WE GET IT, IT'S A TAX. On the very people Obama declared taxes WOULDN'T be raised on when he was talking about HIS plan, which in spite of what Republicans want to call it, ACA is not HIS plan

/FTFY
 
2012-07-02 11:48:48 AM  

NateGrey: If you have insurance, which every Republican already does, your taxes are the same.


that's a lot of stupid in just a few words
 
2012-07-02 11:50:13 AM  

Felgraf: Sgt Stubby: No, doyner, I have never been denied coverage for a pre-existing condition. Similarly, I have never wrecked a car and then suddenly decided I needed to buy insurance and demand that they fix it or give me a new one.

You know that's not always how it works, right?

My girlfriend (and future wife-to-be) had a stroke several years ago. When she was 23 . (due to the incredible doctors at UNC-Chapel Hill, she's fine now).

She had insurance at the time through her parents. As she approached her 26th birthday (well, rather, about a year prior to it) she started looking for health insurance, since she'd be off her parents policy when she turned 26.

No one would take her. Due to a prexisting condition caused by no fault of her own. The only way we were able to get her insurance *at all* was the fortunate fact that she can count as my domestic partner (since we've lived together for a while) and I can get her on my grad student insurance.

So is your argument, then, that we should live the rest of our lives worrying that coverage could be dropped at any time due to this prexisting condition? That we should never be able to have children, to have a family, without worrying the health insurance could be yanked from under us? That we should never be able to change jobs, since the swapping of health insurnace that would entail would likely fark her?

Screw you. Sorry man, but 'Free market" doesn't work on a good that has *literally* 0 Elasticity. "Pay this or you die" doesn't really allow for a market based solution.



What seems to be lost on all the "Free market" people is that Health care isn't just a commodity or investment. It's a public service / public good. It's like police or firefighters. Should the police only protect you if you pay them a monthly fee, or firefighters will only put out your house fire if you first agree to pay them for it?

Most sane people would say that markets for services involving life and death - such as health care - shouldn't be left up to the purely economic decisions of the private market. But then again, most sane people aren't the ones out there hollering that the ACA is a vast governmental infringement on personal liberty. Where were those morons when the PATRIOT act was passed?
 
2012-07-02 11:55:14 AM  

HeartlineTwist: LivingDeadX1: PC LOAD LETTER: BillCo: WE GET IT, IT'S A TAX. On the very people Republicans WANT taxes raised on.


WE GET IT, IT'S A TAX. On the very people Obama declared taxes WOULDN'T be raised on.

/FTFY

WE GET IT, IT'S A TAX. On the very people Obama declared taxes WOULDN'T be raised on when he was talking about HIS plan, which in spite of what Republicans want to call it, ACA is not HIS plan

/FTFY



I like how everyone is acting surprised that the penalty for not buying insurance under the mandate, which is a TAX PENALTY, was properly recognized by the court as under Congressional taxing power. It's not like the basis for SCOTUS upholding the ACA changes anything about the law or its effect -- the "it's a tax!" whining is just GOP spin to try to further vilify the ACA.

It's not a "tax hike," and the only reason Obama avoided couching it in those terms is because Americans get up in arms any time they're asked to pay for services they want. Why do you think Mitt Romney is out there saying that he's going to keep all the popular parts of the ACA (ie preexisting conditions, etc.), but do away with the way to pay for it (the individual mandate).

Call it what you will, but at least the mandate provides the funding mechanism for the ACA. Romney wants to spend irresponsibly, or is pandering his ass off. I'm guessing that both are true.
 
2012-07-02 11:55:16 AM  
NO OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD DOES THIS!

And when surveyed about having a system like the one in the US they look at you as if you been smoking whacky tobacco, which is fine too.

Yes, healthcare is a basic necessity/human right. I don't know what kind of Neanderthal thinks it is not. No one seems to care about giving money in subsidies to the world's most profitable companies in the world but somehow making sure people don't suffer and/or die is beyond the realm of capable.
 
2012-07-02 11:57:26 AM  

Chummer45: What seems to be lost on all the "Free market" people is that Health care isn't just a commodity or investment. It's a public service / public good. It's like police or firefighters. Should the police only protect you if you pay them a monthly fee, or firefighters will only put out your house fire if you first agree to pay them for it?

Most sane people would say that markets for services involving life and death - such as health care - ...



Most health care is not a matter of immediate life and death. It's generally the "where do we draw the line" that all of the arguments are really about.
 
2012-07-02 11:58:54 AM  

Dr Dreidel: BillCo: Some Bass Playing Guy: Did we really need ANOTHER health care greenlight?

You can bet the White House wishes it would just quietly go away. O is falling all over himself trying to explain how this is not a tax that will be paid mostly by middle class Americans.

How is it a tax? I have HI as part of my compensation package. What extra tax will I be paying?

// I am paying extra taxes for not being married, for not having kids, for not having mortgage interest, for not owning farm equipment, for not being a business...
// so that's nice
// it's only a tax if you don't get HI - and it'd be cheaper to pay the penalty (but without the added benefit of, you know, having insurance)


Appears to me that it's only morons who will end up paying this "tax". How much sympathy do I have for morons, you ask? Well, it's hard to quantify exactly, but I'd say it's roughly the same amount as I have for people who use indoor tanning salons.
 
2012-07-02 11:59:09 AM  

pippi longstocking: NO OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD DOES THIS!

And when surveyed about having a system like the one in the US they look at you as if you been smoking whacky tobacco, which is fine too.

Yes, healthcare is a basic necessity/human right. I don't know what kind of Neanderthal thinks it is not. No one seems to care about giving money in subsidies to the world's most profitable companies in the world but somehow making sure people don't suffer and/or die is beyond the realm of capable.



Also, do these farking morons understand that THEY'RE ALREADY PAYING FOR HEALTH CARE?!?!?

If you have insurance, do you realize that you're having several hundred dollars taken out of your paycheck every week? If you're uninsured, do you realize that you're gambling with your health?

And if you're a taxpayer, do you realize that you are paying for that uninsured person's health care regardless, either through increased insurance rates or taxes?

Seriously, think about that for five minutes before crying "omg, the government is forcing us responsible insured folks to pay to cover the uninsured!!" You're already doing that, moron. You either don't realize it, or don't care because you hate Obama. Either way you're an idiot.
 
2012-07-02 11:59:25 AM  
For those that refuse to accept a nagging problem that keeps cropping up called reality, here's the coverage from CNN and Fox when they thought, for a few minutes, that the "centerpiece" individual mandate had been struck down. And what THAT meant for Obama.

In the space of those seven agonizing minutes, CNN's John King had described the verdict as a "direct blow" to the Obama administration.

Ah, conservative tears of frustration. You painted yourself into a corner and now there's nowhere to turn.

If you ever want to know what the reaction of someone of a political persuasion would be in an alternate reality, wonder no more. For seven minutes, for CNN, 'reality' was that the ACA had been struck down. Every sentiment said in that time was a true and insightful glimpse into another possibility. They thought the waveform had collapsed, the contents of the box were observed, and the cat was dead.

They were wrong. But because of that, you got to see what the game plan was going to be in that reality.

You have nobody to blame for eschewing thinking and planning but your own tiny anterior cingulate cortexes. You have nobody to blame for the fear and sheer panic you feel right now than your own large amygdalas. Enjoy reality. it's going to be around for the rest of your lives.
 
2012-07-02 12:00:20 PM  

Wulfman: Chummer45: What seems to be lost on all the "Free market" people is that Health care isn't just a commodity or investment. It's a public service / public good. It's like police or firefighters. Should the police only protect you if you pay them a monthly fee, or firefighters will only put out your house fire if you first agree to pay them for it?

Most sane people would say that markets for services involving life and death - such as health care - ...


Most health care is not a matter of immediate life and death. It's generally the "where do we draw the line" that all of the arguments are really about.



Ok. Then where do we draw the line?
 
2012-07-02 12:01:11 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Dusk-You-n-Me: FEHRNSTROM: That's correct. But the president also needs to be held accountable for his contradictory statements.

Did the Romney campaign just divide by zero?


"It was a small penalty when I did it in Mass., but for Obama it's a massive tax hike, and yes I see some of you have your hands in the air, but before you ask me anymore questions I'd like to state for the record that Obama needs to be held accountable for his contradictory statements. Good night, and go f*ck yourself San Diego."
 
2012-07-02 12:02:17 PM  
Wait! Is that what Rupert Murdoch's paper for the wealthy thinks that the 99% believe?
 
2012-07-02 12:02:30 PM  

Jackpot777: For those that refuse to accept a nagging problem that keeps cropping up called reality, here's the coverage from CNN and Fox when they thought, for a few minutes, that the "centerpiece" individual mandate had been struck down. And what THAT meant for Obama.

In the space of those seven agonizing minutes, CNN's John King had described the verdict as a "direct blow" to the Obama administration.

Ah, conservative tears of frustration. You painted yourself into a corner and now there's nowhere to turn.

If you ever want to know what the reaction of someone of a political persuasion would be in an alternate reality, wonder no more. For seven minutes, for CNN, 'reality' was that the ACA had been struck down. Every sentiment said in that time was a true and insightful glimpse into another possibility. They thought the waveform had collapsed, the contents of the box were observed, and the cat was dead.

They were wrong. But because of that, you got to see what the game plan was going to be in that reality.

You have nobody to blame for eschewing thinking and planning but your own tiny anterior cingulate cortexes. You have nobody to blame for the fear and sheer panic you feel right now than your own large amygdalas. Enjoy reality. it's going to be around for the rest of your lives.


That reminds me of one of my favorite quotes:

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
― Neil deGrasse Tyson
 
2012-07-02 12:02:33 PM  

Chummer45: Most health care is not a matter of immediate life and death. It's generally the "where do we draw the line" that all of the arguments are really about.


Ok. Then where do we draw the line?


I don't know, but apparently it's drawn with bootstraps.
 
2012-07-02 12:02:39 PM  
doyner, you still don't get it. But I'm not going to call you names, like the enlightened liberals here are calling me. What I said was that Government isn't the solution. It's the problem. Chinese buffets don't worry about fatties coming in and eating as much as five people would, because they make it up on volume. But if the government were to make a law that the buffet should be free for 'poor' people, or a law that diners can simply stay there all day and eat (opening to closing) for the price of one meal, the restaraunt would just go out of business. Then I suppose, we could have government food stores like they had in the left's belove U.S.S.R. where everything was 'fair' - you just had to stand in line for hours at a time for a loaf of government bread.

It's the same with healthcare. Insurance companies are private businesses. Yes, they are heavily regulated, but they are still private businesses. Auto insurance companies are tripping over each other to tell you how much less their covereage costs than the other guy. Why? Because the government is out of the way. You can buy any auto insurance you want, anywhere. Health insurance is different because the companies are operating in monopolies created by state and federal government. People aren't free to choose, but ObamaCare doesn't even address that,

Like I said, you can't wreck your car and then go buy auto insurance to get it fixed. You can't break your leg and then demand that an insurance company give you a policy to pay for it. Sorry. Now you can make a law (I suppose) that requires these insurance companies to cover you, whethere you have a policy or not (as you seem to demand that they do), but one of two things will obviously happen - they will all go out of business or they will dramatically raise their rates. In fact, would should ANYONE buy insurance if it's going to be against the law to deny payment for a pre-existing car wreck or health problem?

You tell me...
 
2012-07-02 12:03:02 PM  

skullkrusher: NateGrey: If you have insurance, which every Republican already does, your taxes are the same.

that's a lot of stupid in just a few words


Can you thank John Roberts for the Dems next time you see him at your Teabagger meeting?

K, thx!
 
2012-07-02 12:03:09 PM  

sarek_smile: Yeah, it's a tax. But paying that tax does not provide one with health insurance. So, those people will still not have health insurance, but will be forced to pay $700 per year.



Only if they have someone willing to insure them for at most $186/month. If the cost is more than that they could get a hardship exemption.
 
2012-07-02 12:04:38 PM  

Sgt Stubby: Auto insurance companies are tripping over each other to tell you how much less their covereage costs than the other guy. Why? Because the government is out of the way. You can buy any auto insurance you want, anywhere.


You're an idiot if you really think that's how auto insurance works.

It is regulated on the state level quite a bit.
 
2012-07-02 12:05:17 PM  

Wulfman: Chummer45: What seems to be lost on all the "Free market" people is that Health care isn't just a commodity or investment. It's a public service / public good. It's like police or firefighters. Should the police only protect you if you pay them a monthly fee, or firefighters will only put out your house fire if you first agree to pay them for it?

Most sane people would say that markets for services involving life and death - such as health care - ...


Most health care is not a matter of immediate life and death. It's generally the "where do we draw the line" that all of the arguments are really about.


Why should that be the standard? Most of the calls answered by the fire department aren't a "matter of immediate life and death" either.
 
2012-07-02 12:05:35 PM  

Sgt Stubby: Like I said, you can't wreck your car and then go buy auto insurance to get it fixed. You can't break your leg and then demand that an insurance company give you a policy to pay for it. Sorry. Now you can make a law (I suppose) that requires these insurance companies to cover you, whethere you have a policy or not (as you seem to demand that they do), but one of two things will obviously happen - they will all go out of business or they will dramatically raise their rates. In fact, would should ANYONE buy insurance if it's going to be against the law to deny payment for a pre-existing car wreck or health problem?


So the people with preexisting conditions should just suffer and die already.

Got it...
 
2012-07-02 12:08:20 PM  
You libs claim that the Republican plan is to just let people die. But, in reality those who cannot afford health insurance do receive treatment for immediately life threatening conditions. Under the ACA, some of these people will now have to pay a tax, and they will still not have health insurance. Yet, they will still get treated for life threatening conditions, as they did before. At least they will be paying into the system.

But, how is this saving the lives of people that the Republicans would otherwise have allowed to die ?
 
2012-07-02 12:08:29 PM  

Sgt Stubby: doyner, you still don't get it. But I'm not going to call you names, like the enlightened liberals here are calling me. What I said was that Government isn't the solution. It's the problem. Chinese buffets don't worry about fatties coming in and eating as much as five people would, because they make it up on volume. But if the government were to make a law that the buffet should be free for 'poor' people, or a law that diners can simply stay there all day and eat (opening to closing) for the price of one meal, the restaraunt would just go out of business. Then I suppose, we could have government food stores like they had in the left's belove U.S.S.R. where everything was 'fair' - you just had to stand in line for hours at a time for a loaf of government bread.

It's the same with healthcare. Insurance companies are private businesses. Yes, they are heavily regulated, but they are still private businesses. Auto insurance companies are tripping over each other to tell you how much less their covereage costs than the other guy. Why? Because the government is out of the way. You can buy any auto insurance you want, anywhere. Health insurance is different because the companies are operating in monopolies created by state and federal government. People aren't free to choose, but ObamaCare doesn't even address that,

Like I said, you can't wreck your car and then go buy auto insurance to get it fixed. You can't break your leg and then demand that an insurance company give you a policy to pay for it. Sorry. Now you can make a law (I suppose) that requires these insurance companies to cover you, whethere you have a policy or not (as you seem to demand that they do), but one of two things will obviously happen - they will all go out of business or they will dramatically raise their rates. In fact, would should ANYONE buy insurance if it's going to be against the law to deny payment for a pre-existing car wreck or health problem?

You tell me...


My answer to the "wrecked car" analogy is that we need robust public transportation. I know you disagree, but that's the difference in our views. I don't subscribe to the "free market cures all" ideology pathology.

And which "left" are you talking about that loved the USSR? The American "left?"

Seriously, do I know you?
 
2012-07-02 12:08:43 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: Lionel Mandrake: Sure was a lot of taxes in the 80s. What tax and spend liberal was in charge back then?

I can't recall, but I'm sure he was some sort of super Socialist that today's GOP would never worship.


i remember, it was that California Commie, Reagan.

Damn pinko
 
2012-07-02 12:10:28 PM  

HeartlineTwist: when he was talking about HIS plan


It wasn't even heath care reform he was talking about in the quote that is often mentioned. It was the tax plan he campaigned on that he was discussing in 2008 when he said "under my plan....".
 
2012-07-02 12:10:34 PM  

sarek_smile: You libs claim that the Republican plan is to just let people die. But, in reality those who cannot afford health insurance do receive treatment for immediately life threatening conditions. Under the ACA, some of these people will now have to pay a tax, and they will still not have health insurance. Yet, they will still get treated for life threatening conditions, as they did before. At least they will be paying into the system.

But, how is this saving the lives of people that the Republicans would otherwise have allowed to die ?



By the time cancer gets to the point where an ER will be required to do something the battle is lost. Preventative care is much cheaper and much more successful.
 
2012-07-02 12:12:32 PM  

sarek_smile: You libs claim that the Republican plan is to just let people die. But, in reality those who cannot afford health insurance do receive treatment for immediately life threatening conditions. Under the ACA, some of these people will now have to pay a tax, and they will still not have health insurance. Yet, they will still get treated for life threatening conditions, as they did before. At least they will be paying into the system.

But, how is this saving the lives of people that the Republicans would otherwise have allowed to die ?


Newsflash: Many health problems will never rise to the level of "immediately life threatening conditions" if people have access to quality healthcare. the ACA increase that access so that fewer people show up at the ER with preventable immediately life threatening conditions.
 
2012-07-02 12:12:54 PM  
pippi longstocking: Yes, healthcare is a basic necessity/human right. I don't know what kind of Neanderthal thinks it is not.


That's a lie.

If I'm a doctor, a nurse or a dentist, you don't have the 'right' to command my labor anymore than I have the right to take your automobile because I don't have one. You don't have the right to other peoples' property or labor. Sorry, kiddo.
 
2012-07-02 12:12:56 PM  

Mrtraveler01: Sgt Stubby: Auto insurance companies are tripping over each other to tell you how much less their covereage costs than the other guy. Why? Because the government is out of the way. You can buy any auto insurance you want, anywhere.

You're an idiot if you really think that's how auto insurance works.

It is regulated on the state level quite a bit.


Wow. That is pretty freakin' idiotic. Do people know anything about state or bureau rate filings, modification factors, scheduled/unscheduled credits etc?

You'd figure someone so concerned about the 'FreeMarket', he'd be a more informed consumer.
 
2012-07-02 12:12:59 PM  

fracto73: sarek_smile: You libs claim that the Republican plan is to just let people die. But, in reality those who cannot afford health insurance do receive treatment for immediately life threatening conditions. Under the ACA, some of these people will now have to pay a tax, and they will still not have health insurance. Yet, they will still get treated for life threatening conditions, as they did before. At least they will be paying into the system.

But, how is this saving the lives of people that the Republicans would otherwise have allowed to die ?


By the time cancer gets to the point where an ER will be required to do something the battle is lost. Preventative care is much cheaper and much more successful.


preventative care is socialisms! you should just get really sick, then spend a LOT of money and die off leaving your estate deeply in debt and nothing for your surviving family. Because THAT is the amurikan way!
 
2012-07-02 12:13:18 PM  

sarek_smile: You libs claim that the Republican plan is to just let people die. But, in reality those who cannot afford health insurance do receive treatment for immediately life threatening conditions. Under the ACA, some of these people will now have to pay a tax, and they will still not have health insurance.


LOL WAT

Remember when you guys were crying about subsidizing insurance costs for the poor and pre-conditioned? SOSHULIZMS and such? "Whaaa, I don't want to help black poor people pay for their insurance." Ringing any bells?

They can get insurance now.

Do you even have any farking idea what you're debating right now?
 
2012-07-02 12:14:29 PM  
Sgt Stubby

Moderately successful troll is moderately successful.
 
2012-07-02 12:14:40 PM  

NateGrey: skullkrusher: NateGrey: If you have insurance, which every Republican already does, your taxes are the same.

that's a lot of stupid in just a few words

Can you thank John Roberts for the Dems next time you see him at your Teabagger meeting?

K, thx!


you already showed your hand, brah. You should probably kill this account now.
 
2012-07-02 12:14:41 PM  

Anti_illuminati: Mrtraveler01: Sgt Stubby: Auto insurance companies are tripping over each other to tell you how much less their covereage costs than the other guy. Why? Because the government is out of the way. You can buy any auto insurance you want, anywhere.

You're an idiot if you really think that's how auto insurance works.

It is regulated on the state level quite a bit.

Wow. That is pretty freakin' idiotic. Do people know anything about state or bureau rate filings, modification factors, scheduled/unscheduled credits etc?

You'd figure someone so concerned about the 'FreeMarket', he'd be a more informed consumer.


He is quite the amusing train wreck to watch isn't he?
 
2012-07-02 12:15:43 PM  

sarek_smile: You libs claim that the Republican plan is to just let people die. But, in reality those who cannot afford health insurance do receive treatment for immediately life threatening conditions. Under the ACA, some of these people will now have to pay a tax, and they will still not have health insurance. Yet, they will still get treated for life threatening conditions, as they did before. At least they will be paying into the system.

But, how is this saving the lives of people that the Republicans would otherwise have allowed to die ?


Because health insurance for the poor and working poor(those who most often used the ER for their health care), has a new found love and enthusiasm for preventive care...which is CHEAPER FOR THEM than emergency care. Since they now HAVE TO pay for everything that their customers need, they've found that they now love the idea of preventing medical emergencies and treating chronic conditions before they become a danger to their customers' lives and to their own pocket books.

The ER never did preventive care, but that's what most people need. By forcing the health insurance companies to pay for everyone, they've forced those same companies to focus on preventing medical problems in the first place.

Which is awesome for them and infinitely more awesome for their customers.

The GOP says that the way it was before Obamacare was just fine. That's when people used the ER for care, but the ER doesn't do 'crap' for people who have cancer and other chronic illnesses that WILL turn terminal without steady care that the ER doesn't provide.
 
2012-07-02 12:16:36 PM  

Sgt Stubby: pippi longstocking: Yes, healthcare is a basic necessity/human right. I don't know what kind of Neanderthal thinks it is not.


That's a lie.

If I'm a doctor, a nurse or a dentist, you don't have the 'right' to command my labor anymore than I have the right to take your automobile because I don't have one. You don't have the right to other peoples' property or labor. Sorry, kiddo.


Brilliant.

That means we can't have the right to an attorney.
 
2012-07-02 12:17:28 PM  

Chummer45: Most health care is not a matter of immediate life and death. It's generally the "where do we draw the line" that all of the arguments are really about.

Ok. Then where do we draw the line?


Well, there are only 3 choices, really.
1) You get what you pay for. If you can't pay then you hope somebody voluntarily helps you. This is what some people seem to think the average American Conservative wants, but I don't think it is.
2) You get everything for free. You show up and explain your ailment and they fix it and it's all paid for by the government. Also preventative care. OTC. Everything including things that are clearly elective, because you know that often falls under mental health, so it's covered.
3) We draw the line arbitrarily. That's really the only answer between total government coverage and zero government coverage. In a nation this big with all of these special interests, I don't see the point in me trying to say where the line should be drawn, so I don't express any opinion. fark it, I just live here.
 
2012-07-02 12:17:38 PM  

sarek_smile: You libs claim that the Republican plan is to just let people die. But, in reality those who cannot afford health insurance do receive treatment for immediately life threatening conditions. Under the ACA, some of these people will now have to pay a tax, and they will still not have health insurance. Yet, they will still get treated for life threatening conditions, as they did before. At least they will be paying into the system.

But, how is this saving the lives of people that the Republicans would otherwise have allowed to die ?


Because there are numerous conditions that, while they are not immediately life-threatening, need continuous treatment or else they will develop into something life-threatening. For example, you can't go into an ER to get cancer treatment.
 
2012-07-02 12:18:44 PM  

Sgt Stubby: No, doyner, I am NOT for government-run healthcare - i.e. single payor. The reason ObamaCare is so hated by the majority of Americans is because is just another massive, bureaucratic nightmare that only the hard-left could love. It was rammed down the country's throat solely by the democrat party and created the democrat election disaster in 2010. BTW, that's going to happen again.

The whole damned thing should have been struck down by the Supreme Court as 'void for vagueness', since so much of it will simply be made up as they go along in the future. The thing is larded with 'The Secretary shall determine' bs through and through, so nobody knows where the next attack will come from. And smug liberals in this thread are making a BIG assumption that the states will go along with the expanded Medicaid command from Obama. Already half say they will not.

What needs to happen is the government getting out of the way. The reason auto insurance is so competetive is because the government doesn't restrict purchasing of it like they do with health insurance. Also, on-the-job health insurance isn't taxed as income (though I bet liberals would love that), so the self-employed, unemployed ot those without covereage at work should be able to deduct their premiums.

Sorry, liberals. Americans want more freedom, not more government control via an expanded gestapo - i.e. the hard-left's beloved IRS. That's why you were crushed in 2010, and it's why you'll lose again in November. America HATES ObamaCare.


By the way, I'm getting called an idiot and so on in this thread, you I haven't called anyone names like that. I'm even being called a 'dentist'. Is that some kind of inside joke? But anyway, be as hateful as you like. It's really persuasive and it's why liberal news has such a huge audience!


Found a picture of Sgt. Stubby with his childish nicknames and false sense of entitlement:

cache.ohinternet.comView Full Size
 
2012-07-02 12:18:50 PM  
Christ... that guys wiki page reads like a frankenstein monster how-to book for creating a partisan douche. Heritage Foundation right out of school, Cato Institute, worked for Dick Armey, fair/flat tax advocate, Club for Growth...

I shouldn't be surprised that he suggested in his interview that the ACA failed to deliver on its 'promise' of reigning in the rising cost of health care premiums in its first year after passage while conveniently not mentioning that the individual mandate was not in place yet.
 
2012-07-02 12:18:57 PM  

Biological Ali: Sgt Stubby

Moderately successful troll is moderately successful.


I don't know what you're talking about. He's blatantly trolling and I've filed him into the 'F' file for "Fail Troll is Fail". The fact that people respond to him eloquently and with immense patience is only an indication that our own beloved Fark is immune to most low caliber Trolls.

/this ain't the minors, son.
//bring your A game
 
2012-07-02 12:21:06 PM  

Biological Ali: Most health care is not a matter of immediate life and death. It's generally the "where do we draw the line" that all of the arguments are really about.

Why should that be the standard? Most of the calls answered by the fire department aren't a "matter of immediate life and death" either.



Very good, you understand the topic that is being argued.
 
2012-07-02 12:22:59 PM  

Wulfman: Biological Ali: Most health care is not a matter of immediate life and death. It's generally the "where do we draw the line" that all of the arguments are really about.

Why should that be the standard? Most of the calls answered by the fire department aren't a "matter of immediate life and death" either.


Very good, you understand the topic that is being argued.


I was just commenting on that odd distinction you chose to draw.
 
2012-07-02 12:25:41 PM  

Some Bass Playing Guy: Did we really need ANOTHER health care greenlight?


Until idiots stop complaining about it.

So we will have one every single day until Obama leaves office in 2017.
 
2012-07-02 12:26:17 PM  

Biological Ali: Sgt Stubby

Moderately successful troll is moderately successful.


People who dont agree with you are trolls, got it. Why do you find other peoples opinions threatening?
 
2012-07-02 12:27:46 PM  

Sgt Stubby: pippi longstocking: Yes, healthcare is a basic necessity/human right. I don't know what kind of Neanderthal thinks it is not.


That's a lie.

If I'm a doctor, a nurse or a dentist, you don't have the 'right' to command my labor anymore than I have the right to take your automobile because I don't have one. You don't have the right to other peoples' property or labor. Sorry, kiddo.


Apply what you just said to everything that taxes pay...your argument falls flat, especially if you want to use MY roads and consume MY food and water.
 
2012-07-02 12:27:46 PM  
Take Your Medicine, America...
Stephen Moore, Senior Economics Writer with the Wall Street Journal, told FOX and Friends this morning that nearly 75% of Obamacare costs will fall on the backs of those Americans making less than $120,000 a year.


Apparently the penalties for not having health care coverage make up 100% of the costs of the ACA.

/your blog sucks
 
2012-07-02 12:27:56 PM  

Biological Ali: Wulfman: Biological Ali: Most health care is not a matter of immediate life and death. It's generally the "where do we draw the line" that all of the arguments are really about.

Why should that be the standard? Most of the calls answered by the fire department aren't a "matter of immediate life and death" either.


Very good, you understand the topic that is being argued.

I was just commenting on that odd distinction you chose to draw.



Actually Chummer45 is the one who first spoke about life and death. To wit:

Chummer45: Most sane people would say that markets for services involving life and death - such as health care - ...


I simply pointed out that life-and-death situations are not what the health care debate is really about. It's about much broader issues of well being.
 
2012-07-02 12:28:37 PM  

Lando Lincoln: Some Bass Playing Guy: Did we really need ANOTHER health care greenlight?

Until idiots stop complaining about it.

So we will have one every single day until Obama leaves office in 2017.


Lol, Im sure people will complain about this for much longer than that.
 
2012-07-02 12:28:38 PM  
derpdeederp

[oh_you.jpg]
 
2012-07-02 12:29:54 PM  

derpdeederp: Biological Ali: Sgt Stubby

Moderately successful troll is moderately successful.

People who dont agree with you are trolls, got it. Why do you find other peoples opinions threatening?


Actually I'd be relived if he was just trolling. I just thought he was actually that stupid.
 
2012-07-02 12:29:55 PM  

Wulfman: 1) You get what you pay for. If you can't pay then you hope somebody voluntarily helps you. This is what some people seem to think the average American Conservative wants, but I don't think it is.


When prominent conservatives publicly state variations of "They can depend on charity and family" and fight against measures like the ACA, it's difficult to make the argument that they don't want exactly that.
 
2012-07-02 12:32:10 PM  
Do you really need to see anything more than the banner on that site to know it's not worth reading?

If that's not the case, then isn't a headline that begins with "SUCKERS!" enough?

From the comments:

"It's going to be great for all the Section VIII parasites who've been getting free healthcare all along (along with all the other handouts the parasite class gets). TXPatriot, that $9K a year you and I will pay will not only cover our own insurance, but our share of the parasite's premiums."

Comments like that confirm the things people say here--i.e., teabaggers are mostly frothing at the mouth with racism than anything like concern about debt or deficit. They think Obama is "helping his own" at the expense of the hard-working white man. The trolls here go purple-faced when that kind of stuff is pointed out. But here it is, right out in the open. "Section VIII parasites."

The guy apparently can't recognize that, if these "parasites" have been "getting free healthcare all along," then ACA does nothing for them--unless maybe he believes (and I wouldn't doubt it) that we'll actually pay his social and racial inferiors to accept condoms.
 
2012-07-02 12:32:34 PM  

Wulfman: I simply pointed out that life-and-death situations are not what the health care debate is really about. It's about much broader issues of well being.


Yes, the services obviously do involve life and death. They don't have to do so in all or even most individual instances of the service being rendered in order for the point (about private providers not being the best approach) to be valid.
 
2012-07-02 12:33:32 PM  

qorkfiend: Wulfman: 1) You get what you pay for. If you can't pay then you hope somebody voluntarily helps you. This is what some people seem to think the average American Conservative wants, but I don't think it is.

When prominent conservatives publicly state variations of "They can depend on charity and family" and fight against measures like the ACA, it's difficult to make the argument that they don't want exactly that.


That's the GOP motto, you know. "Fark You, I Got Mine."

See, when people say BOTH SIDES ARE BAD, all I have to do is remember that only one Party wants to constantly stick their face into my bedroom and tell me that I'm immoral, AND is content to see sick people die in the streets because they lack health care.

And it sure ain't the Democrats.
 
2012-07-02 12:33:35 PM  

qorkfiend: Wulfman: 1) You get what you pay for. If you can't pay then you hope somebody voluntarily helps you. This is what some people seem to think the average American Conservative wants, but I don't think it is.

When prominent conservatives publicly state variations of "They can depend on charity and family" and fight against measures like the ACA, it's difficult to make the argument that they don't want exactly that.



And why is that a difficult argument to make?
 
2012-07-02 12:34:31 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: [www.washingtonpost.com image 640x440]

So no, the Affordable Care Act isn't the "biggest tax hike in history." It's not even the biggest tax hike in the past 60 years. Or 50 years. Or 30 years. Or 20 years. Link


Don't forget the tax Eisenhower did to pay for the interstate system.
 
2012-07-02 12:35:02 PM  

Chummer45: Call it what you will, but at least the mandate provides the funding mechanism for the ACA.


Riddle me this, Chummer. The penalty can be avoided by purchasing health insurance, no?

Then how on EARTH can you sit there and with a straight face, call it the funding mechanism for PPACA?

The entire INTENT of the penalty is to get people to have health insurance. If you have HI, you don't pay the penalty. If the Act works the way it is intended, NO ONE pays the penalty.

To sum up, you are saying that the funding mechanism for PPACA, the thing that keeps the rest of the bill funded, can be completely avoided, per the intent of the bill itself? That's pants on head. Nevermind the fact that the penalty for not carrying HI is nowhere near the "revenue provisions" of PPACA.

P0e: The ACA is funded by a tax increase that will take place beginning the 2013 calendar year. This tax increase is point nine percent (.9%). This tax increase is only on income greater than $200,000/year. For people making $1,000,000 a year, this represents a tax increase of $7,200 a year.


There are approximately 3.1M millionaires in the United States. This includes all people with non real property assets in excess of $1m, not just those with an AGI over that mark. So, to be nice, I included them all.

PPACA costs: $110B per year, or $1.1T over 10 years.
.9% tax on ALL millionaires, per year, using your numbers of a $7200 tax increase each year: $22.3B per year.

So tell me, where is the other ~$90B/yr coming from?
 
2012-07-02 12:35:20 PM  

Biological Ali: derpdeederp

[oh_you.jpg]


Lol, glad you took it with a grain of salt :)
 
2012-07-02 12:37:01 PM  

Mrtraveler01: derpdeederp: Biological Ali: Sgt Stubby

Moderately successful troll is moderately successful.

People who dont agree with you are trolls, got it. Why do you find other peoples opinions threatening?

Actually I'd be relived if he was just trolling. I just thought he was actually that stupid.


Either way, I believe he stands behind his opinion and isnt just looking to rile people up.
 
2012-07-02 12:39:05 PM  

theknuckler_33: Apparently the penalties for not having health care coverage make up 100% of the costs of the ACA.


They sure do. Just ask Chummer. He even called it "the funding mechanism for ACA."
 
2012-07-02 12:40:17 PM  

Biological Ali: Wulfman: I simply pointed out that life-and-death situations are not what the health care debate is really about. It's about much broader issues of well being.

Yes, the services obviously do involve life and death. They don't have to do so in all or even most individual instances of the service being rendered in order for the point (about private providers not being the best approach) to be valid.



I'm not sure if you are trolling or being purposely obtuse or just confused about what I've said. I'll assume the latter.

Yes, health care involves life and death, and yes, so does the fire department. But as you said, most individual calls to the fire department do not. Only some do. Similarly, most health care is not a matter of immediate life and death. Only some is. That's why the conversation does not require for a strong focus on life and death situations--they are only a portion of the health care debate.
 
2012-07-02 12:42:14 PM  

Wulfman: I'm not sure if you are trolling or being purposely obtuse or just confused about what I've said. I'll assume the latter.

Yes, health care involves life and death, and yes, so does the fire department. But as you said, most individual calls to the fire department do not. Only some do. Similarly, most health care is not a matter of immediate life and death. Only some is. That's why the conversation does not require for a strong focus on life and death situations--they are only a portion of the health care debate.


Which is why it was odd for you to specifically call attention to that when asking about where the line should be drawn.
 
2012-07-02 12:42:31 PM  
Is it okay that I just thought Obamacare was a compromise solution that would allow people previously unable to get health care to now have coverage?

Or am I required to be partisan, and only care about who profits?
 
2012-07-02 12:43:17 PM  

derpdeederp: Mrtraveler01: derpdeederp: Biological Ali: Sgt Stubby

Moderately successful troll is moderately successful.

People who dont agree with you are trolls, got it. Why do you find other peoples opinions threatening?

Actually I'd be relived if he was just trolling. I just thought he was actually that stupid.

Either way, I believe he stands behind his opinion and isnt just looking to rile people up.


I agree. I know people that stupid exist out there.
 
2012-07-02 12:45:42 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Sgt Stubby: pippi longstocking: Yes, healthcare is a basic necessity/human right. I don't know what kind of Neanderthal thinks it is not.


That's a lie.

If I'm a doctor, a nurse or a dentist, you don't have the 'right' to command my labor anymore than I have the right to take your automobile because I don't have one. You don't have the right to other peoples' property or labor. Sorry, kiddo.

Brilliant.

That means we can't have the right to an attorney.


You don't have the right to an attorney. You only have the right to an attorney if you are arrested by the police and put into a custodial interrogation under the Miranda case.

You don't have the right to get a will for free, you don't have the right to command a lawyer to incorporate your business, etc. So no, you don't have a general right to legal representation. Your analogy doesn't change his point.
 
2012-07-02 12:47:00 PM  
But, Fracto73

Captain Queeg, and

Heartburnt Kid


You miss the point, those who cannot afford health insurance (and the deductibles) and therefore must pay the Tax, still do not have health insurance and they still will not get free treatment for those non-life threatenting conditions ! So, how is that any different than today ?
 
2012-07-02 12:47:27 PM  

downpaymentblues: Is it okay that I just thought Obamacare was a compromise solution that would allow people previously unable to get health care to now have coverage?

Or am I required to be partisan, and only care about who profits?


That's my fault as well. I'd much rather have a public option, but Obamacare works for now, and is a damn sight better than what we had before.
 
2012-07-02 12:48:09 PM  

downpaymentblues: Is it okay that I just thought Obamacare was a compromise solution that would allow people previously unable to get health care to now have coverage?

Or am I required to be partisan, and only care about who profits?


You have to take a partisan position or one will be assigned to you.
 
2012-07-02 12:48:32 PM  

sarek_smile: But, Fracto73

Captain Queeg, and

Heartburnt Kid

You miss the point, those who cannot afford health insurance (and the deductibles) and therefore must pay the Tax, still do not have health insurance and they still will not get free treatment for those non-life threatenting conditions ! So, how is that any different than today ?


Between the Medicaid expansion, the exchanges, and the subsidies, there should be far less of them, for one thing.
 
2012-07-02 12:48:59 PM  

downpaymentblues: Is it okay that I just thought Obamacare was a compromise solution that would allow people previously unable to get health care to now have coverage?

Or am I required to be partisan, and only care about who profits?


Yes, it is completely OK that you give a fark about the downtrodden. It's called compassion, and it makes you a decent person.
 
2012-07-02 12:50:44 PM  

sarek_smile: But, Fracto73

Captain Queeg, and

Heartburnt Kid

You miss the point, those who cannot afford health insurance (and the deductibles) and therefore must pay the Tax, still do not have health insurance and they still will not get free treatment for those non-life threatenting conditions ! So, how is that any different than today ?


Let me say it once again:

There is more to the ACA than the mandate. There are provision that help subsidize healthcare for the poor, and which are designed to make basic plans more accessible.

Secondly people are exempt from the mandate under certain income levels, or if a basic plane will cost more than 8% of their income.

How are you not understanding this, after it has been stated repeatedly in this very thread?
 
2012-07-02 12:52:57 PM  

WombatControl: You don't have the right to get a will for free, you don't have the right to command a lawyer to incorporate your business, etc. So no, you don't have a general right to legal representation. Your analogy doesn't change his point.


And you don't have the right to make a doctor mow your lawn either, even after you've accepted that healthcare is a right. Which is kind of the point.
 
2012-07-02 12:56:16 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Chummer45: Call it what you will, but at least the mandate provides the funding mechanism for the ACA.

Riddle me this, Chummer. The penalty can be avoided by purchasing health insurance, no?

Then how on EARTH can you sit there and with a straight face, call it the funding mechanism for PPACA?

The entire INTENT of the penalty is to get people to have health insurance. If you have HI, you don't pay the penalty. If the Act works the way it is intended, NO ONE pays the penalty.

To sum up, you are saying that the funding mechanism for PPACA, the thing that keeps the rest of the bill funded, can be completely avoided, per the intent of the bill itself? That's pants on head. Nevermind the fact that the penalty for not carrying HI is nowhere near the "revenue provisions" of PPACA.

P0e: The ACA is funded by a tax increase that will take place beginning the 2013 calendar year. This tax increase is point nine percent (.9%). This tax increase is only on income greater than $200,000/year. For people making $1,000,000 a year, this represents a tax increase of $7,200 a year.

There are approximately 3.1M millionaires in the United States. This includes all people with non real property assets in excess of $1m, not just those with an AGI over that mark. So, to be nice, I included them all.

PPACA costs: $110B per year, or $1.1T over 10 years.
.9% tax on ALL millionaires, per year, using your numbers of a $7200 tax increase each year: $22.3B per year.

So tell me, where is the other ~$90B/yr coming from?



Because the whole purpose of the individual mandate is to widen the insurance pool to offset the increased costs of covering pre-existing conditions. The function of the tax penalty is not to fund the ACA -- it's to ensure that everyone complies with the mandate to buy insurance, which is how the ACA reforms are funded.

The bottom line is this: the ACA can't work unless the individual mandate is in place. It really isn't a tax, but then again, we're just talking schemantics. The ACA's overall goals are to increase the insurance pool and reduce premiums. If it accomplishes that goal, it is a net gain to everyone - so then why not just call it a tax cut? Hell, if anything, the ACA seeks to reduce "taxes" on the middle class by lowering their insurance premiums.

Calling it a "tax" versus a "mandate" is just nonsense, and is just one party trying to avoid or leverage the word "tax."

One day we'll come to our senses and just set up a single payer system. Why waste money supervising insurance companies, capping their profits, and enforcing the mandate against individuals, when we can just set up a tried and true single payer system? Ask any Canadian, Briton, or Frenchyman - they think our system is insane (and it is).
 
2012-07-02 12:57:56 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: theknuckler_33: Apparently the penalties for not having health care coverage make up 100% of the costs of the ACA.

They sure do. Just ask Chummer. He even called it "the funding mechanism for ACA."


Jesus christ. Way to miss my point. See my previous post.
 
2012-07-02 12:59:00 PM  

Chummer45: Because the whole purpose of the individual mandate is to widen the insurance pool to offset the increased costs of covering pre-existing conditions. The function of the tax penalty is not to fund the ACA -- it's to ensure that everyone complies with the mandate to buy insurance, which is how the ACA reforms are funded.


I have no idea how to answer this, but I'll give it a shot.

You are saying that people buying insurance, i.e. paying money to a corporation that is not the government, will fund the other ACA reforms? How? How is government going to wrestle that money away from the insurance companies in order to fund the other provisions such as the Affordability Credits?

This, of course, ignores your previous statement that "the [mandate] penalty is the funding mechanism for ACA."
 
2012-07-02 01:00:22 PM  

Chummer45: The_Six_Fingered_Man: theknuckler_33: Apparently the penalties for not having health care coverage make up 100% of the costs of the ACA.

They sure do. Just ask Chummer. He even called it "the funding mechanism for ACA."

Jesus christ. Way to miss my point. See my previous post.


Sorry, did you not say that, and then turn around and say that the penalty is the mechanism by which all the other ACA reforms are funded?
 
2012-07-02 01:04:15 PM  

Wulfman: qorkfiend: Wulfman: 1) You get what you pay for. If you can't pay then you hope somebody voluntarily helps you. This is what some people seem to think the average American Conservative wants, but I don't think it is.

When prominent conservatives publicly state variations of "They can depend on charity and family" and fight against measures like the ACA, it's difficult to make the argument that they don't want exactly that.


And why is that a difficult argument to make?


Because average conservatives vigorously defend, promote, and elect prominent conservatives.
 
2012-07-02 01:06:41 PM