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 432
    More: Obvious, obamacare, Daily Caller, Fox and Friends, middle class  
•       •       •

3372 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Jul 2012 at 9:50 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-07-02 08:00:53 AM  
images.sodahead.com
 
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  
www.washingtonpost.com

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.com
 
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.com

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.com

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.com
 
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.com

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.us

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.com
 
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.com
 
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  

Biological Ali: So no, you don't have a general right to legal representation.


What's all that "right to an attorney" nonsense in the Miranda rights?
 
2012-07-02 01:07:54 PM  

qorkfiend: Biological Ali: So no, you don't have a general right to legal representation.

What's all that "right to an attorney" nonsense in the Miranda rights?


Oops. Too quick on the quote button there.
 
2012-07-02 01:12:03 PM  
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.



Nice story but is it true? Probably not.

Most company provided insurance does not quiz you on pre existing conditions. You just have to wait 90 days after hire. But since you are in your late 20's and still in school, you may never find this out.
 
2012-07-02 01:12:38 PM  

skullkrusher: you already showed your hand, brah. You should probably kill this account now.


Actually the Republitards that like to Alt it up.

They actually sound more reasonable with their funny comics and proclamations of "forever". When will you start contributing something interesting? Can you tell us how both sides are bad again?
 
2012-07-02 01:12:50 PM  

qorkfiend: 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.



Yeah, that's a fair point. When I talk to real life seriously conservative conservatives, I get the impression that they don't much like most GOP politicians, except compared to the Democrat politicians. The most prominent conservatives are often the ones who rail the hardest against the American Left, and they're popular for that reason--not necessarily because conservatives agree with them on specific points.

The thing with a 2-party system is that the 2 parties have by necessity very large tents. It's harder than it should be to judge the average party member by the politicians or pundits.
 
2012-07-02 01:13:16 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: qorkfiend: Biological Ali: So no, you don't have a general right to legal representation.

What's all that "right to an attorney" nonsense in the Miranda rights?

Oops. Too quick on the quote button there.


The OP's not showing up to be quoted from.
 
2012-07-02 01:17:04 PM  

NateGrey: Actually the Republitards that like to Alt it up.


gifstumblr.com
 
2012-07-02 01:19:48 PM  

qorkfiend: The_Six_Fingered_Man: qorkfiend: Biological Ali: So no, you don't have a general right to legal representation.

What's all that "right to an attorney" nonsense in the Miranda rights?

Oops. Too quick on the quote button there.

The OP's not showing up to be quoted from.


Here's the full quote:

"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 01:21:08 PM  
Capt. Queeg

What does subsidized healthcare even mean ? Sounds like B.S. If you don't make enough to be able to pay $300 per month for health insurance, but you make enough that you do pay income tax, then you will have to pay the Penalty/Tax and you still will not have health insurance, and you still will not get treated for your non-life threatening disease.

Why don't you pay attention Queeg ? Listen-up !
 
2012-07-02 01:23:41 PM  

sarek_smile: Capt. Queeg

What does subsidized healthcare even mean ? Sounds like B.S. If you don't make enough to be able to pay $300 per month for health insurance, but you make enough that you do pay income tax, then you will have to pay the Penalty/Tax and you still will not have health insurance, and you still will not get treated for your non-life threatening disease.

Why don't you pay attention Queeg ? Listen-up !


Your statement is simply, factually incorrect.
 
2012-07-02 01:25:36 PM  

WombatControl: 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.


Follow along, son. It's still recognized as a right -- we recognize that it is unjust for a person to negotiate the complicated justice system without expert assistance. Conditions don't matter. We can't have the right to an attorney under any circumstances, because it's slavery.

If I'm an attorney, "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."

Miranda is moot. Brilliant.
 
2012-07-02 01:27:41 PM  
Does anyone know the difference between a court appointed attorney and a doctor when talking about your "right" to their labor? ANYONE? Bueller?
 
2012-07-02 01:30:31 PM  

skullkrusher: NateGrey: Actually the Republitards that like to Alt it up.

[gifstumblr.com image 350x237]


I thought only libs pointed out typos. You got me!

Deep thoughts with a Republican:

After Romney is elected; after the Republicans retake the Senate and retain control of the House; Roberts needs to tender his resignation from the SCOTUS. He can cite health reasons or any other excuse, but he MUST put the good of the country first and GO! He no longer commands any respect and he is diminishing the respect for the SCOTUS. He has shown he can be manipulated and intimidated by the Leftist Media; he can longer be impartial.
 
2012-07-02 01:35:02 PM  

Biological Ali: 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.


That's not a substantive distinction. If healthcare is a "right" then you're still arguing that you have the "right" to someone else's labor. It makes no difference what form of labor it is. It's no less slavery than saying that the South would have been OK having slaves so long as they were treated well and only forced to do agricultural work.

If you recognize human rights, you can't have a system in which anyone is entitled to the labor of another by law.
 
2012-07-02 01:35:12 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Does anyone know the difference between a court appointed attorney and a doctor when talking about your "right" to their labor? ANYONE? Bueller?


Like, they both get paid? And neither are slaves?
 
2012-07-02 01:35:45 PM  

NateGrey: I thought only libs pointed out typos. You got me!


that wasn't a typo. That was illiteracy.

NateGrey: Deep thoughts with a Republican:

After Romney is elected; after the Republicans retake the Senate and retain control of the House; Roberts needs to tender his resignation from the SCOTUS. He can cite health reasons or any other excuse, but he MUST put the good of the country first and GO! He no longer commands any respect and he is diminishing the respect for the SCOTUS. He has shown he can be manipulated and intimidated by the Leftist Media; he can longer be impartial.


I give up. Who said that?
 
2012-07-02 01:37:16 PM  

WombatControl: That's not a substantive distinction. If healthcare is a "right" then you're still arguing that you have the "right" to someone else's labor.


Just like with the right to an attorney. I'm glad we could settle that.
 
2012-07-02 01:38:58 PM  

WombatControl: Biological Ali: 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.

That's not a substantive distinction. If healthcare is a "right" then you're still arguing that you have the "right" to someone else's labor. It makes no difference what form of labor it is. It's no less slavery than saying that the South would have been OK having slaves so long as they were treated well and only forced to do agricultural work.

If you recognize human rights, you can't have a system in which anyone is entitled to the labor of another by law.


So we have no right to representative government?

We have no right to trial by jury?

Are Judges and Congressman slaves? Are they truly no different than this guy?

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-02 01:40:39 PM  
Also:

WombatControl: It's no less slavery than saying that the South would have been OK having slaves so long as they were treated well and only forced to do agricultural work.


Never make analogies again.
 
2012-07-02 01:40:48 PM  

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.


He's not a Republican?
 
2012-07-02 01:42:03 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Does anyone know the difference between a court appointed attorney and a doctor when talking about your "right" to their labor? ANYONE? Bueller?

Like, they both get paid? And neither are slaves?


They can both quit their jobs if so inclined? Wait, that's not a difference... what was the opposite of "difference" again?
 
2012-07-02 01:42:05 PM  
We, as Americans, have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

These things are not kept in jars and doled out to Americans every so often.

These things are provided via the labor of others. Soldiers, policemen, firemen, politicians. And now, doctors.

If you don't like the fact that your labor is required for the functioning of our nation, then by all means, go be something else. Or relocate to a far more fitting country. I hear Somalia is in desperate need of good doctors who don't mind leaving people to die if they lack cash.
 
2012-07-02 01:45:45 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Does anyone know the difference between a court appointed attorney and a doctor when talking about your "right" to their labor? ANYONE? Bueller?


Socialism?
 
2012-07-02 01:49:40 PM  

Biological Ali: Just like with the right to an attorney. I'm glad we could settle that.


Again, you don't have the right to an attorney unless you are subject to custodial interrogation - and then only if you qualify.

It's like saying that because you can get subsidized housing, everyone has a right to housing for free. No, you don't. You have a government-sponsored benefit, that's all. A benefit that could be taken away too - as much as Miranda is couched in the rhetoric of rights, the Supreme Court could overrule it tomorrow if they wanted.

Philip Francis Queeg: So we have no right to representative government?


Which is not a right that commands the labor of another. You don't have the right to force someone to serve in Congress.

We have no right to trial by jury? No, you don't have a general right to a trial by jury. Only in certain cases does that right attach.

Note something else about both of those: they are not positive rights. They're both rights enforceable against the government. The government cannot pass laws without your consent. The government can't prosecute you of a crime without certain legal protections.

The Constitution is based upon negative liberties, not positive rights. Read the Constitution and tell us all where the Constitution grants you any rights whatsoever - it doesn't. It recognizes that you already have rights which the government is not allowed to infringe.

Are Judges and Congressman slaves? Are they truly no different than this guy?

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 295x340]


Your analogy is stupid - both judges and Congresscritters are volunteers who are paid for their labor. Did you think that argument through at all?
 
2012-07-02 01:50:34 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Does anyone know the difference between a court appointed attorney and a doctor when talking about your "right" to their labor? ANYONE? Bueller?


C) Vote Republican

/Its always C
 
2012-07-02 01:50:52 PM  

WombatControl: It's like saying that because you can get subsidized housing, everyone has a right to housing for free.


What did I just tell you about making analogies?
 
2012-07-02 01:50:54 PM  

WombatControl: Biological Ali: Just like with the right to an attorney. I'm glad we could settle that.

Again, you don't have the right to an attorney unless you are subject to custodial interrogation - and then only if you qualify.

It's like saying that because you can get subsidized housing, everyone has a right to housing for free. No, you don't. You have a government-sponsored benefit, that's all. A benefit that could be taken away too - as much as Miranda is couched in the rhetoric of rights, the Supreme Court could overrule it tomorrow if they wanted.

Philip Francis Queeg: So we have no right to representative government?

Which is not a right that commands the labor of another. You don't have the right to force someone to serve in Congress.

We have no right to trial by jury? No, you don't have a general right to a trial by jury. Only in certain cases does that right attach.

Note something else about both of those: they are not positive rights. They're both rights enforceable against the government. The government cannot pass laws without your consent. The government can't prosecute you of a crime without certain legal protections.

The Constitution is based upon negative liberties, not positive rights. Read the Constitution and tell us all where the Constitution grants you any rights whatsoever - it doesn't. It recognizes that you already have rights which the government is not allowed to infringe.

Are Judges and Congressman slaves? Are they truly no different than this guy?

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 295x340]

Your analogy is stupid - both judges and Congresscritters are volunteers who are paid for their labor. Did you think that argument through at all?


You don't pay volunteers. Volunteers work for free. That's why they're called 'volunteers'.
 
2012-07-02 01:52:17 PM  
Still haven't heard a single coherent argument about why this bill takes away freedom/is bad or why it is worse than our current system. Just oogaboogaObama!
 
2012-07-02 01:53:03 PM  

skullkrusher: I give up. Who said that?


Just a Republican getting through the 5 stages of grief, how you holding up?
 
2012-07-02 01:53:11 PM  

WombatControl: You don't have the right to force someone to serve in Congress.


Ding Ding Ding! Now you get it.

Guess what? You have no right to force someone to be a doctor either. Doctors too are volunteers who are paid for their labor. No one is being rounded up and forced into med school against their will.
 
2012-07-02 01:53:21 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Does anyone know the difference between a court appointed attorney and a doctor when talking about your "right" to their labor? ANYONE? Bueller?


One is an attorney and the other is a doctor.

They're similar in most other ways.
They both went to school for a long time.
They are both (over)paid for services rendered.

And people like you are furious that poor people (particularly poor minorities) can have access to their services instead of being farked over like God intended.

Dead or in jail, poor people are better where you don't have to be reminded of their existence.
 
2012-07-02 01:55:06 PM  

Infernalist: We, as Americans, have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

These things are not kept in jars and doled out to Americans every so often.

These things are provided via the labor of others. Soldiers, policemen, firemen, politicians. And now, doctors.

If you don't like the fact that your labor is required for the functioning of our nation, then by all means, go be something else. Or relocate to a far more fitting country. I hear Somalia is in desperate need of good doctors who don't mind leaving people to die if they lack cash.


And this is exactly the opposite of what the American system is about.

You have no affirmative right to fire protection. Your town can say "fark you, we're not paying for firefighters again" and your only recourse is to move.

We have an all-volunteer army, and for good reason. You have no individual right to give orders to a soldier and tell them to protect you, unless you are their superior officer, and then you have to follow the orders of your Commander in Chief.

You have no affirmative right to police protection - that is a service that is provided for you and you pay for through taxes.

Your right to political representation is only enforceable against the government. You can't dragoon someone into service as a politician. That analogy is mind-farkingly stupid.

If you want a place that lets people command the labor of others, I hear the kimchi rations in Pyongyang were increased a few grams this summer.
 
2012-07-02 01:55:26 PM  

NateGrey: skullkrusher: I give up. Who said that?

Just a Republican getting through the 5 stages of grief, how you holding up?


you're adorable
 
2012-07-02 01:55:33 PM  
Lol, this threat seems to be a lot more of lefties trying to get the Repubs to be butthurt than actual Repubs being butthurt, but still very amusing.
 
2012-07-02 01:55:59 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 ?


A few years ago, I was on Medicaid and suffered a catastrophic illness. My liver and kidneys were shutting down, and I had pneumonia and blood poisoning. According to my doctor, that set of concurrent symptoms generally has a 30% mortality rate. It was refreshing to be able to get treated without getting a multi-tens-of-thousands-dollar bill. Under the expanded Medicaid provision, those who might skip the ER out of fear of crushing bills will now be able to have life-saving coverage in the event of an emergency.
 
2012-07-02 01:58:04 PM  

erveek: And people like you are furious that poor people (particularly poor minorities) can have access to their services instead of being farked over like God intended.


That's cute that you seem to think you know what I believe.
 
2012-07-02 01:59:21 PM  

skullkrusher: NateGrey: skullkrusher: I give up. Who said that?

Just a Republican getting through the 5 stages of grief, how you holding up?

you're adorable


Thanks, but I will have to turn down your wide stance, I dont swing Republican, NTTAWT.

But I support your lifestyle! Vote Republican!

derpdeederp: Lol, this threat seems to be a lot more of lefties trying to get the Repubs to be butthurt than actual Repubs being butthurt, but still very amusing.


Why would a "lefty" be upset? Supreme Court case goes in their favor...and its bad news....for Lefties!

Forever
 
2012-07-02 02:04:47 PM  

NateGrey: skullkrusher: NateGrey: skullkrusher: I give up. Who said that?

Just a Republican getting through the 5 stages of grief, how you holding up?

you're adorable

Thanks, but I will have to turn down your wide stance, I dont swing Republican, NTTAWT.

But I support your lifestyle! Vote Republican!

derpdeederp: Lol, this threat seems to be a lot more of lefties trying to get the Repubs to be butthurt than actual Repubs being butthurt, but still very amusing.

Why would a "lefty" be upset? Supreme Court case goes in their favor...and its bad news....for Lefties!

Forever


ok, by 'adorable' I guess I meant 'tedious and not amusing'
 
2012-07-02 02:09:12 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.



Which would be relevant to this discussion if health care providers were required to take insurance.
 
2012-07-02 02:13:32 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: qorkfiend: The_Six_Fingered_Man: qorkfiend: Biological Ali: So no, you don't have a general right to legal representation.

What's all that "right to an attorney" nonsense in the Miranda rights?

Oops. Too quick on the quote button there.

The OP's not showing up to be quoted from.

Here's the full quote:

"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."


Aye, thanks.
 
2012-07-02 02:13:39 PM  

NateGrey: derpdeederp: Lol, this threat seems to be a lot more of lefties trying to get the Repubs to be butthurt than actual Repubs being butthurt, but still very amusing.

Why would a "lefty" be upset? Supreme Court case goes in their favor...and its bad news....for Lefties!

Forever


Lol, what, I meant the Repubs arent as butt hurt as the lefties want them to be so theyre trying to push the butt hurt levels up by misrepresenting what the righties are saying. just like your response to me.

/Maybe you got what I was saying and were playing along, lol, some times its hard to tell.
//There is definitely a lot of spin on both sides, Im just waiting for the train wreck of the elections later this year.
 
2012-07-02 02:16:07 PM  

derpdeederp: NateGrey: derpdeederp: Lol, this threat seems to be a lot more of lefties trying to get the Repubs to be butthurt than actual Repubs being butthurt, but still very amusing.

Why would a "lefty" be upset? Supreme Court case goes in their favor...and its bad news....for Lefties!

Forever

Lol, what, I meant the Repubs arent as butt hurt as the lefties want them to be so theyre trying to push the butt hurt levels up by misrepresenting what the righties are saying. just like your response to me.

/Maybe you got what I was saying and were playing along, lol, some times its hard to tell.
//There is definitely a lot of spin on both sides, Im just waiting for the train wreck of the elections later this year.


Of course they're foaming-at-the-mouth furious. Have you heard the talking heads? Limbaugh? The Tea Party heads? They're insane right now.
 
2012-07-02 02:17:28 PM  
In case you thought a lot of people thought Obamacare was a great way to soak the rich and stick it to corporations, think again.
 
2012-07-02 02:20:43 PM  

Buffalo77: Nice story but is it true? Probably not.

Most company provided insurance does not quiz you on pre existing conditions. You just have to wait 90 days after hire. But since you are in your late 20's and still in school, you may never find this out.


Wow, you have no idea what a graduate school is, do you?

Hint: It's where people get these fancy things called 'PhD's'. Some of the more technical ones, like, say, Physics, can take a bit. Don't worry, advanced science is something you may never deal with/find out.

(HEY LOOK! I can play the condescending asshole card too. Amazing, huh?)

That said, you're free to disbelieve things that are inconvenient to you if you wish. I just recall the hell of a time she had getting insurance, and would rather not have worry if I'll one day get to play "Let's see if we can cheat you out of money" roulette that the insurance industry seems to love to play when someone develops an expensive condition.
 
2012-07-02 02:21:34 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: WombatControl: You don't have the right to force someone to serve in Congress.

Ding Ding Ding! Now you get it.

Guess what? You have no right to force someone to be a doctor either. Doctors too are volunteers who are paid for their labor. No one is being rounded up and forced into med school against their will.


So then there's no right to healthcare. Because if you have a "right" to something, you can't be denied from getting it. So doctors have to treat you, no questions asked. It's your "right." And if no one is stupid enough to go to med school so they can endure a life of poverty after 10 years of grueling work, then the government has to force people to do it, because your rights are inalienable. You cannot, under any circumstances, be denied your basic "right" to healthcare. So any action that restricts your ability to get it is a violation of your rights.

Obviously, that doesn't work. You don't have a "right" to healthcare any more than you have a right to food, shelter, or sex. Needs and rights are totally different things. You don't need to have freedom of speech to live - but you have the innate right to it. You don't need representative government to live - but the only legitimate governments are those that are based upon the consent of the governed. You need food to live, but that's not a right you can demand from another. You need shelter to live, but you don't have the innate right to force someone to build you a home.

Children and liberal (pardon the repetition) have trouble understanding this very crucial distinction.
 
2012-07-02 02:22:35 PM  

derpdeederp: Lol, what, I meant the Repubs arent as butt hurt as the lefties want them to be so theyre trying to push the butt hurt levels up by misrepresenting what the righties are saying. just like your response to me.

/Maybe you got what I was saying and were playing along, lol, some times its hard to tell.
//There is definitely a lot of spin on both sides, Im just waiting for the train wreck of the elections later this year.


Fark Cons arent an accurate representation of the Repub party.

I am currently listening to Limbaugh after hearing Beck this morning. Also currently reading FreeRepublic and plan on watching Fox News tonight. If you think righties arent butthurt then you arent paying attention.
 
2012-07-02 02:25:17 PM  

NateGrey: derpdeederp: Lol, what, I meant the Repubs arent as butt hurt as the lefties want them to be so theyre trying to push the butt hurt levels up by misrepresenting what the righties are saying. just like your response to me.

/Maybe you got what I was saying and were playing along, lol, some times its hard to tell.
//There is definitely a lot of spin on both sides, Im just waiting for the train wreck of the elections later this year.

Fark Cons arent an accurate representation of the Repub party.

I am currently listening to Limbaugh after hearing Beck this morning. Also currently reading FreeRepublic and plan on watching Fox News tonight. If you think righties arent butthurt then you arent paying attention.


Here you go buddy, start reading:

More Grist for the "John Roberts Is Gay" Mill

Ever since President Bush announced his selection of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., as his Supreme Court nominee, speculation over whether Judge Roberts might be gay has run rampant throughout the blogosphere. See, e.g., Althouse, Law Dork, and Wonkette. UTR readers have also flooded A3G's inbox with emails citing the following "evidence" that Judge Roberts is gay:

1. Despite being handsome, brilliant, rich, and nice - in other words, prime marriage material - Judge Roberts didn't get married until the relatively late age of 41.

2. With all due respect to the perfectly attractive Mrs. Jane Sullivan Roberts, some UTR readers - not A3G - have commented that the #5 Superhottie of the Federal Judiciary could have "married someone hotter." According to a UTR correspondent who used to work at Hogan & Hartson, Judge Roberts's former law firm, "many of the older [Hogan] attys are married to good-looking 20-somethings after having dumped their first wives."
 
2012-07-02 02:27:40 PM  

WombatControl: Philip Francis Queeg: WombatControl: You don't have the right to force someone to serve in Congress.

Ding Ding Ding! Now you get it.

Guess what? You have no right to force someone to be a doctor either. Doctors too are volunteers who are paid for their labor. No one is being rounded up and forced into med school against their will.

So then there's no right to healthcare. Because if you have a "right" to something, you can't be denied from getting it. So doctors have to treat you, no questions asked. It's your "right." And if no one is stupid enough to go to med school so they can endure a life of poverty after 10 years of grueling work, then the government has to force people to do it, because your rights are inalienable. You cannot, under any circumstances, be denied your basic "right" to healthcare. So any action that restricts your ability to get it is a violation of your rights.

Obviously, that doesn't work. You don't have a "right" to healthcare any more than you have a right to food, shelter, or sex. Needs and rights are totally different things. You don't need to have freedom of speech to live - but you have the innate right to it. You don't need representative government to live - but the only legitimate governments are those that are based upon the consent of the governed. You need food to live, but that's not a right you can demand from another. You need shelter to live, but you don't have the innate right to force someone to build you a home.

Children and liberal (pardon the repetition) have trouble understanding this very crucial distinction.


So then you have no rights at all. None. Not a single one.

Every right depends to some extent on the labor of others for it's maintenance and protection.

Gee. Perhaps your personal definition a "right" is somewhat flawed.
 
2012-07-02 02:29:01 PM  

NateGrey: Fark Cons arent an accurate representation of the Repub party.

I am currently listening to Limbaugh after hearing Beck this morning. Also currently reading FreeRepublic and plan on watching Fox News tonight. If you think righties arent butthurt then you arent paying attention.


Infernalist: Of course they're foaming-at-the-mouth furious. Have you heard the talking heads? Limbaugh? The Tea Party heads? They're insane right now.


Ahh, I dont watch any of those. I was mostly going off observations of Facebook and Fark.
 
2012-07-02 02:32:43 PM  

WombatControl: If you don't like the fact that your labor is required for the functioning of our nation, then by all means, go be something else...
And this is exactly the opposite of what the American system is about.


Historical reality: it would like a word with you. Contrary to popular belief on the right, James Madison was not America's only Founding Father...

"[Government must] create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property. And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age."
~~UnAmerican Communist Fascist Thomas Paine

"All property, indeed, except the savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public convention. Hence the public has the right of regulating descents, and all other conveyances of property, and even of limiting the quantity and the uses of it.

"All the property that is necessary to a man, for the conservation of the individual and the propagation of the species, is his natural right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all property superfluous to such purposes is the property of the public, who, by their laws have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it whenever the welfare of the public shall demand such disposition.

He that does not like civil society on these terms, let him retire and live among savages. He can have no right to the benefits of society, who will not pay his club towards the support of it."
~~UnAmerican Communist Fascist Benjamin Franklin

"[T]he power to raise money is plenary and indefinite, and the objects to which it may be appropriated, are no less comprehensive than the payment of the public debts, and the providing for the common defence and general welfare... It is, therefore, of necessity, left to the discretion of the National Legislature to pronounce upon the objects which concern the general welfare, and for which, under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. "
~~Alexander Hamilton, Report on Manufactures, submitted to Congress in 1792 on behalf of UnAmerican Communist Fascist George Washington
 
2012-07-02 02:34:58 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: So then you have no rights at all. None. Not a single one.

Every right depends to some extent on the labor of others for it's maintenance and protection.



Whose labor, besides mine own, is required for my right to free speech? Freedom of religion? Self-incrimination?
 
2012-07-02 02:35:46 PM  

WombatControl: So then there's no right to healthcare. Because if you have a "right" to something, you can't be denied from getting it. So doctors have to treat you, no questions asked.


Nobody's labor need be forced to create a right to health care. We can do what George Washington's man, Alexander Hamilton, suggested instead: impose a tax, and appropriate money to pay doctors.
 
2012-07-02 02:38:53 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Philip Francis Queeg: So then you have no rights at all. None. Not a single one.

Every right depends to some extent on the labor of others for it's maintenance and protection.


Whose labor, besides mine own, is required for my right to free speech? Freedom of religion? Self-incrimination?


The labor of the courts who enforce and protect those rights. The labor of the Police and military who protect those institutions from outside interference.
 
2012-07-02 02:40:28 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Philip Francis Queeg: So then you have no rights at all. None. Not a single one.

Every right depends to some extent on the labor of others for it's maintenance and protection.


Whose labor, besides mine own, is required for my right to free speech? Freedom of religion? Self-incrimination?

The labor of the courts who enforce and protect those rights. The labor of the Police and military who protect those institutions from outside interference.


Then we can agree. We have no rights. Only what the government sees fit to permit us to do. Agreed?
 
2012-07-02 02:43:33 PM  

bugontherug: WombatControl: So then there's no right to healthcare. Because if you have a "right" to something, you can't be denied from getting it. So doctors have to treat you, no questions asked.

Nobody's labor need be forced to create a right to health care. We can do what George Washington's man, Alexander Hamilton, suggested instead: impose a tax, and appropriate money to pay doctors.


We could, but thats not what we did.
 
2012-07-02 02:44:16 PM  

pippi longstocking: 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?


Employ people.
 
2012-07-02 02:46:48 PM  

derpdeederp: bugontherug: WombatControl: So then there's no right to healthcare. Because if you have a "right" to something, you can't be denied from getting it. So doctors have to treat you, no questions asked.

Nobody's labor need be forced to create a right to health care. We can do what George Washington's man, Alexander Hamilton, suggested instead: impose a tax, and appropriate money to pay doctors.

We could, but thats not what we did.


Well, you're ignoring about 50% of Obamacare, which did exactly that. Commonly known as the Medicare expansion.

Not to mention that the $4 billion estimated annual revenues from the individual mandate penalty will go to defray health care costs too.
 
2012-07-02 02:47:30 PM  

bugontherug: Commonly known as the Medicare expansion.


Pardon me, Medicaid expansion.
 
2012-07-02 02:48:12 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: So then you have no rights at all. None. Not a single one.

Every right depends to some extent on the labor of others for it's maintenance and protection.

Gee. Perhaps your personal definition a "right" is somewhat flawed.


It's not my "personal definition" of a right, it is the definition of a right.

This is why people in this country need better civics education - because it's no wonder we're losing our moorings in this country when we don't teach the critical underpinnings of our whole society.

You have plenty of innate human rights. You have the right to freedom of speech. You have the right freedom of worship. You have the right to freedom of association. You have the right to hold and dispose of property. You have the right to benefit from your own labor. You have the right to petition your government for the redress of grievances.

All these rights have nothing to do with government either - if tomorrow the entire government collapsed you would still have those rights. Our Constitution doesn't confer any rights on you - it merely says that the government cannot abridge the right you already have.

That's why the Constitution works as well as it does - unlike, say, the Constitution of North Korea which is filled with grants of rights - rights which are recognized as being conferred by the government rather than as innate human rights.
 
2012-07-02 02:50:06 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: WombatControl: Philip Francis Queeg: WombatControl: You don't have the right to force someone to serve in Congress.

Ding Ding Ding! Now you get it.

Guess what? You have no right to force someone to be a doctor either. Doctors too are volunteers who are paid for their labor. No one is being rounded up and forced into med school against their will.

So then there's no right to healthcare. Because if you have a "right" to something, you can't be denied from getting it. So doctors have to treat you, no questions asked. It's your "right." And if no one is stupid enough to go to med school so they can endure a life of poverty after 10 years of grueling work, then the government has to force people to do it, because your rights are inalienable. You cannot, under any circumstances, be denied your basic "right" to healthcare. So any action that restricts your ability to get it is a violation of your rights.

Obviously, that doesn't work. You don't have a "right" to healthcare any more than you have a right to food, shelter, or sex. Needs and rights are totally different things. You don't need to have freedom of speech to live - but you have the innate right to it. You don't need representative government to live - but the only legitimate governments are those that are based upon the consent of the governed. You need food to live, but that's not a right you can demand from another. You need shelter to live, but you don't have the innate right to force someone to build you a home.

Children and liberal (pardon the repetition) have trouble understanding this very crucial distinction.

So then you have no rights at all. None. Not a single one.

Every right depends to some extent on the labor of others for it's maintenance and protection.

Gee. Perhaps your personal definition a "right" is somewhat flawed.


You're talking to a guy who writes really long posts to mask the fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

He also has a hilarious anecdote of someone having to pay $10,000 for a permit to put in a shower,
 
2012-07-02 02:53:36 PM  

WombatControl: You have plenty of innate human rights. You have the right to freedom of speech. You have the right freedom of worship. You have the right to freedom of association. You have the right to hold and dispose of property. You have the right to benefit from your own labor. You have the right to petition your government for the redress of grievances.


You forgot the right to privacy. Oh, that's right, Robert Bork says we don't have it.
 
2012-07-02 02:53:54 PM  

WombatControl: Our Constitution doesn't confer any rights on you


it does. Right to representation or trial by a jury are positive rights that do not exist outside of government.
 
2012-07-02 02:56:48 PM  

bugontherug: Not to mention that the $4 billion estimated annual revenues from the individual mandate penalty will go to defray health care costs too.


[Citation Needed]

Ways and Means has the Individual Mandate as generating $17B over 10 years, or $1.7B per year.
 
2012-07-02 02:56:51 PM  
What was the point of getting into this semantic argument about whether or not health care is a right?
 
2012-07-02 02:56:53 PM  

WombatControl: It's not my "personal definition" of a right, it is the definition of a right.

This is why people in this country need better civics education - because it's no wonder we're losing our moorings in this country when we don't teach the critical underpinnings of our whole society.


Let me help you with that civics education. Black's Law Dictionary would like a word with you:

right, n... 2. Something that is due to a person by just claim, legal guarantee, or moral principle.


Now, let's apply that definition to, say... Social Security benefits. Provided you meet the eligibility requirements, you are due your benefits by "legal guarantee." Therefore, provided you meet the eligibility requirements, you have a "right" to your Social Security benefits. If the government denies them to you wrongly, you can even go to court and sue for them. Nobody's labor has ever been forced to provide Social Security benefits.

Same principle could just as easily apply to health care. We've stopped just short of creating a full on right to health care, but we now have near universal insurance coverage, which is almost the same. And certainly, if you meet the eligibility requirements for Medicare, Medicaid, or subsidies to pay for insurance, you are "due" those by legal guarantee. Hence, you have a "right" to them.
 
2012-07-02 02:58:32 PM  

HeartlineTwist: What was the point of getting into this semantic argument about whether or not health care is a right?


Every other industrialized nation on this planet sees healthcare as a right.

Why are we so goddamn dumb?
 
2012-07-02 02:58:37 PM  

HeartlineTwist: What was the point of getting into this semantic argument about whether or not health care is a right?


Because if Conservatives can convince themselves that it isn't a right then they can also convince themselves that they aren't complete assholes for depriving certain people of it.
 
2012-07-02 02:58:51 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: bugontherug: Not to mention that the $4 billion estimated annual revenues from the individual mandate penalty will go to defray health care costs too.

[Citation Needed]

Ways and Means has the Individual Mandate as generating $17B over 10 years, or $1.7B per year.


Pardon me, misremembered "$4 billion by 2017." But the principle is the same. That money will be used to finance health care.
 
2012-07-02 02:59:48 PM  
I have to go, but may bbl.
 
2012-07-02 03:00:54 PM  

Lando Lincoln: HeartlineTwist: What was the point of getting into this semantic argument about whether or not health care is a right?

Every other industrialized nation on this planet sees healthcare as a right.

Why are we so goddamn dumb?


Oh, I think health care is a substantive human right, but I was curious what exactly the point of arguing that it shouldn't be was. I should have been more clear.
 
2012-07-02 03:01:50 PM  
bugontherug:

I just love when people pull out that Franklin quotation. Because if you take it seriously, then you really are a Communist. Because it says that the right of private property doesn't, and shouldn't exist, except for those items that society deems "necessary." If you want to live that way, fine, there are plenty of countries that think such a philosophy is perfectly acceptable - but they're all very shiatty places to live.

Note that neither Franklin's idea nor Paine's was ever adopted in the founding of this country. And Paine's idea wasn't as much a grant of an affirmative right as it was a recognition that government intrudes on the sovereignty of the people.

And that Hamilton quotation also misses the point - Hamlton wasn't arguing that the government can tax and spend however the hell it wants - for one, the Constitution specifically denies that, and second Hamilton's use of the term "general welfare" meant something different then than it does now. (It didn't mean that Congress had plenary power to spend money on anything that it wanted, it meant that Congress had the plenary power to spend money however it wanted under the limited and enumerated powers it had under the Constitution).

This is why one should be careful about using historical quotations, especially ones that are taken out of context.
 
2012-07-02 03:03:39 PM  

bugontherug: The_Six_Fingered_Man: bugontherug: Not to mention that the $4 billion estimated annual revenues from the individual mandate penalty will go to defray health care costs too.

[Citation Needed]

Ways and Means has the Individual Mandate as generating $17B over 10 years, or $1.7B per year.

Pardon me, misremembered "$4 billion by 2017." But the principle is the same. That money will be used to finance health care.


I know you ran off, but I asked the same question upthread.

If the mandate works as intended, there would be no monies to collect, hence a drop in funding for the other PPACA provisions.

It seems that the government is relying on people to break the law in order to fund the law.
 
2012-07-02 03:06:29 PM  

Pincy:
You forgot the right to privacy. Oh, that's right, Robert Bork says we don't have it.



In my experience most conservatives, if pressed, will enthusiastically support an implied right to privacy that comes with other rights.
 
2012-07-02 03:06:55 PM  

bugontherug: Now, let's apply that definition to, say... Social Security benefits. Provided you meet the eligibility requirements, you are due your benefits by "legal guarantee." Therefore, provided you meet the eligibility requirements, you have a "right" to your Social Security benefits. If the government denies them to you wrongly, you can even go to court and sue for them. Nobody's labor has ever been forced to provide Social Security benefits.

Same principle could just as easily apply to health care. We've stopped just short of creating a full on right to health care, but we now have near universal insurance coverage, which is almost the same. And certainly, if you meet the eligibility requirements for Medicare, Medicaid, or subsidies to pay for insurance, you are "due" those by legal guarantee. Hence, you have a "right" to them.


Actually, no, that's wrong as a matter of law. You have no right to Social Security. Congress can take it away from you at any time so long as they have a rational basis for it - that particular issue was settled by the Supreme Court 60 years ago.

Same with Medicare or Medicaid. Tomorrow Congress could defund all of those programs, and so long as they had some rational basis for it, that would be perfectly legal.
 
2012-07-02 03:08:36 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: bugontherug: The_Six_Fingered_Man: bugontherug: Not to mention that the $4 billion estimated annual revenues from the individual mandate penalty will go to defray health care costs too.

[Citation Needed]

Ways and Means has the Individual Mandate as generating $17B over 10 years, or $1.7B per year.

Pardon me, misremembered "$4 billion by 2017." But the principle is the same. That money will be used to finance health care.

I know you ran off, but I asked the same question upthread.

If the mandate works as intended, there would be no monies to collect, hence a drop in funding for the other PPACA provisions.

It seems that the government is relying on people to break the law in order to fund the law.


The shared responsibility payment is meant to defray the costs of treating uninsured people. If there are no uninsured people, there won't be any costs to defray. The law also has funding from other sources.
 
2012-07-02 03:08:56 PM  

fracto73: Pincy:
You forgot the right to privacy. Oh, that's right, Robert Bork says we don't have it.


In my experience most conservatives, if pressed, will enthusiastically support an implied right to privacy that comes with other rights.


So even they are willing to "interpret" the Constitution to find implied rights, when it suits their needs I guess?
 
2012-07-02 03:10:55 PM  

skullkrusher: WombatControl: Our Constitution doesn't confer any rights on you

it does. Right to representation or trial by a jury are positive rights that do not exist outside of government.


Both of those are affirmative limits on government power - and you only have the right to trial by jury under certain circumstances. You can't go into traffic court and demand a jury trial - and believe me, someone learns that lesson every day...
 
2012-07-02 03:11:52 PM  

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


I had never even considered it.
 
2012-07-02 03:18:06 PM  

WombatControl: skullkrusher: WombatControl: Our Constitution doesn't confer any rights on you

it does. Right to representation or trial by a jury are positive rights that do not exist outside of government.

Both of those are affirmative limits on government power
- and you only have the right to trial by jury under certain circumstances. You can't go into traffic court and demand a jury trial - and believe me, someone learns that lesson every day...


Ah, I see. You're just pulling our legs. In hindsight I suppose the "slavery" comment should have been an indication but you know, benefit of the doubt and all that.
 
2012-07-02 03:18:19 PM  

Pincy: fracto73: Pincy:
You forgot the right to privacy. Oh, that's right, Robert Bork says we don't have it.


In my experience most conservatives, if pressed, will enthusiastically support an implied right to privacy that comes with other rights.

So even they are willing to "interpret" the Constitution to find implied rights, when it suits their needs I guess?



Ask a conservative if the government has the authority to make a list of every gun owner in the country. They will find a right to privacy in the words "keep and bear arms".
 
2012-07-02 03:21:06 PM  

WombatControl: skullkrusher: WombatControl: Our Constitution doesn't confer any rights on you

it does. Right to representation or trial by a jury are positive rights that do not exist outside of government.

Both of those are affirmative limits on government power - and you only have the right to trial by jury under certain circumstances. You can't go into traffic court and demand a jury trial - and believe me, someone learns that lesson every day...


but it is an example of a positive right which does not exist in the absence of a government to provide it. The others you mentioned are negative rights - they are limits on government power to protect rights which exist outside of government.
 
2012-07-02 03:23:52 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: If the mandate works as intended, there would be no monies to collect, hence a drop in funding for the other PPACA provisions.

It seems that the government is relying on people to break the law in order to fund the law.


The mandate is being paid by the increase in income taxes on the wealthy, tanning tax and taxes on high quality insurance plans. The mandate isnt set up to fund the bill, but enforce participation. Personally, I believe the HC bill is funded in a too progressive manner and should have been funded via flat taxes like Social Security or Unemployment Insurance.
 
2012-07-02 03:25:06 PM  

derpdeederp: Personally, I believe the HC bill is funded in a too progressive manner and should have been funded via flat taxes like Social Security or Unemployment Insurance.


Then we are in agreement.
 
2012-07-02 03:26:03 PM  

derpdeederp: Ahh, I dont watch any of those. I was mostly going off observations of Facebook and Fark.


I see, making statements with little or no information.

Let me guess, Republican?
 
2012-07-02 03:29:06 PM  

Biological Ali: WombatControl: skullkrusher: WombatControl: Our Constitution doesn't confer any rights on you

it does. Right to representation or trial by a jury are positive rights that do not exist outside of government.

Both of those are affirmative limits on government power - and you only have the right to trial by jury under certain circumstances. You can't go into traffic court and demand a jury trial - and believe me, someone learns that lesson every day...

Ah, I see. You're just pulling our legs. In hindsight I suppose the "slavery" comment should have been an indication but you know, benefit of the doubt and all that.


You apparently still don't understand the difference between positive and negative liberty, do you?

There is no positive right to representative government in the Constitution. (States must have "[r]epublican governments" under the Constitution, but that's not quite the same.) The reason why the Constitution creates a representative system of government is because of the (correct) assertion that the only legitimate government is a government that exists by the consent of the governed. That's not a positive right, that's a negative right.

And again, the "right" to trial by jury isn't an absolute right - it only applies to criminal prosecutions. Again, it's not a positive right, it says that the government may not convict you unless you have been given a jury of your peers. That is a limitation on the government's power, not an affirmative grant of power to an individual.
 
2012-07-02 03:31:47 PM  

WombatControl: That is a limitation on the government's power, not an affirmative grant of power to an individual.


Okay. Why don't you explain exactly how the right to representation is a "limitation on the government's power".

This should be good.
 
2012-07-02 03:31:55 PM  

WombatControl: There is no positive right to representative government in the Constitution.


"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States" notwithstanding?
 
2012-07-02 03:35:33 PM  

NateGrey: derpdeederp: Ahh, I dont watch any of those. I was mostly going off observations of Facebook and Fark.

I see, making statements with little or no information.

Let me guess, Republican?


Lol, yes, when making a comment about how I view the fark thread going I should be watching news channels instead of reading the fark thread and commenting about it. You have truly shown me to be ignorant and therefore a Republican. You sir, deserve a cookie!
 
2012-07-02 03:46:15 PM  
WombatControl

You're incorrect about the Miranda case granting you the right to a court-appointed attorney. From what I remember, all Miranda did was force LEOs to inform someone about to undergo questioning that they had a right to counsel (as well as their right to remain silent, etc).

And both court-appointed attorneys in our right-to-counsel country and doctors in our individually-mandated-to-carry-health-insurance country will be paid for their services.

I know that there are pro bono attorneys out there, but are attorneys typically forced to work for indigent clients without even a slim hope of being paid for their services? Isn't there some state fund that pays when the client can't?
 
2012-07-02 03:51:44 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: 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?


My point was that the mandate provides the necessary additional insureds to make the

WombatControl: Biological Ali: 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.

That's not a substantive distinction. If healthcare is a "right" then you're still arguing that you have the "right" to someone else's labor. It makes no difference what form of labor it is. It's no less slavery than saying that the South would have been OK having slaves so long as they were treated well and only forced to do agricultural work.

If you recognize human rights, you can't have a system in which anyone is entitled to the labor of another by law.


Uh..... so there are people in this thread who are actually arguing that the ACA = slavery?

I guess if Taxation = theft, then why not? Sure! health care reform is slavery!!!
 
2012-07-02 03:52:58 PM  

Biological Ali: WombatControl: That is a limitation on the government's power, not an affirmative grant of power to an individual.

Okay. Why don't you explain exactly how the right to representation is a "limitation on the government's power".

This should be good.


It's not that difficult of a concept. The government can't act unless it secures your consent, your consent manifested by voting for a representative. That's an affirmative limit on the power of government. It means that government cannot do anything without the consent of the governed.

It is a limitation on the power of the state, not a positive right.
 
2012-07-02 03:53:34 PM  

qorkfiend: WombatControl: There is no positive right to representative government in the Constitution.

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States" notwithstanding?



This guy is trolling pretty damn hard. For christ's sake, he opened his troll-a-thon by equating the ACA with slavery.
 
2012-07-02 03:55:34 PM  

WombatControl: Biological Ali: WombatControl: That is a limitation on the government's power, not an affirmative grant of power to an individual.

Okay. Why don't you explain exactly how the right to representation is a "limitation on the government's power".

This should be good.

It's not that difficult of a concept. The government can't act unless it secures your consent, your consent manifested by voting for a representative. That's an affirmative limit on the power of government. It means that government cannot do anything without the consent of the governed.

It is a limitation on the power of the state, not a positive right.


Well that's not true. You're confusing direct democracy with represent.... ah hell, why am I even bothering?
 
2012-07-02 03:56:17 PM  

Chummer45: qorkfiend: WombatControl: There is no positive right to representative government in the Constitution.

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States" notwithstanding?


This guy is trolling pretty damn hard. For christ's sake, he opened his troll-a-thon by equating the ACA with slavery.


Wombat? He's not that bad.
 
2012-07-02 03:58:14 PM  

Dr Dreidel: WombatControl

You're incorrect about the Miranda case granting you the right to a court-appointed attorney. From what I remember, all Miranda did was force LEOs to inform someone about to undergo questioning that they had a right to counsel (as well as their right to remain silent, etc).

And both court-appointed attorneys in our right-to-counsel country and doctors in our individually-mandated-to-carry-health-insurance country will be paid for their services.

I know that there are pro bono attorneys out there, but are attorneys typically forced to work for indigent clients without even a slim hope of being paid for their services? Isn't there some state fund that pays when the client can't?


Attorneys are supposed to provide pro bono services, but they're not required to. The American Bar Association recommends at least 50 hours per year of pro bono service - but that's just a recommendation.

Chummer45: Uh..... so there are people in this thread who are actually arguing that the ACA = slavery?

I guess if Taxation = theft, then why not? Sure! health care reform is slavery!!!


I don't think that's what's being argued here. The discussion has moved beyond the ACA to the idea of whether healthcare is a "right" or not.

The ACA doesn't go so far as to say that healthcare is an affirmative right, even if some of its supporters seem to think that.
 
2012-07-02 03:59:53 PM  

WombatControl: The ACA doesn't go so far as to say that healthcare is an affirmative right, even if some of its supporters seem to think that.



No, the ACA makes it clear that it's more of an obligation than a right, like jury duty.
 
2012-07-02 04:01:45 PM  

WombatControl: Biological Ali: WombatControl: That is a limitation on the government's power, not an affirmative grant of power to an individual.

Okay. Why don't you explain exactly how the right to representation is a "limitation on the government's power".

This should be good.

It's not that difficult of a concept. The government can't act unless it secures your consent, your consent manifested by voting for a representative. That's an affirmative limit on the power of government. It means that government cannot do anything without the consent of the governed.

It is a limitation on the power of the state, not a positive right.


You do realize that even people who can't (or don't) vote are still represented, right? The right to vote and representation are two different things.
 
2012-07-02 04:06:17 PM  

qorkfiend: WombatControl: There is no positive right to representative government in the Constitution.

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States" notwithstanding?


"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence."
 
2012-07-02 04:22:56 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: qorkfiend: WombatControl: There is no positive right to representative government in the Constitution.

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States" notwithstanding?

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence."


I mentioned that one earlier - but again, that's not a positive right. For one, read it closely - who is guaranteeing what to whom? (Hint, the word "people" doesn't appear anywhere in the clause...)

In fact, you can't even sue under that clause - the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that it's a political question and won't even reach the question of what it means.

The problem people have is that they're trying to fit structural portions of the Constitution and construe them as "rights." It's like saying that you have the "right" to the Post Office or patents. They're both in the Constitution, but they're not independent positive rights.
 
2012-07-02 04:24:41 PM  

WombatControl: I mentioned that one earlier - but again, that's not a positive right. For one, read it closely - who is guaranteeing what to whom? (Hint, the word "people" doesn't appear anywhere in the clause...)


Sure it does. "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States..."

On second glance, it looks like you're responding to PFQ...
 
2012-07-02 04:26:06 PM  
WombatControl:

Sorry. I see my name in green and habit kicks in.
 
2012-07-02 04:28:24 PM  

WombatControl: It's not that difficult of a concept. The government can't act unless it secures your consent, your consent manifested by voting for a representative. That's an affirmative limit on the power of government. It means that government cannot do anything without the consent of the governed.


huh? No, the part where the government has to secure your consent is the negative right to not be compelled to self incriminate. That's the "right to remain silent" bit.

The positive right is where the government has to give you a representative. The "if you cannot afford one..."
 
2012-07-02 04:28:26 PM  

WombatControl: Philip Francis Queeg: qorkfiend: WombatControl: There is no positive right to representative government in the Constitution.

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States" notwithstanding?

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence."

I mentioned that one earlier - but again, that's not a positive right. For one, read it closely - who is guaranteeing what to whom? (Hint, the word "people" doesn't appear anywhere in the clause...)

In fact, you can't even sue under that clause - the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that it's a political question and won't even reach the question of what it means.

The problem people have is that they're trying to fit structural portions of the Constitution and construe them as "rights." It's like saying that you have the "right" to the Post Office or patents. They're both in the Constitution, but they're not independent positive rights.


So you believe you state could organize itself as an heredity absolute monarchy and you would have no right to challenge that under the US Constitution? Amazing, simply amazing. You clearly are one of the great legal and Constitutional scholars of our time.
 
2012-07-02 04:31:13 PM  

WombatControl: bugontherug:

I just love when people pull out that Franklin quotation. Because if you take it seriously, then you really are a Communist. Because it says that the right of private property doesn't, and shouldn't exist, except for those items that society deems "necessary." If you want to live that way, fine, there are plenty of countries that think such a philosophy is perfectly acceptable - but they're all very shiatty places to live.


The quotes taken together for the proposition that not all of the framers supported Madison's view of the Constitution. That point is indisputable. You're dead wrong on "what the American system is about." The Constitution was never intended to carve the principles of Ayn Rand into stone. It was to set a framework for democratic-republican government. Its intent was to give the people the power to choose what sort of nation they wanted to live in.

Note that neither Franklin's idea nor Paine's was ever adopted in the founding of this country. And Paine's idea wasn't as much a grant of an affirmative right as it was a recognition that government intrudes on the sovereignty of the people.

Okay, so the Social Security program Paine advocated, which is identical in principle to modern Social Security, was not an "affirmative right." Gotcha.

And that Hamilton quotation also misses the point - Hamlton wasn't arguing that the government can tax and spend however the hell it wants - for one, the Constitution specifically denies that, and second Hamilton's use of the term "general welfare" meant something different then than it does now. (It didn't mean that Congress had plenary power to spend money on anything that it wanted, it meant that Congress had the plenary power to spend money however it wanted under the limited and enumerated powers it had under the Constitution).

No, it never meant that, which is the whole point of the quotes. The framers in fact had different ideas about what the Constitution meant. They intended those differences to be resolved in the democratic processes they set up. The problem is, you want to deny the people the right to choose any view of the Constitution other than your own--which is contra the framers' real intent. You want to take power away from the people acting through their elected representatives, and concentrate it into the hands of five out of nine black-robed lawyers.
 
2012-07-02 04:32:33 PM  

bugontherug: The quotes taken together stand for for the proposition


Pardon me.
 
2012-07-02 04:34:40 PM  

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!

to buy someone's product.

ftfy
 
2012-07-02 04:38:31 PM  

WombatControl: Actually, no, that's wrong as a matter of law. You have no right to Social Security. Congress can take it away from you at any time so long as they have a rational basis for it - that particular issue was settled by the Supreme Court 60 years ago.

Same with Medicare or Medicaid. Tomorrow Congress could defund all of those programs, and so long as they had some rational basis for it, that would be perfectly legal.


No, you have a right to them provided you meet the statutory eligibility criteria. A right enforceable in a court of law.
 
2012-07-02 04:43:18 PM  

bugontherug: WombatControl: Actually, no, that's wrong as a matter of law. You have no right to Social Security. Congress can take it away from you at any time so long as they have a rational basis for it - that particular issue was settled by the Supreme Court 60 years ago.

Same with Medicare or Medicaid. Tomorrow Congress could defund all of those programs, and so long as they had some rational basis for it, that would be perfectly legal.

No, you have a right to them provided you meet the statutory eligibility criteria. A right enforceable in a court of law.


Not to mention, that argument applies to every single right. For instance, the US constitution could be amended so as to void the entire bill of rights, at any time.
 
2012-07-02 04:43:43 PM  

bugontherug: No, you have a right to them provided you meet the statutory eligibility criteria. A right enforceable in a court of law.


Question:

Unless you force providers to accept Medicaid, how to you go about enjoying your right to the program?

BTW: I suggest you check Gonzaga v Doe before you respond.
 
2012-07-02 04:46:34 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: BTW: I suggest you check Gonzaga v Doe before you respond.


I remember that one. Real cinderella story
 
2012-07-02 04:56:52 PM  
I'm sorry that your blog sucks.
 
2012-07-02 05:19:31 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: So you believe you state could organize itself as an heredity absolute monarchy and you would have no right to challenge that under the US Constitution? Amazing, simply amazing. You clearly are one of the great legal and Constitutional scholars of our time.


It's not my belief - it's what the Supreme Court has said. Read Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 224 (1962):

Just as the Court has consistently held that a challenge to state action based on the Guaranty Clause presents no justiciable question, so has it held, and for the same reasons, that challenges to congressional action on the ground of inconsistency with that clause present no justiciable question.


bugontherug: The quotes taken together for the proposition that not all of the framers supported Madison's view of the Constitution. That point is indisputable. You're dead wrong on "what the American system is about." The Constitution was never intended to carve the principles of Ayn Rand into stone. It was to set a framework for democratic-republican government. Its intent was to give the people the power to choose what sort of nation they wanted to live in.


No, that's not a meaningful argument. The Constitution was not, and is not, a mealy-mouthed document that can be filled with whatever the whim of the moment is. It was designed to be a system that set up a federal government of limited and enumerated powers with checks and balances between coequal branches. The fact may be that not all the Framers accepted Madison's view: but Madison's view is the one that ended up being adopted, with certain compromises along the way.

And that's what the Framers created: a system where you had a federal government that was restricted by the Constitution and states that have general police powers. They only put that structure to the "democratic process" inasmuch as they created a right to amend the Constitution itself.

bugontherug: No, you have a right to them provided you meet the statutory eligibility criteria. A right enforceable in a court of law.


That's not what Flemming v. Nestor says: in that case someone actually tried that theory in court and the Supreme Court shot them down. You have no property right to Social Security payments at all - they exist only by the whim of Congress, and Congress can take them away with no more than some rational purpose for doing so.
 
2012-07-02 05:20:02 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: erveek: And people like you are furious that poor people (particularly poor minorities) can have access to their services instead of being farked over like God intended.

That's cute that you seem to think you know what I believe.


I said "people like you". Because you're whining that poor people might get to see a doctor.
 
2012-07-02 05:21:46 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: So you believe you state could organize itself as an heredity absolute monarchy and you would have no right to challenge that under the US Constitution? Amazing, simply amazing. You clearly are one of the great legal and Constitutional scholars of our time.


And yes, it seems weird that you can't sue under those circumstances - but the Fourteenth Amendment would probably serve to block a state from being a monarchy even if the Guaranty Clause does not. (Hell, that might be a case where the Supreme Court would dust off the Fourteenth Amendment privileges and immunities clause...)
 
2012-07-02 05:22:57 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: bugontherug: No, you have a right to them provided you meet the statutory eligibility criteria. A right enforceable in a court of law.

Question:

Unless you force providers to accept Medicaid, how to you go about enjoying your right to the program?

BTW: I suggest you check Gonzaga v Doe before you respond.


No health care provider is required to accept Medicaid. If a particular doctor declines to accept your Medicaid, you find one who is willing to accept it.
 
2012-07-02 05:24:30 PM  

erveek: The_Six_Fingered_Man: erveek: And people like you are furious that poor people (particularly poor minorities) can have access to their services instead of being farked over like God intended.

That's cute that you seem to think you know what I believe.

I said "people like you". Because you're whining that poor people might get to see a doctor.


Where was I whining? Curious. BTW: poor people, rich people, middle class people, etc. ALREADY had the opportunity to see a doctor. It is not as if PPACA passed and all of a sudden these people were no longer turned away. Please don't be any more stupid than you have been in this thread.
 
2012-07-02 05:27:09 PM  

bugontherug: The_Six_Fingered_Man: bugontherug: No, you have a right to them provided you meet the statutory eligibility criteria. A right enforceable in a court of law.

Question:

Unless you force providers to accept Medicaid, how to you go about enjoying your right to the program?

BTW: I suggest you check Gonzaga v Doe before you respond.

No health care provider is required to accept Medicaid. If a particular doctor declines to accept your Medicaid, you find one who is willing to accept it.


And if it comes to the point that no provider will accept Medicaid any longer, how do you exercise your right to the program?

BTW: Medicaid is an entitlement, not a right. It says it all through the forming document.
 
2012-07-02 05:31:36 PM  

It was designed to be a system that set up a federal government of limited and enumerated powers with checks and balances between coequal branches.


Nobody serious disputes that. The issue is "what is the scope of the enumerated powers?"

The fact may be that not all the Framers accepted Madison's view: but Madison's view is the one that ended up being adopted, with certain compromises along the way.

Incorrect. George Washington didn't adopt Madison's view of the spending power. Neither did Alexander Hamilton. And, of course, James Madison ceded the issue of implied powers when he rechartered the national bank. Oh yeah, Jefferson ceded the issue too, when he bought the Louisiana territory. And of course, early Congresses took it upon themselves to build canals, even though there is no expressly enumerated power to build canals. And other useful infrastructure projects not expressly enumerated.
 
2012-07-02 05:32:51 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: And if it comes to the point that no provider will accept Medicaid any longer, how do you exercise your right to the program?


How could this possibly happen, given the number of people on Medicaid and the general rules of the free market? There will always be a demand for physicians who accept Medicaid; it seems silly to suggest that demand will not be met.
 
2012-07-02 05:37:07 PM  

qorkfiend: The_Six_Fingered_Man: And if it comes to the point that no provider will accept Medicaid any longer, how do you exercise your right to the program?

How could this possibly happen, given the number of people on Medicaid and the general rules of the free market? There will always be a demand for physicians who accept Medicaid; it seems silly to suggest that demand will not be met.


You would think that. It certainly conforms to the general rules of the free market. However, you have Texas doctors opting out, and a general decline in physicians accepting new Medicaid patients.

So if you cannot find a doctor in your area that will accept new Medicaid patients, how would you go about exercising your "right" to the Medicaid program?
 
2012-07-02 05:37:41 PM  

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


This. Plus, "over 120k$/year" is only 5% of households, so they're actually chipping into the system more than we are despite not directly benefiting from it. Seems a reasonable arrangement for a national program of this nature.
 
2012-07-02 05:39:52 PM  
So, I have to pay for my health insurance? I'm OK with that.

Oh, this is for Subtard.
memeorama.com
 
2012-07-02 05:42:57 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: And if it comes to the point that no provider will accept Medicaid any longer, how do you exercise your right to the program?


The same way you ordinarily would, which is to apply for it at the social services office. Of course, then the benefits would be worthless--what the law calls an "imperfect right."

imperfect right. A right that is recognized by the law but is not enforceable.
~~ Black's Law

BTW: Medicaid is an entitlement, not a right. It says it all through the forming document.

right, n. 2. Something that is due to a person by just claim, legal guarantee, or moral principle.

~~Black's Law

Never mind, I suppose, that a property right is that which one has a "legitimate claim of entitlement to."
 
2012-07-02 05:43:07 PM  

WombatControl: Philip Francis Queeg: So you believe you state could organize itself as an heredity absolute monarchy and you would have no right to challenge that under the US Constitution? Amazing, simply amazing. You clearly are one of the great legal and Constitutional scholars of our time.

And yes, it seems weird that you can't sue under those circumstances - but the Fourteenth Amendment would probably serve to block a state from being a monarchy even if the Guaranty Clause does not. (Hell, that might be a case where the Supreme Court would dust off the Fourteenth Amendment privileges and immunities clause...)


I fully believe that if a state attempted to actually institute a non-Republican form of government, the Guarantee clause would be enforced by the Federal courts.
 
2012-07-02 05:46:03 PM  

bugontherug: The_Six_Fingered_Man: And if it comes to the point that no provider will accept Medicaid any longer, how do you exercise your right to the program?

The same way you ordinarily would, which is to apply for it at the social services office. Of course, then the benefits would be worthless--what the law calls an "imperfect right."

imperfect right. A right that is recognized by the law but is not enforceable.
~~ Black's Law

BTW: Medicaid is an entitlement, not a right. It says it all through the forming document.

right, n. 2. Something that is due to a person by just claim, legal guarantee, or moral principle.
~~Black's Law

Never mind, I suppose, that a property right is that which one has a "legitimate claim of entitlement to."


Flemming v Nestor. I suggest you take a look at it.
 
2012-07-02 05:48:18 PM  
Damn, seems there are some people here who absolutely hate the idea of having to pay some money in order to keep their country, along with their fellow countrymen, alive and running. They'd rather see everything crumble and burn before giving up one cent to ensure that they, along with everyone else (oooooooooo, they hate that part so much) have the means with which to live and ensure the comfort and ease of life.

If you hate being social and helpful that much, move to a log cabin in the mountains, far away from civilization. The last thing we need is your kind raising a stink because you can't stand the idea of having to help keep the country you live in from dying.
 
2012-07-02 05:53:44 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: bugontherug: The_Six_Fingered_Man: And if it comes to the point that no provider will accept Medicaid any longer, how do you exercise your right to the program?

The same way you ordinarily would, which is to apply for it at the social services office. Of course, then the benefits would be worthless--what the law calls an "imperfect right."

imperfect right. A right that is recognized by the law but is not enforceable.
~~ Black's Law

BTW: Medicaid is an entitlement, not a right. It says it all through the forming document.

right, n. 2. Something that is due to a person by just claim, legal guarantee, or moral principle.
~~Black's Law

Never mind, I suppose, that a property right is that which one has a "legitimate claim of entitlement to."

Flemming v Nestor. I suggest you take a look at it.


You have misunderstood that case, in part because you don't understand what a "right" is at law. You don't understand that there are many many different kinds of rights. And you seem to be struggling with the idea of a "statutory right," which the legislature giveth, and the legislature may take away. Even your own case synopsis specifies there is no contract right to Social Security benefits. But, provided you meet the statutory eligibility requirements, you absolutely have a legitimate claim of entitlement to your benefits, which you can enforce in a court of law.
 
2012-07-02 05:59:25 PM  

Biological Ali: bugontherug: WombatControl: Actually, no, that's wrong as a matter of law. You have no right to Social Security. Congress can take it away from you at any time so long as they have a rational basis for it - that particular issue was settled by the Supreme Court 60 years ago.

Same with Medicare or Medicaid. Tomorrow Congress could defund all of those programs, and so long as they had some rational basis for it, that would be perfectly legal.

No, you have a right to them provided you meet the statutory eligibility criteria. A right enforceable in a court of law.

Not to mention, that argument applies to every single right. For instance, the US constitution could be amended so as to void the entire bill of rights, at any time.


Good point.
 
2012-07-02 06:09:51 PM  

bugontherug: The_Six_Fingered_Man: bugontherug: The_Six_Fingered_Man: And if it comes to the point that no provider will accept Medicaid any longer, how do you exercise your right to the program?

The same way you ordinarily would, which is to apply for it at the social services office. Of course, then the benefits would be worthless--what the law calls an "imperfect right."

imperfect right. A right that is recognized by the law but is not enforceable.
~~ Black's Law

BTW: Medicaid is an entitlement, not a right. It says it all through the forming document.

right, n. 2. Something that is due to a person by just claim, legal guarantee, or moral principle.
~~Black's Law

Never mind, I suppose, that a property right is that which one has a "legitimate claim of entitlement to."

Flemming v Nestor. I suggest you take a look at it.

You have misunderstood that case, in part because you don't understand what a "right" is at law. You don't understand that there are many many different kinds of rights. And you seem to be struggling with the idea of a "statutory right," which the legislature giveth, and the legislature may take away. Even your own case synopsis specifies there is no contract right to Social Security benefits. But, provided you meet the statutory eligibility requirements, you absolutely have a legitimate claim of entitlement to your benefits, which you can enforce in a court of law.


You failed to even read the syllabus of the case, didn't you?

Nestor was meeting the eligibility requirements, to the point where he was already receiving benefits. There came a time when Congress decided that if you were deported for being a member of the Communist Party, that you gave up your Social Security Benefits.

The court found that he had no entitlement to his benefits, because Congress reserves the power to change eligibility requirements on their whim. If they change them, and you no longer qualify, you have no recourse in the court.

The Court held in Helvering that Social Security is not a contributory insurance program. It is a tax that is not specifically earmarked. Seriously, you can keep trying this tack, but the plain fact of the matter is that you have no right to your Social Security Benefits.
 
2012-07-02 06:14:07 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Nestor was meeting the eligibility requirements, to the point where he was already receiving benefits. There came a time when Congress decided that if you were deported for being a member of the Communist Party, that you gave up your Social Security Benefits.


Ding ding ding ding!

Once he was deported for being a member of the Communist Party, he no longer met the statutory eligibility requirements.
 
2012-07-02 06:22:35 PM  

bugontherug: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Nestor was meeting the eligibility requirements, to the point where he was already receiving benefits. There came a time when Congress decided that if you were deported for being a member of the Communist Party, that you gave up your Social Security Benefits.

Ding ding ding ding!

Once he was deported for being a member of the Communist Party, he no longer met the statutory eligibility requirements.


So you are claiming that something that you call a "right" can be removed via the whim of 535 individuals? This is what you deign to call a right?

Do you believe that, if SS were privatized, you would be entitled to all the monies that you have paid in over the years?
 
2012-07-02 06:24:19 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: bugontherug: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Nestor was meeting the eligibility requirements, to the point where he was already receiving benefits. There came a time when Congress decided that if you were deported for being a member of the Communist Party, that you gave up your Social Security Benefits.

Ding ding ding ding!

Once he was deported for being a member of the Communist Party, he no longer met the statutory eligibility requirements.

So you are claiming that something that you call a "right" can be removed via the whim of 535 individuals? This is what you deign to call a right?

Do you believe that, if SS were privatized, you would be entitled to all the monies that you have paid in over the years?


Only if the statute is so written.
 
2012-07-02 06:24:21 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: So you are claiming that something that you call a "right" can be removed via the whim of 535 individuals? This is what you deign to call a right?


Please tell us a "right" that cannot be removed by a government that wishes to.
 
2012-07-02 06:25:03 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: So you are claiming that something that you call a "right" can be removed via the whim of 535 individuals? This is what you deign to call a right?


Yes. It's called a statutory right, and there's a brazillion of them.
 
2012-07-02 06:29:22 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: The_Six_Fingered_Man: So you are claiming that something that you call a "right" can be removed via the whim of 535 individuals? This is what you deign to call a right?

Please tell us a "right" that cannot be removed by a government that wishes to.


Freedom of worship

How is the government going to prevent me from praying to the God or Gods of my choice?
 
2012-07-02 06:32:33 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Philip Francis Queeg: The_Six_Fingered_Man: So you are claiming that something that you call a "right" can be removed via the whim of 535 individuals? This is what you deign to call a right?

Please tell us a "right" that cannot be removed by a government that wishes to.

Freedom of worship

How is the government going to prevent me from praying to the God or Gods of my choice?


In the US, that would be accomplished by an amendment repealing the free exercise clause, then enacting a law barring you from praying to the god(s) of your choice. Then, of course, the executive would have to send someone over to your house, point a gun at your head, and FORCE YOU AT GUNPOINT stop praying.
 
2012-07-02 06:35:54 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Philip Francis Queeg: The_Six_Fingered_Man: So you are claiming that something that you call a "right" can be removed via the whim of 535 individuals? This is what you deign to call a right?

Please tell us a "right" that cannot be removed by a government that wishes to.

Freedom of worship

How is the government going to prevent me from praying to the God or Gods of my choice?


Freedom of worship? Really that's what you chose?

www.holocaustresearchproject.orgwww.executedtoday.comupload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-07-02 06:46:27 PM  

bugontherug: The_Six_Fingered_Man: So you are claiming that something that you call a "right" can be removed via the whim of 535 individuals? This is what you deign to call a right?

Yes. It's called a statutory right, and there's a brazillion of them.


Sorry, I was under the impression that you were still claiming that you had recourse in the courts when Congress reduces or eliminates your benefits.

The inherent ability of Congress to modify the provisions of Title II of the
Social Security Act, even to the extent of affecting the benefits an individual is
currently receiving, is thus well established.

Let me put this simply. You have no right to Social Security Benefits.

If the SS Trust Fund ran out of money today, you would have no recourse in the courts, as evidenced by Reeside v Walker. You are not entitled to the money if there is no money there. Not a change in statutory language, nor a change in your eligibility. There is simply no money and you cannot sue the Treasury to obtain it.
 
2012-07-02 06:47:51 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: bugontherug: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Nestor was meeting the eligibility requirements, to the point where he was already receiving benefits. There came a time when Congress decided that if you were deported for being a member of the Communist Party, that you gave up your Social Security Benefits.

Ding ding ding ding!

Once he was deported for being a member of the Communist Party, he no longer met the statutory eligibility requirements.

So you are claiming that something that you call a "right" can be removed via the whim of 535 individuals? This is what you deign to call a right?

Do you believe that, if SS were privatized, you would be entitled to all the monies that you have paid in over the years?


Not to argue with someone with six fingers (although I am not a left-handed swordsman), the holding in Nestor was highly contested BECAUSE of the reasons he was denied--to wit, being a Communist.

Also, there's the issue that I brought up in another thread: How the case was framed. Nestor was saying he had a "property" right to his SS payments, and that denial of payments was a "taking" under the 5th Amendment. What the Court actually held was not that you have NO rights to your SS payments, but that you have no PROPERTY rights to them. As in, they are not your personal or real property which can be subject to a government taking. Had it been framed as a personal right, Nestor might have succeeded.

I'd also point out that the facts in this case were extremely unique, so much so it would be easy to distinguish it were anyone to try it again. Also, numerous other rulings have come down the pike, giving people property rights in their employment for instance, that it would be difficult for the government to make such a case again.
 
2012-07-02 06:47:51 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Philip Francis Queeg: The_Six_Fingered_Man: So you are claiming that something that you call a "right" can be removed via the whim of 535 individuals? This is what you deign to call a right?

Please tell us a "right" that cannot be removed by a government that wishes to.

Freedom of worship

How is the government going to prevent me from praying to the God or Gods of my choice?

Freedom of worship? Really that's what you chose?

[www.holocaustresearchproject.org image 498x650][www.executedtoday.com image 440x305][upload.wikimedia.org image 300x216]


Wow, those pictures are from the United States? That's horrific.
 
2012-07-02 06:50:12 PM  

Gyrfalcon: The_Six_Fingered_Man: bugontherug: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Nestor was meeting the eligibility requirements, to the point where he was already receiving benefits. There came a time when Congress decided that if you were deported for being a member of the Communist Party, that you gave up your Social Security Benefits.

Ding ding ding ding!

Once he was deported for being a member of the Communist Party, he no longer met the statutory eligibility requirements.

So you are claiming that something that you call a "right" can be removed via the whim of 535 individuals? This is what you deign to call a right?

Do you believe that, if SS were privatized, you would be entitled to all the monies that you have paid in over the years?

Not to argue with someone with six fingers (although I am not a left-handed swordsman), the holding in Nestor was highly contested BECAUSE of the reasons he was denied--to wit, being a Communist.

Also, there's the issue that I brought up in another thread: How the case was framed. Nestor was saying he had a "property" right to his SS payments, and that denial of payments was a "taking" under the 5th Amendment. What the Court actually held was not that you have NO rights to your SS payments, but that you have no PROPERTY rights to them. As in, they are not your personal or real property which can be subject to a government taking. Had it been framed as a personal right, Nestor might have succeeded.

I'd also point out that the facts in this case were extremely unique, so much so it would be easy to distinguish it were anyone to try it again. Also, numerous other rulings have come down the pike, giving people property rights in their employment for instance, that it would be difficult for the government to make such a case again.


There is also no contractual right to the payments either. At best, you MIGHT have a statutory right, which is subject to the whim of 535 people, only 3 of which you actually elected. Sorry, but a "right" that can be removed by 535 people is not what I would call a right.
 
2012-07-02 07:07:33 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Philip Francis Queeg: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Philip Francis Queeg: The_Six_Fingered_Man: So you are claiming that something that you call a "right" can be removed via the whim of 535 individuals? This is what you deign to call a right?

Please tell us a "right" that cannot be removed by a government that wishes to.

Freedom of worship

How is the government going to prevent me from praying to the God or Gods of my choice?

Freedom of worship? Really that's what you chose?

[www.holocaustresearchproject.org image 498x650][www.executedtoday.com image 440x305][upload.wikimedia.org image 300x216]

Wow, those pictures are from the United States? That's horrific.


What you're expressing is confidence that some particular government won't do those things, which is very different from the question of whether it can do those things.
 
2012-07-02 07:22:31 PM  

Biological Ali: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Philip Francis Queeg: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Philip Francis Queeg: The_Six_Fingered_Man: So you are claiming that something that you call a "right" can be removed via the whim of 535 individuals? This is what you deign to call a right?

Please tell us a "right" that cannot be removed by a government that wishes to.

Freedom of worship

How is the government going to prevent me from praying to the God or Gods of my choice?

Freedom of worship? Really that's what you chose?

[www.holocaustresearchproject.org image 498x650][www.executedtoday.com image 440x305][upload.wikimedia.org image 300x216]

Wow, those pictures are from the United States? That's horrific.

What you're expressing is confidence that some particular government won't do those things, which is very different from the question of whether it can do those things.


No, I'm expressing my opinion that it is highly unlikely that the US government can prevent me from worshipping via prayer. We still don't have the ability to read thoughts, you know.
 
2012-07-02 07:56:53 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: No, I'm expressing my opinion that it is highly unlikely that the US government can prevent me from worshipping via prayer. We still don't have the ability to read thoughts, you know.


I can think of at least one fairly effective way of stopping a person from "worshiping via prayer", even under this bizarre, watered-down criterion that isn't remotely similar to what we know as "freedom of worship".
 
2012-07-02 08:09:47 PM  

Biological Ali: The_Six_Fingered_Man: No, I'm expressing my opinion that it is highly unlikely that the US government can prevent me from worshipping via prayer. We still don't have the ability to read thoughts, you know.

I can think of at least one fairly effective way of stopping a person from "worshiping via prayer", even under this bizarre, watered-down criterion that isn't remotely similar to what we know as "freedom of worship".


Death?
 
2012-07-02 08:24:18 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Let me put this simply. You have no right to Social Security Benefits.


Yes you do.

"Appellee's right to Social Security benefits cannot properly be considered to have been of that order."
~~Majority opinion, Flemming v. Nestor

The "right" to Social Security benefits is in one sense "earned," for the entire scheme rests on the legislative judgment that those who in their productive years...".
~~Majority opinion, Flemming v. Nestor.

The Senate Committee rejected the proposal, for the stated reason that it had "not had an opportunity to give sufficient study to all the possible implications of this provision, which involves termination of benefit rights under the contributory program of old-age and survivors insurance . . . ." S. Rep. No. 1987, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 23; see also id., at 76.
~~Flemming v. Nestor, quoting Social Security Act's legislative history.

[T]he United States is depriving appellee, Ephram Nestor, of his statutory right to old-age benefits in violation of the United States Constitution.
~~Justice Black's opinion, Flemming v. Nestor

"Social security is not a handout; it is not charity; it is not relief. It is an earned right based upon the 632*632 contributions and earnings of the individual. As an earned right, the individual is eligible to receive his benefit in dignity and self-respect." 102 Cong. Rec. 15110."
~~Justice Douglas' opinion, Flemming v. Nestor, quoting the Social Security Act's legislative history.
 
2012-07-02 08:25:30 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: No, I'm expressing my opinion that it is highly unlikely that the US government can prevent me from worshipping via prayer. We still don't have the ability to read thoughts, you know.


Alright, Trolly McTrollerson. Enough.
 
2012-07-02 09:05:02 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Biological Ali: The_Six_Fingered_Man: No, I'm expressing my opinion that it is highly unlikely that the US government can prevent me from worshipping via prayer. We still don't have the ability to read thoughts, you know.

I can think of at least one fairly effective way of stopping a person from "worshiping via prayer", even under this bizarre, watered-down criterion that isn't remotely similar to what we know as "freedom of worship".

Death?


I was thinking more along the lines of sitting the person down and convincing them by way of logical argument that whatever god they believe in is unlikely to exist, but sure, I suppose death would work just as well.
 
2012-07-02 09:30:41 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Biological Ali: The_Six_Fingered_Man: No, I'm expressing my opinion that it is highly unlikely that the US government can prevent me from worshipping via prayer. We still don't have the ability to read thoughts, you know.

I can think of at least one fairly effective way of stopping a person from "worshiping via prayer", even under this bizarre, watered-down criterion that isn't remotely similar to what we know as "freedom of worship".

Death?


cake, please.
 
2012-07-02 09:43:43 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: erveek: The_Six_Fingered_Man: erveek: And people like you are furious that poor people (particularly poor minorities) can have access to their services instead of being farked over like God intended.

That's cute that you seem to think you know what I believe.

I said "people like you". Because you're whining that poor people might get to see a doctor.

Where was I whining? Curious. BTW: poor people, rich people, middle class people, etc. ALREADY had the opportunity to see a doctor. It is not as if PPACA passed and all of a sudden these people were no longer turned away. Please don't be any more stupid than you have been in this thread.


So long as using the emergency room as a primary care physician is acceptable. Never mind that it leads to overcrowded emergency rooms which are abused for non-emergencies, at tremendous expense. Never mind that it's pretty much useless for chronic conditions.

That was what Republicans called the best health care system in the world, until Obama made all of those doctors into slaves, just like public defenders.

If you're trying to be a useful idiot, you also have to be useful.
 
2012-07-02 09:48:43 PM  

skullkrusher: Gyrfalcon: Biological Ali: The_Six_Fingered_Man: No, I'm expressing my opinion that it is highly unlikely that the US government can prevent me from worshipping via prayer. We still don't have the ability to read thoughts, you know.

I can think of at least one fairly effective way of stopping a person from "worshiping via prayer", even under this bizarre, watered-down criterion that isn't remotely similar to what we know as "freedom of worship".

Death?

cake, please.


The cake is a lie, you should know that by now.
 
2012-07-02 10:29:00 PM  
Ten incredible quotes about ObamaCare(Tax)

Link
 
2012-07-02 10:36:15 PM  

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

That's what conservatives think that liberals think.


That's what the right-wing unintelligentsia tells it's dim-witted electorate to think.
 
2012-07-02 10:46:48 PM  

Gyrfalcon: skullkrusher: Gyrfalcon: Biological Ali: The_Six_Fingered_Man: No, I'm expressing my opinion that it is highly unlikely that the US government can prevent me from worshipping via prayer. We still don't have the ability to read thoughts, you know.

I can think of at least one fairly effective way of stopping a person from "worshiping via prayer", even under this bizarre, watered-down criterion that isn't remotely similar to what we know as "freedom of worship".

Death?

cake, please.

The cake is a lie, you should know that by now.


got Portal for Christmas and still haven't opened it yet
 
2012-07-03 06:38:17 AM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sorry, I was under the impression that you were still claiming that you had recourse in the courts when Congress reduces or eliminates your benefits.


Never claimed that, smacktard.
 
2012-07-03 08:43:37 AM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Philip Francis Queeg: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Philip Francis Queeg: The_Six_Fingered_Man: So you are claiming that something that you call a "right" can be removed via the whim of 535 individuals? This is what you deign to call a right?

Please tell us a "right" that cannot be removed by a government that wishes to.

Freedom of worship

How is the government going to prevent me from praying to the God or Gods of my choice?

Freedom of worship? Really that's what you chose?

[www.holocaustresearchproject.org image 498x650][www.executedtoday.com image 440x305][upload.wikimedia.org image 300x216]

Wow, those pictures are from the United States? That's horrific.


One is from the United States. Were you under the impression that repression of the freedom to worship was impossible here?
 
2012-07-03 11:35:56 AM  
BS v Reality
 
2012-07-03 12:28:50 PM  

bugontherug: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sorry, I was under the impression that you were still claiming that you had recourse in the courts when Congress reduces or eliminates your benefits.

Never claimed that, smacktard.


"But, provided you meet the statutory eligibility requirements, you absolutely have a legitimate claim of entitlement to your benefits, which you can enforce in a court of law."

The eligibility requirements have not changed, only the level of benefits. You can still meet the requirements, yet if there is no money in the Trust Fund to pay you, you have no recourse in the courts to force the Treasury to issue you a check.
 
Displayed 432 of 432 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report