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.

(Huffington Post)   Obamacare support rises from 'festering ingrown toenail' to 'cold sore' after Supreme Court ruling   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 113
    More: Obvious, supreme court rules, obamacare, supreme courts, Magic Mike, boosting  
•       •       •

2125 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Jul 2012 at 11:44 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-02 12:13:54 PM

ha-ha-guy: Weaver95: like it or not, Obamacare is here to stay. best get used to it.

The funny thing is, I don't think even the hardcore ACA supports (I'm about to be proved wrong) think this is the be all and end all. This is the bill that could make it through a fairly partisan time period in American politics, avoid the filibusters, etc. It's a first stab at this and parts of it aren't going to work, parts will be will lacking, etc.

The whole thing is designed to phase in solely with time for amending of the bill as needed. What all Americans need to agree is we spent way too much of our GDP for shiat returns in healthcare (unless you're lucky like me and work for a place that offers Cadillac healthcare plans). So we need to engage in structural, not partisan, reforms of it.

/I'm betting in 5 to 10 years ACA will be radically different
//the only question is if it is improved by a Congress that gives a shiat or gutted by a reactionary moment


I think Obamacare stinks on ice. i was for single payer.

After 20-30 states opt out, the opt in states are going to be giant welfare states. And the whole thing will probably get crushed under its own weight They have drastically underestimated how many people will hit the exchanges (medicare) and the revenue from fees will not be able to keep up
 
2012-07-02 12:15:19 PM

ha-ha-guy: The funny thing is, I don't think even the hardcore ACA supports (I'm about to be proved wrong) think this is the be all and end all. This is the bill that could make it through a fairly partisan time period in American politics, avoid the filibusters, etc. It's a first stab at this and parts of it aren't going to work, parts will be will lacking, etc.


"Fairly partisan"? It's even more bizarre than that. The ACA passed with a 60-vote, Democrat-only, filibuster-proof majority in the scant 7 months between Franken's certification in July 2009 and Scott Brown's election in February 2010. And that time frame includes Grassley and others bailing on negotiations, Ted Kennedy's death and his temporary replacement voting 'Yes' and the infamous August recess from hell. Democrats broke the filibuster on 12/23 and voted party-line on 12/24. It's one of the few major legislative accomplishments during Obama's first term because of that rare 7-month window.
 
2012-07-02 12:15:32 PM

FlashHarry: Weaver95: like it or not, Obamacare is here to stay. best get used to it.

i think they're going to regret calling it "obamacare."


But probably not until after the election, or when polling shows that a significant majority of people understand and actually like the law. Then Fox news will begin referring to it as the ACA and making sure to always mention that a GOP framework was used to create it and that it received bi-partisan support when it was passed. In fact, I'd wager that Hannity or Beck will be among the first to declare that without the GOP proposing similar measures in the years leading up to the ACA, it would have never happened.
 
2012-07-02 12:15:32 PM

Somacandra: imontheinternet: Is it just that people saw one team "win," and now they want to switch sides?

People like to be on a "winning" side. In politics, if you can make one side's discourse a "dirty word" among an influential few, others will fall in line. Not that anyone in American media echo chambers would ever contemplate such a thing, of course.


You know, I don't think it's just that. Now, I have been known to disparage the intelligence of the American people quite often here at Fark, so what I'm about to say might come off as extraordinarily naive for me, but hear me out:

I think the SCOTUS ruling dealt a near-fatal blow to the Republicans' argument (er, rather, screeching drooling rhetoric) against the ACA. For the past two years, they have focused on its (un)constitutionality and what that means for the precedent the bill sets. This is why terms like "tyranny," "socialism," "Marxism," "fascism," etc. have been so effective in souring support for it: if something is indeed unconstitutional, then it is in fact plausible that tyranny, fascism, etc. are lurking around the corner. Though they ended up the losers, the Republicans had every reason to believe that they were not actually taking a huge gamble in going this route of attack. Just look at the number of conservatives in the SCOTUS.

But the SCOTUS ruling pulled the rug right out from under them. For the past two years they have largely ignored the content of the bill, hoping to get it found unconstitutional, thus rendering any discussion of content moot. Now that the constitutionality issue has been settled, content is the ONLY discussion to be had about the bill. And they know that's a losing fight for them. Their line of attack immediately after the ruling was almost painfully pathetic. "SEE, IT *IS* A TAX!" Really? For the last two years it's been tyranny, Nazism, stubbed toes and forced abortions all rolled in to one, and now it's just a tax? Give me a farking break.

Remember that awesome FB link posted yesterday, the one with that list of provisions in the ACA? Yeah, that's gotten, by my count, about a thousand shares since I last looked at it last night. People are taking a fresh look at this bill, now that they don't have to worry about supporting tyranny, fascism and forced abortions, and the polls show that they like what they're seeing, even if it does include some taxes.

I think Obama could very well end up riding the ACA to reelection, which is something I never could have imagined a week ago. But only time will tell, I guess.
 
2012-07-02 12:15:57 PM

pxsteel: ha-ha-guy: Weaver95: like it or not, Obamacare is here to stay. best get used to it.

The funny thing is, I don't think even the hardcore ACA supports (I'm about to be proved wrong) think this is the be all and end all. This is the bill that could make it through a fairly partisan time period in American politics, avoid the filibusters, etc. It's a first stab at this and parts of it aren't going to work, parts will be will lacking, etc.

The whole thing is designed to phase in solely with time for amending of the bill as needed. What all Americans need to agree is we spent way too much of our GDP for shiat returns in healthcare (unless you're lucky like me and work for a place that offers Cadillac healthcare plans). So we need to engage in structural, not partisan, reforms of it.

/I'm betting in 5 to 10 years ACA will be radically different
//the only question is if it is improved by a Congress that gives a shiat or gutted by a reactionary moment

I think Obamacare stinks on ice. i was for single payer.

After 20-30 states opt out, the opt in states are going to be giant welfare states. And the whole thing will probably get crushed under its own weight They have drastically underestimated how many people will hit the exchanges (medicare) and the revenue from fees will not be able to keep up


The exchanges aren't Medicare.
 
2012-07-02 12:17:35 PM
Possibly a result of people just learning a bit more about the law, from the brute force of constant and repeated media coverage.
 
2012-07-02 12:18:01 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: tgregory: Republicans: "We have rights and just because the majority wants socialized medicine doesn't mean our rights should be taken away."

Please explain exactly what right you thinks has been taken away by Obamacare.


Obamacare's got socialism.
But, what is socialism?
It's what Obama craves.
Okay, but what exactly *is* socialism? Do you even know?
It's what they use to make Obamacare.
But, what makes you think they use socialism to make Obamacare?
It's what Obama craves.
 
2012-07-02 12:22:59 PM

FlashHarry: Weaver95: like it or not, Obamacare is here to stay. best get used to it.

i think they're going to regret calling it "obamacare."


I knew it would be better to call it Farbongocare!
 
2012-07-02 12:23:31 PM

pxsteel: I think Obamacare stinks on ice. i was for single payer.

After 20-30 states opt out, the opt in states are going to be giant welfare states. And the whole thing will probably get crushed under its own weight They have drastically underestimated how many people will hit the exchanges (medicare) and the revenue from fees will not be able to keep up


I'm not sure if you can do single payer in one piece (I want it as well). The problem is the insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies (plus for profit hospitals) have some vested interests in the current system. If we announced "Single Payer in X years" they'd all pitch a fit and do things like hold drug R&D hostage. Also when the day comes that the industry is challenged, you want popular support strongly on your side because the insurance companies are coming after you with PACs. This sets the ground work to get people thinking and if it is successful more support for single payer.

The deal is likely it or not certain companies have managed to get fairly deep roots in the current system and you can't just rip them up. We have to buy them out. It sucks, but it is what it is. At least ACA pushes everyone into buying some kind of plan or paying the government directly. So you get everyone opening their checkbook in some kind of uniform manner. Then we can get a better estimate of the market and consider the move to single payer around 2018 or so.

It's basically a corporate merger in a sense and hostile takeovers always suck balls. So it is better to start off nibbling around the edges. Then once we have overwhelming support we either do a friendly takeover (just overpay sections of the industry with a one time payment to go away) or we nuclear from orbit with full public approval.
 
2012-07-02 12:24:32 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: pxsteel: ha-ha-guy: Weaver95: like it or not, Obamacare is here to stay. best get used to it.

The funny thing is, I don't think even the hardcore ACA supports (I'm about to be proved wrong) think this is the be all and end all. This is the bill that could make it through a fairly partisan time period in American politics, avoid the filibusters, etc. It's a first stab at this and parts of it aren't going to work, parts will be will lacking, etc.

The whole thing is designed to phase in solely with time for amending of the bill as needed. What all Americans need to agree is we spent way too much of our GDP for shiat returns in healthcare (unless you're lucky like me and work for a place that offers Cadillac healthcare plans). So we need to engage in structural, not partisan, reforms of it.

/I'm betting in 5 to 10 years ACA will be radically different
//the only question is if it is improved by a Congress that gives a shiat or gutted by a reactionary moment

I think Obamacare stinks on ice. i was for single payer.

After 20-30 states opt out, the opt in states are going to be giant welfare states. And the whole thing will probably get crushed under its own weight They have drastically underestimated how many people will hit the exchanges (medicare) and the revenue from fees will not be able to keep up

The exchanges aren't Medicare.


What do you think the states are opting out of? Hint: Medicaid expansion
 
2012-07-02 12:25:23 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: tgregory: Republicans: "We have rights and just because the majority wants socialized medicine doesn't mean our rights should be taken away."

Please explain exactly what right you thinks has been taken away by Obamacare.



First you have to understand that everyone is free and that no one owns anyone else or their property. If you understood that then you won't even have to ask "what rights".

My right to not have health insurance, gone. There's one glaringly obvious right taken away. If I'm of good health and I don't want to purchase insurance, that's my right. No more is it my right.

My right as a business to cover people or not. It's not the role of business to make sure we have health care. Thank Uncle Sam for that move. So telling me that if I have over 50 employees that I have to cover them is against my right.

My right as an insurer to allow/disallow whoever it is I want. If you have a company in a society that claims to be free, you should choose who you server. Correct?

The rights of doctors to have open commerce with its patients and for insurers to have open commerce with its customers. Gone. (Although that's been gone since the 70s.)

Government is what prohibited insurance companies from being competitive by allowing cross state coverage. Government is what prohibited us from getting medicine from other countries. Government is what put red tape over everything health care making it more expensive and harder to access.

If you want to solve the problem, more government is definitely not the route you should've chosen.
 
2012-07-02 12:26:00 PM

King Something: MithrandirBooga: imontheinternet: I don't understand how an opinion poll gets swayed by a SCOTUS ruling. It's the same exact policy. Is it just that people saw one team "win," and now they want to switch sides?

This may be one of the biggest problems in politics today. People really don't understand the difference between a functioning democracy and a WWE feud.

Politics is no longer about public service, but a sports match that must be won at all costs. This is what sound-bite celebrity culture has gotten us. It will not change until we have some serious election reform. We need fairness doctrine, federal election funds,and instant-runoff voting, at a minimum.

The only problem with your proposal is that in order to be implemented, it would have to be approved by the very politicians who currently benefit from the lack of a fairness doctrine, federal election funds and instant-runoff voting.

/see also the law passed a few years ago that provides Congressmen an automatic pay raise every term unless they specifically vote against it
//and such a "nay" vote would only apply to that term's pay raise -- they could still get another salary increase by not voting against it the following term


I was going to /slashie my post with
/And it'll never ever happen
//unless there's a revolution


But decided that sounded a little too dire for the good mood I have today. But yes, you are 100% right.
 
2012-07-02 12:26:03 PM

pxsteel: Philip Francis Queeg: pxsteel: ha-ha-guy: Weaver95: like it or not, Obamacare is here to stay. best get used to it.

The funny thing is, I don't think even the hardcore ACA supports (I'm about to be proved wrong) think this is the be all and end all. This is the bill that could make it through a fairly partisan time period in American politics, avoid the filibusters, etc. It's a first stab at this and parts of it aren't going to work, parts will be will lacking, etc.

The whole thing is designed to phase in solely with time for amending of the bill as needed. What all Americans need to agree is we spent way too much of our GDP for shiat returns in healthcare (unless you're lucky like me and work for a place that offers Cadillac healthcare plans). So we need to engage in structural, not partisan, reforms of it.

/I'm betting in 5 to 10 years ACA will be radically different
//the only question is if it is improved by a Congress that gives a shiat or gutted by a reactionary moment

I think Obamacare stinks on ice. i was for single payer.

After 20-30 states opt out, the opt in states are going to be giant welfare states. And the whole thing will probably get crushed under its own weight They have drastically underestimated how many people will hit the exchanges (medicare) and the revenue from fees will not be able to keep up

The exchanges aren't Medicare.

What do you think the states are opting out of? Hint: Medicaid expansion


You are seriously confused. The exchanges are independent of both Medicare and the Medicaid expansion.

/also, Medicaid and Medicare are not the same thing either.
 
2012-07-02 12:28:17 PM

tgregory: Philip Francis Queeg: tgregory: Republicans: "We have rights and just because the majority wants socialized medicine doesn't mean our rights should be taken away."

Please explain exactly what right you thinks has been taken away by Obamacare.


First you have to understand that everyone is free and that no one owns anyone else or their property. If you understood that then you won't even have to ask "what rights".

My right to not have health insurance, gone. There's one glaringly obvious right taken away. If I'm of good health and I don't want to purchase insurance, that's my right. No more is it my right.

My right as a business to cover people or not. It's not the role of business to make sure we have health care. Thank Uncle Sam for that move. So telling me that if I have over 50 employees that I have to cover them is against my right.

My right as an insurer to allow/disallow whoever it is I want. If you have a company in a society that claims to be free, you should choose who you server. Correct?

The rights of doctors to have open commerce with its patients and for insurers to have open commerce with its customers. Gone. (Although that's been gone since the 70s.)

Government is what prohibited insurance companies from being competitive by allowing cross state coverage. Government is what prohibited us from getting medicine from other countries. Government is what put red tape over everything health care making it more expensive and harder to access.

If you want to solve the problem, more government is definitely not the route you should've chosen.


Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose, son.

Your right to not have health insurance effects me and the rest of the country. Your right to selfishly ignore your financial responsibility to care for yourself means that when you do get sick, the rest of us are going to end up picking up the bill.

That's selfish, that's childish and, thankfully, it's now a thing of the past.

You do not have the right to ignore your financial obligations. Welcome to civilized society.
 
2012-07-02 12:29:09 PM

pxsteel: What do you think the states are opting out of? Hint: Medicaid expansion


Yes, they want to opt out of medicaid expansion. But the insurance exchanges have nothing to do with that. That's a whole other thing. You're thinking of a "public option" which was taken out of the bill.
 
2012-07-02 12:31:30 PM

tgregory: The rights of doctors to have open commerce with its patients ...


Doctor, I've diagnosed the problem.

"Health care is merely commerce" is precisely the kind of Free MarketTM pathology that allows rescissions, denies coverage, and forces bankruptcy following illness or injury.

Amazing how many people don't see a problem with this.
 
2012-07-02 12:33:07 PM

imontheinternet: This may be one of the biggest problems in politics today. People really don't understand the difference between a functioning democracy and a WWE feud.


BAH GAWD, KING! TEAM OBAMACARE JUST LAID OUT ROMNEY WITH A CON-CHAIR-TO!!


/wants to see Bobby_and_Gorilla start doing PBP in the politics tab
 
2012-07-02 12:35:40 PM

tgregory: My right to not have health insurance, gone. There's one glaringly obvious right taken away. If I'm of good health and I don't want to purchase insurance, that's my right. No more is it my right.


Nope, you retain that right completely. You will pay slightly higher taxes as a result. Do you have no right not to have children since your taxes will be higher if you do not?

tgregory: My right as a business to cover people or not. It's not the role of business to make sure we have health care. Thank Uncle Sam for that move. So telling me that if I have over 50 employees that I have to cover them is against my right


This is not a right. Is it your right to beat your employees, or to force them to work in unsafe conditions? Is it your irght to make sexual favors a condition of employment? Is it your right not to cover workmans compensation claims for injuries on the job?

tgregory: My right as an insurer to allow/disallow whoever it is I want. If you have a company in a society that claims to be free, you should choose who you server. Correct?


Nope. You do not have that right. See: Civili Rights Act of 1964.
 
2012-07-02 12:36:37 PM

imontheinternet: Philip Francis Queeg: tgregory: Republicans: "We have rights and just because the majority wants socialized medicine doesn't mean our rights should be taken away."

Please explain exactly what right you thinks has been taken away by Obamacare.

Obamacare's got socialism.
But, what is socialism?
It's what Obama craves.
Okay, but what exactly *is* socialism? Do you even know?
It's what they use to make Obamacare.
But, what makes you think they use socialism to make Obamacare?
It's what Obama craves.



i.qkme.me
 
2012-07-02 12:36:41 PM

imontheinternet: I don't understand how an opinion poll gets swayed by a SCOTUS ruling. It's the same exact policy. Is it just that people saw one team "win," and now they want to switch sides?

This may be one of the biggest problems in politics today. People really don't understand the difference between a functioning democracy and a WWE feud.


There were possibly people who were opposed to it on the grounds that they thought it was unconstitutional. Once the USSC said it wasn't, they were willing to support it. This suggests they liked it before but were opposed because they believed it was illegal.
 
2012-07-02 12:36:54 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: pxsteel: Philip Francis Queeg: pxsteel: ha-ha-guy: Weaver95: like it or not, Obamacare is here to stay. best get used to it.

The funny thing is, I don't think even the hardcore ACA supports (I'm about to be proved wrong) think this is the be all and end all. This is the bill that could make it through a fairly partisan time period in American politics, avoid the filibusters, etc. It's a first stab at this and parts of it aren't going to work, parts will be will lacking, etc.

The whole thing is designed to phase in solely with time for amending of the bill as needed. What all Americans need to agree is we spent way too much of our GDP for shiat returns in healthcare (unless you're lucky like me and work for a place that offers Cadillac healthcare plans). So we need to engage in structural, not partisan, reforms of it.

/I'm betting in 5 to 10 years ACA will be radically different
//the only question is if it is improved by a Congress that gives a shiat or gutted by a reactionary moment

I think Obamacare stinks on ice. i was for single payer.

After 20-30 states opt out, the opt in states are going to be giant welfare states. And the whole thing will probably get crushed under its own weight They have drastically underestimated how many people will hit the exchanges (medicare) and the revenue from fees will not be able to keep up

The exchanges aren't Medicare.

What do you think the states are opting out of? Hint: Medicaid expansion

You are seriously confused. The exchanges are independent of both Medicare and the Medicaid expansion.

/also, Medicaid and Medicare are not the same thing either.


The exchanges are Gov subsidized. What you call it (medicare, medicaid...gov give away) makes absolutely no difference.

Do you think the insurance companies are just going to create cheap insurance plans for the exchanges?
 
2012-07-02 12:38:04 PM
This makes sense - I would imagine some percentage of the anti-Obamacare people were against it due to unconstitutionality. Also, you would think a positive Supreme Court decision would allay some fears about death panels and the like.
 
2012-07-02 12:41:57 PM

tgregory: imontheinternet: Philip Francis Queeg: tgregory: Republicans: "We have rights and just because the majority wants socialized medicine doesn't mean our rights should be taken away."

Please explain exactly what right you thinks has been taken away by Obamacare.

Obamacare's got socialism.
But, what is socialism?
It's what Obama craves.
Okay, but what exactly *is* socialism? Do you even know?
It's what they use to make Obamacare.
But, what makes you think they use socialism to make Obamacare?
It's what Obama craves.


[i.qkme.me image 221x297]


I'm pretty sure you're trolling, but when someone without health insurance is injured we all pay. The injured person will often declare bankruptcy due to medical bills. Then the hospital has to recover the costs in some other way, namely charging others more. On a personal level, my wife is a dentist, and has had to write off accounts due to the holder declaring bankruptcy.

So it's more of making people pay their share of the tab.
 
2012-07-02 12:42:17 PM

doyner: tgregory: The rights of doctors to have open commerce with its patients ...

Doctor, I've diagnosed the problem.

"Health care is merely commerce" is precisely the kind of Free MarketTM pathology that allows rescissions, denies coverage, and forces bankruptcy following illness or injury.

Amazing how many people don't see a problem with this.



First off, do you believe we are free people? If so, why not seek out ways to help others through an approach that respects the rights of a free people? Why settle on a method that reduces freedom and so far hasn't worked in decades?

In a free society we have what is called "consenting adults" and "contracts". If you sign a contract with your insurer that they will cover you under X conditions, you are agreeing to those terms. If the insurer denies you coverage, even though it's in the contract, then the insurer is in the wrong. What's wrong with that?

And health care is a commerce. Do you know how government is pushing the individual mandate? Through the Commerce Clause.

Do you know what you're talking about?
 
2012-07-02 12:43:32 PM
It's almost like trying to get it deemed unconstitutional caused the issue to be headline news for weeks at a time causing more and more people learn more about it and once the decision came down conservatives focused on the "OMG TAX!" aspect and not the previously used "OMG DEATH PANELS" and are slowly realizing that the republicans are full of farking shiat.
 
2012-07-02 12:44:11 PM

ha-ha-guy: tgregory: imontheinternet: Philip Francis Queeg: tgregory: Republicans: "We have rights and just because the majority wants socialized medicine doesn't mean our rights should be taken away."

Please explain exactly what right you thinks has been taken away by Obamacare.

Obamacare's got socialism.
But, what is socialism?
It's what Obama craves.
Okay, but what exactly *is* socialism? Do you even know?
It's what they use to make Obamacare.
But, what makes you think they use socialism to make Obamacare?
It's what Obama craves.


[i.qkme.me image 221x297]

I'm pretty sure you're trolling, but when someone without health insurance is injured we all pay. The injured person will often declare bankruptcy due to medical bills. Then the hospital has to recover the costs in some other way, namely charging others more. On a personal level, my wife is a dentist, and has had to write off accounts due to the holder declaring bankruptcy.

So it's more of making people pay their share of the tab.




And it's gotten more expensive because of government not because of the lack of government. I want health care for all, too. I just think there's a better way than forcing people at gun point to pay for a plan I believe in. That's being a self-righteous ass.
 
2012-07-02 12:44:30 PM

tgregory: If you sign a contract with your insurer that they will cover you under X conditions, you are agreeing to those terms. If the insurer denies you coverage, even though it's in the contract, then the insurer is in the wrong. What's wrong with that?


Yeah, waiting a couple of years to get your chemotherapy while you sue your insurance company is no problem at all.
 
2012-07-02 12:45:09 PM

tgregory: Philip Francis Queeg: tgregory: Republicans: "We have rights and just because the majority wants socialized medicine doesn't mean our rights should be taken away."

Please explain exactly what right you thinks has been taken away by Obamacare.


First you have to understand that everyone is free and that no one owns anyone else or their property. If you understood that then you won't even have to ask "what rights".

My right to not have health insurance, gone. There's one glaringly obvious right taken away. If I'm of good health and I don't want to purchase insurance, that's my right. No more is it my right.

My right as a business to cover people or not. It's not the role of business to make sure we have health care. Thank Uncle Sam for that move. So telling me that if I have over 50 employees that I have to cover them is against my right.

My right as an insurer to allow/disallow whoever it is I want. If you have a company in a society that claims to be free, you should choose who you server. Correct?

The rights of doctors to have open commerce with its patients and for insurers to have open commerce with its customers. Gone. (Although that's been gone since the 70s.)

Government is what prohibited insurance companies from being competitive by allowing cross state coverage. Government is what prohibited us from getting medicine from other countries. Government is what put red tape over everything health care making it more expensive and harder to access.

If you want to solve the problem, more government is definitely not the route you should've chosen.


We dont have a free market in the US, so get use to it.
 
2012-07-02 12:45:22 PM

pxsteel: Philip Francis Queeg: pxsteel: Philip Francis Queeg: pxsteel: ha-ha-guy: Weaver95: like it or not, Obamacare is here to stay. best get used to it.

The funny thing is, I don't think even the hardcore ACA supports (I'm about to be proved wrong) think this is the be all and end all. This is the bill that could make it through a fairly partisan time period in American politics, avoid the filibusters, etc. It's a first stab at this and parts of it aren't going to work, parts will be will lacking, etc.

The whole thing is designed to phase in solely with time for amending of the bill as needed. What all Americans need to agree is we spent way too much of our GDP for shiat returns in healthcare (unless you're lucky like me and work for a place that offers Cadillac healthcare plans). So we need to engage in structural, not partisan, reforms of it.

/I'm betting in 5 to 10 years ACA will be radically different
//the only question is if it is improved by a Congress that gives a shiat or gutted by a reactionary moment

I think Obamacare stinks on ice. i was for single payer.

After 20-30 states opt out, the opt in states are going to be giant welfare states. And the whole thing will probably get crushed under its own weight They have drastically underestimated how many people will hit the exchanges (medicare) and the revenue from fees will not be able to keep up

The exchanges aren't Medicare.

What do you think the states are opting out of? Hint: Medicaid expansion

You are seriously confused. The exchanges are independent of both Medicare and the Medicaid expansion.

/also, Medicaid and Medicare are not the same thing either.

The exchanges are Gov subsidized. What you call it (medicare, medicaid...gov give away) makes absolutely no difference.

Do you think the insurance companies are just going to create cheap insurance plans for the exchanges?


Ignorance is not something you should be proud of.
 
2012-07-02 12:47:25 PM

tgregory: First off, do you believe we are free people? If so, why not seek out ways to help others through an approach that respects the rights of a free people? Why settle on a method that reduces freedom and so far hasn't worked in decades?

We're freer than most. I'm not sure how the ideology that equates freedom with choices in the marketplace comports with having to choose between life and bankruptcy.

In a free society we have what is called "consenting adults" and "contracts". If you sign a contract with your insurer that they will cover you under X conditions, you are agreeing to those terms. If the insurer denies you coverage, even though it's in the contract, then the insurer is in the wrong. What's wrong with that?

If no one will enter in a contract with you then what?

And health care is a commerce. Do you know how government is pushing the individual mandate? Through the Commerce Clause.

Yup, and it was upheld under Congress' power to tax, sooooo...

Do you know what you're talking about?


I submit my arguments to the court of Fark opinion. Isn't that why we're all here?
 
2012-07-02 12:47:38 PM

tgregory: My right to not have health insurance, gone. There's one glaringly obvious right taken away. If I'm of good health and I don't want to purchase insurance, that's my right. No more is it my right.


Obama has raised taxes slightly to help cover healthcare. If you have medical insurance, you are given a creadit on your owed taxes.
 
2012-07-02 12:50:19 PM

tgregory: And it's gotten more expensive because of government not because of the lack of government. I want health care for all, too. I just think there's a better way than forcing people at gun point to pay for a plan I believe in. That's being a self-righteous ass.


You're not being forced to pay for A plan. You are required to purchase one of many plans offered by a variety of private companies. If you chose not to pick a plan from those multiple options you will be taxed at a set rate to offset the fact your uninsured ass could end up in the ER after some serious accident. The law also makes it so those companies can't decline to do business with you based on pre existing conditions. So all we did was mandate you have to enter a marketplace and the marketplace cannot refuse you service, thus preventing the case where someone wants to buy and can't (and thus is taxed through no fault of their own).

All it mandates is participation in a market. Just like the fact I want to drive mandates participation in the car insurance market. Where I can tailor plans to meet my needs (deductible, collision insurance, etc). You maintain the same freedoms, the only freedom removed is the freedom not to pay anything, use services, and hit the bankruptcy button.

/the A plan argument only becomes valid if/when single payer happens and that who debate seems to be a solid decade away
 
2012-07-02 12:56:26 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: tgregory: My right to not have health insurance, gone. There's one glaringly obvious right taken away. If I'm of good health and I don't want to purchase insurance, that's my right. No more is it my right.

Nope, you retain that right completely. You will pay slightly higher taxes as a result. Do you have no right not to have children since your taxes will be higher if you do not?

tgregory: My right as a business to cover people or not. It's not the role of business to make sure we have health care. Thank Uncle Sam for that move. So telling me that if I have over 50 employees that I have to cover them is against my right

This is not a right. Is it your right to beat your employees, or to force them to work in unsafe conditions? Is it your irght to make sexual favors a condition of employment? Is it your right not to cover workmans compensation claims for injuries on the job?



You don't force free people to be a part of a system they don't want to be in. Period. Not how freedom works. If you want to get a group of people and share your income and buy each other things you find nice and neat, go for it, but I don't care to be involved.

Philip Francis Queeg: Nope, you retain that right completely. You will pay slightly higher taxes as a result.

Option A: Accept the government's demand to have health care
Option B: Pay a tax to the government for denying their health care choices

You surely realize how stupid that sounds, right? Please tell me you do. And both options require action. Can I charge you a tax for the rooms in your house you're not renting out to people who need homes? Of course not because you'd say, "Wow. That sounds really stupid."

Philip Francis Queeg: This is not a right. Is it your right to beat your employees, or to force them to work in unsafe conditions? Is it your irght to make sexual favors a condition of employment? Is it your right not to cover workmans compensation claims for injuries on the job?

You clearly don't have an understanding of a free society.

Just because I'm free doesn't mean I can do whatever I want. Are we good so far? Do you understand this concept?

CONSENSUAL AGREEMENTS.

If you beat someone, is that against their consent? Of course.

If you force someone to work in an unsafe situation, is that against their consent? Of course.

If you make someone perform sexual acts, is that against their consent? Of course.

It is your right to choose to work for a company that offers health insurance or has an risky work environment (skyscraper builder, stunt man, military, etc...) because you are CONSENTING to those conditions.

Is this rocket science to anyone else or am I just a genius?
 
2012-07-02 12:58:26 PM
meanwhile, the ReTurdlican Party of the United States continues to be a festering fissure on the anus of Satan.
 
2012-07-02 12:59:32 PM

doyner: tgregory: First off, do you believe we are free people? If so, why not seek out ways to help others through an approach that respects the rights of a free people? Why settle on a method that reduces freedom and so far hasn't worked in decades?

We're freer than most. I'm not sure how the ideology that equates freedom with choices in the marketplace comports with having to choose between life and bankruptcy.


If bankruptcy is your concern, get into that industry and help people out. Don't force the rest of us to pick up the slack. Helping others with your own time and money is admirable. Forcing others is not.

doyner: If no one will enter in a contract with you then what?


Well, I know you don't put a gun to their head. Better seek out the means to find someone to make that agreement. With free people it's all about agreement.

doyner: Yup, and it was upheld under Congress' power to tax, sooooo...


Just pointing out your error. You could've said, "You're right." but I'll accept this diversion as a concession to losing that argument.
 
2012-07-02 01:00:52 PM

tgregory: You don't force free people to be a part of a system they don't want to be in. Period. Not how freedom works. If you want to get a group of people and share your income and buy each other things you find nice and neat, go for it, but I don't care to be involved.


Ohh, you are one of those Sovereign Citizens folks, aren't you?
 
2012-07-02 01:01:13 PM

tgregory: Option A: Accept the government's demand to have health care
Option B: Pay a tax to the government for denying their health care choices

You surely realize how stupid that sounds, right? Please tell me you do. And both options require action. Can I charge you a tax for the rooms in your house you're not renting out to people who need homes? Of course not because you'd say, "Wow. That sounds really stupid."


Maybe the government could instead provide hospitals a "do not treat and let die" list as an option C (opt out entirely) so that we can all feel good about freedom.
 
2012-07-02 01:03:23 PM

tgregory: Philip Francis Queeg: tgregory: My right to not have health insurance, gone. There's one glaringly obvious right taken away. If I'm of good health and I don't want to purchase insurance, that's my right. No more is it my right.

Nope, you retain that right completely. You will pay slightly higher taxes as a result. Do you have no right not to have children since your taxes will be higher if you do not?

tgregory: My right as a business to cover people or not. It's not the role of business to make sure we have health care. Thank Uncle Sam for that move. So telling me that if I have over 50 employees that I have to cover them is against my right

This is not a right. Is it your right to beat your employees, or to force them to work in unsafe conditions? Is it your irght to make sexual favors a condition of employment? Is it your right not to cover workmans compensation claims for injuries on the job?


You don't force free people to be a part of a system they don't want to be in. Period. Not how freedom works. If you want to get a group of people and share your income and buy each other things you find nice and neat, go for it, but I don't care to be involved.

Philip Francis Queeg: Nope, you retain that right completely. You will pay slightly higher taxes as a result.

Option A: Accept the government's demand to have health care
Option B: Pay a tax to the government for denying their health care choices

You surely realize how stupid that sounds, right? Please tell me you do. And both options require action. Can I charge you a tax for the rooms in your house you're not renting out to people who need homes? Of course not because you'd say, "Wow. That sounds really stupid."

Philip Francis Queeg: This is not a right. Is it your right to beat your employees, or to force them to work in unsafe conditions? Is it your irght to make sexual favors a condition of employment? Is it your right not to cover workmans compensation claims for injuries on the job?

You clearly don't ...


The problem is, we don't live in a free socity as YOU define it. The closest thing this world has to the society you seem to be yearning for is Somalia.

I hear you can get a good deal there. I'd get on that if I were you.

See, we already exist in a society where if people can't pay for their health care, then EVERYONE ELSE pays it for them. ER visits are only the tip of the iceberg. Every time someone declares bankruptcy because of medical bills, then the rest of us pay for it with increased prices on our premiums.

The only thing that's changed is that we're forcing everyone to pay into the system to the best of their ability.

Your ideal society is a libertarian's wet dream. Again, Somalia.
 
2012-07-02 01:04:55 PM

ha-ha-guy: You're not being forced to pay for A plan. You are required to purchase one of many plans offered by a variety of private companies. If you chose not to pick a plan from those multiple options you will be taxed at a set rate to offset the fact your uninsured ass could end up in the ER after some serious accident.


You do see the problem? Spend your money to buy insurance, or be forced to spend money to pay a tax. There's no choice to participate or not. NONE.

The ER scenario is by far the main issue brought up in support of Obamacare. Hospitals spend about $30 billion a year on uninsured visits to the ER. (Less than 2% of what they bring in.)

Yet Obamacare is going to cost us an extra $1.76 TRILLION dollars? If it really was about the ER, start a charity that helps those hospitals out on their bills.

Or make a law that cripples our economy, strips us of our freedom, and does nothing but give government more power. Either way.
 
2012-07-02 01:06:43 PM

tgregory: ha-ha-guy: You're not being forced to pay for A plan. You are required to purchase one of many plans offered by a variety of private companies. If you chose not to pick a plan from those multiple options you will be taxed at a set rate to offset the fact your uninsured ass could end up in the ER after some serious accident.

You do see the problem? Spend your money to buy insurance, or be forced to spend money to pay a tax. There's no choice to participate or not. NONE.

The ER scenario is by far the main issue brought up in support of Obamacare. Hospitals spend about $30 billion a year on uninsured visits to the ER. (Less than 2% of what they bring in.)

Yet Obamacare is going to cost us an extra $1.76 TRILLION dollars? If it really was about the ER, start a charity that helps those hospitals out on their bills.

Or make a law that cripples our economy, strips us of our freedom, and does nothing but give government more power. Either way.


There's a price to be paid for taking part in civilized society and that's putting in your fair share to the common good. If you don't like it, go live in an uncivilized society.

You won't be missed.
 
2012-07-02 01:08:15 PM

tgregory: If bankruptcy is your concern, get into that industry and help people out. Don't force the rest of us to pick up the slack. Helping others with your own time and money is admirable. Forcing others is not.

I'm not wild about a lot of things my tax dollars go to, but (while I might not understand FreedomTM, I do understand the nature of a representative pluralistic republic. So I do help people out...by paying taxes and voting for elected officials that support universal health care.


Well, I know you don't put a gun to their head. Better seek out the means to find someone to make that agreement. With free people it's all about agreement.

And if no one will make such an agreement with you then the free market has spoken. Fark off and die. Amirite?

Just pointing out your error. You could've said, "You're right." but I'll accept this diversion as a concession to losing that argument.

I could have said "you're right," but that would have been a lie on my part.
 
2012-07-02 01:08:53 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: tgregory: You don't force free people to be a part of a system they don't want to be in. Period. Not how freedom works. If you want to get a group of people and share your income and buy each other things you find nice and neat, go for it, but I don't care to be involved.

Ohh, you are one of those Sovereign Citizens folks, aren't you?


That or frequent Infowars commenter.
 
2012-07-02 01:13:55 PM

tgregory: You do see the problem? Spend your money to buy insurance, or be forced to spend money to pay a tax. There's no choice to participate or not. NONE.

The ER scenario is by far the main issue brought up in support of Obamacare. Hospitals spend about $30 billion a year on uninsured visits to the ER. (Less than 2% of what they bring in.)


Umh if we cut out the 30 billion a year uninsured visits that would reduce hospital's operating expenses by 2% and thus lower my hospital bills by 2%. How this that good for me? I'm not getting taxed to cover this new bill. Why would I not take action to protect myself from uninsured deadbeats?

You do not have a choice to NEVER participate in health care. No person is healthy their entire life. With the younger generation the males have a 33% chance of getting cancer for example and the females haver a 20% chance. You used healthcare before you were even born (I assume your mother had some prenatal screenings done) and when you born (unless you just popped out in a field).

As such the legislation just ensures that those of us who actually pay now have a recourse to recover at least some of our costs from those who don't pay. As for cripples the economy, prove it. Americans spent 15.2% of our GDP on healthcare in 2008 (the most recent WHO data). No country spent more than that in terms of percentage. Even the world's most socialized, free healthcare for everyone country spent less of their GDP on healthcare than we did. Any we don't even have the world's best healthcare. We spend the most and we don't get the best product in return. Why would we not demand reform? As others posted up thread, the CBO projects this provides long term savings. We face initial issues as the industry adapts to the new standard, but better a one time transition cost than to see us spending 20% of our GDP on it by 2020.


doyner: tgregory: Option A: Accept the government's demand to have health care
Option B: Pay a tax to the government for denying their health care choices

You surely realize how stupid that sounds, right? Please tell me you do. And both options require action. Can I charge you a tax for the rooms in your house you're not renting out to people who need homes? Of course not because you'd say, "Wow. That sounds really stupid."

Maybe the government could instead provide hospitals a "do not treat and let die" list as an option C (opt out entirely) so that we can all feel good about freedom.


The problem with the do not treat list is in then you end up some a class of people like they they had in Elizabethan England were every 10 years or so an outbreak of bubonic plague erupts. We're already seeing some diseases come back thanks to the do not vaccinate folk, so lets not give them any more rope to make it worse.
 
2012-07-02 01:18:38 PM

tgregory: You don't force free people to be a part of a system they don't want to be in. Period. Not how freedom works.


The Selective Service would like a word.

Freedom isn't free.
 
2012-07-02 01:19:39 PM

BSABSVR: Philip Francis Queeg: tgregory: You don't force free people to be a part of a system they don't want to be in. Period. Not how freedom works. If you want to get a group of people and share your income and buy each other things you find nice and neat, go for it, but I don't care to be involved.

Ohh, you are one of those Sovereign Citizens folks, aren't you?

That or frequent Infowars commenter.


If you take his definition of "free people" to it's logical conclusion, in order to have property you would have to enter into a voluntary contract with every single person on the planet in order to define that property is yours. If I refuse to recognize his claim to a piece of property, by his own definition, there would be zero recourse to defend those property rights other than the physical force he himself can muster.
 
2012-07-02 01:22:31 PM

ha-ha-guy: The problem with the do not treat list is in then you end up some a class of people like they they had in Elizabethan England were every 10 years or so an outbreak of bubonic plague erupts. We're already seeing some diseases come back thanks to the do not vaccinate folk, so lets not give them any more rope to make it worse.


I was illustrating the absurdity of the argument before me. I've been for single payer for almost my entire adult life.
 
2012-07-02 01:23:09 PM

tgregory: Various things.


tgregory, I've read over what you posted here, usually I lurk. Today I'll write.

The United States was founded to make a more perfect union, freedom, justice, etc etc. Yes we all know the bit. But the thing you seem to be neglecting is that Freedom isn't Free. Surprisingly, this isn't just a bumper sticker motto for the military, but a fact of life. We are a Constitutional Republic, where apointees by popular vote make decisions for us. This is what we do. Some of those are Congress, and per the constitution, our law of the land, they can:

Lets look at the constitution.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


Among other things. They can make taxes or penalties or whatever you want to call it, and have for years and years and years without anyone claiming foul that was a sane and reasonable person. A good example of the exact same tyranny you are talking about is the tax incentive to have children. Those who do have kids pay less taxes than those who do not. This makes good economic sense. As does ACA/Obamacare. It is perfectly legal under the constitution that is our highest law of the land, per our founders and per the SCOTUS, the office our founders put into place.

But if you view taxation as a direct assault to your liberty, let me aquatint you with another event from the time of our founding fathers: the Whiskey Rebellion.

The Whiskey Rebellion, or Whiskey Insurrection, was a tax protest in the United States beginning in 1791, during the presidency of George Washington. Farmers who sold their grain in the form of whiskey had to pay a new tax which they strongly resented. The tax was a part of treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton's program to pay off the national debt.

Like you, they found taxes to be abhorrent, injust assaults upon their liberty.

Resistance came to a climax in July 1794, when a U.S. marshal arrived in western Pennsylvania to serve writs to distillers who had not paid the excise. The alarm was raised, and more than 500 armed men attacked the fortified home of tax inspector General John Neville. Washington responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels, while at the same time calling on governors to send a militia force to suppress the violence. With 15,000 militia provided by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, Washington rode at the head of an army to suppress the insurgency. The rebels all went home before the arrival of the army, and there was no confrontation. About 20 men were arrested, but all were later acquitted or pardoned. The issue fueled support for the new opposition Democratic Republican Party, which repealed the tax when it came to power in Washington in 1801.

The Whiskey Rebellion demonstrated that the new national government had the willingness and ability to suppress violent resistance to its laws. It also demonstrated that our freedom loving, all American founding fathers were willing to tax people to make the nation stronger, within the first few decades of our founding.

No country is truly free except Somalia. Civilization requires order and rules and taxes to fund the enforcement of them. Whine and moan and complain about it all you like, and be sure to vote for those who would support your worldviews, but keep in mind that absolutely nothing about the ACA/Obamacare is new, unprecedented, or a serious assault on your freedom any more than existent taxes for the last three hundred years of our nation's history have been.

As a final point, when you mention that you no longer have the right to not have health insurance you are incorrect. You can very easily not have health insurance. No one is taking that away from you, but they are asking that you pay for your lack of personal responsibility. As this healthcare law is ultimately both a conservative and historically a Republican law, supported by both Gingrich and Romney years before it hit the national stage, one would think that conservatives would be quite happy to have gotten their legislation passed after almost 20 years of it being shot down under the Presidency of Clinton and Bush.

Republicans are the party of personal responsibility, or so we have claimed (I am registered Republican). This law fits with everything I stand for: fiscal responsibility, personal responsibility, and helping our nation grow stronger.

And it's probably something the Founders would have supported, or so we can infer from history.
 
2012-07-02 01:31:04 PM

JollyMagistrate: tgregory: Various things.

tgregory, I've read over what you posted here, usually I lurk. Today I'll write.

The United States was founded to make a more perfect union, freedom, justice, etc etc. Yes we all know the bit. But the thing you seem to be neglecting is that Freedom isn't Free. Surprisingly, this isn't just a bumper sticker motto for the military, but a fact of life. We are a Constitutional Republic, where apointees by popular vote make decisions for us. This is what we do. Some of those are Congress, and per the constitution, our law of the land, they can:

Lets look at the constitution.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Among other things. They can make taxes or penalties or whatever you want to call it, and have for years and years and years without anyone claiming foul that was a sane and reasonable person. A good example of the exact same tyranny you are talking about is the tax incentive to have children. Those who do have kids pay less taxes than those who do not. This makes good economic sense. As does ACA/Obamacare. It is perfectly legal under the constitution that is our highest law of the land, per our founders and per the SCOTUS, the office our founders put into place.

But if you view taxation as a direct assault to your liberty, let me aquatint you with another event from the time of our founding fathers: the Whiskey Rebellion.

The Whiskey Rebellion, or Whiskey Insurrection, was a tax protest in the United States beginning in 1791, during the presidency of George Washington. Farmers who sold their grain in the form of whiskey had to pay a new tax which they strongly resented. The tax was a part of treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton's program to pay off the national debt.

Like you, ...


But soshalizm.
 
2012-07-02 02:02:06 PM

theknuckler_33: tgregory: You don't force free people to be a part of a system they don't want to be in. Period. Not how freedom works.

The Selective Service would like a word.

Freedom isn't free.


Thats primarily white men though, so its okay :)
 
2012-07-02 02:31:14 PM

tgregory: ha-ha-guy: You're not being forced to pay for A plan. You are required to purchase one of many plans offered by a variety of private companies. If you chose not to pick a plan from those multiple options you will be taxed at a set rate to offset the fact your uninsured ass could end up in the ER after some serious accident.

You do see the problem? Spend your money to buy insurance, or be forced to spend money to pay a tax. There's no choice to participate or not. NONE.

The ER scenario is by far the main issue brought up in support of Obamacare. Hospitals spend about $30 billion a year on uninsured visits to the ER. (Less than 2% of what they bring in.)

Yet Obamacare is going to cost us an extra $1.76 TRILLION dollars? If it really was about the ER, start a charity that helps those hospitals out on their bills.

Or make a law that cripples our economy, strips us of our freedom, and does nothing but give government more power. Either way.


Please explain exactly what freedom you think has been taken away by Obamacare.
 
Displayed 50 of 113 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report