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.

(NewsBusters)   Despite what the Democrat contro... I mean the Main Stream Media has told you, there is a GOP plan to replace Obamacare. and it's a solid rational plan that benefits poor people and no new taxes   (newsbusters.org) divider line 163
    More: Obvious, Democrat Party, obamacare, GOP, Republican, United States House Committee on Ways and Means, poor people, National Affairs, tax exemption  
•       •       •

4098 clicks; posted to Politics » on 04 Jul 2012 at 9:10 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-04 09:12:58 AM  
Click-to-post ratio is going down. Troll harder.
 
2012-07-04 09:14:42 AM  
I suspended my instant incredulity over this headline long enough to read the article.

Laff. I shouldn't have bothered. HEERRPYDEERP is all that lives in rightyland anymore.
 
2012-07-04 09:14:45 AM  
I actually clicked on the link. Those bullet points effectively translate to "lower taxes via a tax credit and send out a memo recommending that people buy health care.

It wasn't worth clicking, and I'm blaming my lack of sleep.
 
2012-07-04 09:15:51 AM  
We've seen it in full, glorious detail.

ericcantor.us
 
2012-07-04 09:16:26 AM  
No, there isn't.
 
2012-07-04 09:16:46 AM  
For those who do not want to give NewsBusters a click, here are some highlights from the "plan":

"Instead of relying on the current tax exemption that hides costs, the Republican plans would offer people a tax credit for use to purchase the insurance plan that suits their needs."
"Americans should be strongly encouraged to buy continuous coverage over their adulthood. Then insurance companies would not be permitted to jack up their premiums if a member of their family develops a costly condition."
"Instead of locking Medicaid recipients into a substandard system, the Republicans would welcome them into the same private insurance health markets as their fellow citizens. This would give them greater access to care, while reducing the incentives that encourage them to remain eligible for the program."
"Replace Medicare's open-ended cost burden with a defined contribution structure. Beneficiaries could choose from a menu of approved plans. If they wanted a more expensive plan, they could pay for it on top of the fixed premium."
"Any new spending would be offset with cuts so that health care costs do not continue to devour more and more of the federal budget. This could be done, for example, by gradually raising the retirement age."

That's...wow. Not really a plan. Most of it is a minor change to Obamacare, such as changing "exemption" to "credit". Notice how the only actionable item is privatizing Medicare?
 
2012-07-04 09:17:26 AM  
Clicked so ya'll don't have to:

1) Tax cuts
2) Personal responsibility
3) Make poor medicaid people buy their own insurance, dammit.
4) Hack up medicaire into various levels. The good levels would require that you pay for it personally
5) Tax cuts, raise the retirement age. WORK TILL YOU DIE, PEONS.
 
2012-07-04 09:19:55 AM  
No, no, no... I don't think "plan" is the word the author of tfa was looking for.
 
2012-07-04 09:19:58 AM  
" on Tue, 07/03/2012 - 6:50pm.

The problem with Obamatax, it has nothing to do with health care, it has to do with controlling insurance. The reason insurance keeps going up is because the cost of health care keeps going up. Does Obamatax prevent hospitals from charging $3 per tylenol, when you can buy a bottle of 250 for $12? Does it stop a hospital from charging $1000 a day for a bed, when you can rent a 3 bedroom house for a month for that much? Does it stop a cardiologist from charging $100 for an EKG on a machine that cost him $300, and was paid for with just the patients on the first day he received it? It also doesn't stop pharmacy companies from charging us $150 per month for a pill they sell in the rest of the world for $30 a month. Why do pills cost so much? Because they spend millions of dollars on tv ads trying to convince us to demand our doctors give us that new pill, whose side effect are usually 5 times as bad as what the pill is preventing."

Why the hell so you think those costs are what they are you farking retard? Also, of course they have a plan. Their plan was developed by conservative think tanks and first implemented by a republican governer. It's now commonly known as "Obamacare".
 
2012-07-04 09:20:37 AM  
So, it's fiscally irresponsible and politically untenable.

Seems like the sort of thing that has zero chance of actually passing or addressing health care reform.
 
2012-07-04 09:21:03 AM  
"Instead of relying on the current tax exemption that hides costs, the Republican plans would offer people a tax credit for use to purchase the insurance plan that suits their needs."


Does the tax credit meet or exceed the cost benefit of the tax exemption? You provide no numbers or even a f*cking explanation of that the f*ck you're talking about. You're talking about vouchers, right? F*ck you.

"Americans should be strongly encouraged to buy continuous coverage over their adulthood. Then insurance companies would not be permitted to jack up their premiums if a member of their family develops a costly condition."


Um, yeah. What the f*ck do you think the goal of ACA is? Are you that stupid?

"nstead of locking Medicaid recipients into a substandard system, the Republicans would welcome them into the same private insurance health markets as their fellow citizens. This would give them greater access to care, while reducing the incentives that encourage them to remain eligible for the program."



So, rather than being almost fully covered, we'll give you a voucher for $5k and you can figure out how to pay the other $15k? Wow, that sounds like a good deal. Again, you provide no f*cking numbers. Do you idiots not understand how you are supposed to offer a proposal? You have to give examples and sh*t. F- you fail the presentation.


"[R]eplace Medicare's open-ended cost burden with a defined contribution structure. Beneficiaries could choose from a menu of approved plans. If they wanted a more expensive plan, they could pay for it on top of the fixed premium."



How many f*cking ways can you say voucher? Jesus H. Christ.


"[A]ny new spending would be offset with cuts so that health care costs do not continue to devour more and more of the federal budget. This could be done, for example, by gradually raising the retirement age."



Yeah... offsets. Uh huh... Sure. Hey, how are you guys paying for the Bush Tax cuts and Medicare Part D? How are those "offsets" working out for us?
 
2012-07-04 09:22:20 AM  
Yes, Democrat controlled media, indeed.

I remember it like it was last week, media giants approaching orgasm as they gleefully reported that Obamacare had been ruled unconstitutional.

Just as their Democrat masters instructed them.
 
2012-07-04 09:22:40 AM  
Set up healthcare loan offices inside hospitals for people who have no insurance.

If denied, refer them to the title loan for funeral expense office down the street.
 
2012-07-04 09:22:43 AM  
"Instead of relying on the current tax exemption that hides costs, the Republican plans would offer people a tax credit for use to purchase the insurance plan that suits their needs."

Doesn't address the biggest problem of the cost of an insurance plan, which is the price. Unless the tax credit is retardedly high, this won't do shiat.

"Americans should be strongly encouraged to buy continuous coverage over their adulthood. Then insurance companies would not be permitted to jack up their premiums if a member of their family develops a costly condition."

You just described parts of Obamacare.

"nstead of locking Medicaid recipients into a substandard system, the Republicans would welcome them into the same private insurance health markets as their fellow citizens. This would give them greater access to care, while reducing the incentives that encourage them to remain eligible for the program."

See Boobies. Doesn't address the cost of insurance, which is why people get on Medicaid in the first place. If they're eligible, they're not going to be able to pay for a private insurance plan. You can welcome them all you like, but they won't be able to afford it. It's the medical version of "Let them eat cake."

"[R]eplace Medicare's open-ended cost burden with a defined contribution structure. Beneficiaries could choose from a menu of approved plans. If they wanted a more expensive plan, they could pay for it on top of the fixed premium."

See Boobies. Doesn't address the cost.

"[A]ny new spending would be offset with cuts so that health care costs do not continue to devour more and more of the federal budget. This could be done, for example, by gradually raising the retirement age."

Oh, go run crotch-first into a doorknob.
 
2012-07-04 09:22:47 AM  
Zimbabwe had the correct health care proposal a few years back: They merely urged people not to get sick in the first place. Problem solved.
 
2012-07-04 09:23:13 AM  
Become Canadian.
 
2012-07-04 09:24:37 AM  

Bloody William: See Boobies.


Well, I see we've read that exactly the same.
 
2012-07-04 09:24:39 AM  
Why not just link to the Brooks article? (That sucked too, of course.) Oh, that's right, this nilla posting in a troll thread.
 
mhd
2012-07-04 09:24:51 AM  
"Americans should be strongly encouraged to buy continuous coverage over their adulthood. Then insurance companies would not be permitted to jack up their premiums if a member of their family develops a costly condition."

Yeah, because health care providers are all about "valued customers".
 
2012-07-04 09:25:53 AM  
Kill Republicans. Frees up plenty of space for the rest of us.
 
2012-07-04 09:26:14 AM  
1: Replace 'tax exemption' in Obamacare with 'tax credit'.
2: Ask people very nicely to please buy insurance.
3: Keep the pre-existing condition ban from Obamacare.
4: Privatize medicaid; because the poorest people will of course be able to afford private insurance.
5: Never, ever, ever increase the amount of money spent on medicare; presumably cutting funding would be OK. Somehow this will not lead to lower medicare funding per person as the elderly population increases.

So rebrand the parts of Obamacare they like, and screw grandma and the poor right in the pooper while calling it a free colonoscopy.
 
2012-07-04 09:26:53 AM  

mhd: "Americans should be strongly encouraged to buy continuous coverage over their adulthood. Then insurance companies would not be permitted to jack up their premiums if a member of their family develops a costly condition."

Yeah, because health care providers are all about "valued customers".


Exactly. Up next, the Republican plan to not permit car insurance companies from jacking up your rate after your 15th accident in 12 months.
 
2012-07-04 09:26:54 AM  
Don't you mean the Soros-Owned, Palace Guard LameSCREAM SOPGLSM Media, subby?
 
2012-07-04 09:28:09 AM  
Oh, just call it the "Democrat media". The term "mainstream" doesn't really apply anymore. We'd be better off if newspapers etc simply openly announced their idelogical and political allegiences. I actually read the Guardian UK - they are honest about where they stand on issues and that results in more honest and factual reporting.
 
2012-07-04 09:28:30 AM  

Bloody William: See Boobies. Doesn't address the cost.


We don't want to address the cost of boobies. I swear I've spent more on them than health care in my life.
 
2012-07-04 09:28:42 AM  

NewportBarGuy: "Americans should be strongly encouraged to buy continuous coverage over their adulthood. Then insurance companies would not be permitted to jack up their premiums if a member of their family develops a costly condition."


Um, yeah. What the f*ck do you think the goal of ACA is? Are you that stupid?


They aren't, but they hope you are.
 
2012-07-04 09:29:02 AM  
It's essentially the same thing, but with a more palatable name.
 
2012-07-04 09:29:36 AM  
Stupid filter.
 
2012-07-04 09:29:48 AM  
I know they have a plan.

towleroad.typepad.com

/hot
 
2012-07-04 09:30:17 AM  

Wyalt Derp: It's essentially the same thing, but with a more palatable name.


Let's be fair, it's not the same thing. It's much, much less.
 
2012-07-04 09:31:16 AM  

Robots are Strong: " on Tue, 07/03/2012 - 6:50pm.

The problem with Obamatax, it has nothing to do with health care, it has to do with controlling insurance. The reason insurance keeps going up is because the cost of health care keeps going up. Does Obamatax prevent hospitals from charging $3 per tylenol, when you can buy a bottle of 250 for $12? Does it stop a hospital from charging $1000 a day for a bed, when you can rent a 3 bedroom house for a month for that much? Does it stop a cardiologist from charging $100 for an EKG on a machine that cost him $300, and was paid for with just the patients on the first day he received it? It also doesn't stop pharmacy companies from charging us $150 per month for a pill they sell in the rest of the world for $30 a month. Why do pills cost so much? Because they spend millions of dollars on tv ads trying to convince us to demand our doctors give us that new pill, whose side effect are usually 5 times as bad as what the pill is preventing."

Why the hell so you think those costs are what they are you farking retard? Also, of course they have a plan. Their plan was developed by conservative think tanks and first implemented by a republican governer. It's now commonly known as "Obamacare".


As retarded as that poster's comment was, I have to admit a certain glee at the fact that they've lost control of the word "Obamacare" and now have had to try and re-christen it "Obamatax" because they know they're eventually going to lose the narrative on this one.
 
2012-07-04 09:31:25 AM  
Yeah, it's "exactly the same", except without the provisions to pay for the proposed spending, along with gutting Medicare, and raising the retirement age on Social Security.
 
2012-07-04 09:31:25 AM  
The biggest thing that should be changed is the expectation that your employer should provide you with coverage. McCain was going to address that, and this "plan" Brooks writes about would seem to address that too.

However, Obamacare's main feature is that if you can afford insurance, you will be strongly encouraged through the tax code to buy it. If you can't afford it, you will receive assistance to buy it. No one's pre-existing conditions will be excluded, and all insurance must cover things like childbirth. The rest is details. Any Republican plan that "replaces" Obamacare will have the above features at its core, though it may differ in the details. The sooner Republicans/Tea Partiers come to terms with that, the sooner we can have a coherent political discussion about those details.
 
2012-07-04 09:31:56 AM  
Half the problem with this thing is that the Narcissist-in-Chief chose to name it after himself.
 
2012-07-04 09:32:59 AM  
Mods,

WND and Newsbusters are not credible sources of information or opinion. They are derp factories. They don't provide a counterbalance to newspapers and television stations. They are the pooh-flinging apes of the media world, and pretending they represent the logical opposite to Maureen Dowd or David Brooks makes you look like you fling pooh too.

Geebus. There aren't two sides to every issue. There are a million facets. You present two of them, diametrically opposed, so you can claim you are fair. Your predictable selection of stories for troll-tastic inspiration and artificial balance makes you no better than the news organizations you mock.
 
2012-07-04 09:33:17 AM  

Robots are Strong: " on Tue, 07/03/2012 - 6:50pm.

The problem with Obamatax, it has nothing to do with health care, it has to do with controlling insurance. The reason insurance keeps going up is because the cost of health care keeps going up. Does Obamatax prevent hospitals from charging $3 per tylenol, when you can buy a bottle of 250 for $12? Does it stop a hospital from charging $1000 a day for a bed, when you can rent a 3 bedroom house for a month for that much? Does it stop a cardiologist from charging $100 for an EKG on a machine that cost him $300, and was paid for with just the patients on the first day he received it? It also doesn't stop pharmacy companies from charging us $150 per month for a pill they sell in the rest of the world for $30 a month. Why do pills cost so much? Because they spend millions of dollars on tv ads trying to convince us to demand our doctors give us that new pill, whose side effect are usually 5 times as bad as what the pill is preventing."

Why the hell so you think those costs are what they are you farking retard? Also, of course they have a plan. Their plan was developed by conservative think tanks and first implemented by a republican governer. It's now commonly known as "Obamacare".


I love how they compare the cost of a hospital bed to renting a 3 bedroom house. $1,000 a day is actually low, critical care units can cost $4-5,000 a day. The reason it's so expensive is that hospitals are extremely expensive to staff and maintain. And an EKG machine for $300? Really?

It sounds like someone has a problem with the way the free market is working....
 
2012-07-04 09:34:00 AM  

Bloody William: Let's be fair, it's not the same thing. It's much, much less.


Much, much less taxes for the rich.
 
2012-07-04 09:35:01 AM  

animal color: Mods,

WND and Newsbusters are not credible sources of information or opinion. They are derp factories. They don't provide a counterbalance to newspapers and television stations. They are the pooh-flinging apes of the media world, and pretending they represent the logical opposite to Maureen Dowd or David Brooks makes you look like you fling pooh too.

Geebus. There aren't two sides to every issue. There are a million facets. You present two of them, diametrically opposed, so you can claim you are fair. Your predictable selection of stories for troll-tastic inspiration and artificial balance makes you no better than the news organizations you mock.

 
2012-07-04 09:35:24 AM  

Wyalt Derp: Half the problem with this thing is that the Narcissist-in-Chief chose to name it after himself.


I see what you did there, but I wonder how much of the populace really truly believes that. It's probably a pretty good-sized chunk.

/life in the reality-impaired community
 
2012-07-04 09:35:41 AM  

Coolfusis: Clicked so ya'll don't have to:

1) Tax cuts
2) Personal responsibility
3) Make poor medicaid people buy their own insurance, dammit.
4) Hack up medicaire into various levels. The good levels would require that you pay for it personally
5) Tax cuts, raise the retirement age. WORK TILL YOU DIE, PEONS.


Thanks! I wasn't gonna give this article a single page view, you saved me precious minutes!
 
2012-07-04 09:35:59 AM  

animal color: Mods,

WND and Newsbusters are not credible sources of information or opinion. They are derp factories. They don't provide a counterbalance to newspapers and television stations. They are the pooh-flinging apes of the media world, and pretending they represent the logical opposite to Maureen Dowd or David Brooks makes you look like you fling pooh too.

Geebus. There aren't two sides to every issue. There are a million facets. You present two of them, diametrically opposed, so you can claim you are fair. Your predictable selection of stories for troll-tastic inspiration and artificial balance makes you no better than the news organizations you mock.

 
2012-07-04 09:36:53 AM  
Vouchers and privatizing?

[ohwaityoureserious]
 
2012-07-04 09:37:14 AM  

Wyalt Derp: Half the problem with this thing is that the Narcissist-in-Chief chose to name it after himself.


i lol'd.
 
2012-07-04 09:37:22 AM  

rohar: Bloody William: See Boobies. Doesn't address the cost.

We don't want to address the cost of boobies. I swear I've spent more on them than health care in my life.


My wife is asking for a set of boltons. Any advice?
 
2012-07-04 09:39:21 AM  
Don't be silly. The media isn't controlled by the Democrats. It's controlled by the Nazis hiding at the center of the Earth who use it to incite racial violence and distract us from the Communist base on the moon. They are currently at war over the mineral rights to my back yard which is the reason gas prices are so high right now. I tried to warn the President but he refused to do anything about it because he doesn't want them to reveal that he is a secret Muslim. After that the Secret Service paid me a visit and told me that I was crazy and possibly dangerous. We shall see who has the last laugh when I post this information on my blog.
 
2012-07-04 09:39:54 AM  
[reads article]

um...that's not a plan, that's a death sentence.
 
2012-07-04 09:41:53 AM  
Without reading the article or the thread, I'm guessing it's "Cut taxes for the rich so that they can create more jobs for poor people so that they can buy health insurance." Am I close?
 
2012-07-04 09:42:04 AM  

Wyalt Derp: Half the problem with this thing is that the Narcissist-in-Chief chose to name it after himself.


actually, that's what the Republicans started calling it.
 
2012-07-04 09:42:34 AM  
Privatizing Medicare, well, they are just listing to their constituents.

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-04 09:43:53 AM  

Martian_Astronomer: Without reading the article or the thread, I'm guessing it's "Cut taxes for the rich so that they can create more jobs for poor people so that they can buy health insurance." Am I close?


well...kinda. the GOP plan apparently involves making everyone pay for their own health care, letting corporations off the hook for covering health care costs and pushing everyone off social security and out into the marketplace to fend for themselves. there's also something in there about 'no whining' and 'STFU you puking maggots'.
 
Displayed 50 of 163 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report