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.

(Think Progress)   The SCOTUS's decision not to deny millions of people of health care is just like that time an earlier SCOTUS denied citizenship for thousands of people because they were black, at least according to false equivalency scholar RAND PAUL   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 195
    More: Dumbass, Sen. Rand Paul, U.S. Supreme Court, health cares, lunch counters, Dred Scott  
•       •       •

1805 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Jul 2012 at 8:02 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-06 09:31:37 AM

john_frost: My neighbor just moved out of there because the costs went up, and the Commonwealth chased his insurance company away.

Same thing happened in Washington State.


Lol... You're so full of shiat. Which Insurance Co. was "chased out"?

Explain the 98% coverage. Explain the success of the Health Connector in helping families find affordable plans.

Oh, and explain how the MA Insurance Companies are about to rebate $12 million to the Commonwealth as they did not meet the required percentages for money spent on care vs "administrative costs".


98%... In case you missed it.
 
2012-07-06 09:31:40 AM
Wait, does that mean he likes the Obamacare ruling?
 
2012-07-06 09:32:56 AM

EyeballKid: Wait, does that mean he likes the Obamacare ruling?


Only in that he gets to flex his impotent rage muscles.
 
2012-07-06 09:33:06 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: badhatharry: Liberals can't see the harm in their values. Doing "good" is all they can see. They never see the down side of letting the government take care of peoples' needs.

Oh do tell what the downside of not letting people starve or suffer for lack of access to healthcare is.


First, nobody is starving for lack of access to health care. Poor people have medicaid. Which, not suprisingly, sucks.

Middleclass people with pre-existing conditions or without health insurance are suffering. But they don't lack access to health care. They lack access to enough money to pay for health care.
 
2012-07-06 09:33:22 AM

john_frost: Philip Francis Queeg: john_frost: Cinaed: john_frost: The 16K...

Where's that value from? Your ass is not a reliable source, unless we're talking about stank.
What's the income of the family in question? Even using your assumed value, if it's a family pulling in 100k, they'll be fine.
Do they not already have health care? Most people 'do' already have health insurance, this is for those who do NOT. The poor/destitute are the ones who need it most and.... that leads nicely into...
Do you realize there's money to assist the 'po' folk out there to better be able to afford that coverage? There's assistance for people who cannot afford this. And if you don't WANT to get that coverage, you pay the penalty for being a schmuck. Easy peasy.

Washington Post did the study? Do you realize most folks earn below $80K? And so can't afford Obamacare?

Do you really want them on the dole? I think yes.

Want them on the "dole"? No. Think having people on the "dole" is better then letting them suffer from lack of access to healthcare? Damn straight.

So, if the end result is most americans taking a handout, you are OK. What will the other 1/2 do? Do you really think they will just pay up? Or do we become Greece?


So if the end result is Americans suffering needlessly from preventable and curable illness, you are OK? Tell us, exactly how many of your fellow citizens you are willing to watch suffer to save a few dollars on your taxes?
 
2012-07-06 09:33:54 AM

john_frost: Washington Post did the study? Do you realize most folks earn below $80K? And so can't afford Obamacare?


Obamacare isn't something you buy.
Unless you're pissed at the high price, in which case... blame the private sector.

Do you really want them on the dole? I think yes.

That word you're using, it doesn't mean what you think it means.
 
2012-07-06 09:34:04 AM

john_frost: keylock71: john_frost: The 16K it is going to cost a Family of 4 to buy this expensive Insurance we call Obamcare

Thats the part where everyone takes their money and leaves the system.

You mean like what happened in Massachusetts with MAHealth?

Oh wait, the Commonwealth has got 98% coverage now and the plan my family has through the Health Connector is actually cheaper and covers more than was covered by a previous plan we had with an employer.

But, please, proceed with your fortune telling. It's amusing.

My neighbor just moved out of there because the costs went up, and the Commonwealth chased his insurance company away.

Same thing happened in Washington State.


As an outraged conservative living in Washington State, I am intrigued by your statement. Perhaps you could fill me in more on this outrageous circumstance that I should be more outraged by.

I think the fact I am not aware of this is probably due to some sort of liberal propaganda campaign exactly like those they used to use in the USSR.
 
2012-07-06 09:34:57 AM

randomjsa: Once again, this is not now nor has it ever been about denying or allowing people access to health care. Obama and his fellow Democrats are that benevolent and did not design this plan for any noble purpose. If they had it wouldn't be such a cluster fark, it would have bipartisan support, and the Democrats wouldn't have to lie hand over fist about its cost or what it actually is.

I realize that 'deny health care' bit is an excellent talking point a lot like the cherry picked aspects of ObamaCare you keep insisting we talk about instead of the whole bill, but you're not actually fooling anyone with either of those tactics.

How about you, as Obama said, accept that elections have consequences? But you can't do that, otherwise you're going to have to break the liberal cardinal rule of never admitting people understood and rejected your ideas. The 2010 election should have been enough of a wake up call for liberals, including Obama, to take that middle finger they've had stuck in the faces of the majority of America and step back for a minute.

But no, this power grab by liberal politicians must go forward apparently.

When 50.1% of the people turned against the Iraq war, it was time to shut it down and pull out completely but no matter how many people are against ObamaCare, it's never time to listen to the will of the people.


You got that completely wrong in the first sentence, so I didn't even bother reading the rest of it, which is I am sure just a bunch of right-wing drivel.
 
2012-07-06 09:36:32 AM

Guntram Shatterhand: Coding shows he is capable of some of the finer points of it, but to go for the comparison is a risky move. It's usually best to let your bigoted base do the 'figuring' for themselves.


Indeed. I mean, you're supposed to rely on the dogwhistle to do your speaking for you. They way it stands, he might as well have just come out and told his constituents the SCOTUS thinks they are all attractive and successful African Americans.
 
2012-07-06 09:36:48 AM

badhatharry: Philip Francis Queeg: badhatharry: Liberals can't see the harm in their values. Doing "good" is all they can see. They never see the down side of letting the government take care of peoples' needs.

Oh do tell what the downside of not letting people starve or suffer for lack of access to healthcare is.

First, nobody is starving for lack of access to health care. Poor people have medicaid. Which, not suprisingly, sucks.

Middleclass people with pre-existing conditions or without health insurance are suffering. But they don't lack access to health care. They lack access to enough money to pay for health care.


Ahh yes, yet another conservative showing their ignorance on the issue. You clearly know nothing about the eligibility requirements for Medicaid.
 
2012-07-06 09:38:28 AM

john_frost: explain how Washington State and MA are the most expensive in the country?


Because MA has one of the highest cost of living in the Country since well before MaHealth was implemented?

We also have the best hospitals, best quality of health care, regularly rank as one of the fittest, healthiest, most educated states, and have some of the highest income levels in the country.

Where do you live and how does your state rank in those departments?
 
2012-07-06 09:39:27 AM
Login: john_frost
Account created: 2012-07-05 08:40:55

I guess john_galt was taken. It's nice to have some more fresh-faced, motivated Young Republicans here on Fark. Here's a tip: LURK MOAR. But, anyway, congratulations on your new job!
 
2012-07-06 09:39:55 AM

john_frost: explain how Washington State and MA are the most expensive in the country?


Oh, and you still haven't explained or provided any evidence for your nonsense.

But, please, continue...
 
2012-07-06 09:40:53 AM
It's not true libertardian derp until it gets tied back to CFL bulbs.
 
2012-07-06 09:41:37 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: badhatharry: Philip Francis Queeg: badhatharry: Liberals can't see the harm in their values. Doing "good" is all they can see. They never see the down side of letting the government take care of peoples' needs.

Oh do tell what the downside of not letting people starve or suffer for lack of access to healthcare is.

First, nobody is starving for lack of access to health care. Poor people have medicaid. Which, not suprisingly, sucks.

Middleclass people with pre-existing conditions or without health insurance are suffering. But they don't lack access to health care. They lack access to enough money to pay for health care.

Ahh yes, yet another conservative showing their ignorance on the issue. You clearly know nothing about the eligibility requirements for Medicaid.


Ayup. Medicare/Medicaid has had some mighty strong restrictions as to who could access it.

Had. When 2014 gets here, anyone within 133% of the poverty level will be able to enroll into Medicare, but that's strictly and solely because of the ACA/Obamacare.
 
2012-07-06 09:42:24 AM

john_frost: None, I just don't want a system that Taxes one side of the table, and hands it to the other.


It doesn't.

Obamacare was sold as a new system that lowers costs.

It isn't. Methinks you have absolutely no idea what is actually in the HCR bills.
 
2012-07-06 09:43:35 AM

john_frost: So, if the end result is most americans taking a handout, you are OK. What will the other 1/2 do? Do you really think they will just pay up? Or do we become Greece?


gfx.glittergraphicsnow.com
a2zscraplets.com.au
 
2012-07-06 09:43:53 AM
Did you people even READ what he said? He wasn't comparing the decision to Dred Scott. He was saying that the Court does change its views of what its constitutional over a period of time. It changed quite a bit since the Dred Scott decision, and he is saying that the Court's view of what is constitutional will change again! Christ ON A HOVERBOARD IN DRAG! Do you drooling monkeys always take whatever is written at ThinkRegress as gospel?
 
2012-07-06 09:44:49 AM

john_frost: I do stand corrected.


I'm sure you stand that way quite often...

You should read more and post less. You'll look like less of a simpleton that way.
 
2012-07-06 09:44:53 AM

Alphax: ManRay: "The SCOTUS's decision not to deny millions of people of health care.."

Yep. That frames the subject accurately. Good job staying above the fray.

You sound sarcastic. Why?



Probably because the SCOTUS did not rule on denying millions of people healthcare.
 
2012-07-06 09:45:56 AM

john_frost: Philip Francis Queeg: john_frost: Philip Francis Queeg: john_frost: Cinaed: john_frost: The 16K...

Where's that value from? Your ass is not a reliable source, unless we're talking about stank.
What's the income of the family in question? Even using your assumed value, if it's a family pulling in 100k, they'll be fine.
Do they not already have health care? Most people 'do' already have health insurance, this is for those who do NOT. The poor/destitute are the ones who need it most and.... that leads nicely into...
Do you realize there's money to assist the 'po' folk out there to better be able to afford that coverage? There's assistance for people who cannot afford this. And if you don't WANT to get that coverage, you pay the penalty for being a schmuck. Easy peasy.

Washington Post did the study? Do you realize most folks earn below $80K? And so can't afford Obamacare?

Do you really want them on the dole? I think yes.

Want them on the "dole"? No. Think having people on the "dole" is better then letting them suffer from lack of access to healthcare? Damn straight.

So, if the end result is most americans taking a handout, you are OK. What will the other 1/2 do? Do you really think they will just pay up? Or do we become Greece?

So if the end result is Americans suffering needlessly from preventable and curable illness, you are OK? Tell us, exactly how many of your fellow citizens you are willing to watch suffer to save a few dollars on your taxes?

None, I just don't want a system that Taxes one side of the table, and hands it to the other.

Obamacare was sold as a new system that lowers costs.

It does not.


Obamacare was sold as a way to cover 30 million people who couldn't get coverage due to cost and/or preexisting conditions.

You trying to retro-package it as a 'cost cutting' thing is silly since anyone with youtube can go back and see the ads and speeches for themselves. It was always themed as a way to cover that uninsured 10% who, ironically enough, were the ones in the most need of coverage.

But, just as an fyi, once we're all covered, you're going to see a big push by the insurance companies to get preventative care as a priority since it's ridiculously cost-effective as opposed to ER-style emergency care. And since they're now required to pay that ER bill instead of making the government pick up the tab, they're not so thrilled with the expensive stuff anymore.
 
2012-07-06 09:46:09 AM

john_frost: something like, if you like your insurance company, you get to keep it?

How is that working out?


In MA, it's working out pretty good. 98% coverage.
 
2012-07-06 09:47:51 AM
Login: john_frost
Account created: 2012-07-05 08:40:55

He's a hand-puppet, you douchebags.
 
2012-07-06 09:49:10 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Login: john_frost
Account created: 2012-07-05 08:40:55

He's a hand-puppet, you douchebags.


Yes, but it's early and I'm bored and I need entertainment.
 
2012-07-06 09:49:16 AM

Independentandproud: Did you people even READ what he said? He wasn't comparing the decision to Dred Scott. He was saying that the Court does change its views of what its constitutional over a period of time. It changed quite a bit since the Dred Scott decision, and he is saying that the Court's view of what is constitutional will change again! Christ ON A HOVERBOARD IN DRAG! Do you drooling monkeys always take whatever is written at ThinkRegress as gospel?


You sound tired.
 
2012-07-06 09:49:48 AM
Rand is still pissed about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He'd still be for slavery so long as it was approved at the state level.
 
2012-07-06 09:50:46 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Login: john_frost
Account created: 2012-07-05 08:40:55

He's a hand-puppet, you douchebags.


You are free to ignore him and any posts replying to him, you know...
 
2012-07-06 09:53:19 AM

Independentandproud: Did you people even READ what he said? He wasn't comparing the decision to Dred Scott. He was saying that the Court does change its views of what its constitutional over a period of time. It changed quite a bit since the Dred Scott decision, and he is saying that the Court's view of what is constitutional will change again! Christ ON A HOVERBOARD IN DRAG! Do you drooling monkeys always take whatever is written at ThinkRegress as gospel?


But that's a stupid thing to say. The court didn't change it's mind about Dred Scott. There was a war and a constitutional amendment that invalidated it. The court had little to do with it. Paul could have chosen a number of court cases but he decided on the one that was both inflammatory and made him look stupid. Which is pretty much what we expect from Paul.
 
2012-07-06 09:53:37 AM

john_frost: How is that working out?


sg.wsj.net
 
2012-07-06 09:53:42 AM

john_frost: Derp?


http://healthreform.kff.org/quizzes/health-reform-quiz.aspx

Take the quiz. Educate thy self.
 
2012-07-06 09:57:31 AM

odinsposse: Independentandproud: Did you people even READ what he said? He wasn't comparing the decision to Dred Scott. He was saying that the Court does change its views of what its constitutional over a period of time. It changed quite a bit since the Dred Scott decision, and he is saying that the Court's view of what is constitutional will change again! Christ ON A HOVERBOARD IN DRAG! Do you drooling monkeys always take whatever is written at ThinkRegress as gospel?

But that's a stupid thing to say. The court didn't change it's mind about Dred Scott. There was a war and a constitutional amendment that invalidated it. The court had little to do with it. Paul could have chosen a number of court cases but he decided on the one that was both inflammatory and made him look stupid. Which is pretty much what we expect from Paul.


Just when you thought it was impossible for a Congressman to be more of a pointless retarded immoral angry racist batshiat old coot than Ron Paul...
 
2012-07-06 09:58:38 AM

Cinaed: john_frost: Derp?

http://healthreform.kff.org/quizzes/health-reform-quiz.aspx

Take the quiz. Educate thy self.


I am going to take a wild guess and say that he's going to be a 99.6%er, and not the kind who is a question or two from having a perfect score. He's the kind who gets the death panel question wrong.
 
2012-07-06 09:59:15 AM
I think he meant to compare it to Stallone's "Judge Dredd",
 
2012-07-06 10:00:55 AM

keylock71: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Login: john_frost
Account created: 2012-07-05 08:40:55

He's a hand-puppet, you douchebags.

You are free to ignore him and any posts replying to him, you know...


I'm also free to know that pro wrestling is fake, but I'll still call you a douchebag if you act like it's real. This site is polluted with co-dependent shiat stains who either need to troll grief out of people or need to supply it. It's never been free of that relationship, but it wasn't always the central focus.
 
2012-07-06 10:04:31 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: I'm also free to know that pro wrestling is fake, but I'll still call you a douchebag if you act like it's real. This site is polluted with co-dependent shiat stains who either need to troll grief out of people or need to supply it. It's never been free of that relationship, but it wasn't always the central focus.


You're also free to be an asshole to people who haven't said or done anything to you.
 
2012-07-06 10:05:52 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: keylock71: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Login: john_frost
Account created: 2012-07-05 08:40:55

He's a hand-puppet, you douchebags.

You are free to ignore him and any posts replying to him, you know...

I'm also free to know that pro wrestling is fake, but I'll still call you a douchebag if you act like it's real. This site is polluted with co-dependent shiat stains who either need to troll grief out of people or need to supply it. It's never been free of that relationship, but it wasn't always the central focus.


I'm more saddened by the gradual evolution of definition of 'troll'.

It was originally defined as a poster who throws up inflammatory stuff in order to get people riled up and make them make rage-posts.

These days, if you rationally and logically destroy a Troll post, people still try and lol and say you got trolled.
 
2012-07-06 10:06:06 AM

ManRay: Alphax: ManRay: "The SCOTUS's decision not to deny millions of people of health care.."

Yep. That frames the subject accurately. Good job staying above the fray.

You sound sarcastic. Why?


Probably because the SCOTUS did not rule on denying millions of people healthcare.


Well, Roberts decided not to do so, anyway.
 
2012-07-06 10:07:45 AM

NateGrey: badhatharry: Obamacare is what is going to end up denying people healthcare.

So Vote Republican?


Yes. If you are really going to be spiteful and mean, do it properly.
 
2012-07-06 10:15:12 AM

Infernalist: I'm more saddened by the gradual evolution of definition of 'troll'.

It was originally defined as a poster who throws up inflammatory stuff in order to get people riled up and make them make rage-posts.

These days, if you rationally and logically destroy a Troll post, people still try and lol and say you got trolled.


Well, the goal is to draw attention to themselves, so they probably consider it a "win" no matter what form that attention takes. I kind of have to agree that anything more than "fark off tard" and throwing them on ignore is giving into what they want. What really sucks is that they don't even have to put any effort into it to get a giant list of responses, because 75% of the people here are so keyed-up they're just waiting for the chance to feed the trolls. There really isn't even a point to the article links or headlines at this point; why not just have threads designated "troll thread 01, troll thread 02, troll ..." and cut out the middle-man?
 
2012-07-06 10:24:55 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Infernalist: I'm more saddened by the gradual evolution of definition of 'troll'.

It was originally defined as a poster who throws up inflammatory stuff in order to get people riled up and make them make rage-posts.

These days, if you rationally and logically destroy a Troll post, people still try and lol and say you got trolled.

Well, the goal is to draw attention to themselves, so they probably consider it a "win" no matter what form that attention takes. I kind of have to agree that anything more than "fark off tard" and throwing them on ignore is giving into what they want. What really sucks is that they don't even have to put any effort into it to get a giant list of responses, because 75% of the people here are so keyed-up they're just waiting for the chance to feed the trolls. There really isn't even a point to the article links or headlines at this point; why not just have threads designated "troll thread 01, troll thread 02, troll ..." and cut out the middle-man?


Or Attention Whores And the Posters Who Love Them.

I consider a 'troll' to be someone who manages to invoke a passionate response with faux ignorance.

Someone just wanting attention is an attention whore.
 
2012-07-06 10:37:34 AM
Man, that troll didn't even last 24 hours. They just don't build them like they used to.
 
2012-07-06 10:40:53 AM

LazarusLong42: Man, that troll didn't even last 24 hours. They just don't build them like they used to.


www.yourfunnystuff.com
 
2012-07-06 10:43:49 AM
Sounded more like Broken Bonehead to me.
 
2012-07-06 10:51:09 AM

john_frost: None, I just don't want a system that Taxes one side of the table, and hands it to the other.


Then you're against welfare? Social security? Every single social program that we pay taxes for?
 
2012-07-06 10:52:17 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: I'm also free to know that pro wrestling is fake, but I'll still call you a douchebag if you act like it's real. This site is polluted with co-dependent shiat stains who either need to troll grief out of people or need to supply it. It's never been free of that relationship, but it wasn't always the central focus.


Post of the week.

keylock71: You're also free to be an asshole to people who haven't said or done anything to you.


Troll enablers are worse than the trolls themselves.
 
2012-07-06 10:53:35 AM
All these 'conservatives' predicting doom and gloom with Obamacare; insurance companies going out of business, lines for healthcare, and it just being a general clusterfark....

Is this stuff happening in Mass. and I haven't heard of it or are you guys just pulling this stuff out of your arse?

We pretty much know what is going to happen with Obamacare, we have the model in Mass. with the virtually identical Romneycare.
 
2012-07-06 10:54:24 AM

PC LOAD LETTER: I love when Conservatives use Dredd Scott. Conservatives loved the decision when it came out.


Yet it was Republicans that were anti-slavery...
 
2012-07-06 10:56:30 AM

iawai: PC LOAD LETTER: I love when Conservatives use Dredd Scott. Conservatives loved the decision when it came out.

Yet it was Republicans that were anti-slavery...


In the land of 1857, Conservatives != Republicans
 
2012-07-06 10:58:08 AM

iawai: PC LOAD LETTER: I love when Conservatives use Dredd Scott. Conservatives loved the decision when it came out.

Yet it was Republicans that were anti-slavery...


So? It is Republicans of today that are bigots and ass hats.
 
2012-07-06 10:58:15 AM

AngryPanda: john_frost: None, I just don't want a system that Taxes one side of the table, and hands it to the other.

Then you're against welfare? Social security? Every single social program that we pay taxes for?


I'm for helping the poor, the aged, and social programs generally.

Are you for massive monopoly bureaucracies wasting the money that was supposed to go to help the needy? Are you for a system of unaccountable extortion to provide these monies in the first place, causing people to resent helping the needy instead of finding value in charity?
 
Displayed 50 of 195 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report