Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   Republicans still doing their best to thwart healthcare, this time by trying to get states to ignore federal law   (msnbc.msn.com ) divider line
    More: Dumbass, federal law, Lee University  
•       •       •

4163 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Jul 2012 at 10:27 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-08 05:02:32 AM  
Isn't it possible for citizens to wage a class-action lawsuit against the Governor of any state that denies it's own citizens a right that has been ratified as fully Constitutional?

I mean, once upon a time some Governors tried to keep some black kids from going to school, and we sent Federal Marshals down there to enforce that right.
 
2012-07-08 05:30:54 AM  

TV's Vinnie: I mean, once upon a time some Governors tried to keep some black kids from going to school, and we sent Federal Marshals down there to enforce that right.


Interesting you mention this, because I was recently in a conversation where federal enforcement of anti-segregation came up. Relating to state legalized marijuana (hypothetical).

If a state were to legalize pot (see Oregon's coming attempt) how would the Feds react?

In one example (segregation) you have Feds enforcing a persons right against the State; and in the other (marijuana) you would have the Feds enforcing a taking away of one's rights against the State.
 
2012-07-08 07:32:07 AM  

Frederick: TV's Vinnie: I mean, once upon a time some Governors tried to keep some black kids from going to school, and we sent Federal Marshals down there to enforce that right.

Interesting you mention this, because I was recently in a conversation where federal enforcement of anti-segregation came up. Relating to state legalized marijuana (hypothetical).

If a state were to legalize pot (see Oregon's coming attempt) how would the Feds react?

In one example (segregation) you have Feds enforcing a persons right against the State; and in the other (marijuana) you would have the Feds enforcing a taking away of one's rights against the State.


This is always my wall when it comes to states' rights. My gut tells me that there is something seriously wrong with AZ's immigration laws, or FL trying to drug test welfare recipients, so why am I okay with states overturning federal law when it comes to marijuana or cities providing safe haven to immigrants?

I guess I'm a hypocrite. I would like to think that I could tease out some kind of coherent and rational reasoning for my positions, but I think that would be a justification on my part for my biases.

It is, and I imagine will always be, one of the greatest sources of tension in our system.
 
2012-07-08 08:21:12 AM  
These Teapublican governors have been showing their true asshole colors for years now. No reason to expect them to change anytime soon.
 
2012-07-08 08:23:52 AM  
Whether it's the Nullificiation Crisis, healthcare, voting rights, or what-have-you, there's always been this kind of drama. Conservatives lost the initial fight. Now they'll nitpick it to death all the way to 2014 and beyond.

What does it mean? They shoot themselves in the foot and have an ironically federal-run healthcare exchange copy/pasted from a template where if they had just gone ahead with their own exchange, they'd have something more tailored to their state.

Oh well.
 
2012-07-08 09:06:53 AM  

ginandbacon: My gut tells me that there is something seriously wrong with AZ's immigration laws, or FL trying to drug test welfare recipients, so why am I okay with states overturning federal law when it comes to marijuana or cities providing safe haven to immigrants?


Because you consider the harm of some laws greater than than the harm to the rule of law from their being disregarded?

(As I understand, the supremacy clause means such state laws don't "overturn" federal law as present a conflict with it for the judiciary to straighten out... despite the wishful thinking of nullificationists.)
 
2012-07-08 09:20:10 AM  

abb3w: ginandbacon: My gut tells me that there is something seriously wrong with AZ's immigration laws, or FL trying to drug test welfare recipients, so why am I okay with states overturning federal law when it comes to marijuana or cities providing safe haven to immigrants?

Because you consider the harm of some laws greater than than the harm to the rule of law from their being disregarded?

(As I understand, the supremacy clause means such state laws don't "overturn" federal law as present a conflict with it for the judiciary to straighten out... despite the wishful thinking of nullificationists.)


I suppose? It still seems very intellectually dishonest to me. I mean for me, personally. I struggle with this one.

I feel like I hold a position I would loathe in an opponent.
 
2012-07-08 09:24:57 AM  

TV's Vinnie: Isn't it possible for citizens to wage a class-action lawsuit against the Governor of any state that denies it's own citizens a right that has been ratified as fully Constitutional?

I mean, once upon a time some Governors tried to keep some black kids from going to school, and we sent Federal Marshals down there to enforce that right.


Healthcare isn't a Constitutional right.
 
2012-07-08 09:30:14 AM  

foo monkey: TV's Vinnie: Isn't it possible for citizens to wage a class-action lawsuit against the Governor of any state that denies it's own citizens a right that has been ratified as fully Constitutional?

I mean, once upon a time some Governors tried to keep some black kids from going to school, and we sent Federal Marshals down there to enforce that right.

Healthcare isn't a Constitutional right.


But it is a federal benefit. Like education and SS and Medicaid. What if governors decided to stop processing Medicaid applications? Would that be okay?
 
2012-07-08 09:33:22 AM  
Its time for the people on the right to stop biatching and deal with the situation as best as we can. Sure, this is not what we wanted, but if we are gonna have to do it, we might as well do it right.
 
2012-07-08 09:39:47 AM  

cman: Its time for the people on the right to stop biatching and deal with the situation as best as we can. Sure, this is not what we wanted, but if we are gonna have to do it, we might as well do it right


Afarkingman brother.

Not really what the left wanted either, but better than nothing(which is what a LOT of us have now)
 
2012-07-08 09:45:58 AM  

foo monkey: Healthcare isn't a Constitutional right.


The Constitution is not a death pact. We, as a nation, have the right to a healthy population and a health care system that does not bankrupt individuals, states, or the federal government.

Health care may not be enumerated in the Constitution, but neither is the internet, cell phones, stem cell research. It was written 300 f*cking years ago! It's a good guide of how to govern ourselves. It passed the only test of constitutionality it had to pass... the United States Supreme Court.

It's not even socialized health care, because private companies will still manage it and profit from it. We're also expanding a current program to cover more people.

Why on earth anyone would ever fight to deny people the access to affordable health care is beyond me. We are already paying a significant cost for those that use the ER as their primary care facility. If we can get someone in the early stages of diabetes to regularly take insulin/metformin etc... we can save thousands of dollars over that person not knowing, or waiting until they need amputations to deal with the disease.

The Air Force is not enumerated in the constitution. Can we sell their planes to pay for health care?
 
2012-07-08 09:50:03 AM  

NewportBarGuy: foo monkey: Healthcare isn't a Constitutional right.

The Constitution is not a death pact. We, as a nation, have the right to a healthy population and a health care system that does not bankrupt individuals, states, or the federal government.

Health care may not be enumerated in the Constitution, but neither is the internet, cell phones, stem cell research. It was written 300 f*cking years ago! It's a good guide of how to govern ourselves. It passed the only test of constitutionality it had to pass... the United States Supreme Court.

It's not even socialized health care, because private companies will still manage it and profit from it. We're also expanding a current program to cover more people.

Why on earth anyone would ever fight to deny people the access to affordable health care is beyond me. We are already paying a significant cost for those that use the ER as their primary care facility. If we can get someone in the early stages of diabetes to regularly take insulin/metformin etc... we can save thousands of dollars over that person not knowing, or waiting until they need amputations to deal with the disease.

The Air Force is not enumerated in the constitution. Can we sell their planes to pay for health care?


I will field this one.

For a lot of people, it is pure partisan bullshiat. No matter what, cannot let the other team score a goal.

For me, however, it is about principle. Giving the federal government the power to force people to compel in commerce is pretty farking scary. Imagine what the GOP would do if they regain the Presidency; how will they abuse this?

/Believe it or not, I would have preferred single-payer universal healthcare over what we got.
 
2012-07-08 10:11:20 AM  

cman: For me, however, it is about principle. Giving the federal government the power to force people to compel in commerce is pretty farking scary. Imagine what the GOP would do if they regain the Presidency; how will they abuse this?

/Believe it or not, I would have preferred single-payer universal healthcare over what we got.


Wait... what? You don't want to give the government power to compel, but you'd prefer single-payer which is a government program that would compel everyone to have health care through taxes either on income or some other way.

Either way, the government is compelling the citizen to have health care. The savings to the program by having single-payer would be by swapping the executive compensation, bonuses, and dividends paid to shareholders directly back into the health care system. Not to mention the reduced overhead of having a single, unified billing structure.

You can't let fear of what the other political party will do with power stop you from trying to improve the lives of citizens today. If the Republicans want to mandate gun ownership for all or something equally stupid, we will fight that battle when it comes. For now, we will focus on hos to implement this half-ass program and see if we can get something positive out of it. So far, increasing coverage of 20-somethings is a start. They already have student loan debt they can barely pay, no need to add a catastrophic hospital bill onto that debt burden.

We didn't get single-payer, but we got expanded coverage which is a start. We're not going to get the same cost savings as single-payer, not even close, but it is a fiscally responsible step to lower the cost burden by increasing the pool of people paying into the system. It's a tax, but like all taxes, we're getting something for it. A healthier population that does not have to fear seeking treatment and incurring massive debt. Parent's should not have to sit and pray and hope that people donate to St. Jude's so their kid can get an operation. To me, a society as advanced as our is capable of more than that.

My bottom line is financial. A healthier population with less chance of being wiped out financially by a single medical incident is a net-plus for the economy and our country as a whole.
 
2012-07-08 10:13:12 AM  
Doesn't "medical" marijuana go against federal law?
Okay, so now we don't like states ignoring federal laws?
 
2012-07-08 10:20:17 AM  

ginandbacon: Frederick: TV's Vinnie: I mean, once upon a time some Governors tried to keep some black kids from going to school, and we sent Federal Marshals down there to enforce that right.

Interesting you mention this, because I was recently in a conversation where federal enforcement of anti-segregation came up. Relating to state legalized marijuana (hypothetical).

If a state were to legalize pot (see Oregon's coming attempt) how would the Feds react?

In one example (segregation) you have Feds enforcing a persons right against the State; and in the other (marijuana) you would have the Feds enforcing a taking away of one's rights against the State.

This is always my wall when it comes to states' rights. My gut tells me that there is something seriously wrong with AZ's immigration laws, or FL trying to drug test welfare recipients, so why am I okay with states overturning federal law when it comes to marijuana or cities providing safe haven to immigrants?

I guess I'm a hypocrite. I would like to think that I could tease out some kind of coherent and rational reasoning for my positions, but I think that would be a justification on my part for my biases.

.


whoa...what honesty. why are you on fark?

I look forward to watching other people try to make excuses for you, instead of acknowledging this conflict.

Generally here people go with what "feels right" and then use things to justify it (States rights for pot, Fed rights for healthcare) and they don't seem to notice or care how they get caught up in knots.
 
2012-07-08 10:22:17 AM  

ginandbacon: foo monkey: TV's Vinnie: Isn't it possible for citizens to wage a class-action lawsuit against the Governor of any state that denies it's own citizens a right that has been ratified as fully Constitutional?

I mean, once upon a time some Governors tried to keep some black kids from going to school, and we sent Federal Marshals down there to enforce that right.

Healthcare isn't a Constitutional right.

But it is a federal benefit. Like education and SS and Medicaid. What if governors decided to stop processing Medicaid applications? Would that be okay?


Healthcare is not a federal benefit since unlike SS and Medicaid it is not a service or payment provided by the government.
 
2012-07-08 10:24:34 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Why on earth anyone would ever fight to deny people the access to affordable health care is beyond me.


How does 0bamacare make healthcare more affordable?
Are premiums going down?
 
2012-07-08 10:24:57 AM  

foo monkey: TV's Vinnie: Isn't it possible for citizens to wage a class-action lawsuit against the Governor of any state that denies it's own citizens a right that has been ratified as fully Constitutional?

I mean, once upon a time some Governors tried to keep some black kids from going to school, and we sent Federal Marshals down there to enforce that right.

Healthcare isn't a Constitutional right.


But it is amongst the enumerated powers of the Congress to provide.
 
2012-07-08 10:30:54 AM  

foo monkey: TV's Vinnie: Isn't it possible for citizens to wage a class-action lawsuit against the Governor of any state that denies it's own citizens a right that has been ratified as fully Constitutional?

I mean, once upon a time some Governors tried to keep some black kids from going to school, and we sent Federal Marshals down there to enforce that right.

Healthcare isn't a Constitutional right.


So? Title VII isn't in the constitution, but a law passed by the state of Ohio prohibiting its enforcement is still unconstitutional because of the supremacy clause. That's a distinction without a difference, really.
 
2012-07-08 10:33:20 AM  

ginandbacon: This is always my wall when it comes to states' rights. My gut tells me that there is something seriously wrong with AZ's immigration laws, or FL trying to drug test welfare recipients, so why am I okay with states overturning federal law when it comes to marijuana or cities providing safe haven to immigrants?

I guess I'm a hypocrite. I would like to think that I could tease out some kind of coherent and rational reasoning for my positions, but I think that would be a justification on my part for my biases.

It is, and I imagine will always be, one of the greatest sources of tension in our system


I think when it comes to denying something that is constitutionally granted, then yes, the federal government must get involved.
But when it's a state law that gives people something or permits people to do something and it doesn't hurt society or results in one group of people to becoming victims of the state's law, then I think the federal government needs to stay out.
 
2012-07-08 10:33:48 AM  
Works for sanctuary states for illegal aliens. Should work for this as well.
 
2012-07-08 10:34:14 AM  
From what I can tell, Republicans don't have a problem with healthcare, it's the forced Government health insurance they have a problem with.

/Independent
 
2012-07-08 10:36:29 AM  
Obama taught us you can simply ignore federal laws you don't like.
 
2012-07-08 10:37:02 AM  

StrikitRich: From what I can tell, Republicans don't have a problem with healthcare, it's the forced Government health insurance they have a problem with.

/Independent


It's funny how they have a problem with this NOW since a Democrat proposed it. Because back in the 90's when the liberals at the Heritage Foundation proposed this, it was considered a great idea by the GOP.
 
2012-07-08 10:37:20 AM  
Yes, we're aware that the Republicans are trying to save the country from ObamaCare.
 
2012-07-08 10:37:51 AM  

randomjsa: Yes, we're aware that the Republicans are trying to save the country from ObamaCare.


Funny'd
 
2012-07-08 10:39:28 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: How does 0bamacare make healthcare more affordable?


People can stay on their parent's plan at an affordable add-on rate rather than trying to pay for health care on their own at twice the cost or higher? That's making it more affordable. Getting people who are under the income gap for care into medicaid? That's more affordable for them. By creating high-risk pools to get people even some kind of discount on care and access to it? that's making it more affordable. Though, you do realize that this doesn't go into effect until 2014 and we won't be able to do cost analysis for a few years after, right? That's kind of how it works.

tenpoundsofcheese: Are premiums going down?


Nope, and they probably won't go down because we don't have single-payer. The challenge is to keep them from rising in the double digits as they have been for years. The goal is to reduce catastrophic care expenses by getting people seen earlier on in the process to avoid costly surgeries and medical stays. If you have a heart condition that can be dealt with via medication and diet, that will save us a lot more than the guy waiting until he needs open heart surgery once or even multiple times.

If you'd like to see premiums go down or stay static for a few years, you'll have to cut out all the middle-men who take a piece of the health care dollar without providing any actual care to the patient. Go down to a hospital billing department sometime and look at how each HMO has a NYC phone book of rules and how much they will pay for each procedure. Each company has a different set of rules, fees and paperwork to fill out.

Also, if you don't like the premium hikes, write to your state PUC who handles rates for insurance. They have consistently allowed premium hikes above inflation even when a company is making millions in profit. So, is the goal care for the injured and sick, or profit?

You want to talk about premiums, you have to talk about where those premiums go. Go grab a 10-K from Blue Cross for your state and read it. That fancy building they have that you drive by, there are no doctors in there. Just lawyers and executives finding loopholes and investing their premiums looking for a solid return on their money.

But, by all means. Argue for the status quo. Argue that limiting a guy who got the wrong foot amputated to a $10,000 payout will magically reduce health care premiums to $10 per month. I'm sure that will work out for you. Good luck!
 
2012-07-08 10:39:47 AM  

Mrtraveler01: StrikitRich: From what I can tell, Republicans don't have a problem with healthcare, it's the forced Government health insurance they have a problem with.

/Independent

It's funny how they have a problem with this NOW since a Democrat proposed it. Because back in the 90's when the liberals at the Heritage Foundation proposed this, it was considered a great idea by the GOP.


Funny, if it was considered such a great idea then, why didn't the dems join in?
 
2012-07-08 10:40:16 AM  

cman: For me, however, it is about principle. Giving the federal government the power to force people to compel in commerce is pretty farking scary. Imagine what the GOP would do if they regain the Presidency; how will they abuse this?


Justice Ginsberg did a pretty good job of destroying this argument. Basically she reasoned that there is no such thing as a person being "compelled into" interstate commerce. Health insurance is a unique market because it is something virtually everyone will use at some point in their lives, whether they are insured or not. And more to the point, insurers and health care providers factor these "free riders" into their costs, because these people for the most part will end up consuming health care at some point and leave the rest of us with the bill.

The point is, we all pay for free riders right now. So by the mere virtue of existing in society, free riders actually do impact interstate commerce; to the tune of billions per year.

/Believe it or not, I would have preferred single-payer universal healthcare over what we got.
 
2012-07-08 10:41:07 AM  
The single most important sentence in that entire article:

For one thing, few if any will remember what any of them wrote months before the election

This right here is the only reason the Republican Party continues to exist: They have the combined attention span of an adult mayfly.
=Smidge=
 
2012-07-08 10:41:22 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Mrtraveler01: StrikitRich: From what I can tell, Republicans don't have a problem with healthcare, it's the forced Government health insurance they have a problem with.

/Independent

It's funny how they have a problem with this NOW since a Democrat proposed it. Because back in the 90's when the liberals at the Heritage Foundation proposed this, it was considered a great idea by the GOP.

Funny, if it was considered such a great idea then, why didn't the dems join in?


Because the Dems had HillaryCare.

The point is that Obama copied the GOP plans for health care reform verbatim and NOW the GOP doesn't like them.

A bunch of hypocrites if you ask me. Sorry if you're too blind to see that.
 
2012-07-08 10:42:26 AM  

NewportBarGuy: tenpoundsofcheese: How does 0bamacare make healthcare more affordable?

People can stay on their parent's plan at an affordable add-on rate rather than trying to pay for health care on their own at twice the cost or higher? That's making it more affordable. Getting people who are under the income gap for care into medicaid? That's more affordable for them. By creating high-risk pools to get people even some kind of discount on care and access to it? that's making it more affordable. Though, you do realize that this doesn't go into effect until 2014 and we won't be able to do cost analysis for a few years after, right? That's kind of how it works.

tenpoundsofcheese: Are premiums going down?

Nope, and they probably won't go down because we don't have single-payer. The challenge is to keep them from rising in the double digits as they have been for years. The goal is to reduce catastrophic care expenses by getting people seen earlier on in the process to avoid costly surgeries and medical stays. If you have a heart condition that can be dealt with via medication and diet, that will save us a lot more than the guy waiting until he needs open heart surgery once or even multiple times.

If you'd like to see premiums go down or stay static for a few years, you'll have to cut out all the middle-men who take a piece of the health care dollar without providing any actual care to the patient. Go down to a hospital billing department sometime and look at how each HMO has a NYC phone book of rules and how much they will pay for each procedure. Each company has a different set of rules, fees and paperwork to fill out.

Also, if you don't like the premium hikes, write to your state PUC who handles rates for insurance. They have consistently allowed premium hikes above inflation even when a company is making millions in profit. So, is the goal care for the injured and sick, or profit?

You want to talk about premiums, you have to talk about where those premiums go. Go grab a 10-K ...


You responded first! DRINK!!!
 
2012-07-08 10:43:23 AM  

StrikitRich: From what I can tell, Republicans don't have a problem with healthcare, it's the forced Government health insurance they have a problem with.

/Independent


Actually they mostly have the problem with the fact Obama proposed it, as the entire ACA is based on past Republican plans that failed for one reason or another (except in MA, where a similar plan was pushed through by Romney)

I have argued with a Republican friend of mine extensively on this subject, and his arguments shift oddly depending on the position I take. He can simultaneously say that this is a government takeover that will bankrupt all the health insurance companies in America while also saying that it is a huge handout to them and they'll just eat it up while still letting costs soar. It's truly remarkable doublethink.
 
2012-07-08 10:44:10 AM  
Yes, we're aware that Obama is trying to save the country from RepublicanDon'tCare.
 
2012-07-08 10:44:44 AM  

ginandbacon: Frederick: TV's Vinnie: I mean, once upon a time some Governors tried to keep some black kids from going to school, and we sent Federal Marshals down there to enforce that right.

Interesting you mention this, because I was recently in a conversation where federal enforcement of anti-segregation came up. Relating to state legalized marijuana (hypothetical).

If a state were to legalize pot (see Oregon's coming attempt) how would the Feds react?

In one example (segregation) you have Feds enforcing a persons right against the State; and in the other (marijuana) you would have the Feds enforcing a taking away of one's rights against the State.

This is always my wall when it comes to states' rights. My gut tells me that there is something seriously wrong with AZ's immigration laws, or FL trying to drug test welfare recipients, so why am I okay with states overturning federal law when it comes to marijuana or cities providing safe haven to immigrants?

I guess I'm a hypocrite. I would like to think that I could tease out some kind of coherent and rational reasoning for my positions, but I think that would be a justification on my part for my biases.

It is, and I imagine will always be, one of the greatest sources of tension in our system.


I don't have a problem with it since I base each law on weather or not it should be legal in the first place so laws that oppress rights or imprisons people for victimless crimes are wrong, no matter if the laws are federal or state. So when a state passes a law that oppresses minorities then that is wrong, and if a state passes a law to legalize marijuana that is right because it is affirming rights not taking them away.
 
2012-07-08 10:45:46 AM  
Have the Republicans ever came up with an alternative that wasn't full of BS and platitudes?
 
2012-07-08 10:47:10 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: It's funny how they have a problem with this NOW since a Democrat proposed it. Because back in the 90's when the liberals at the Heritage Foundation proposed this, it was considered a great idea by the GOP.

Funny, if it was considered such a great idea then, why didn't the dems join in?


I can ask the same question as to why the GOP isn't joining in with the Dems today on THEIR OWN IDEA!
 
2012-07-08 10:47:25 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Have the Republicans ever came up with an alternative that wasn't full of BS and platitudes?


Yes, the poor just die and be grateful we give them minimum wage to begin.
 
2012-07-08 10:48:27 AM  

Guidette Frankentits: ginandbacon: This is always my wall when it comes to states' rights. My gut tells me that there is something seriously wrong with AZ's immigration laws, or FL trying to drug test welfare recipients, so why am I okay with states overturning federal law when it comes to marijuana or cities providing safe haven to immigrants?

I guess I'm a hypocrite. I would like to think that I could tease out some kind of coherent and rational reasoning for my positions, but I think that would be a justification on my part for my biases.

It is, and I imagine will always be, one of the greatest sources of tension in our system

I think when it comes to denying something that is constitutionally granted, then yes, the federal government must get involved.
But when it's a state law that gives people something or permits people to do something and it doesn't hurt society or results in one group of people to becoming victims of the state's law, then I think the federal government needs to stay out.


Yes, 0bama taught us that you can ignore the laws that you don't like or don't make you feeeeeel good.
 
2012-07-08 10:48:42 AM  
Pretty much this from the GOP. Can't imagine why.

Link
 
2012-07-08 10:49:15 AM  
YOU LOST. GET OVER IT.
 
2012-07-08 10:49:41 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Guidette Frankentits: ginandbacon: This is always my wall when it comes to states' rights. My gut tells me that there is something seriously wrong with AZ's immigration laws, or FL trying to drug test welfare recipients, so why am I okay with states overturning federal law when it comes to marijuana or cities providing safe haven to immigrants?

I guess I'm a hypocrite. I would like to think that I could tease out some kind of coherent and rational reasoning for my positions, but I think that would be a justification on my part for my biases.

It is, and I imagine will always be, one of the greatest sources of tension in our system

I think when it comes to denying something that is constitutionally granted, then yes, the federal government must get involved.
But when it's a state law that gives people something or permits people to do something and it doesn't hurt society or results in one group of people to becoming victims of the state's law, then I think the federal government needs to stay out.

Yes, 0bama taught us that you can ignore the laws that you don't like or don't make you feeeeeel good.


State government != Federal Government

You had more of an argument with the medical marijuana thing than you did with this derp.
 
2012-07-08 10:49:54 AM  
Dear GOP,

Continue this malarkey and Obama will have universal health care provided upon political affiliation.

It's done. Get over it.

Love,
Independent Voters
 
2012-07-08 10:50:23 AM  

Mrtraveler01: I can ask the same question as to why the GOP isn't joining in with the Dems today on THEIR OWN IDEA!


Because if Obama came out against cancer, the GOP would fight for the rights of cancer cells.

Oh and also FARK YOU, I GOT MINE.
 
2012-07-08 10:50:39 AM  

cman: /Believe it or not, I would have preferred single-payer universal healthcare over what we got.


Honestly, so would the libs, myself included. But don't forget that by 2018, if a state has come up with a plan that provides better coverage to its residents than the Federal plan, they can apply for and get permission to go with their plan. This is similar to how universal health care came about in Canada - they were able to do it in 1940's Saskatchewan, where there really were just beavers and igloos and lumberjacks, and the rest of Canada looked and said, 'why can't we just do that here'?

The main problem with going straight to universal care would be all of the people thrown out of work and the investors left holding worthless stock in outdated companies. Insurance companies are actually a significant percentage of GDP, and effectively running them out of business overnight would do no small amount of harm to the economy as a whole. As Obama said in his interview with Jon Stewart back in 2010, "Baby steps, Jon."
 
2012-07-08 10:51:34 AM  

rjakobi: Dear GOP,

Continue this malarkey and Obama will have universal health care provided upon political affiliation.

It's done. Get over it.

Love,
Independent Voters


I know, most polls have shown that everyone except dyed-in-the-wool Republican voters are sick of this and just want to move on already.

And what does the GOP do? They keep farking the chicken that everyone keeps pleading the GOP to stop farking.
 
2012-07-08 10:51:40 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese:

Yes, 0bama taught us that you can ignore the laws that you don't like or don't make you feeeeeel good.


Actually, we learned that lesson from St. Reagan. Remember Iran-Contra? if laws get in your way, just route around 'em!

or did you think that people just forgot inconvenient historical facts?

And what's with this '0' stuff? I thought Republicans like yourself 'respected the office of the President of the United States of America' no matter who was in the big chair?
 
2012-07-08 10:51:51 AM  

NewportBarGuy: tenpoundsofcheese: How does 0bamacare make healthcare more affordable?

People can stay on their parent's plan at an affordable add-on rate rather than trying to pay for health care on their own at twice the cost or higher? That's making it more affordable.

Citation for twice the cost? There is a big difference in cost between a family plan and just the parents. Besides, are healthcare plans that expensive for an 18 year old?

Though, you do realize that this doesn't go into effect until 2014 and we won't be able to do cost analysis for a few years after, right? That's kind of how it works.
Great, so at least you admit that we don't know.

 
2012-07-08 10:52:07 AM  

cman: For me, however, it is about principle. Giving the federal government the power to force people to compel in commerce is pretty farking scary. Imagine what the GOP would do if they regain the Presidency; how will they abuse this?


As it turns out, no one is giving the government power to compel commerce. We levied a tax, and the government is offering a tax-deduction if we act in a certain manner. This is not new. I own a house as a way of building equity, knowing that I will not pay capitol gains on it when it comes time to move. Without that capitol gains exemption, I would probably be renting, and letting someone else deal with the roof. I Was not compelled to engage in a certain type of commerce. There is simply a select tax deduction making it in my economic interest to act in a certain manner.

It was sold in a dishonest manner, but at it's heart, it is Constitutionally solid.
 
Displayed 50 of 520 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report