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.

(Politico)   Obamacare to give benefits to same sex couples' kids. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE   (politico.com) divider line 178
    More: Spiffy, obamacare, same-sex couples, domestic partners, Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, Office of Personnel Management, health law, personnel management, couples  
•       •       •

3204 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Jul 2012 at 6:13 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-20 04:10:52 PM
I hope this extends to states where they're actually married.
 
2012-07-20 04:12:16 PM
Truly, he is History's Greatest Monster.
 
2012-07-20 04:16:19 PM
Won't somebody think of the-- oh, right.
 
2012-07-20 04:19:32 PM

Calmamity: Won't somebody think of the-- oh, right bigots?


FTFY.

Isn't that what the Republicans are really saying?
 
2012-07-20 04:20:11 PM
img.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-20 04:20:33 PM
While anything that furthers homosexual equality is something that should be the number one priority right now, I am a bit worried on principle. The fact that the President can change the definition of a word is something that I think he should not have the power to do. If the executive could change the definition of words at will, what is to stop them from taking rights that Bush couldn't even take away from us?

/Keep on lobbying your congressperson for homosexual equality
//We are not a truly free nation until homosexual couples are treated the same as hetero as it puts one class of people over others
 
2012-07-20 04:22:15 PM

cman: While anything that furthers homosexual equality is something that should be the number one priority right now, I am a bit worried on principle.


What happened to you? You used to be a model right wingnut hater?

Did you hit your head?
 
2012-07-20 04:23:43 PM

cman: While anything that furthers homosexual equality is something that should be the number one priority right now, I am a bit worried on principle. The fact that the President can change the definition of a word is something that I think he should not have the power to do. If the executive could change the definition of words at will, what is to stop them from taking rights that Bush couldn't even take away from us?

/Keep on lobbying your congressperson for homosexual equality
//We are not a truly free nation until homosexual couples are treated the same as hetero as it puts one class of people over others


what word is being changed? seems like he's just proposing an HR rule for federal employees.
 
2012-07-20 04:24:32 PM
I read they are extending them to illegal same sex couples who are atheists as well.

And borrowing money from Iran (through the Muslim Brotherhood) to pay for it.
 
2012-07-20 04:25:21 PM

thomps: cman: While anything that furthers homosexual equality is something that should be the number one priority right now, I am a bit worried on principle. The fact that the President can change the definition of a word is something that I think he should not have the power to do. If the executive could change the definition of words at will, what is to stop them from taking rights that Bush couldn't even take away from us?

/Keep on lobbying your congressperson for homosexual equality
//We are not a truly free nation until homosexual couples are treated the same as hetero as it puts one class of people over others

what word is being changed? seems like he's just proposing an HR rule for federal employees.


FTA:

According to the OPM's website, same-sex partners are not currently eligible for benefits under the FEHBP, but the OPM determined it was able to extend the Affordable Care Act's under-26 provision to the kids of federal workers' same-sex domestic partners by tweaking the regulatory definition of "stepchild."
 
2012-07-20 04:25:41 PM

cman: While anything that furthers homosexual equality is something that should be the number one priority right now, I am a bit worried on principle. The fact that the President can change the definition of a word is something that I think he should not have the power to do. If the executive could change the definition of words at will, what is to stop them from taking rights that Bush couldn't even take away from us?

/Keep on lobbying your congressperson for homosexual equality
//We are not a truly free nation until homosexual couples are treated the same as hetero as it puts one class of people over others


You sure type a lot for someone who can't read.
 
2012-07-20 04:25:47 PM
Please tell me Redhawk1 is really Alywa
 
2012-07-20 04:26:30 PM
As long as it doesn't cover Furries or Bronies, I'm good.
 
2012-07-20 04:27:24 PM
It's not that I hate same-sex couples, but I'm afraid if we pay for their kids health care too we're just going to blow the budget right out of the water. We should do the responsible thing, and test this law out on regular people first, see how it works. In a few years, maybe, we can have a discussion about whether it makes sense to require same sex couples to participate.
 
2012-07-20 04:28:37 PM

vernonFL: As long as it doesn't cover Furries or Bronies, I'm good.


Hey!?! What's wrong with Bronies?

/you monster
 
2012-07-20 04:29:05 PM

eraser8: cman: While anything that furthers homosexual equality is something that should be the number one priority right now, I am a bit worried on principle.

What happened to you? You used to be a model right wingnut hater?

Did you hit your head?


There was a thread recently where he lied down on the couch and told us he was a libertarian trying to shake off the last of his unwanted republican thoughts.

Tell me if I'm being unfair.
 
2012-07-20 04:30:22 PM

rumpelstiltskin: It's not that I hate black people, but I'm afraid if we pay for their kids health care too we're just going to blow the budget right out of the water. We should do the responsible thing, and test this law out on regular regular people first, see how it works. In a few years, maybe, we can have a discussion about whether it makes sense to require black couples to participate.


Does it still seem like a sane, legal idea?
 
2012-07-20 04:31:36 PM

cman: thomps: cman: While anything that furthers homosexual equality is something that should be the number one priority right now, I am a bit worried on principle. The fact that the President can change the definition of a word is something that I think he should not have the power to do. If the executive could change the definition of words at will, what is to stop them from taking rights that Bush couldn't even take away from us?

/Keep on lobbying your congressperson for homosexual equality
//We are not a truly free nation until homosexual couples are treated the same as hetero as it puts one class of people over others

what word is being changed? seems like he's just proposing an HR rule for federal employees.

FTA:

According to the OPM's website, same-sex partners are not currently eligible for benefits under the FEHBP, but the OPM determined it was able to extend the Affordable Care Act's under-26 provision to the kids of federal workers' same-sex domestic partners by tweaking the regulatory definition of "stepchild."


from the federal register entry linked in the article, it looks like they just defined the term "stepchild" as it relates to OPM guidelines. it's an administrative law issue for internal federal employee hr, not really a power grab that can take rights away from citizens that bush couldn't even grab.
 
2012-07-20 04:33:11 PM

rumpelstiltskin: It's not that I hate same-sex couples, but I'm afraid if we pay for their kids health care too we're just going to blow the budget right out of the water. We should do the responsible thing, and test this law out on regular people first, see how it works. In a few years, maybe, we can have a discussion about whether it makes sense to require same sex couples to participate.


So you're afraid of something that isn't going to happen and isn't part of ACA? The provision only allows people to buy health insurance through their employer for their partner's kid, and doesn't put any burden on taxpayers.
 
2012-07-20 04:33:42 PM
What if the child is albino? or left handed? Surely THEY aren't covered, right?
 
2012-07-20 04:35:01 PM

kingoomieiii: rumpelstiltskin: It's not that I hate black people, but I'm afraid if we pay for their kids health care too we're just going to blow the budget right out of the water. We should do the responsible thing, and test this law out on regular regular people first, see how it works. In a few years, maybe, we can have a discussion about whether it makes sense to require black couples to participate.

Does it still seem like a sane, legal idea?


I didn't say anything about sanity or legality. I was talking about responsibility, an idea which I know you liberals are unfamiliar with.
 
2012-07-20 04:37:20 PM

rumpelstiltskin: kingoomieiii: rumpelstiltskin: It's not that I hate black people, but I'm afraid if we pay for their kids health care too we're just going to blow the budget right out of the water. We should do the responsible thing, and test this law out on regular regular people first, see how it works. In a few years, maybe, we can have a discussion about whether it makes sense to require black couples to participate.

Does it still seem like a sane, legal idea?

I didn't say anything about sanity or legality. I was talking about responsibility, an idea which I know you liberals are unfamiliar with.


You didn't say anything about reality, and idea which I know you conservatives are unfamiliar with.
 
2012-07-20 04:38:30 PM
Wait for the GOP to introduce a bill defining "stepchild" their own way.
 
2012-07-20 04:40:24 PM

DarwiOdrade: rumpelstiltskin: kingoomieiii: rumpelstiltskin: It's not that I hate black people, but I'm afraid if we pay for their kids health care too we're just going to blow the budget right out of the water. We should do the responsible thing, and test this law out on regular regular people first, see how it works. In a few years, maybe, we can have a discussion about whether it makes sense to require black couples to participate.

Does it still seem like a sane, legal idea?

I didn't say anything about sanity or legality. I was talking about responsibility, an idea which I know you liberals are unfamiliar with.

You didn't say anything about reality, and idea which I know you conservatives are unfamiliar with.


Us conservatives can buy whatever reality we want.
 
2012-07-20 04:41:02 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Wait for the GOP to introduce a bill defining "stepchild" their own way.


Introduce a bill? Pfft. They'll just make it an amendment to some completely unrelated, popular legislation put forward by Democrats.
 
2012-07-20 04:42:04 PM

rumpelstiltskin: DarwiOdrade: rumpelstiltskin: kingoomieiii: rumpelstiltskin: It's not that I hate black people, but I'm afraid if we pay for their kids health care too we're just going to blow the budget right out of the water. We should do the responsible thing, and test this law out on regular regular people first, see how it works. In a few years, maybe, we can have a discussion about whether it makes sense to require black couples to participate.

Does it still seem like a sane, legal idea?

I didn't say anything about sanity or legality. I was talking about responsibility, an idea which I know you liberals are unfamiliar with.

You didn't say anything about reality, and idea which I know you conservatives are unfamiliar with.

Us conservatives can buy whatever reality we want.


And now, thanks to the ACA, you can buy health insurance for your gay lover's kids.
 
2012-07-20 04:42:39 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Wait for the GOP to introduce a bill defining "stepchild" their own way.


Stepchild is the new white.
 
2012-07-20 04:45:15 PM

DarwiOdrade: rumpelstiltskin: DarwiOdrade: rumpelstiltskin: kingoomieiii: rumpelstiltskin: It's not that I hate black people, but I'm afraid if we pay for their kids health care too we're just going to blow the budget right out of the water. We should do the responsible thing, and test this law out on regular regular people first, see how it works. In a few years, maybe, we can have a discussion about whether it makes sense to require black couples to participate.

Does it still seem like a sane, legal idea?

I didn't say anything about sanity or legality. I was talking about responsibility, an idea which I know you liberals are unfamiliar with.

You didn't say anything about reality, and idea which I know you conservatives are unfamiliar with.

Us conservatives can buy whatever reality we want.

And now, thanks to the ACA, you can buy health insurance for your gay lover's kids.


See, like I said, I don't hate same-sex couples. But here you are, calling them slurs like "gay lovers". Who's the open minded one now?
 
2012-07-20 04:47:37 PM

rumpelstiltskin: DarwiOdrade: rumpelstiltskin: DarwiOdrade: rumpelstiltskin: kingoomieiii: rumpelstiltskin: It's not that I hate black people, but I'm afraid if we pay for their kids health care too we're just going to blow the budget right out of the water. We should do the responsible thing, and test this law out on regular regular people first, see how it works. In a few years, maybe, we can have a discussion about whether it makes sense to require black couples to participate.

Does it still seem like a sane, legal idea?

I didn't say anything about sanity or legality. I was talking about responsibility, an idea which I know you liberals are unfamiliar with.

You didn't say anything about reality, and idea which I know you conservatives are unfamiliar with.

Us conservatives can buy whatever reality we want.

And now, thanks to the ACA, you can buy health insurance for your gay lover's kids.

See, like I said, I don't hate same-sex couples. But here you are, calling them slurs like "gay lovers". Who's the open minded one now?


Why would you think "gay lover" is a slur, unless you have a problem with homosexuality?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-07-20 04:48:29 PM

cman: While anything that furthers homosexual equality is something that should be the number one priority right now, I am a bit worried on principle. The fact that the President can change the definition of a word is something that I think he should not have the power to do. If the executive could change the definition of words at will, what is to stop them from taking rights that Bush couldn't even take away from us?

/Keep on lobbying your congressperson for homosexual equality
//We are not a truly free nation until homosexual couples are treated the same as hetero as it puts one class of people over others


Anyone can change the definition of a word, or even make up a word. The defending the definition or marriage thing is one of the silliest arguments I have ever heard.
 
2012-07-20 04:51:48 PM

DarwiOdrade: rumpelstiltskin: DarwiOdrade: rumpelstiltskin: DarwiOdrade: rumpelstiltskin: kingoomieiii: rumpelstiltskin: It's not that I hate black people, but I'm afraid if we pay for their kids health care too we're just going to blow the budget right out of the water. We should do the responsible thing, and test this law out on regular regular people first, see how it works. In a few years, maybe, we can have a discussion about whether it makes sense to require black couples to participate.

Does it still seem like a sane, legal idea?

I didn't say anything about sanity or legality. I was talking about responsibility, an idea which I know you liberals are unfamiliar with.

You didn't say anything about reality, and idea which I know you conservatives are unfamiliar with.

Us conservatives can buy whatever reality we want.

And now, thanks to the ACA, you can buy health insurance for your gay lover's kids.

See, like I said, I don't hate same-sex couples. But here you are, calling them slurs like "gay lovers". Who's the open minded one now?

Why would you think "gay lover" is a slur, unless you have a problem with homosexuality?


It's up to them what they want to be called, and I know for a fact they like to be called same-sex couples. It's in my employee handbook, among other places.
 
2012-07-20 04:54:12 PM

rumpelstiltskin: DarwiOdrade: rumpelstiltskin: DarwiOdrade: rumpelstiltskin: DarwiOdrade: rumpelstiltskin: kingoomieiii: rumpelstiltskin: It's not that I hate black people, but I'm afraid if we pay for their kids health care too we're just going to blow the budget right out of the water. We should do the responsible thing, and test this law out on regular regular people first, see how it works. In a few years, maybe, we can have a discussion about whether it makes sense to require black couples to participate.

Does it still seem like a sane, legal idea?

I didn't say anything about sanity or legality. I was talking about responsibility, an idea which I know you liberals are unfamiliar with.

You didn't say anything about reality, and idea which I know you conservatives are unfamiliar with.

Us conservatives can buy whatever reality we want.

And now, thanks to the ACA, you can buy health insurance for your gay lover's kids.

See, like I said, I don't hate same-sex couples. But here you are, calling them slurs like "gay lovers". Who's the open minded one now?

Why would you think "gay lover" is a slur, unless you have a problem with homosexuality?

It's up to them what they want to be called, and I know for a fact they like to be called same-sex couples. It's in my employee handbook, among other places.


There's nothing quite like a blanket generalization to make you sound reasonable and intelligent. My gay lover and I both think so.
 
2012-07-20 04:56:09 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Truly, he is History's Greatest Monster.


I think that the religious right will lose their tiny little minds.
 
2012-07-20 04:57:52 PM

rumpelstiltskin: Us conservatives can buy whatever reality we want.


www.nastyhobbit.org
 
2012-07-20 05:45:08 PM

cman: While anything that furthers homosexual equality is something that should be the number one priority right now, I am a bit worried on principle. The fact that the President can change the definition of a word is something that I think he should not have the power to do. If the executive could change the definition of words at will, what is to stop them from taking rights that Bush couldn't even take away from us?

/Keep on lobbying your congressperson for homosexual equality
//We are not a truly free nation until homosexual couples are treated the same as hetero as it puts one class of people over others


I think I understand what your trying to say, but I believe your concern is unfounded in this case.
 
2012-07-20 05:45:21 PM
THe only outrage is that this wasn't done before.
 
2012-07-20 05:53:31 PM

cman: While anything that furthers homosexual equality is something that should be the number one priority right now, I am a bit worried on principle. The fact that the President can change the definition of a word is something that I think he should not have the power to do. If the executive could change the definition of words at will, what is to stop them from taking rights that Bush couldn't even take away from us?

/Keep on lobbying your congressperson for homosexual equality
//We are not a truly free nation until homosexual couples are treated the same as hetero as it puts one class of people over others


Dude, federal employees. Completely within his purview.
 
2012-07-20 06:15:59 PM
Pedophiles will get free kiddie porn, too. Where will it end?
 
2012-07-20 06:19:27 PM
Well, red-headed stepchildren are still out in the cold right? 'Cause fark them, anyhow.
 
2012-07-20 06:21:46 PM

DarwiOdrade: So you're afraid of something that isn't going to happen and isn't part of ACA? The provision only allows people to buy health insurance through their employer for their partner's kid, and doesn't put any burden on taxpayers.


Isn't this the story of ACA, though? From "Death Panels" on down, this is it in a nutshell.
 
2012-07-20 06:22:44 PM

vernonFL: What if the child is albino? or left handed? Surely THEY aren't covered, right?


Ooh, if only I had a left handed hammer I'd teach you a thing or two!
 
2012-07-20 06:25:22 PM

vernonFL: As long as it doesn't cover Furries or Bronies, I'm good.


Ah. Haters gonna hate.
 
2012-07-20 06:25:24 PM

karmaceutical: Well, red-headed stepchildren are still out in the cold right? 'Cause fark them, anyhow.


I has a sad
 
2012-07-20 06:28:00 PM
Will it cover rented mules?
 
2012-07-20 06:32:00 PM

Hassan Ben Sobr: Will it cover rented mules?


Only if the illness is due to beatings.
 
2012-07-20 06:34:48 PM
We should all be ashamed this is even an issue in this day and age
 
2012-07-20 06:34:53 PM
Helping children? Keeping them healthy?

Obama, you sick monster.
 
Bf+
2012-07-20 06:38:40 PM
Rope-a-dope.
 
2012-07-20 06:43:19 PM

EZ1923: DarwiOdrade: So you're afraid of something that isn't going to happen and isn't part of ACA? The provision only allows people to buy health insurance through their employer for their partner's kid, and doesn't put any burden on taxpayers.

Isn't this the story of ACA, though? From "Death Panels" on down, this is it in a nutshell.


I just worry about the mandatory penis pumps that Obamacare distributes to middle schools. I don't think my tax dollars should go towards that kind of deviant behavior.
 
2012-07-20 06:43:42 PM
Let those babies starve! It's the Christian thing to do.

I didn't want to do it- I felt I owed it to them.
 
Displayed 50 of 178 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