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.

(Politico)   Obamacare to give benefits to same sex couples' kids. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE   (politico.com) divider line 177
    More: Spiffy, obamacare, same-sex couples, domestic partners, Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, Office of Personnel Management, health law, personnel management, couples  
•       •       •

3209 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Jul 2012 at 6:13 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-20 06:47:55 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 seem not to be clear how the government works. The executive branch has many powers (given to it by congress) that allows them to manage government departments. Him changing how that government department runs things is actually one of the main jobs as president.

The main job of the president is to actually to manage these departments and organization and interpret what congress has passed and to implement that. Which is what he is doing. It's not "changing the definition of a word" like you are implying.

Are you saying same sex parents can not ever be interpreted as being a "parent"?
 
2012-07-20 06:51:03 PM  
Are they required to cover spouses now? Because extending coverage to partners' kids but not the partners themselves seems strange.

Does it also apply to opposite-sex partners who you're not married to?
 
2012-07-20 06:55:41 PM  
Some where in America, taxes are paying for a child to recieve timely healthcare, and until they are found and this abomination is ripped out by its roots, I'm living in chains!
 
2012-07-20 06:57:31 PM  

cman: 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?


Good point we can't just magically update a word like Obama did to fit with changing times. For example the constitution says freedom of "SPEECH" not the internet, or phones. So that must mean free speech doesn't cover these items unless there is a new amendment to the constitutions that specifically mentions these items.

Sorry but concepts change. Parents now mean something they were not envisioned to mean just like how "speech" in the first amendment never envisioned us talking on the internet.
 
2012-07-20 06:59:29 PM  
would be nice if it just offered healthcare to kids. but this is the worst way possible they could come up with providing healthcare, so I guess we should be happy.
 
2012-07-20 07:00:40 PM  
Yes, because the government has sooooooooo much money available to spend on frivolous things like homosex family benefits.
 
2012-07-20 07:02:58 PM  
rumpelstiltskin 2012-07-20 04:40:24 PM

Us conservatives can buy whatever reality we want.

Too bad my mind-warping powers keep f*cking things up for you guys.
 
2012-07-20 07:07:02 PM  

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

I think that the religious right will lose their tiny little minds.


Oh, sweetie, you know they already have.
 
2012-07-20 07:11:35 PM  
Is anyone else saddened that, because this is non-discriminatory, it merits the "Spiffy" tag?
 
2012-07-20 07:16:26 PM  
i165.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-20 07:20:05 PM  

sprawl15: 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.


Right. Save the penis pumps for the elderly on Medicare.
 
2012-07-20 07:23:54 PM  

sprawl15: 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.


I know, right? Those penis pumps should be going to elementary schools.
 
2012-07-20 07:25:28 PM  
Everyone hates ACA, particularly here on fark.

www.myqwip.com
(click on image to vote)
 
2012-07-20 07:27:01 PM  

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


Those are lifestyle choices, unlike being a Bronie or a Furrie, which are bad lifestyle choices. You can pray the albino away (or wear a hat) and left handedness is just another way of saying lazy and full of sin.
 
2012-07-20 07:30:31 PM  

red5ish: vernonFL: What if the child is albino? or left handed? Surely THEY aren't covered, right?

Those are lifestyle choices, unlike being a Bronie or a Furrie, which are bad lifestyle choices. You can pray the albino away (or wear a hat) and left handedness is just another way of saying lazy and full of sin.


Clearly, you've never watched MLP. Or masturbated to a fox. Okay, one of the two is a little different.

/not a furry
 
2012-07-20 07:32:44 PM  

red5ish: vernonFL: What if the child is albino? or left handed? Surely THEY aren't covered, right?

Those are lifestyle choices, unlike being a Bronie or a Furrie, which are bad lifestyle choices. You can pray the albino away (or wear a hat) and left handedness is just another way of saying lazy and full of sin.


By God! Both Bill Clinton AND B. Hussein Obama are left handed! It all makes sense now!
 
2012-07-20 07:36:20 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?


Especially now. I'm trying to figure out if I've met any blacks that don't exploit government aid without attempting to get a job.
 
2012-07-20 07:38:11 PM  
Not sure if serious...
 
2012-07-20 07:39:25 PM  
Sigh. I picked a bad week to stop liking penis.
 
2012-07-20 07:42:13 PM  
Marriage is all for the children*.

Won't somebody please think of the children*?

*Except the children of gays, non-whites, non-Christians, Democrats, Yankees, Canadians, illegals, immigrants, the Obamas, people living in sin ... well, basically anybody that Santa Claus doesn't visit personally each year.
 
2012-07-20 07:43:33 PM  

red5ish: vernonFL: What if the child is albino? or left handed? Surely THEY aren't covered, right?

Those are lifestyle choices, unlike being a Bronie or a Furrie, which are bad lifestyle choices. You can pray the albino away (or wear a hat) and left handedness is just another way of saying lazy and full of sin.


I've always felt there was something sinister about lefties.
 
2012-07-20 07:45:54 PM  
GOP health care plan covers this:
www.scienceclarified.com
and this:
t0.gstatic.com
and nothing in between
 
2012-07-20 07:58:30 PM  

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


Stepchild: GOP def: "One who is beaten with a hose only, as opposed to the belt or a switch." Stepchild.
 
2012-07-20 08:05:42 PM  
The headline I'd have gone with: "Conservatives declare they want children to die."

/sometimes using their own weapon against them is okay
//especially because it's the actual truth
 
2012-07-20 08:09:30 PM  
www.redrif.com
 
2012-07-20 08:15:17 PM  
FTA -

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."

The department of Other People's Money? They are wonderfully generous with it.

Seriously though, I would be interested in seeing the new definitions of "stepchild", and especially "same-sex domestic partner".
 
2012-07-20 08:18:03 PM  
I heard obamacare will force businesses to provide a diaper service to infantilism fetishists. That's bad.

Otoh, it will take away bronies' tax deductions for their dressage horses. That's good.

But it will give furries veterinary coverage. That's bad.

I lost where I was going with this, but I think its as sensible as any conservative commentary on the subject. So I've got that going for me, which is nice.
 
2012-07-20 08:28:00 PM  

LarryDan43: GOP health care plan covers this:

and this:

and nothing in between


Well said.
 
2012-07-20 08:48:45 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.


Hook, line, sinker and reel! Nice job!
 
2012-07-20 08:55:26 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?


Really, that's your number one priority? The US labor participation rate is only 65%, Europe is going into the toilet, Iran keeps acting like it wants to set world on fire, and gay equality is at the top of your list?

Anyway, you're right that Obama is setting dangerous precedents with his bending and even breaking rules and the law. He bypassed Senate confirmation to make his appointment to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by declaring the Senate in "recess" when it was still in session. He bypassed Congress to declare that henceforth illegal alien college students will not only not be deported, they'll be given legal status and a visa. He threw existing bankruptcy law out the window in bailing out the auto companies and screwing over their shareholders, creditors, and dealers. He's given out waivers wholesale to his own healthcare law. The man is governing by fiat, and no doubt some are just thrilled with that, but keep in mind that if he gets away with it, a Republican will be in that office eventually and the fiats will look a whole lot different. You'll miss the rule of law when the lack of it starts going against you, but it'll be too late.
 
2012-07-20 08:56:07 PM  
Federal health care plans don't cover domestic partners? And here I was getting told that government unions had won the workers all kinds of lavish benefits that private sectors could only dream about.
 
2012-07-20 08:57:07 PM  
Right-wingers against helping people they don't like because of who they love or for not following the rules of the Right-wing 'god'? Holy cow... it's crazy for non-right-wingers to openly acknowledge the plain old (or religiously motivated) bigotry of the right-wingers, isn't it?

/DNRTFA
 
2012-07-20 08:59:16 PM  

jjorsett: 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?

Really, that's your number one priority? The US labor participation rate is only 65%, Europe is going into the toilet, Iran keeps acting like it wants to set world on fire, and gay equality is at the top of your list?

Anyway, you're right that Obama is setting dangerous precedents with his bending and even breaking rules and the law. He bypassed Senate confirmation to make his appointment to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by declaring the Senate in "recess" when it was still in session. He bypassed Congress to declare that henceforth illegal alien college students will not only not be deported, they'll be given legal status and a visa. He threw existing bankruptcy law out the window in bailing out the auto companies and screwing over their shareholders, creditors, and dealers. He's given out waivers wholesale to his own healthcare law. The man is governing by fiat, and no doubt some are just thrilled with that, but keep in mind that if he gets away with it, a Republican will be in that office eventually and the fiats will look a whole lot different. You'll miss the rule of law when the lack of it starts going against you, but it'll be too late.


Yes, this is my number 1 priority. I will not vote for anyone who does not agree with my position. This is my deal breaker for anyone. We are Americans, and we are supposed to be equal under the law, but we are not.

As for the other ones on your list, yeah I admit those are some big things. But, those take time to sort themselves out. This doesnt need any time at all.
 
2012-07-20 09:04:38 PM  

theknuckler_33: Right-wingers against helping people they don't like because of who they love or for not following the rules of the Right-wing 'god'? Holy cow... it's crazy for non-right-wingers to openly acknowledge the plain old (or religiously motivated) bigotry of the right-wingers, isn't it?

/DNRTFA


It has nothing to do with that (at least for me). Does this extend benefits to children of "opposite sex domestic partners"? (Hint: it will have to).

This is "shack up, get benefits" and invites all kinds of fraud and abuse.
 
2012-07-20 09:08:35 PM  

cchris_39: theknuckler_33: Right-wingers against helping people they don't like because of who they love or for not following the rules of the Right-wing 'god'? Holy cow... it's crazy for non-right-wingers to openly acknowledge the plain old (or religiously motivated) bigotry of the right-wingers, isn't it?

/DNRTFA

It has nothing to do with that (at least for me). Does this extend benefits to children of "opposite sex domestic partners"? (Hint: it will have to).

This is "shack up, get benefits" and invites all kinds of fraud and abuse.


Bullshiat. If people were interested in couples benefits scamming they've always been able to (opposite sex at least). Fake marry and write a prenup that fits your situation.
 
2012-07-20 09:08:58 PM  

cchris_39: theknuckler_33: Right-wingers against helping people they don't like because of who they love or for not following the rules of the Right-wing 'god'? Holy cow... it's crazy for non-right-wingers to openly acknowledge the plain old (or religiously motivated) bigotry of the right-wingers, isn't it?

/DNRTFA

It has nothing to do with that (at least for me). Does this extend benefits to children of "opposite sex domestic partners"? (Hint: it will have to).

This is "shack up, get benefits" and invites all kinds of fraud and abuse.


Children of opposite sex domestic partners can already be covered under their parent's partner's insurance in most places.
 
2012-07-20 09:09:34 PM  

cchris_39: theknuckler_33: Right-wingers against helping people they don't like because of who they love or for not following the rules of the Right-wing 'god'? Holy cow... it's crazy for non-right-wingers to openly acknowledge the plain old (or religiously motivated) bigotry of the right-wingers, isn't it?

/DNRTFA

It has nothing to do with that (at least for me). Does this extend benefits to children of "opposite sex domestic partners"? (Hint: it will have to).

This is "shack up, get benefits" and invites all kinds of fraud and abuse.


So does a $1tr defense budget. There are no fraud proof government programs, nor are there any fraud proof private enterprises. STFU and quit snivelling.
 
2012-07-20 09:09:50 PM  

cchris_39: theknuckler_33: Right-wingers against helping people they don't like because of who they love or for not following the rules of the Right-wing 'god'? Holy cow... it's crazy for non-right-wingers to openly acknowledge the plain old (or religiously motivated) bigotry of the right-wingers, isn't it?

/DNRTFA

It has nothing to do with that (at least for me). Does this extend benefits to children of "opposite sex domestic partners"? (Hint: it will have to).

This is "shack up, get benefits" and invites all kinds of fraud and abuse.


Her Mom is a criminal! Let her starve!
 
2012-07-20 09:09:55 PM  

cchris_39: theknuckler_33: Right-wingers against helping people they don't like because of who they love or for not following the rules of the Right-wing 'god'? Holy cow... it's crazy for non-right-wingers to openly acknowledge the plain old (or religiously motivated) bigotry of the right-wingers, isn't it?

/DNRTFA

It has nothing to do with that (at least for me). Does this extend benefits to children of "opposite sex domestic partners"? (Hint: it will have to).

This is "shack up, get benefits" and invites all kinds of fraud and abuse.


Jesus Hospitaller Christ! You mean that dozens, even hundreds, of children might obtain medical care valued at thousands of dollars, and there's nothing we can do to prevent it!? Why doesn't Obama just lash you to plow and whip you! The nerve of that monster!!
 
2012-07-20 09:12:44 PM  

Cletus C.: Pedophiles will get free kiddie porn, too. Where will it end?


Cats. Dogs. Living together. Mass hysteria.
 
2012-07-20 09:13:14 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: See, like I said, I don't hate same-sex couples.


You just don't think they are "regular"...
 
2012-07-20 09:14:57 PM  

cchris_39: theknuckler_33: Right-wingers against helping people they don't like because of who they love or for not following the rules of the Right-wing 'god'? Holy cow... it's crazy for non-right-wingers to openly acknowledge the plain old (or religiously motivated) bigotry of the right-wingers, isn't it?

/DNRTFA

It has nothing to do with that (at least for me). Does this extend benefits to children of "opposite sex domestic partners"? (Hint: it will have to).

This is "shack up, get benefits" and invites all kinds of fraud and abuse.


Really? How is "shack up, get benefits" thing different for gays than it is for heterosexuals? Maybe it does have potential for abuse, but no more so than it always have. So, sorry, that objection is pure nonsense.
 
2012-07-20 09:18:35 PM  

rumpelstiltskin: It's not that I hate same-sex couples


Let me guess: some of your best friends are gay?
 
2012-07-20 09:20:11 PM  

fusillade762: rumpelstiltskin: It's not that I hate same-sex couples

Let me guess: some of your best friends are gay?


He brings thick women to the bars so gay men buy her drinks and he splits tHem with her.
 
2012-07-20 09:21:46 PM  
The article doesn't say what qualifies, so we'll all have to wait and see how easily abused it is. You don't know any more than I do.

For the record, I am for a Uniform Domestic Partner Act that would accomodate all of these issues.
 
2012-07-20 09:25:47 PM  

cchris_39: The article doesn't say what qualifies, so we'll all have to wait and see how easily abused it is. You don't know any more than I do.

For the record, I am for a Uniform Domestic Partner Act that would accomodate all of these issues.


What 'abuse' are you concerned about that would be impossible for a straight domestic couple would be unable to perpetuate? Unless you have an answer to that question, then I really have no idea what you could possibly have a problem.
 
2012-07-20 09:30:03 PM  

Corvus: 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 seem not to be clear how the government works. The executive branch has many powers (given to it by congress) that allows them to manage government departments. Him changing how that government department runs things is actually one of the main jobs as president.

The main job of the president is to actually to manage these departments and organization and interpret what congress has passed and to implement that. Which is what he is doing. It's not "changing the definition of a word" like you are implying.

Are you saying same sex parents can not ever be interpreted as being a "parent"?


I see your point. You are correct that the President controls these things. However, I am unsure of how much power he has. It could be solidified in law. If that was the case, the President wouldn't be able to make exceptions without changing the law.

But yeah, kudos for your excellent argument.
 
2012-07-20 09:31:44 PM  
The 14th Amendment says all citizens enjoy the equal protection of the law.

The Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia that marriage is a "basic civil right."

Gay marriage is legal.

Case closed.
 
2012-07-20 09:35:26 PM  

Solid Muldoon: The 14th Amendment says all citizens enjoy the equal protection of the law.

The Supreme Court ruled in Loving v Virginia that marriage is a "basic civil right."

Gay marriage is legal.

Case closed.


I wish it worked that way, I really did with all of my heart. It does hurt me. I love my sister a lot (she is a lesbian, I am not homosexual) and I want her to be happy. Until they grant her the same rights that hetero couples have, I will be saddened and angry at the system.
 
2012-07-20 09:39:11 PM  

cman: I wish it worked that way, I really did with all of my heart. It does hurt me. I love my sister a lot (she is a lesbian, I am not homosexual) and I want her to be happy. Until they grant her the same rights that hetero couples have, I will be saddened and angry at the system.


blah, blah, blah.

get to the important part.

is your sister hot?
 
Displayed 50 of 177 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 »
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