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.

(The Weekly Standard)   The Fight Against Obamacare has just begun. Which can only mean that it getting passed, signed, and declared constitutional was just the Republicans tripping and TKO's themselves climbing into the ring   (weeklystandard.com) divider line 141
    More: Dumbass, obamacare, Republican, constitutions, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Chief Justice John Roberts, health insurance exchanges, repeal  
•       •       •

2262 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Jan 2013 at 11:54 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-28 10:10:57 AM
Already, 25 of the 50 states have declared, as is their prerogative under the 2,700-page law, that they will refuse to set up Obamacare health-insurance exchanges. Another 7 states have said that they will administer some regulatory aspects of the exchanges but will leave the bulk of the work of determining eligibility for the new subsidies to the federal government. Only 18 states plus the District of Columbia are planning to take on the full responsibility for the administration of Obamacare.

Isn't the ironic result of this that those states will simply get a federal exchange and more power will be given to the federal government in terms of leverage with insurance companies instead of the states fine with Obamacare, which will ensure it's state-run?

Did they think this through?
 
2013-01-28 10:19:20 AM
They didn't have to be told that what was being rammed through the House and Senate was the largest power grab by the federal government in at least a generation,

the author doesn't consider the Patriot Act to be a huge power grab?  interesting....
 
2013-01-28 10:21:40 AM
"Obama will never willingly sign anything that delays the implementation of his namesake..."

Well, I got further than I thought I would.  Then I hit that wall.
 
2013-01-28 10:24:55 AM

Weaver95: They didn't have to be told that what was being rammed through the House and Senate was the largest power grab by the federal government in at least a generation,

the author doesn't consider the Patriot Act to be a huge power grab?  interesting....


It's not a power grab when they do it. Although I guess saying 'they' is unfair, since SO many Democrats voted for it as well, if I recall correctly.
 
2013-01-28 10:33:07 AM

Cythraul: Weaver95: They didn't have to be told that what was being rammed through the House and Senate was the largest power grab by the federal government in at least a generation,

the author doesn't consider the Patriot Act to be a huge power grab?  interesting....

It's not a power grab when they do it. Although I guess saying 'they' is unfair, since SO many Democrats voted for it as well, if I recall correctly.


my point is that the patriot act is a big gotdamn power grab and it's making a mockery of our rights damn near every day.  where was all this outrage when the patriot act got passed?

i'm sorry but I don't think the GOP gives a damn about my rights.  I don't believe they've got my best interests at heart and I don't trust them to do the right thing by me.
 
2013-01-28 10:38:05 AM

Diogenes: "Obama will never willingly sign anything that delays the implementation of his namesake..."

Well, I got further than I thought I would.  Then I hit that wall.


Have they actually forgotten that it was the GOP that named it as such to try to tar him with it?  That it was never referred to as such by the Administration until the USSC upheld it?
 
2013-01-28 10:53:46 AM

Bloody William: Already, 25 of the 50 states have declared, as is their prerogative under the 2,700-page law, that they will refuse to set up Obamacare health-insurance exchanges. Another 7 states have said that they will administer some regulatory aspects of the exchanges but will leave the bulk of the work of determining eligibility for the new subsidies to the federal government. Only 18 states plus the District of Columbia are planning to take on the full responsibility for the administration of Obamacare.

Isn't the ironic result of this that those states will simply get a federal exchange and more power will be given to the federal government in terms of leverage with insurance companies instead of the states fine with Obamacare, which will ensure it's state-run?

Did they think this through?


Yeah, but they're TOTALLY SLAMMING Obama by enacting provisions clearly stated in the law.
 
2013-01-28 11:12:05 AM
FTA: Second, the party should unite behind, and persuasively advance, a credible and practical replacement plan-for one cannot replace Obamacare without offering a replacement.

If I recall correctly, Obama was originally pushing for a public single payer plan. The system defined in the ACA was an alternate proposed by Republicans as a compromise. So I've never really understood why they keep calling it Obamacare when in reality, it is Republicare. And now they want to gut that.

A replacement for their own replacement. That makes sense.
 
2013-01-28 11:15:06 AM

GAT_00: Diogenes: "Obama will never willingly sign anything that delays the implementation of his namesake..."

Well, I got further than I thought I would.  Then I hit that wall.

Have they actually forgotten that it was the GOP that named it as such to try to tar him with it?  That it was never referred to as such by the Administration until the USSC upheld it?


He stubbornly refuses to be embarrassed by it
 
2013-01-28 11:18:01 AM

EvilEgg: GAT_00: Diogenes: "Obama will never willingly sign anything that delays the implementation of his namesake..."

Well, I got further than I thought I would.  Then I hit that wall.

Have they actually forgotten that it was the GOP that named it as such to try to tar him with it?  That it was never referred to as such by the Administration until the USSC upheld it?

He stubbornly refuses to be embarrassed by it


reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ASZsMRzqhs
 
2013-01-28 11:31:28 AM

Weaver95: They didn't have to be told that what was being rammed through the House and Senate was the largest power grab by the federal government in at least a generation,

the author doesn't consider the Patriot Act to be a huge power grab?  interesting....


Maybe he was talking about the "rammed through" part.
Patriot Act passed the house 357-66; the Senate, 98-1.
 
2013-01-28 11:45:48 AM

tallguywithglasseson: Maybe he was talking about the "rammed through" part.
Patriot Act passed the house 357-66; the Senate, 98-1.


And every single vote against was denounced as the act of America-haters, a spiel the supposedly liberal media was more than happy to reinforce.  That's ramming it through.
 
2013-01-28 11:57:13 AM
...and Republicans rode the popular revolt against the excesses of Obamacare all the way to a landslide midterm victory.

...and that wave of popular revolt rose to a tsunami, leading to the crushing defeat of Obama and the Democrats in 2012!

/history used by Republicans to make themselves feel better.
 
2013-01-28 11:57:41 AM

Bloody William: Did they think this through?


These are Republicans we are talking about.
 
2013-01-28 12:07:30 PM

Bloody William: Already, 25 of the 50 states have declared, as is their prerogative under the 2,700-page law, that they will refuse to set up Obamacare health-insurance exchanges. Another 7 states have said that they will administer some regulatory aspects of the exchanges but will leave the bulk of the work of determining eligibility for the new subsidies to the federal government. Only 18 states plus the District of Columbia are planning to take on the full responsibility for the administration of Obamacare.

Isn't the ironic result of this that those states will simply get a federal exchange and more power will be given to the federal government in terms of leverage with insurance companies instead of the states fine with Obamacare, which will ensure it's state-run?

Did they think this through?


That was one of the more breathtakingly stupid things my state of Missouri voted for during the last election. All the conservatives really thought they were sticking it to Obama by not allowing for the health exchanges to be set-up by the state. The ballot was written in such a way (by Republicans I might add) that it made it sound like this part of the affordable act was not going to forced on the state if they voted in favor. You actually had to go do your own research on the measure to see that they were handing power back to the federal government if they voted yes.
 
2013-01-28 12:08:14 PM

Bloody William: Did they think this through?


You're taling about the GOP here. Myopic reactionary gestures is their definition of sound policy.
 
2013-01-28 12:13:19 PM
2010 GOP Platform:

#1 Make Obama a 1 term president
#2 Repeal Obamacare
#3 Jobs, Jobs, Jobs

/Fark the Tea Party and the short bus it rode in on.
 
2013-01-28 12:13:21 PM

Muta: Bloody William: Did they think this through?

You're taling about the GOP here. Myopic reactionary gestures is their definition of sound policy.


Heaven farking forbid they actually scrape together what few brain cells they have to come up with an actual farking proposal on their own that doesn't involve rape or tax cuts for the rich.
 
2013-01-28 12:15:26 PM

Bloody William: Already, 25 of the 50 states have declared, as is their prerogative under the 2,700-page law, that they will refuse to set up Obamacare health-insurance exchanges. Another 7 states have said that they will administer some regulatory aspects of the exchanges but will leave the bulk of the work of determining eligibility for the new subsidies to the federal government. Only 18 states plus the District of Columbia are planning to take on the full responsibility for the administration of Obamacare.

Isn't the ironic result of this that those states will simply get a federal exchange and more power will be given to the federal government in terms of leverage with insurance companies instead of the states fine with Obamacare, which will ensure it's state-run?

Did they think this through?


To be fair, most of those dedicated to killing Obamacare are getting money from insurance companies, so it's in their best interest to ensure that people can't have leverage against them in any form.
 
2013-01-28 12:15:49 PM
www.blogforarizona.com
 
2013-01-28 12:16:32 PM

Bloody William: Already, 25 of the 50 states have declared, as is their prerogative under the 2,700-page law, that they will refuse to set up Obamacare health-insurance exchanges. Another 7 states have said that they will administer some regulatory aspects of the exchanges but will leave the bulk of the work of determining eligibility for the new subsidies to the federal government. Only 18 states plus the District of Columbia are planning to take on the full responsibility for the administration of Obamacare.

Isn't the ironic result of this that those states will simply get a federal exchange and more power will be given to the federal government in terms of leverage with insurance companies instead of the states fine with Obamacare, which will ensure it's state-run?

Did they think this through?


Do they ever think anything through?
 
2013-01-28 12:18:03 PM

Bloody William: Did they think this through?


I withdraw the question.
 
2013-01-28 12:18:05 PM

Dinjiin: FTA: Second, the party should unite behind, and persuasively advance, a credible and practical replacement plan-for one cannot replace Obamacare without offering a replacement.

If I recall correctly, Obama was originally pushing for a public single payer plan. The system defined in the ACA was an alternate proposed by Republicans as a compromise. So I've never really understood why they keep calling it Obamacare when in reality, it is Republicare. And now they want to gut that.

A replacement for their own replacement. That makes sense.


...I'm just giggling that this guy thinks Republicans actually want to replace Obamacare. They have no interest in doing so, and every interest to make sure that the insurance companies are well-fed.
 
2013-01-28 12:18:38 PM
Concentrated, weapons-grade stupidity right there, my friends.
 
2013-01-28 12:18:56 PM

Dear GOPtards,

2.bp.blogspot.com

Good heavens, are you still trying to win? You've got an over-developed
sense of vengeance. It's going to get you in trouble some (election) day.

 
2013-01-28 12:29:05 PM

Lumpmoose: Bloody William: Already, 25 of the 50 states have declared, as is their prerogative under the 2,700-page law, that they will refuse to set up Obamacare health-insurance exchanges. Another 7 states have said that they will administer some regulatory aspects of the exchanges but will leave the bulk of the work of determining eligibility for the new subsidies to the federal government. Only 18 states plus the District of Columbia are planning to take on the full responsibility for the administration of Obamacare.

Isn't the ironic result of this that those states will simply get a federal exchange and more power will be given to the federal government in terms of leverage with insurance companies instead of the states fine with Obamacare, which will ensure it's state-run?

Did they think this through?

Yeah, but they're TOTALLY SLAMMING Obama by enacting provisions clearly stated in the law.


Sure, they're cutting off their noses to spite their faces, but Obama will have to look at them and see their disfigurement and it will probably make him feel bad.
 
2013-01-28 12:32:33 PM
"A credible alternative to Obamacare must start with a plan to address the issue of preexisting conditions... That strikes most Americans as fundamentally unfair... New regulations, recommended federally but implemented by the states, could give Americans new protections if they stay continuously insured."

In other words, leave the unfairness in place.

"There's no reason why Americans who get their insurance through their employer should get a tax break, while those who buy it on the open market should not. To address this unfairness, a replacement to Obamacare should provide a tax credit to households that don't have access to tax-subsidized, employer-based coverage. Such a credit should be equal to about $2,500 for individuals or $5,000 for families and could only be used to offset the costs of health insurance premiums or deposited into a health savings account."

We should provide subsidies for people to purchase healthcare if they can't afford it. So, in other words, Obamacare.

"Instead of today's open-ended subsidies, Republicans should champion an approach that substitutes fixed financial support for insurance-a "defined-contribution" model, if you will."

And if costs exceed the fixed subsidy, well that's just tough luck. Hope that $2500 in your HSA covers you when you have a heart attack.

You guys had your chance. You could have negotiated. You could have worked with the President and Democrats to create something good for the country, but you decided it was more important to try and defeat the President politically to the point where you torpedoed ideas that your think tanks came up with and your candidates championed, like Romneycare. Now you're terrified that people will start to see the benefit they get from being able to afford insurance and that will lead them to realize that maybe the Dems aren't so bad after all.

It's not our fault that you decided to be on the wrong side of history.
 
2013-01-28 12:37:01 PM
What passes for intellectualism on the right these days is devoid of basis in reality it is pathetic. The Democrats do need a loyal opposition to keep them honest but everyday it's getting more and more like the Republicans have become the Generals to the Democrats Globetrotters.
 
2013-01-28 12:39:08 PM

Bloody William: Did they think this through?


Oh they thought it through alright. I think they're planning on using it as more political fodder for the whole states rights v. TOTALITARIAN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT meme that's sprouted up. As a KS resident, most everyone here that bought into Brownback's "line in the sand" took it to mean that Kansas wasn't going to take part in Obamacare at all. The beauty of it all will be the inevitable spin foisted on the knee-jerks when they find out they're subject to the federal exchange: the Obama administration is going against the will of the people and RAMMING SOCIALISM down your throats; you humble folks made it perfectly clear that you didn't want Obamacare in this fair state, but the federal government is forcing you to take part anyways.
 
2013-01-28 12:40:17 PM
"NUTS!"

/obscure?
 
2013-01-28 12:40:33 PM

Stile4aly: You guys had your chance. You could have negotiated. You could have worked with the President and Democrats to create something good for the country, but you decided it was more important to try and defeat the President politically to the point where you torpedoed ideas that your think tanks came up with and your candidates championed, like Romneycare. Now you're terrified that people will start to see the benefit they get from being able to afford insurance and that will lead them to realize that maybe the Dems aren't so bad after all.

It's not our fault that you decided to be on the wrong side of history.



You know what would be nice? If instead of, after 5 years, the Republicans had more than conjecture written in the Weekly Stoolward. Oh wait, that's right, Obamacare is pretty much what they've been proposing for years, only the mean black Democrat cuckolded it.

/They make me second-amendment solutiony
 
2013-01-28 12:42:00 PM
The minority is very vocal but it is a minority. I know this is an internet poll but it is mostly votes from fark. When correlated to other sources, it appears reasonably accurate.
www.myqwip.com
(click on image to vote in new window).
 
2013-01-28 12:42:31 PM
It's my understanding that it's voluntary.

If you're opposed to medical treatment and you loose an arm, you have the right to refuse treatment and bleed to death.

//debate centers on jerks opposed to other people getting treated.
 
2013-01-28 12:47:50 PM

winterbraid: "NUTS!"

/obscure?


This guy?

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

...although I don't get the connection
 
2013-01-28 12:52:19 PM
Obama will never willingly sign anything that delays the implementation of his namesake

Someone's pissed that the left took the GOP's derisive term "Obamacare" and flipped it on them, aren't they.

You mean there's a good likelihood that Obamacare will take us from a patchwork of individual-state requirements around healthcare to a broad, quasi-national standard that'll make private health insurance cheaper and easier to administer and thus lower costs for everyone? THE HORROR.
 
2013-01-28 12:52:38 PM

GAT_00: Diogenes: "Obama will never willingly sign anything that delays the implementation of his namesake..."

Well, I got further than I thought I would.  Then I hit that wall.

Have they actually forgotten that it was the GOP that named it as such to try to tar him with it?  That it was never referred to as such by the Administration until the USSC upheld it?


They invited Obama to their retreat to justify his policies, he attended and answered all their questions without providing any good soundbites, and they complained that Obama crashed their retreat.

They have a history of doing things and yelling at liberals for being the ones responsible (see also: "teabaggers").
 
2013-01-28 12:55:19 PM

Bloody William: Already, 25 of the 50 states have declared, as is their prerogative under the 2,700-page law, that they will refuse to set up Obamacare health-insurance exchanges. Another 7 states have said that they will administer some regulatory aspects of the exchanges but will leave the bulk of the work of determining eligibility for the new subsidies to the federal government. Only 18 states plus the District of Columbia are planning to take on the full responsibility for the administration of Obamacare.

Isn't the ironic result of this that those states will simply get a federal exchange and more power will be given to the federal government in terms of leverage with insurance companies instead of the states fine with Obamacare, which will ensure it's state-run?

Did they think this through?


Of course not. The one thing the Tea Party proves is that we will likely end how we began: crying, whining, scared of everything around us, not understanding any of it, pooping ourselves in a diaper and hoping it gets changed by someone else.
 
2013-01-28 12:57:25 PM

Foundling: It's my understanding that it's voluntary.

If you're opposed to medical treatment and you loose an arm, you have the right to refuse treatment and bleed to death.

//debate centers on jerks opposed to other people getting treated.


A guy parks his new BMW on the street, opens the door, and a passing car takes it off. He jumps out of the car and starts to scream: "Oh my God! I can't believe it! I just drove this car off the lot and it's ruined! I can't believe this happened! My beautiful BMW!"

In the meantime a cop as shown up to investigate the accident. He says to the guy, "Sir! You're so caught up in material things, you haven't even noticed that you lost your arm in the accident!"

The guy looks down and shrieks "My Rolex!"
 
2013-01-28 12:57:29 PM
Republicans love fighting the battles that are over. Rand Paul is still upset about the Civil Rights Act.
 
2013-01-28 12:58:02 PM
The fight hasn't just begun. It's getting kinda old.

Actually the fight against Obamacare began at the beginning of the Clinton administration -- it was called Hillarycare back then.

Brooks Brother didn't yet sell riot gear and Astroturf wasn't genetically modified yet, but the same money and same dirt was behind it.


i32.photobucket.com

Official Tester certifying Astroturf as credible.
 
2013-01-28 12:59:59 PM
The fed healthcare exchanges haven't even been implemented or anything in Oklahoma and my healthcare costs are $60 a month less than try were before.

That's after having a kid too.

/self employed real estate appraiser
//when the exchanges are set up I'm bettin I'll see more savings
///got a $153 rebate check from my insurance last year too
 
2013-01-28 01:00:41 PM

Dinjiin: FTA: Second, the party should unite behind, and persuasively advance, a credible and practical replacement plan-for one cannot replace Obamacare without offering a replacement.

If I recall correctly, Obama was originally pushing for a public single payer plan. The system defined in the ACA was an alternate proposed by Republicans as a compromise. So I've never really understood why they keep calling it Obamacare when in reality, it is Republicare. And now they want to gut that.

A replacement for their own replacement. That makes sense.


Obama said that he personally prefered a single payer program, but he always campaigned (even against Hillary) for something similar to what eventually came to pass. The only difference was that both candidates wanted to do it with a public option (which Lieberman refused to vote in support of anything including a public option) and he said his plan wouldn't require an individual mandate like Hillary Clinton's would (which I think holds the record for the most blatant pander I ever heard from Obama).

The original plan it is based off of was the American Heritage Foundation's alternate to Bill Clinton's healthcare proposal which never passed. I'm dying to hear their alternative solution now.
 
2013-01-28 01:01:39 PM
 
2013-01-28 01:03:01 PM

BitwiseShift: Actually the fight against Obamacare began at the beginning of the Clinton administration -- it was called Hillarycare back then.


Actually, no, Obamacare isn't Hillarycare. Obamacare is, by and large, the plan Republicans counter-offered to Hillarycare.
 
2013-01-28 01:03:39 PM

Lionel Mandrake: ...and Republicans rode the popular revolt against the excesses of Obamacare all the way to a landslide midterm victory.

...and that wave of popular revolt rose to a tsunami, leading to the crushing defeat of Obama and the Democrats in 2012!

/history used by Republicans to make themselves feel better.


Listen: elections matter, and if Obama won't accept the results of the 2010 election as a clear signal the country rejected what he was selling in his 2012 reelection campaign then he obviously can't be reasoned with.
 
2013-01-28 01:03:42 PM

winterbraid: "NUTS!"

/obscure?


Not obscure, but how does TFA relate to Bastogne?
 
2013-01-28 01:04:04 PM
FTFA: Second, the party should unite behind, and persuasively advance, a credible and practical replacement plan-for one cannot replace Obamacare without offering a replacement.

i.imgur.com

Replace the replacement?
 
2013-01-28 01:08:13 PM

Dinjiin: If I recall correctly, Obama was originally pushing for a public single payer plan.


What is the basis for opposing single payer at this point?
 
2013-01-28 01:09:10 PM

Bloody William: Already, 25 of the 50 states have declared, as is their prerogative under the 2,700-page law, that they will refuse to set up Obamacare health-insurance exchanges. Another 7 states have said that they will administer some regulatory aspects of the exchanges but will leave the bulk of the work of determining eligibility for the new subsidies to the federal government. Only 18 states plus the District of Columbia are planning to take on the full responsibility for the administration of Obamacare.

Isn't the ironic result of this that those states will simply get a federal exchange and more power will be given to the federal government in terms of leverage with insurance companies instead of the states fine with Obamacare, which will ensure it's state-run?

Did they think this through?


I don't know, this could be part of their clever plan. They get to rave and rant about Obama, but they still get all the benefits. It's like the Republicans who talk all the time about "wasteful government spending" and "pork-barrel politics" but always make sure to get their turn at the trough.
 
2013-01-28 01:09:56 PM
Hey, GOP,
b.vimeocdn.com
 
Displayed 50 of 141 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report