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  
•       •       •

2265 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 01:13:05 PM  

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


Seriously, though, isn't it weird that the guy who finally passed Obamacare just happened to be named "Obama"? With a name like that, I guess he really didn't have a choice.
 
2013-01-28 01:14:12 PM  

Stile4aly: "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.


Summary of the alternative: "Obama wants to force everyone to buy insurance, which he says he will ameliorate the cost of through subsidies based on ability to pay. We stand for the freedom to become unable to get insurance unless you consistently pay for it your entire life (better hope your parents didn't miss a payment as a kid!), which we will ameliorate the cost of through subsidies based on where you get your insurance from."
 
2013-01-28 01:23:14 PM  
The wife and I have been on MAHealth since she got laid off three years ago. I was self-employed at the time, so MAHealth was the only way we could get affordable health insurance on our own.

The plan we're on is better than any of the employer provided plans we've been on in our lives, the rates are ridiculously reasonable, and when I got hired to teach at the local State Community College a few months back, it was a piece of cake to transition into a different plan based on my new income levels.

Dealing with them on the phone is great, too... Haven't had one problem with our insurance in three years.

If this is how the ACA exchanges are going be, I can't understand what some folks are getting their panties in a bunch over.
 
2013-01-28 01:23:33 PM  

jst3p: What is the basis for opposing single payer at this point?


Socialism!!!
 
2013-01-28 01:25:35 PM  
Here's another view of what. the fight may look like
 
2013-01-28 01:26:53 PM  
Fat GOP Guy At Work: "My rates have gone up in the past year! Damn Obamacare!"
Me: "They have been going up every year!"
Fat GOP Guy at Work: "But this year, my taxes went up too!"
Me: "They went back to what they were before Obama was in office."
Fat GOP Guy at Work: "I dunno, it sounds like socialism."
Me (voice in my head): "Maybe if you and millions of other fat asses weren't so god damn fat our premiums wouldn't be so high to pay for your cardiac treatments. My socialism is keeping you alive, you dumb inbred fat f*ck."

//used to be fat, so it's cool
 
2013-01-28 01:27:16 PM  

Arkanaut: 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.


It also takes something off their plate: much easier to tell constiuents to talk to the feddies every time they have a problem with their insurance company trying to scam them, and you can bet the politician will save the person's name to cite in a speech about how much worse off everyone is now that Big Brother has taken over the entire healthcare industry. If they actually set up exchanges they would have to answer for those issues and justify how there are problems but not as many as before the system was put in place.
 
2013-01-28 01:28:57 PM  

jst3p: 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?


Well socialist national healthcare just kills those that are not 'useful' to society.

If that Stephen Hawking fella had been at the mercy of socialist healthcare he'd have been killed, fortunately free-market healthcare saved him - an enormous benefit to the world.
 
2013-01-28 01:29:48 PM  

Commander Lysdexic: jst3p: 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?

Well socialist national healthcare just kills those that are not 'useful' to society.

If that Stephen Hawking fella had been at the mercy of socialist healthcare he'd have been killed, fortunately free-market healthcare saved him - an enormous benefit to the world.


Poe's Law.
 
2013-01-28 01:30:01 PM  

Commander Lysdexic: jst3p: 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?

Well socialist national healthcare just kills those that are not 'useful' to society.

If that Stephen Hawking fella had been at the mercy of socialist healthcare he'd have been killed, fortunately free-market healthcare saved him - an enormous benefit to the world.


Not sure if Poe...
 
2013-01-28 01:32:01 PM  

jst3p: Commander Lysdexic: jst3p: 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?

Well socialist national healthcare just kills those that are not 'useful' to society.

If that Stephen Hawking fella had been at the mercy of socialist healthcare he'd have been killed, fortunately free-market healthcare saved him - an enormous benefit to the world.

Not sure if Poe...


It's a reference to an actual Investor's Business Daily editorial that made this claim.
 
2013-01-28 01:32:46 PM  
4 years from now Republicans will like the bill. 8 years from now they will be claiming that it would have had republican support all along if it wasn't for them dam dirty spendocrats and their partisan ways. 16 years from now it will have been their idea and democrats will have been the party opposed to it.
 
2013-01-28 01:34:24 PM  

Anenu: 4 years from now Republicans will like the bill. 8 years from now they will be claiming that it would have had republican support all along if it wasn't for them dam dirty spendocrats and their partisan ways. 16 years from now it will have been their idea and democrats will have been the party opposed to it.


16 years ago it was their idea. There is a beautiful symmetry there if it comes true.
 
2013-01-28 01:34:56 PM  
Also, calling it: we will have a large group of people who are convinced 50 years from now that government intervention created the problems of some providers being crappy and the cost of care going up over time. After all, back in the early 2000's any insurance company who tried to claim someone had a pre-exisiting condition as an excuse to terminate benefits would have seen all their customers flee them and there were so many insurance companies around that each one offered cut to the bone competitive rates.
 
2013-01-28 01:35:21 PM  

coeyagi: Fat GOP Guy At Work: "My rates have gone up in the past year! Damn Obamacare!"
Me: "They have been going up every year!"
Fat GOP Guy at Work: "But this year, my taxes went up too!"
Me: "They went back to what they were before Obama was in office."
Fat GOP Guy at Work: "I dunno, it sounds like socialism."
Me (voice in my head): "Maybe if you and millions of other fat asses weren't so god damn fat our premiums wouldn't be so high to pay for your cardiac treatments. My socialism is keeping you alive, you dumb inbred fat f*ck."

//used to be fat, so it's cool


Mine:
FGGAW: "Teachers are socialist scum that shouldn't be allowed to vote because they're on the government dole!"
Me: "Isn't your wife a public school teacher?"
FGGAW: "Yeah, but she's quitting next month to teach at a private schoo.l"
Me: "What are you guys going to do for health insurance? I know you don't get any here."

Fast forward two months...
FGGAW: "Holy shiat!! Private insurance wants $1600 a month because I'm overweight and my son's on insulin!"
Me: "Good thing Obamacare got passed then. Otherwise those pre-existing conditions probably would have kept you from getting any at all."
 
2013-01-28 01:35:53 PM  

Bloody William: 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?


For most of those states, this is intentional, they don't feel they can or simply don't want to supply the manpower or assume the bureaucratic responsibility for the exchange programs and feel a national program is in their better interests.

There are a couple of exceptions, like Perry being a douche and trying to use passing the buck to the government to sabotage some other programs, but for the most part the ACA bill has the option to let the feds do it because it was felt that many states would prefer it to be a federal program in the first place. If anything, the "the states can build one instead" was intended to be the alternative for the right-wingers to begin with.
 
2013-01-28 01:37:30 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?


Oh they thought it through, alright. They just accounted for the rubes not noticing, which they haven't, I assure you. The GOP are many things, but I'd hesitate to call the whole party stupid. No, a much better generalization is they are cynical as f*ck.
 
2013-01-28 01:38:35 PM  

jst3p: 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?


1) You couldn't get it through.

I would like to see a public option, but I don't have a problem with seeing if the private sector could compete with a public option.


I would be concerned with single payer because Republicans would play the same game they are with SS and Medicare now pretending that it pays our money but doesn't take in revenue specifically for it.

If people don't get this for SS and Medicare why would they get it for a new system?
 
2013-01-28 01:40:55 PM  

Corvus: jst3p: 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?

1) You couldn't get it through.

I would like to see a public option, but I don't have a problem with seeing if the private sector could compete with a public option.


I would be concerned with single payer because Republicans would play the same game they are with SS and Medicare now pretending that it pays our money but doesn't take in revenue specifically for it.

If people don't get this for SS and Medicare why would they get it for a new system?


Wait, wait, wait, so the GOP actually has people convinced that FICA doesn't do what FICA says it does?

We need a wet bar here at work.
 
2013-01-28 01:41:48 PM  

SpectroBoy: Dear GOPtards,

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.


Also,
i651.photobucket.com

Let it flow, and flow, and FLOW.
 
2013-01-28 01:43:26 PM  

Corvus: I would like to see a public option, but I don't have a problem with seeing if the private sector could compete with a public option.


Competition is the antithesis of our Free Market Corporate Welfare System.

i651.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-28 01:45:03 PM  

coeyagi: Poe's Law.


jst3p: Not sure if Poe...


I'm joking. As an Englishman I'm amused at how US conservatives vilify the NHS in order to attack the Affordable Healthcare Act.

cameroncrazy1984: It's a reference to an actual Investor's Business Daily editorial that made this claim.


People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless.
 
2013-01-28 01:46:38 PM  

Grungehamster: Also, calling it: we will have a large group of people who are convinced 50 years from now that government intervention created the problems of some providers being crappy and the cost of care going up over time. After all, back in the early 2000's any insurance company who tried to claim someone had a pre-exisiting condition as an excuse to terminate benefits would have seen all their customers flee them and there were so many insurance companies around that each one offered cut to the bone competitive rates.


52 years ago, some fascist said about Medicare:
"Write those letters now; call your friends and then tell them to write them...If you don't, this program, I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country. ... And if you don't do this and if I don't do it, one of these days we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free."

It's not a new idea. Anything the government does (well, anything Democrats do) is instantly the harbinger of socialism/doom, while anything they do saves us from whatever crisis is threatening to doom/socialism us all.
 
2013-01-28 01:46:58 PM  
Article is not legit. How can they express the Republican point of view and not mention rape once?
 
2013-01-28 01:47:02 PM  

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.


1. Republicans coin the phrase "teabagger" to relate themselves to the revolutionaries and then claim it was invented by liberals to slander them when it starts being used as an insult.

2. Republicans coin the phrase "Obamacare" to insult Obama and then claim it was invented by liberals to glorify him when it starts being used positively.

I think these are pretty fitting bookends to the whole healthcare fight.
 
2013-01-28 01:48:10 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Bloody William: 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?

For most of those states, this is intentional, they don't feel they can or simply don't want to supply the manpower or assume the bureaucratic responsibility for the exchange programs and feel a national program is in their better interests.

There are a couple of exceptions, like Perry being a douche and trying to use passing the buck to the government to sabotage some other programs, but for the most part the ACA bill has the option to let the feds do it because it was felt that many states would prefer it to be a federal program in the first place. If anything, the "the states can build one instead" was intended to be the alternative for the right-wingers to begin with.


Pretty much. Risk pooling and economies of scale are why the insurance market is an oligopoly in the first place: the bigger the firm is, the less prone to wild swings in cost they have to face and the more accurate a community rating is. One national exchange would have a lot of bargaining power on prices while also providing insurers less exposure on average.

However, instead of trying to force a national system as people scream socialism, the PPACA tells each state to do it (which would still be a decent-sized risk pool), or they can give the federal the reigns. They'll still scream socialism, mind you, but when given the option to go it alone they will eventually see it's easier to just use a national exchange.
 
2013-01-28 01:49:50 PM  

Bloody William: 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?


Ironic isn't the word I'd use. Hilarious is.
 
2013-01-28 01:50:32 PM  

Citrate1007: 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.


The GOP economic plan.

Step 1: Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and cutting government services for the non-wealthy
Step 2: ??????
Step 3: PROFIT!!!
 
2013-01-28 01:50:53 PM  
I have recurring dreams of the death of the Republican leadership and their "rising" stars. I mean their literal death of whatever cause - dying in their sleep, suicide, cancer, diabetus, etc.

I also fantasize of having the ability to give them cancer.
 
2013-01-28 01:51:37 PM  

the_vegetarian_cannibal: 2. Republicans coin the phrase "Obamacare" to insult Obama and then claim it was invented by liberals - or by Obama himself - to glorify him when it starts being used positively.

 
2013-01-28 01:54:04 PM  
When I'm 80, this will be taught as rural, conservative America's Lost Cause. Which is good, because maybe it'll finally replace that other "Lost Cause" that Gen. Sherman resolved in 1865.
 
2013-01-28 02:00:13 PM  

verbaltoxin: Corvus: jst3p: 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?

1) You couldn't get it through.

I would like to see a public option, but I don't have a problem with seeing if the private sector could compete with a public option.


I would be concerned with single payer because Republicans would play the same game they are with SS and Medicare now pretending that it pays our money but doesn't take in revenue specifically for it.

If people don't get this for SS and Medicare why would they get it for a new system?

Wait, wait, wait, so the GOP actually has people convinced that FICA doesn't do what FICA says it does?

We need a wet bar here at work.


Where the hell have you been?

Yes. even people like Nate Silverman bought into this bullshiat. They are pretending that these program are adding to the US deficit when they are actually not because they are taking money in from specific tax revenue.

Why the hell have you been? Republicans have been repeating the lie over and over that the deficit is being caused by SS and medicare which is total BS because they are not counting the revenue this plans bring in specifically to pay for them. They even have many Democrats repeating these talking points.
 
2013-01-28 02:00:58 PM  

Corvus: Yes. even people like Nate Silverman bought into this bullshiat.


sorry. FTFM
 
2013-01-28 02:01:26 PM  
The terrible irony is that no group of people needs ready access to healthcare more than the morbidly obese Tea-Baggers/GOPtards.
 
2013-01-28 02:02:05 PM  

safetycap: Corvus: I would like to see a public option, but I don't have a problem with seeing if the private sector could compete with a public option.

Competition is the antithesis of our Free Market Corporate Welfare System.

[i651.photobucket.com image 340x474]


Ok, I am was not asking for the system we have now. So not really sure what your point is.
 
2013-01-28 02:02:10 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Grungehamster: Also, calling it: we will have a large group of people who are convinced 50 years from now that government intervention created the problems of some providers being crappy and the cost of care going up over time. After all, back in the early 2000's any insurance company who tried to claim someone had a pre-exisiting condition as an excuse to terminate benefits would have seen all their customers flee them and there were so many insurance companies around that each one offered cut to the bone competitive rates.

52 years ago, some fascist said about Medicare:
"Write those letters now; call your friends and then tell them to write them...If you don't, this program, I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow, and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country. ... And if you don't do this and if I don't do it, one of these days we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children, what it once was like in America when men were free."

It's not a new idea. Anything the government does (well, anything Democrats do) is instantly the harbinger of socialism/doom, while anything they do saves us from whatever crisis is threatening to doom/socialism us all.


What I actually had more in mind was even further back, with so many people these days convinced if we rolled back the New Deal we would see markets self-correct fast enough that they would maintain a steady constant growth and we wouldn't see so many economic bubbles or recessions because they never remember hearing about any market crashes before the 20th century.
 
2013-01-28 02:03:34 PM  

keylock71: The wife and I have been on MAHealth since she got laid off three years ago. I was self-employed at the time, so MAHealth was the only way we could get affordable health insurance on our own.

The plan we're on is better than any of the employer provided plans we've been on in our lives, the rates are ridiculously reasonable, and when I got hired to teach at the local State Community College a few months back, it was a piece of cake to transition into a different plan based on my new income levels.

Dealing with them on the phone is great, too... Haven't had one problem with our insurance in three years.

If this is how the ACA exchanges are going be, I can't understand what some folks are getting their panties in a bunch over.


Uhhh, perhaps you haven't noticed, but the President is a Democrat AND blah.
 
2013-01-28 02:04:03 PM  
BUT MY PAYCHECK WAS SMALLER FOR REAL YALL
 
2013-01-28 02:04:28 PM  

Corvus: I would like to see a public option, but I don't have a problem with seeing if the private sector could compete with a public option.


I don't think a for profit health care system is capable of competing with a not for profit single payor system. The need for tort reform aside, there are far too many people skimming off the top of the current system and becoming insanely wealthy for doing very little to improve the quality of medical care.
 
2013-01-28 02:05:21 PM  
FTA....BY JAMES C. CAPRETTA AND JEFFREY H. ANDERSON

It took 2 meatheads to write 3 measly paragraphs of utter shiate?
 
2013-01-28 02:11:19 PM  

cybrwzrd: Corvus: I would like to see a public option, but I don't have a problem with seeing if the private sector could compete with a public option.

I don't think a for profit health care system is capable of competing with a not for profit single payor system. The need for tort reform aside, there are far too many people skimming off the top of the current system and becoming insanely wealthy for doing very little to improve the quality of medical care.


Well then they would lose wouldn't they? So what would be the problem with doing it?

Also some are Non-profits now.
 
2013-01-28 02:12:54 PM  

cybrwzrd: Corvus: I would like to see a public option, but I don't have a problem with seeing if the private sector could compete with a public option.

I don't think a for profit health care system is capable of competing with a not for profit single payor system. The need for tort reform aside, there are far too many people skimming off the top of the current system and becoming insanely wealthy for doing very little to improve the quality of medical care.


Hence the intense GOP outrage at anything remotely resembling a public option.
 
2013-01-28 02:13:40 PM  

GregInIndy: 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.



Its the same thing that we did with the "N" word.
 
2013-01-28 02:15:57 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?


Yes, to understand you have to use "Republican logic". Being since "Obamacare" is modeled after "Romneycare", which was modeled after the Republican "free market" alternative to "Hilliarycare" first created by the conservative think tank the "Heritage Foundation"; it is not really the big government program they say it is. So rather than being happy it is not the big government program they feared and taking the victory by having their plan implemented, they want to do everything possible in order to make it a big government program they can criticize since they didn't implement it.
 
2013-01-28 02:17:08 PM  
1/22/13 Wkly Std Internal Memo - Subject: Ad & subscription revenue down in January. Must fix immediately
1/23/13 Wkly Std PR Email - Subject: Obama said what? Ok...strategy mtg - 10 mins. Conf Rm A.
1/24/13 Wkly Std Marketing Email - Subject: (URGENT): Is Palin available for editorial?
1/25/13 Wkly Std Marketing Email - Subject: (URGENT): Cancel Palin. (Accidentally hit send too soon)
1/26/13 Wkly Std PR Email - Subject: Schedule Kristol for Fox interview with Kraut/Hannity STAT!
1/27/13 Wkly Std All Recipient Email - Subject: Obama said that too? OK - Another strategy mtg! - 5 mins. Conf Rm A.
1/28/13 Wkly Std Marketing Email - Subject: Push print headline to website one week early.
2/4/13 Wkly Std Headline: "DELAY, REPEAL, REPLACE: THE OBAMACARE FIGHT HAS JUST BEGUN"
 
2013-01-28 02:17:11 PM  

IlGreven: 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.


That's what I was thinking.  In its current form, the ACA is a massive bit of corporate welfare to the private health insurance industry.  The law requires that you purchase their product, offers no public alternative, and even assists in paying for product when the purchaser cannot afford it.  Companies such as Blue Cross/Shield, United Healthcare and Kaiser Permanente must be tickled pink right now.
 
2013-01-28 02:17:57 PM  

DarkSoulNoHope: Citrate1007: 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.

The GOP economic plan.

Step 1: Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and cutting government services for the non-wealthy
Step 2: ??????
Step 3: PROFIT!!!


Actually I should rephrase that...

Step 1: Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and cutting government services for the non-wealthy
Step 2: PROFIT!!!
Step 3: ??????
 
2013-01-28 02:20:49 PM  

Grungehamster: What I actually had more in mind was even further back, with so many people these days convinced if we rolled back the New Deal we would see markets self-correct fast enough that they would maintain a steady constant growth and we wouldn't see so many economic bubbles or recessions because they never remember hearing about any market crashes before the 20th century.


You used a 50 year timeline, which reminded me of the prediction another Republican made 50 years ago, is all. Republicans talk about fundamentally altering Medicare, but never eliminating it entirely (those that do seem to find themselves out of work within 2-6 years, curiously).

Republicans not understanding the flow of history? I'm white-faced with shock.
 
2013-01-28 02:21:46 PM  

Corvus: verbaltoxin: Corvus: jst3p: 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?

1) You couldn't get it through.

I would like to see a public option, but I don't have a problem with seeing if the private sector could compete with a public option.


I would be concerned with single payer because Republicans would play the same game they are with SS and Medicare now pretending that it pays our money but doesn't take in revenue specifically for it.

If people don't get this for SS and Medicare why would they get it for a new system?

Wait, wait, wait, so the GOP actually has people convinced that FICA doesn't do what FICA says it does?

We need a wet bar here at work.

Where the hell have you been?

Yes. even people like Nate Silverman bought into this bullshiat. They are pretending that these program are adding to the US deficit when they are actually not because they are taking money in from specific tax revenue.

Why the hell have you been? Republicans have been repeating the lie over and over that the deficit is being caused by SS and medicare which is total BS because they are not counting the revenue this plans bring in specifically to pay for them. They even have many Democrats repeating these talking points.


To be fair, Social Security is covered; Medicare not so much.

Receipts for Medicare need to be about 6x larger to actually cover the annual cost of the program once you work in parts A, B, C, and D.
 
2013-01-28 02:21:54 PM  

ghare: keylock71: The wife and I have been on MAHealth since she got laid off three years ago. I was self-employed at the time, so MAHealth was the only way we could get affordable health insurance on our own.

The plan we're on is better than any of the employer provided plans we've been on in our lives, the rates are ridiculously reasonable, and when I got hired to teach at the local State Community College a few months back, it was a piece of cake to transition into a different plan based on my new income levels.

Dealing with them on the phone is great, too... Haven't had one problem with our insurance in three years.

If this is how the ACA exchanges are going be, I can't understand what some folks are getting their panties in a bunch over.

Uhhh, perhaps you haven't noticed, but the President is a Democrat AND blah.


Oh, I've noticed. What clued me in was he wasn't actively trying to fark me over to make life even easier for the wealthy elite.

I guess I should have clarified. "... I can't understand what any rational, non-partisan folks are getting their panties in a bunch over."
 
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