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  
•       •       •

2241 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
 
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
 
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."
 
2013-01-28 02:22:09 PM

Karac: 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."


He will still blame Obama and vote a straight GOP ticket because socialism.
 
2013-01-28 02:23:56 PM

Grungehamster: 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.


Sure but they are still pretending these programs have nothing on the revenue side which is a lie. I am not saying they are perfect but to only look at the costs side without the revenue side is just plain lying.
 
2013-01-28 02:24:40 PM
Over the next 4-6 years, how pissed is the GOP going to get that they tried to smear Obama by calling it Obamacare?
 
2013-01-28 02:27:36 PM

bulldg4life: Over the next 4-6 years, how pissed is the GOP going to get that they tried to smear Obama by calling it Obamacare?


Yeah, you have to laugh at how the Obama camp adopted that and made it theirs, "I do care" etc. Owned it then owned the Republicans with it.
 
2013-01-28 02:27:41 PM
"Repeal and replace" is a joke, because the GOP's ideal version is the exact same as Obamacare, only without the means to pay for it.
 
2013-01-28 02:28:13 PM
Weaver95:

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.


Obviously you're no constitutional scholar.

2nd Amendment = whatever I think it should mean, and set in stone by Jesus.
3rd Amendment = wtf?
4th Amendment = 9/11 changed everything
 
2013-01-28 02:28:20 PM

bulldg4life: Over the next 4-6 years, how pissed is the GOP going to get that they tried to smear Obama by calling it Obamacare?


to be fair, it's becoming difficult to tell just what will enrage the GOP anymore.  they seem determined to spend as much time as possible being angry about something.
 
2013-01-28 02:31:14 PM

Weaver95: they seem determined to spend as much time as possible being angry about something.


Well, they need to fill up the empty time created by not governing anymore
 
2013-01-28 02:31:36 PM
img1.fark.net The Fight Against the Heritage Foundation's health care plan from the mid-90s has just begun.

Come on, you dumbshiats. You can win this. You can break Fartfartacare. Guess what happens next? Hint: It isn't going back to the status quo ante, no matter what you reactionary morons think.
 
2013-01-28 02:31:47 PM

Corvus: 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.


Yes, but take a look at Japan's healthcare system. Every cost is controlled by the government.

Even if the insurers are non-profits, big-pharma, labcorp (and other medical testing corps), and all of the other for profit entities out there are overinflating the cost of healthcare much like the cable/phone/internet monopolies do.
 
2013-01-28 02:35:34 PM

Heraclitus: Article is not legit. How can they express the Republican point of view and not mention rape once?


Must be a typo.
 
2013-01-28 02:38:39 PM
cybrwzrd:

Corvus: 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.

Yes, but take a look at Japan's healthcare system. Every cost is controlled by the government.

Even if the insurers are non-profits, big-pharma, labcorp (and other medical testing corps), and all of the other for profit entities out there are overinflating the cost of healthcare much like the cable/phone/internet monopolies do.


I used to IT contract for a few healthcare brokerages in the late 90's - early 00's. (The Baltimore area is rife with them) There is an insanely profitable niche to be filled by middlemen who collect many small business accounts and do collective bargaining on their behalf, so much so that small businesses will pay enormous amounts of money to save even more enormous amounts in their healthcare costs. The middlemen do well by this arrangement.

But hey, single payer would be more expensive, right?
 
2013-01-28 02:51:51 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.


Plenty of other countries have a mix of for profit and not-for profit parts to their healthcare systems - the example I know being the UK where you pay into and get care from the NHS as part of a single payer system, and then you have BUPA private health insurance (and some other smaller ones that advertise less), private hospitals, etc. You end up ensuring that everyone is covered and healthcare costs aren't directly going to bankrupt anyone, and the private parts of the market have to provide very good service to justify people paying more for the extra coverage - shorter waiting times for non-urgent operations, private rooms and so on (or the expectation/reputation for such at least).
 
2013-01-28 02:54:11 PM
My favorite argument against Obamacare that keeps cropping up here in California is that we will have to wait longer to see a doctor because 2 million new people will now have insurance. It's so blatantly, disgustingly selfish. That sounds to me like an opportunity to create some healthcare jobs, but what do I know?
 
2013-01-28 03:12:54 PM
Moonfisher:

My favorite argument against Obamacare that keeps cropping up here in California is that we will have to wait longer to see a doctor because 2 million new people will now have insurance. It's so blatantly, disgustingly selfish. That sounds to me like an opportunity to create some healthcare jobs, but what do I know?

I had a really not-so-amusing experience 2 weeks ago that drove home how farked up random-payer heathcare is in the US, more particularly Dallas TX.

I was visiting my G/F, and she woke up sunday morning in pain, then moved on to vomiting from the pain. At that point I told her she was going to the hospital. We went to the closest emergency room, who told us they were a surgical hospital only, so if she needed extended care they'd have to move her at her expense. So then we went to the next one that came up in Google's paid ads. By that point she was screaming and writhing from the pain. The one woman taking new patients spent a half hour going over the paperwork for the young, hispanic gang-banger-looking guy who had brought his grandpa in. Grandpa was doing well, my g/f was screaming and vomiting in pain. The one time the girl at the counter paid attention to us was when I grabbed a trash can and moved it over so G/F could barf in it/ I eventually went into the emergency room and grabbed an intern, he at least brought the G/F a wheelchair.

I know why there was an interminable wait. It's because they didn't know who would pay for one person's care, and because of that for all I knew my G/F's appendix could have burst while the payments were worked out.

This is wrong.

As it turned out it was kidney stones, and she's much better, thanks for asking. But so long as the most important thing is "who's paying for this?" we have issues.
 
2013-01-28 03:13:29 PM
Current Republican strategist seen here reasserting his point

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-01-28 03:21:24 PM

cybrwzrd: Yes, but take a look at Japan's healthcare system. Every cost is controlled by the government.

Even if the insurers are non-profits, big-pharma, labcorp (and other medical testing corps), and all of the other for profit entities out there are overinflating the cost of healthcare much like the cable/phone/internet monopolies do.


But that will never pass here unless we do it step by step here.

Wishing for something to happen or believing it is better doesn't make change happen. You need to be pragmatic and play the long game.

By the way many healthcare providers are also non-profit (probably more than insurers).
 
2013-01-28 03:23:44 PM
My company changed its insurance provider and I just found out that I need to either find a new doctor or regularly pay 30% of my fees with a $2,000 deductible instead of having it all be covered by my previous provider, so I'm getting a kick out of this bullshiat.

Anyone who says a single payer or government-run health care system would be a nightmare hasn't had to actually do any farking paperwork to justify payment of their health care to a private insurance company.
 
2013-01-28 03:35:13 PM

Maud Dib: FTA....BY JAMES C. CAPRETTA AND JEFFREY H. ANDERSON

It took 2 meatheads to write 3 measly paragraphs of utter shiate?


One to smear his feces on the wall, the other to take dictation from it.
 
2013-01-28 03:49:54 PM

maxheck: As it turned out it was kidney stones, and she's much better, thanks for asking. But so long as the most important thing is "who's paying for this?" we have issues.


Having worked in mental health - specifically, an acute-care facility where the average stay in most wards was 3-7 days (at no small cost to the state/private insurance). A kid who was there 35 days was there who-farking-knows how much longer than he should have been because his insurance company disagreed with his docs and couldn't figure out what to do with him.

I say, until we have single-payer, this kind of thing will be a feature, not a bug.

// hospital custodians have to eat, too, so hospitals gotta hospital
 
2013-01-28 03:52:58 PM
Amusing.

Right from the start, liberals have been wrong about almost everything concerning ObamaCare. It's costing far more than expected and it is not, as they kept insisting it would, going to lower the deficit. It's not, as they insisted it would, bringing down the cost of health care or health insurance. It's been an unmitigated disaster already and it hasn't even gotten started good yet. It's also funny that liberals declared themselves "right" on the Constitutional question for months because it was covered under the commerce clause... Only to have the court tell them it wasn't covered at all under the commerce clause but could be declared Constitutional as a tax.

Which is precisely what liberals, including Obama, said it wasn't.

In spite of all this the Republicans are just suppose to accept defeat and accept it right? If this is the standard in use, in that once the SCOTUS declares something, that we must accept it and move on... May I ask why liberals continue to fight against Citizens United? Many liberals disagree with the SCOTUS rulings on the 2nd Amendment, has that stopped them from pushing for 2nd Amendment related legislation where ever they can? Why should the Republicans be any different simply because they lost this particular SCOTUS fight?

Is that better?
 
2013-01-28 03:57:37 PM
randomjsa:

Right from the start, liberals

And we're done.
 
2013-01-28 04:05:17 PM

AeAe: 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.


Go away. You are not helping.
 
2013-01-28 04:23:48 PM

randomjsa: In spite of all this the Republicans are just suppose to accept defeat and accept it right? If this is the standard in use, in that once the SCOTUS declares something, that we must accept it and move on... May I ask why liberals continue to fight against Citizens United? Many liberals disagree with the SCOTUS rulings on the 2nd Amendment, has that stopped them from pushing for 2nd Amendment related legislation where ever they can? Why should the Republicans be any different simply because they lost this particular SCOTUS fight?


The SCOTUS has not ruled that the 2nd Amendment is absolute. Quite the contrary, in DC v Heller, Scalia wrote that the government has the right to regulate the types of arms people have access to but because handguns were the most common form of weapon people chose to purchase the government could not ban handguns. The push for legislation is not to subvert the 2nd amendment, but to enact reasonable regulations.

For Citizens United, liberals generally fall into 2 camps: either attempt to relitigate the case after a new Justice has been seated to replace one of the current conservative members or shoot for a full-on constitutional amendment to explicitly bar corporate contributions from being considered speech. The handful of court cases challenging CU since the ruling have been about state level restrictions on corporate spending in elections which is a different issue from federal restrictions on spending.

Healthcare reform has been weighed by the courts and by the public. The courts found it constitutional (even though the justification was different than the primary justification advanced by the government) and the public re-elected the President who signed the bill, so I would argue that issue is pretty well settled. If you want to wait for liberal justice to be replaced and you want to then attempt to relitigate Obamacare, be our guest. If you have some novel legal argument which wasn't included in the original omnibus of claims, then go ahead and bring it forward, but most of the argument these days is "SOCIALISM!!!"
 
2013-01-28 04:34:40 PM
 
2013-01-28 04:57:46 PM

Moonfisher: My favorite argument against Obamacare that keeps cropping up here in California is that we will have to wait longer to see a doctor because 2 million new people will now have insurance. It's so blatantly, disgustingly selfish. That sounds to me like an opportunity to create some healthcare jobs, but what do I know?


This reminded me of my ex-girlfriend, who in 2008 was a BIG McCain/Palin supporter. Her angry Facebook post on Election night read something like below:

"Good job everyone, hope you like waiting in farking huge lines for healthcare."

My reply was:

"Two weeks ago, we waited in the hospital for 4 hours for you to get your tonsils treated. How's it any different?"

/Thank god I don't use Facebook anymore
 
2013-01-28 05:01:52 PM

AngryPanda: Moonfisher: My favorite argument against Obamacare that keeps cropping up here in California is that we will have to wait longer to see a doctor because 2 million new people will now have insurance. It's so blatantly, disgustingly selfish. That sounds to me like an opportunity to create some healthcare jobs, but what do I know?

This reminded me of my ex-girlfriend, who in 2008 was a BIG McCain/Palin supporter. Her angry Facebook post on Election night read something like below:

"Good job everyone, hope you like waiting in farking huge lines for healthcare."

My reply was:

"Two weeks ago, we waited in the hospital for 4 hours for you to get your tonsils treated. How's it any different?"

/Thank god I don't use Facebook anymore


My mom's chronically ill, so I've spent more than my fair share of time waiting in emergency rooms. We used to have to wait for hours for her to be seen; now it's usually under one hour. Now, I would credit this more to the two facts that the local hospital has put a lot of reforms in place and the next town over now has a hospital of its own, but still, it kind of shows your ex's statement for the uninformed rant it is, doesn't it?
 
2013-01-28 05:42:10 PM

maxheck: Weaver95:

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.

Obviously you're no constitutional scholar.

2nd Amendment = whatever I think it should mean, and set in stone by Jesus.
3rd Amendment = wtf?
4th Amendment = 9/11 changed everything


1st Amendment: Conservative Christians are allowed to say anything they want, up to and including threats against the President. Everyone else can EABOD.
 
2013-01-28 05:44:08 PM
From what I can see is that ever since the Tea Party broke that the GOP Voters have been sending anti government tards to Washington just for the sole purpose of farking things up, doing a horrible job and saying no to the President no matter what he says.

I suppose thats why seasoned GOP vets are losing to the nutty fringe tea party darlings in republican primaires. I guess the GOP mantra is get crazy and stupid or go home.

And Republicans are shocked that the Democrats are outmaneuvering them at every turn.
 
2013-01-28 05:47:47 PM

Weaver95: 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.


I agree, but for reasons I must assume are different from yours.

Let's say both parties are bad (I know, bad joke; bear with me). I don't believe the Republicans have your best interests in mind. I also don't believe the Democrats have my best interests in mind. What do we do? I want to live my life in peace, with the most freedom possible, to acknowledge my neighbors their right to do the same, and to raise my children and their descendants in a country which cherishes youth.

How do we do that? I freely admit I'm way the fark left of Albuquerque at this point. Maybe you're not standing with me. Our parties sure the fark aren't. How do we fix it? I want to go to a bar with you and have a beer, and I want to disagree with what you have to say, and I want to go home and sleep well. And when we go to work tomorrow, we will work, and we will strive for our families, especially for our children, and we will persevere to create a society in which we can once again agree to disagree.

But how? When? Our ability to communicate nigh-instantly has reduced us to our paranoias. Will we allow the lowest common denominator to command the broadest messages?
 
2013-01-28 05:54:39 PM

EvilEgg: He stubbornly refuses to be embarrassed by it


Embarrassed? Obama is laughing up his sleeve.
 
2013-01-28 06:00:16 PM

Corvus: 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.


Interestingly according to articles published in the New England Journal of Medicine the operate considerably more efficiently than for profit hospitals when compared on the basis of procedures that they have in common. Google and read nonprofit hospital, and for profit hospital...
 
2013-01-28 06:13:29 PM

Grungehamster: 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").


the_vegetarian_cannibal: 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.


Oh, it's much, much worse than that. You've seen this famous photo (taken by David Weigel) of the Teabaggers holding their infamous sign at the first Teabagger protest on February 27, 2009, right?
farm4.static.flickr.com


Everyone focuses on the large writing in red and black lettering, but look at the much smaller handwriting in green ink in the lower right corner of not only that sign, but all the signs held by that group of protestors in that photo. Notice anything?

One week prior to that protest, the very same people in that photo started and posted in this Freeper thread, where they not only invented the term, but did so knowing full well what it meant! Even after being repeatedly warned by their own as to its double entendre meaning (beginning with the very Weeners in that thread, the second post overall therein, less than 1½ minutes after it started!), they decided to use it because of that meaning thinking that it would be applied to their enemies instead of themselves! (While it doesn't say much about the use of the term, this thread from five days later verifies their plans regarding that protest scheduled for that very weekend.)

This was months before Rachel Maddow or Anderson Cooper used the term against them.

Here's what They of the Short Memory had to say about Maddow's use thereof, only about 1½ months after the above thread.

Not a full year ― only about 10¼ months ― from the original thread, and lo, they're incensed about NPR's use of it.

Before that month is out, they're even more upset about NPR using it.

Oh, one more thing about that photo using that explicit language: note that these fine upstanding morally upright citizens had an impressionable teenager holding that particular sign!
 
2013-01-28 06:45:03 PM

Corvus: 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.


I'm a very strong supporter of Social Security. But the payroll tax cut in 2010 caused Social Security, for the first time in its history, to spend more than it took in. The difference was made up by funds from general revenue, which in turn were borrowed. I know this in part because I opposed the payroll tax cut at the time precisely because it would cause Social Security to run a deficit for the first time in its history.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think the payroll tax cut expired this month, and wasn't renewed as part of the big tax deal. If so, Social Security won't be adding to the deficit anymore starting now.
 
2013-01-28 07:19:49 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: [img1.fark.net image 77x27] The Fight Against the Heritage Foundation's health care plan from the mid-90s has just begun.

Come on, you dumbshiats. You can win this. You can break Fartfartacare. Guess what happens next? Hint: It isn't going back to the status quo ante, no matter what you reactionary morons think.


Hey, they can dream, can't they? They grew up with "When you wish upon a star" and all that.
 
2013-01-28 10:07:12 PM
That was some tortured syntax, subby.

Work on it.
 
2013-01-28 10:46:45 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.

 
2013-01-28 10:51:25 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?


It's pretending to defy the Obongotron, and that's all their mouthbreathing base cares about.
 
2013-01-29 12:29:37 AM

COMALite J: Grungehamster: 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").

the_vegetarian_cannibal: 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.

Oh, it's much, much worse than that. You've seen this famous photo (taken by David Weigel) of the Teabaggers holding their infamous sign at the first Teabagger protest on February 27, 2009, right?[farm4.static.flickr.com image 500x375]

Everyone focuses on the large writing in red and black lettering, but look at the much smaller handwriting in green ink in the lower right corner of not only that sign, but all the signs held by that group of protestors in that photo. Notice anything?

One week prior to that protest, the very same people in that photo started and posted in this Freeper thread, where they not only invented the term, but did so knowing full well what it meant! Even after being repeatedly warned by their own as to its double entendre meaning (beginning with the very Weeners in that thread, the second post overall therein, less than 1½ minutes after it started!), they decided to use it because of that meaning thinking that it would be applied to their enemies instead of themselves! (While it doesn't say much about the use of the term, this thread from five days ...


Thank you so much for this. I've bookmarked it for later use when I get some pissy teabagger relative whining about people calling them by their childish self-anointed title.
 
2013-01-29 12:57:53 AM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Thank you so much for this. I've bookmarked it for later use when I get some pissy teabagger relative whining about people calling them by their childish self-anointed title.


The Internet never forgets.
 
2013-01-29 03:18:00 PM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: Thank you so much for this. I've bookmarked it for later use when I get some pissy teabagger relative whining about people calling them by their childish self-anointed title.


De nada. I always make it a point to use "Teabagger" instead of "Tea Partier" or some such on any and all forums these days when the subject matter is relevant, just hoping for some Teabagger to complain. Then I have an excuse to post the above links. :-)


Gyrfalcon: The Internet never forgets.


Well, except when Freeperators delete the posts and threads (I saw at least one deleted post already in one of the above threads), as they may eventually do if this information goes viral. Someone needs to archive those threads. It's history that absolutely must be preserved.
 
Displayed 141 of 141 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report