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.

(Washington Post)   O-Team tries hiding their latest health policy shift in the Friday afternoon document dump during a four-day weekend, and now won't bother checking health insurance applicants' income etc. until, y'know, whenever, after the elections   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 95
    More: Fail, health insurance, hiding, household incomes, documents, marketplace  
•       •       •

1619 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Jul 2013 at 4:10 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-07 08:06:04 PM  

LasersHurt: acchief: LasersHurt: acchief: Do you think verifying your identity entails reporting what color your first car was?

Do you think that's what we're talking about, and not verifying your income and eligibility?

According to this article, that's exactly what we're talking about, in addition to verifying income and eligibility.

According to the article this THREAD is about, and which we're talking about. I can't help that you came in and decided to respond to my post with your thoughts on some other, different article.


And I can't help that the article you're claiming to be focused on failed to mention all the verification requirements mandated for Obamacare enrollment. I was replying initially to your statement "Protip: If your first thought is how people will abuse something and lie, you're the person who will abuse and lie. That's you. You're projecting." which very aptly applies to the source of abuse concerns.
 
2013-07-07 08:06:52 PM  

Zagloba: ex-nuke: Like most other Federal vote buying projects I fully expect this one to be a fraud magnet. There will be no attempt to actually enforce any accountability. With a bit of luck the abuse will be of a magnitude that it cannot be ignored and swept under the rug. But, but Bush.... isn't going to be able to cover up for this one.

Spell it out for us, professor: where's the potential for fraud?

You still have to pay your premiums if you buy health insurance on the exchanges -- you just get offsetting tax credits if your income is low. But the IRS knows what your income is, no matter what you put down on the exchange application.


I presume the subsidies are paid directly to the insurance companies rather than the individual. So, if your individual coverage would cost X, but the income you declare on your application indicates that you'd receive a subsidy of Y, you would only pay the insurance company X-Y with Y going directly from the government to the insurance company.

But even so, these records should be able to be reconciled with tax records pretty easily. It would be nice if we got some more information about how this process would work. It does not seem all that difficult and they have had a while to get something like that in place for the big roll-out in 2014.
 
2013-07-07 08:08:54 PM  

Zagloba: ex-nuke: Like most other Federal vote buying projects I fully expect this one to be a fraud magnet. There will be no attempt to actually enforce any accountability. With a bit of luck the abuse will be of a magnitude that it cannot be ignored and swept under the rug. But, but Bush.... isn't going to be able to cover up for this one.

Spell it out for us, professor: where's the potential for fraud?

You still have to pay your premiums if you buy health insurance on the exchanges -- you just get offsetting tax credits if your income is low. But the IRS knows what your income is, no matter what you put down on the exchange application.


I meant to also say that if my reading of TFA is accurate, the tax credits are for people who have employer sponsored health care coverage, but the cost of that coverage is > that 9.5% of your income. I wasn't really sure about why that part was included in TFA as, like you said, it seems like that would be handled via your tax returns.
 
2013-07-07 08:09:35 PM  

GreatGlavinsGhost: jjorsett: tenpoundsofcheese: Step 1:  Pass a bill
Step 2:  Decide to only selectively enforce parts of it.
Step 3:  Profit

Based on what I've seen lately (non-recess recess appointments, amnesty to a large swath of illegal immigrants, no enforcement of  employer health care mandate, etc.):
Step 1: See a law blah president
Step 2: Ignore it oppose everything he says/does
Step 3: Goto 1

FTFY


You do realise that if the next Democrat President is white and Republicans oppose them just as vehemently, you'll look like quite the cock for so blithely playing the race card?
 
2013-07-07 08:09:40 PM  

acchief: LasersHurt: acchief: LasersHurt: acchief: Do you think verifying your identity entails reporting what color your first car was?

Do you think that's what we're talking about, and not verifying your income and eligibility?

According to this article, that's exactly what we're talking about, in addition to verifying income and eligibility.

According to the article this THREAD is about, and which we're talking about. I can't help that you came in and decided to respond to my post with your thoughts on some other, different article.

And I can't help that the article you're claiming to be focused on failed to mention all the verification requirements mandated for Obamacare enrollment. I was replying initially to your statement "Protip: If your first thought is how people will abuse something and lie, you're the person who will abuse and lie. That's you. You're projecting." which very aptly applies to the source of abuse concerns.


You're going to complain no matter what, so it's all pretty irrelevant what exactly you're whining about
 
2013-07-07 08:14:47 PM  

theknuckler_33: I meant to also say that if my reading of TFA is accurate, the tax credits are for people who have employer sponsored health care coverage, but the cost of that coverage is > that 9.5% of your income.


From what I understand, if you have any employer-sponsored health coverage, you're ineligible for the exchanges. But that's also not a fraud risk, so I skipped over that.

theknuckler_33: I presume the subsidies are paid directly to the insurance companies rather than the individual.


I wouldn't presume that... getting a nice chunk of premium back at the end of the year is just the kind of thing designed to make people like the law, once they've had a chance to get to know it.
 
2013-07-07 08:16:23 PM  

The Numbers: GreatGlavinsGhost: jjorsett: tenpoundsofcheese: Step 1:  Pass a bill
Step 2:  Decide to only selectively enforce parts of it.
Step 3:  Profit

Based on what I've seen lately (non-recess recess appointments, amnesty to a large swath of illegal immigrants, no enforcement of  employer health care mandate, etc.):
Step 1: See a law blah president
Step 2: Ignore it oppose everything he says/does
Step 3: Goto 1

FTFY

You do realise that if the next Democrat President is white and Republicans oppose them just as vehemently, you'll look like quite the cock for so blithely playing the race card?


Yes, they will have to do that, won't they? Lest they be revealed...

Please proceed, Republicans!
 
2013-07-07 08:17:43 PM  

theknuckler_33: Zagloba: ex-nuke: Like most other Federal vote buying projects I fully expect this one to be a fraud magnet. There will be no attempt to actually enforce any accountability. With a bit of luck the abuse will be of a magnitude that it cannot be ignored and swept under the rug. But, but Bush.... isn't going to be able to cover up for this one.

Spell it out for us, professor: where's the potential for fraud?

You still have to pay your premiums if you buy health insurance on the exchanges -- you just get offsetting tax credits if your income is low. But the IRS knows what your income is, no matter what you put down on the exchange application.

I presume the subsidies are paid directly to the insurance companies rather than the individual. So, if your individual coverage would cost X, but the income you declare on your application indicates that you'd receive a subsidy of Y, you would only pay the insurance company X-Y with Y going directly from the government to the insurance company.

But even so, these records should be able to be reconciled with tax records pretty easily. It would be nice if we got some more information about how this process would work. It does not seem all that difficult and they have had a while to get something like that in place for the big roll-out in 2014.


Funny you should mention that, this article discusses the enormous networking challenges for online enrollment into the state exchanges. They're supposed to verify your identity via credit reporting agencies, then your income by pinging IRS databases, then determine your level of eligibility, and route you to the appropriate "department", all in "reasonable" real time, without making you re-enter your data twice, thus collecting all your information in one place.

The phrase "close enough for government work" will be Obamacare's undoing in this case.
 
2013-07-07 08:21:33 PM  

Gulper Eel: Corvus: Remember when this was the talking point:

Rep. Kevin Brady, a Texas Republican, warns that the IRS will hire up to 16,500 new enforcers in the coming months to go after citizens who do not pay the new Obamacare tax. The expansion is said to include criminal investigators who "make cases" in order to levy penalties on scofflaws.


Now the new talking point is they are not hiring enough "enforcers".


You're having trouble handling the concepts? The IRS is there to make sure the amount of money coming in is maxed out.

Whatever 'oversight' will exist under the ACA will be to make sure the amount of money going out meets the correct political needs to sustain its popularity. It's not a health-care program. It's a check-cutting/vote-buying program. Same as Medicare, defense, and ag subsidies.


OMG, people trying to make a program so that people like it, how horrible!!!

There is healthy dose of skepticism then their are people like you how are so cynical about everything that you will ignore reality so that you can feel persecuted and paranoid.

Medicare saves lots of people from dying!! But you are so messed in your cynicism  that doesn't matter. You instead are to afraid of believing some good gets done and instead color it as some political evil scheme.

Making things better for Americans isn't "vote-buying", it's what the farking government supposed to be there for. In your deranged head the government shouldn't be making things better for their citizens.

And my point was Obamacare was being attacked by the right for having to many people overseeing it and now it's being attacked by not enough. That makes it obvious that these people are just being partisan.
 
2013-07-07 08:22:36 PM  

Zagloba: theknuckler_33: I meant to also say that if my reading of TFA is accurate, the tax credits are for people who have employer sponsored health care coverage, but the cost of that coverage is > that 9.5% of your income.

From what I understand, if you have any employer-sponsored health coverage, you're ineligible for the exchanges. But that's also not a fraud risk, so I skipped over that.


Yes, that was my point. That the tax credits (applicable only to people with employer sponsored coverage) are different from the subsidies (applicable only to those buying individual coverage).

theknuckler_33: I presume the subsidies are paid directly to the insurance companies rather than the individual.

I wouldn't presume that... getting a nice chunk of premium back at the end of the year is just the kind of thing designed to make people like the law, once they've had a chance to get to know it.


The point of the subsidies was to help those who can't afford the cost of coverage to begin with. I think it would be difficult for those people to bear the full cost of the coverage for a full year waiting for the subsidy at the end of the year.  If they can go a year without the subsidy, they apparently can afford the coverage. I'm not saying you are wrong, necessarily, but my presumption was based on the idea that the subsidies are granted because these people cannot afford the monthly premium otherwise, therefore the subsidy reduces the monthly premium and, in that case, I would expect the subsidy to go directly to the insurance companies.
 
2013-07-07 08:22:51 PM  
Gulper Eel
All this, to pay for the management of disorders caused primarily by our own damn fool choices.

Disorders such as:
Getting pregnant
Not getting pregnant
Getting a vasectomy
Getting hit by a drunk driver
Cancer from the illegal dumping some megacorp did
Driving while black
Diabetes (not everyone gets it from being fat)
Leukemia
Congenital disorders
Appendicitis
Food poisoning
Broken bones (easily 2 grand)
Complications from gastroenteritis
 
2013-07-07 08:35:19 PM  

ex-nuke: Like most other Federal vote buying projects I fully expect this one to be a fraud magnet. There will be no attempt to actually enforce any accountability. With a bit of luck the abuse will be of a magnitude that it cannot be ignored and swept under the rug. But, but Bush.... isn't going to be able to cover up for this one.


Federal vote buying projects? Like military spending?
 
2013-07-07 08:40:28 PM  

theknuckler_33: Yes, that was my point. That the tax credits (applicable only to people with employer sponsored coverage) are different from the subsidies (applicable only to those buying individual coverage).


Care to link for the interested? In many corners of the policy world, "tax credit" is a subset of "subsidy", so I'd been reading them as synonyms here.
 
2013-07-07 08:41:46 PM  
Why are humans predisposed to making drama?
 
2013-07-07 08:45:53 PM  

Zagloba: theknuckler_33: Yes, that was my point. That the tax credits (applicable only to people with employer sponsored coverage) are different from the subsidies (applicable only to those buying individual coverage).

Care to link for the interested? In many corners of the policy world, "tax credit" is a subset of "subsidy", so I'd been reading them as synonyms here.


I'm not trying to get into an argument about it. I'm just repeating what was in TFA (5th-7th paragraphs). In re-reading it, the 5th paragraph does refer to 'tax subsidies' (for those buying individual coverage), so I could easily be mixing it up. The 7th paragraph refers to 'tax credits' for those with employer sponsored health coverage.
 
2013-07-07 08:47:48 PM  
The GOP doesn't want people to have access to health care. They don't want some people to have access to a voting booth. They don't want women to have the right to choose to have an abortion. They don't want working class people to have employment, given they never create jobs bills. They don't want those same people to have unemployment benefits, either. They don't want people who are struggling to be able to get assistance. They don't want the elderly to have the Social Security benefits most of them paid into over years to get later. But the banks, the oil companies, the rich can have and keep whatever they want. So I'm wondering: besides access to a bridge to jump off, a razor or knife to slit our wrists with or pills to overdose on, what will the GOP let the poor and middle class have?
 
2013-07-07 08:52:25 PM  

heavymetal: I notice a pattern here:
1. Find a part of the ACA which when implemented might cause some issues.
2. Declare the ACA a failure due to these issues.
3. Have the White House implement some changes in the ACA to address these issues.
4. Declare the ACA a failure because it had to be tweaked in order to address certain issues with its implementations.

It is almost like certain people have a personal problem with the ACA and will criticize anything and everything about the ACA, even if that "thing" corrects a problem that they had with it initially. Of course all they will do is criticize and never offer a practical alternative to bringing affordable healthcare to the masses. They are awesome at saying how things will not work or calling the uninsured lazy. The only solution they offer is giving the rich more tax cuts and then the rich will donate enough to charity to pay for the uninsured; but despite record low federal tax rates this has failed to happen along with better pay and more jobs. Besides isn't making people dependent on charity as "un-bootstrappy" as depending on the government for a handout? At least the ACA promotes personal responsibility.

Basically I am saying to conservatives to either come up with a practical alternative to the ACA, admit you just do not give a damn about the uninsured, or STFU and let the grownups actually try to do something about it. It's one thing not to want to be part of the solution, but to try to propagate the problem out of spite is pathetic since it is people's lives you are farking with.


What we had was great.
Here were the few changes that could have made things better:

Have emergency room visits actually send bills after you're there.

Make it legal for for insurance companies to compete across state lines.

Allow people with pre-existing conditions buy their own insurance by enforcing the equal protections clause of the constitution. I'm not so much for forcing a regulation like that onto a business but it's done enough in other ways that there is a ton of precedent to base it off of.
 
2013-07-07 09:43:19 PM  

themindiswatching: Thus Deathcare is a failure?


Stop trying to make "Deathcare" happen.
 
2013-07-07 09:45:16 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Step 1:  Pass a bill
Step 2:  Decide to only selectively enforce parts of it.
Step 3:  Profit


1. Find your mom.
2. Unzip pants.
3. Profit

I've decided that every response to TPOCrap will now involve his mom and sexual relations.  I figure it puts them at an intellectual level he can understand.
 
2013-07-07 09:56:00 PM  

Corvus: There is healthy dose of skepticism then their are people like you how are so cynical about everything that you will ignore reality so that you can feel persecuted and paranoid.


The reality is that Medicare gets ripped off to the tune of 10% a year, and beyond that is an ocean of waste on unnecessary tests and dodgy-but-'perfectly legal' billing.

The reality is that we waste shiatloads on defense as well, and on subsidies to anybody who buys enough votes in Washington, and on and on.

I live in New York, which, given our astounding level of taxation and social spending, should be paradise on earth to hear state-worshiping leftists tell it - but the results from the Albany cash spew are not markedly better than they are in saner states.

You're the one who's not skeptical enough.

Corvus: Medicare saves lots of people from dying!!


And a lot of people are sick in the first place thanks to our own shiatheaded agricultural and nutrition policies. It really is politically brilliant to include food stamps in the farm bill - get poor people into a system that forces them to buy the unhealthiest food around since that's what's cheapest, get them nice and fat and eventually diabetic and artery-clogged, then hook them up with medications to "manage" their condition. And all along there's a dialed-in big business getting a piece of the action: agribusiness, pharmaceuticals, hospitals, and big-box grocers to name the most prominent ones.

Yes, Medicare saves people - once it's through throwing money around like Mardi Gras beads.
 
2013-07-07 10:03:32 PM  

RobertBruce: What we had was great.


For certain people.

Here were the few changes that could have made things better:
Have emergency room visits actually send bills after you're there.


They always have.  Emergency rooms have never been free - but they have to provide emergency services regardless of whether they believe you can or will pay.  They'll still try to collect the money, and they'll eventually sell the debt to a collection agency, etc. just like with any unpaid bill.

The ED can and will try to bill everyone, but there are many who simply have no ability to pay - you can't squeeze blood from a stone.  Apart from sinking their credit rating, there's not much you can do to recover those expenses.
 Make it legal for for insurance companies to compete across state lines.


The Affordable Care Act did this.

Allow people with pre-existing conditions buy their own insurance by enforcing the equal protections clause of the constitution. I'm not so much for forcing a regulation like that onto a business but it's done enough in other ways that there is a ton of precedent to base it off of.

This was also one of the main pieces of the Affordable Care Act.
 
2013-07-07 10:04:21 PM  

Peter von Nostrand: So we're back to Obama winning elections because he gives stuff away? Is that what we're going with this week?


If he wins in 2016, we'll all know something is up.
 
2013-07-07 10:11:35 PM  

Sum Dum Gai: RobertBruce: What we had was great.

For certain people.

Here were the few changes that could have made things better:
Have emergency room visits actually send bills after you're there.

They always have.  Emergency rooms have never been free - but they have to provide emergency services regardless of whether they believe you can or will pay.  They'll still try to collect the money, and they'll eventually sell the debt to a collection agency, etc. just like with any unpaid bill.

The ED can and will try to bill everyone, but there are many who simply have no ability to pay - you can't squeeze blood from a stone.  Apart from sinking their credit rating, there's not much you can do to recover those expenses.
 Make it legal for for insurance companies to compete across state lines.


The Affordable Care Act did this.

Allow people with pre-existing conditions buy their own insurance by enforcing the equal protections clause of the constitution. I'm not so much for forcing a regulation like that onto a business but it's done enough in other ways that there is a ton of precedent to base it off of.

This was also one of the main pieces of the Affordable Care Act.


So, basically, once again - somebody likes all the things in the Affordable Care Act, but hates Obamacare.
 
2013-07-07 10:30:18 PM  

Gulper Eel: Corvus: There is healthy dose of skepticism then their are people like you how are so cynical about everything that you will ignore reality so that you can feel persecuted and paranoid.

The reality is that Medicare gets ripped off to the tune of 10% a year, and beyond that is an ocean of waste on unnecessary tests and dodgy-but-'perfectly legal' billing.

The reality is that we waste shiatloads on defense as well, and on subsidies to anybody who buys enough votes in Washington, and on and on.

I live in New York, which, given our astounding level of taxation and social spending, should be paradise on earth to hear state-worshiping leftists tell it - but the results from the Albany cash spew are not markedly better than they are in saner states.

You're the one who's not skeptical enough.

Corvus: Medicare saves lots of people from dying!!

And a lot of people are sick in the first place thanks to our own shiatheaded agricultural and nutrition policies. It really is politically brilliant to include food stamps in the farm bill - get poor people into a system that forces them to buy the unhealthiest food around since that's what's cheapest, get them nice and fat and eventually diabetic and artery-clogged, then hook them up with medications to "manage" their condition. And all along there's a dialed-in big business getting a piece of the action: agribusiness, pharmaceuticals, hospitals, and big-box grocers to name the most prominent ones.

Yes, Medicare saves people - once it's through throwing money around like Mardi Gras beads.


So, the solution to that is to do away with Medicare, really?  Medicare is the problem in your logic, given that string of events?
 
2013-07-07 10:30:53 PM  
Remember, these are the same people who were outraged, OUTRAGED that the IRS audited some people who filled out a form for tax-exempt status.
 
2013-07-07 10:32:51 PM  

Gulper Eel: Yes, Medicare saves people - once it's through throwing money around like Mardi Gras beads.


You know that Medicare has A) a lower fraud rate and B) lower overhead than private insurance, right?
 
2013-07-07 11:06:20 PM  

Gulper Eel: The reality is that Medicare gets ripped off to the tune of 10% a year, and beyond that is an ocean of waste on unnecessary tests and dodgy-but-'perfectly legal' billing.


The ACA actually gives some powerful tools to CMS in their efforts to fight fraud.  Historically, by law, even if fraud was suspected, Medicare had to pay the claim, and then later, if fraud was proven, attempt to recover the money.  It was required by law to 'pay first and ask questions later'.  That is no longer the case.

However, Medicare will always have a problem with fraud - not because government is somehow less competent at fighting fraud, but because Medicare is a more lucrative target.  Nearly every senior citizen is covered by Medicare, and seniors are by far the most lucrative targets for medical fraud, for several reasons:
* Seniors tend to consume a disproportionate volume and value of services compared to any other age group.  Half of your lifetime medical expenses are incurred after 65, and 35% are incurred after 85.  It's easier for a false charge to hide among genuine charges, so people looking to fabricate claims disproportionately use seniors as the alleged recipients of the goods and services.
* Seniors are easier to con out of their insurance and personal information.  There's a reason many types of scammers target seniors, and those looking to commit health care fraud are no exception.
* Seniors are more likely to have health or mental issues that prevent them from giving useful aid to investigators searching for evidence of fraud.
 
2013-07-07 11:09:31 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Step 1:  Pass a bill
Step 2:  Decide to only selectively enforce parts of it.
Step 3:  Profit


That's what happens when approximately half of the people who make laws are actively trying to make government fail at this task.  If this way of doing things hurts your sensitive little feelings, feel free to contact your Republican congressman and demand he takes action to help fix any issues that pop up during Obamacare's implementation.
 
2013-07-08 12:49:36 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Gulper Eel: Yes, Medicare saves people - once it's through throwing money around like Mardi Gras beads.

You know that Medicare has A) a lower fraud rate and B) lower overhead than private insurance, right?


But when it's private companies that is capitalism, so that is all ignored.

Idiots like him don't really understand the real world and think everything can work in the real world like their idealism on paper. They don't understand things like you can't ever have a business that is 100% efficient.
 
2013-07-08 12:52:35 AM  

Gulper Eel: The reality is that Medicare gets ripped off to the tune of 10% a year, and beyond that is an ocean of waste on unnecessary tests and dodgy-but-'perfectly legal' billing.


You understand corporate profits are pure "waste" from a cost/service perspective. And you seem to pretend that private insurance has no fraud. LOL

Heck if you take corporate profit alone you a probably wasting more than medicare and when you tack on their high priced executives, fraud and waste you are probably looking at double.
 
2013-07-08 01:07:31 AM  

The Numbers: GreatGlavinsGhost: jjorsett: tenpoundsofcheese: Step 1:  Pass a bill
Step 2:  Decide to only selectively enforce parts of it.
Step 3:  Profit

Based on what I've seen lately (non-recess recess appointments, amnesty to a large swath of illegal immigrants, no enforcement of  employer health care mandate, etc.):
Step 1: See a law blah president
Step 2: Ignore it oppose everything he says/does
Step 3: Goto 1

FTFY

You do realise that if the next Democrat President is white and Republicans oppose them just as vehemently, you'll look like quite the cock for so blithely playing the race card?


Are you trying to say I don't look like one now!?

I'm offended.
 
2013-07-08 01:14:05 AM  

GreatGlavinsGhost: The Numbers: GreatGlavinsGhost: jjorsett: tenpoundsofcheese: Step 1:  Pass a bill
Step 2:  Decide to only selectively enforce parts of it.
Step 3:  Profit

Based on what I've seen lately (non-recess recess appointments, amnesty to a large swath of illegal immigrants, no enforcement of  employer health care mandate, etc.):
Step 1: See a law blah president
Step 2: Ignore it oppose everything he says/does
Step 3: Goto 1

FTFY

You do realise that if the next Democrat President is white and Republicans oppose them just as vehemently, you'll look like quite the cock for so blithely playing the race card?

Are you trying to say I don't look like one now!?

I'm offended.


Are

Are you coming on to me? D:
 
2013-07-08 01:41:03 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: Step 1:  Pass a bill
Step 2:  Decide to only selectively enforce parts of it.
Step 3:  Profit


Nah, you're deriving the wrong negative conclusion here.  You seem to think that this indicates that the administration is evil, but the delays in general and the stuff in TFA in particular just point to it being massively, cripplingly incompetent.

Which, y'know, seems to pretty much be par for the course for the Obama team for the last year or so.  I mean, in their defense, still doing better at everything than Romney's ever done at anything, so still the correct choice last election, but that's a really low bar and in more absolute terms they're jerking around like a bunch of clueless morons.
 
2013-07-08 02:41:37 AM  

Summercat: GreatGlavinsGhost: The Numbers: GreatGlavinsGhost: jjorsett: tenpoundsofcheese: Step 1:  Pass a bill
Step 2:  Decide to only selectively enforce parts of it.
Step 3:  Profit

Based on what I've seen lately (non-recess recess appointments, amnesty to a large swath of illegal immigrants, no enforcement of  employer health care mandate, etc.):
Step 1: See a law blah president
Step 2: Ignore it oppose everything he says/does
Step 3: Goto 1

FTFY

You do realise that if the next Democrat President is white and Republicans oppose them just as vehemently, you'll look like quite the cock for so blithely playing the race card?

Are you trying to say I don't look like one now!?

I'm offended.

Are

Are you coming on to me? D:


Mo-om! Stop following me in the forums!

/And, to answer your question, yes. Yes I am.
 
2013-07-08 03:18:20 AM  

GreatGlavinsGhost: Summercat: GreatGlavinsGhost: The Numbers: GreatGlavinsGhost: jjorsett: tenpoundsofcheese: Step 1:  Pass a bill
Step 2:  Decide to only selectively enforce parts of it.
Step 3:  Profit

Based on what I've seen lately (non-recess recess appointments, amnesty to a large swath of illegal immigrants, no enforcement of  employer health care mandate, etc.):
Step 1: See a law blah president
Step 2: Ignore it oppose everything he says/does
Step 3: Goto 1

FTFY

You do realise that if the next Democrat President is white and Republicans oppose them just as vehemently, you'll look like quite the cock for so blithely playing the race card?

Are you trying to say I don't look like one now!?

I'm offended.

Are

Are you coming on to me? D:

Mo-om! Stop following me in the forums!

/And, to answer your question, yes. Yes I am.


Oh my ;) You can call me 949 867-5309
 
2013-07-08 03:37:01 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: You know that Medicare has A) a lower fraud rate and B) lower overhead than private insurance, right?


The opposite would be more likely to be true. Most estimates of Medicare fraud are in the 10% range, and for private insurance fraud it's in the 3-7% range.

Total dollars lost to fraud are higher for private insurance because that's a $2.6 trillion business whereas Medicare's about a quarter that size.
 
2013-07-08 03:40:03 AM  
part snark part observation

what happened to all the people claiming that this was so wonderful

the percentage for / against seems to have shifted remarkably
 
2013-07-08 03:53:13 AM  

Summercat: 867-5309


Jenny?
 
2013-07-08 03:58:11 AM  

bindlestiff2600: part snark part observation

what happened to all the people claiming that this was so wonderful

the percentage for / against seems to have shifted remarkably


You maybe weren't paying enough attention to the actual majority of what was being said about the HCR law by its supporters.  It wasn't exactly "yay, now everything is fixed forever" it was more a resounding "yay?  I guess that's acceptable... barely.  At least it's a minor improvement, if they actually manage to administer it competently... maybe."

And... that's pretty much how it's panned out.  Except now that they've started farking up in moderate to major ways (pushing your implementation deadline on entire programs due to insufficient preparation is pretty fail) they've gone from OK, but kinda close to the line to not OK, but pretty close to the line in a lot of minds.  It's not really a dramatic swing, the majority of us even pretty much saw this one coming once all the compromises started rolling off the already GOP-based bill pushing it even further right.
 
2013-07-08 06:37:42 AM  

quatchi: Summercat: 867-5309

Jenny?


MOM?
 
2013-07-08 07:36:04 AM  

Jim_Callahan: You maybe weren't paying enough attention to the actual majority of what was being said about the HCR law by its supporters. It wasn't exactly "yay, now everything is fixed forever" it was more a resounding "yay? I guess that's acceptable... barely. At least it's a minor improvement, if they actually manage to administer it competently... maybe."

And... that's pretty much how it's panned out. Except now that they've started farking up in moderate to major ways (pushing your implementation deadline on entire programs due to insufficient preparation is pretty fail) they've gone from OK, but kinda close to the line to not OK, but pretty close to the line in a lot of minds. It's not really a dramatic swing, the majority of us even pretty much saw this one coming once all the compromises started rolling off the already GOP-based bill pushing it even further right.


That's not the problem at all.

The problem is that ACA addresses the symptom and not the problem - it's just another government program that shows up to manage the damage (often damage exacerbated by other government programs) after it's done.

Proper nutrition and exercise is going to a shiatload more for us than riding to the rescue with a wheelbarrow full of Metformin for all the fatasses, who conveniently now have a new excuse-making opportunity - see? I'm overweight because it's a disease and has nothing to do with those five calzones I washed down with seven beers at the church festival.

The new obesity-as-disease AMA designation is also lucrative news for the bariatric-surgery and pharmaceutical industries too. I'm getting a definite "corporate welfare for Big Pharma is okay when my guy does it" vibe.

We keep wanting to tell ourselves that there's some way to get healthier other than by eating less, eating better, and getting off our asses - and sure enough, there's Uncle Sugar to feed our illusions.

With subsidized high-fructose corn syrup on top.
 
2013-07-08 08:14:07 AM  

The Numbers: themindiswatching: Thus Deathcare is a failure?

A failure? Far too early to comment. But at this stage it does seem to be an expanding clusterfark.


Is it 2014 already?  Dang, where does the time go?

Oh, wait, it hasn't been implemented yet. I guess people are just cramping up for political purposes. How original.
 
2013-07-08 08:15:29 AM  

bindlestiff2600: part snark part observation

what happened to all the people claiming that this was so wonderful


Right here, numbnuts.
 
2013-07-08 08:46:51 AM  
It's funny how the Democrats, who voted for this steaming turd, can't get away from it fast enough.
 
2013-07-08 08:57:24 AM  

See You Next Tuesday: bindlestiff2600: part snark part observation

what happened to all the people claiming that this was so wonderful

Right here, numbnuts.


well one jerk raised his hand
while many of those in favor were able to offer reason (as well as passion)
this group does clearly contain ahem  others
proving that the left has its share of them as well (tho perhaps not as many)
 
Displayed 45 of 95 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report