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 18
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-07-07 05:00:31 PM  
5 votes:
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.
2013-07-07 05:09:22 PM  
2 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: they passed a law without knowing what is in it (thanks for that line Speaker Pelosi).


No liar. She said: "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy." She didn't said they had not read it. Shes was remarking that the GOP was making up so much lies about the bill that only when it was in effect would people really understand what it did.

They didn't give adequate time for analysis.
Wrong. The bill took an entire year, to  be signed into law. It was also based on ideas that had been around for a very long time. how is that not enough time?

They whined when people said there needs to be more comment and evaluation.

The asked for Republican input. The Republicans boycotted all meetings to give input.
2013-07-07 05:00:19 PM  
2 votes:

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


Step 1: Read a headline (1a: Read an article; optional)
Step 2: Decide to only selectively comprehend parts of it.
Step 3: Threadsh*t?
2013-07-07 04:28:33 PM  
2 votes:

mpirooz: Admitting that the program is going to take longer to efficiently be implemented and actually doing something about it versus sweeping it under the rug is a great example of how to be reactive and proactive when implementing large scale laws.


uhhh...they are being reactive
they passed a law without knowing what is in it (thanks for that line Speaker Pelosi).
They didn't give adequate time for analysis.
They whined when people said there needs to be more comment and evaluation.
And now, what a surprise, they had no clue about what they were doing.

Being proactive is creating a solid law, being reactive is the constant string of "oopsies, I didn't know that" that they have been doing.
2013-07-07 04:24:52 PM  
2 votes:
Admitting that the program is going to take longer to efficiently be implemented and actually doing something about it versus sweeping it under the rug is a great example of how to be reactive and proactive when implementing large scale laws.

Of course, in GOP land that somehow translates to complete and total failure. Because... herp?

One benefit (aside from the obvious) is that it will get the GOP chasing its tail for another year trying to repeal it another 50 times before it goes into full effect. All the way through the 2014 elections. And they're stupid enough to think their continued temper tantrum is going to not be stale, if not offensive, after 4 years of pounding their chests over the (eventual) inevitable doom the ACA will reap upon us all.
2013-07-07 04:21:45 PM  
2 votes:
Step 1:  Pass a bill
Step 2:  Decide to only selectively enforce parts of it.
Step 3:  Profit
2013-07-07 10:32:51 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:55:40 PM  
1 votes:

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
Step 2: Ignore it
Step 3: Goto 1
2013-07-07 06:06:39 PM  
1 votes:
Go ahead and fraudulently report, go ahead. I'm sure they can't possibly keep records for another year or two, then nail your ass when you are caught lying.

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.
2013-07-07 05:04:47 PM  
1 votes:

mpirooz: Admitting that the program is going to take longer to efficiently be implemented and actually doing something about it versus sweeping it under the rug is a great example of how to be reactive and proactive when implementing large scale laws.

Of course, in GOP land that somehow translates to complete and total failure. Because... herp?

One benefit (aside from the obvious) is that it will get the GOP chasing its tail for another year trying to repeal it another 50 times before it goes into full effect. All the way through the 2014 elections. And they're stupid enough to think their continued temper tantrum is going to not be stale, if not offensive, after 4 years of pounding their chests over the (eventual) inevitable doom the ACA will reap upon us all.


Am I the only one who sees this as the Obama Administration trolling the GOP to try and chase their tail around for the next year and lose sight of the elections? Not to mention most of it taking effect and being in place by that time anyway. Since the DNC usually does poorly in midterms this might be a way to try and even the playing field.

/loved the Forbes article advocating people to lie
//one good thing about Yahoo! going full derp, I get a front seat to the GOP idiocy since Yahoo! is still my homepage.
///links to AnnCoulter, Townhall, Motley Fool, etc...hilarious, comments even more priceless.
2013-07-07 04:59:09 PM  
1 votes:

Nemo's Brother: Need to make sure this monster of a bill doesn't ruin Democrats' election chances, which Obama believes that it will.


Right, now Fart Hussein 0bama and his DemocRATS have to run on the less popular aspects of Fartcare, which is the lack of lifetime coverage limits and ;people not being dropped because of pre-existing conditions.

Seriously, I don't think the healthcare of 300 million people can be addressed with a 5 or 10 page bill.  Anyone who complains about how long the ACA is is a fool.  Although my preference was a one sentence bill- namely "All naturalized Americans are now eligible for Medicare."
2013-07-07 04:41:03 PM  
1 votes:

Somacandra: FTFA: The federal government also needs to know who receives health insurance coverage from an employer. Consumers who receive affordable health insurance from their company under a policy that costs less than 9.5 percent of their income do not qualify for tax credits under the Affordable Care Act.

Given that employers send copies of your W-2s to the IRS anyway, its hard to see how this won't simply be a part of that as well.


Somacandra: FTFA: Instead, the federal government will rely more heavily on consumers' self-reported information until 2015, when it plans to have stronger verification systems in place.

Since this being enforced through a tax penalty from the IRS anyway, why wouldn't they just use the ol' 1040s? But if they add additional layers of verification, perhaps that will catch/discourage additional tax cheats to begin with.


This, and that.

All this sounds like is another "can Benghazi be a scandal yet".  There's no "giving away" of anything.  Eligibility will be determined by your tax returns.  It's not like you can just not file those.
2013-07-07 04:38:37 PM  
1 votes:

Outshined_One: When did the Washington Post turn into the Washington Times?


A few months ago in preparation for when it turns into the New York Post.
2013-07-07 04:37:07 PM  
1 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: mpirooz: Admitting that the program is going to take longer to efficiently be implemented and actually doing something about it versus sweeping it under the rug is a great example of how to be reactive and proactive when implementing large scale laws.

uhhh...they are being reactive
they passed a law without knowing what is in it (thanks for that line Speaker Pelosi).
They didn't give adequate time for analysis.
They whined when people said there needs to be more comment and evaluation.
And now, what a surprise, they had no clue about what they were doing.

Being proactive is creating a solid law, being reactive is the constant string of "oopsies, I didn't know that" that they have been doing.


You must really enjoy the smell of your own ass since your head spends so much time up it.
2013-07-07 04:36:12 PM  
1 votes:
When did the Washington Post turn into the Washington Times?
2013-07-07 04:35:54 PM  
1 votes:
I read it. It wasnt that difficult to understand.

Sorry a comprehensive healthcare plan for 300 million people is longer than your attention span.

Single payer would still be better, but you have to start somewhere!
2013-07-07 04:16:07 PM  
1 votes:
So we're back to Obama winning elections because he gives stuff away? Is that what we're going with this week?
2013-07-07 02:50:56 PM  
1 votes:
FTFA: The federal government also needs to know who receives health insurance coverage from an employer. Consumers who receive affordable health insurance from their company under a policy that costs less than 9.5 percent of their income do not qualify for tax credits under the Affordable Care Act.

Given that employers send copies of your W-2s to the IRS anyway, its hard to see how this won't simply be a part of that as well.
 
Displayed 18 of 18 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report