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.

(Huffington Post)   House GOP: "How about this, Debt Ceiling Lift for Obamacare delay?" Senate Dem: "No, revise it. Be serious." House GOP: "How about this, Debt Ceiling Lift for Obamacare delay?" USA:"fark you"   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 407
    More: Sad, House GOP, obamacare, GOP, Van Hollen, Majority Leader Harry Reid, individual mandate, ACA, Boehner  
•       •       •

2727 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Sep 2013 at 7:12 PM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-30 09:17:58 PM

peasandcarrots: That's what you, and thirty Congressmen, don't get. "I get everything and you get nothing,


You don't see the Continuing Resolution as something? You think that is nothing? That I think is where you fail to see there is a quid pro quo.
 
2013-09-30 09:18:03 PM

feckingmorons: peasandcarrots: Headso: feckingmorons: They've given the Senate 40+ bills to repeal it over the last two years.

and replace it with nothing, so go back to the way it was when people with preexisting conditions couldn't get coverage and we all had to pick up the tab anyway because of the Hippocratic oath, why don't you pass a law that allows doctors to ignore that first and then move on to repealing obamacare.

Call me a joker, call me a fool, but I think this would be a perfect time for the Senate to reveal a sweeping repeal bill of Obamacare that dismantles every provision and postpones every measure, watch the House jump at it, and then open it up and read:

"The Affordable Care Act is hereby repealed and replaced with a comprehensive single-payer system, the details of which are as follows:"

Well, they want it repealed and replaced. How badly do they want it repealed and replaced?


If you think you can set up single payer in a year or two (or ten for that matter) and still have hospitals and physicians I'll vote for you.


like the all the other nations with single payer? The real naivety in his post is thinking there's actually a party in power that would offer that as a solution.
 
2013-09-30 09:19:29 PM

feckingmorons: nmrsnr: why it should be incumbent on the Democrats to initiate negotiations:

They didn't. The House sent them the bill, they make changes and send it back. Simply saying no is not negotiating.

Look at the back and forth on the last CR and you'll see how they negotiated, the Senate didn't just say NO! and go home for the weekend.


Gee, I wonder what could have changed.  It wasn't like the House was led by a bunch of unreasonable loonies who kept moving the goalposts further and further to the right.
 
2013-09-30 09:19:54 PM

pueblonative: feckingmorons: Please, you're telling me a bill relating to repealing Obamacare can't be negotiated to fix provisions in Obmamcare

Okay, let's take one of those loyalty oaths described as a bill, strip out the derp , and add an amendment that reworks the individual mandate to a public option plus system where those who did not find their own insurance on the exchanges would be enrolled in Medicaid-E (other people could sign on as well).  You want to negotiate on that?


Thankfully I have developed enough good sense never to run for or accept public office again. I think you want to give medicaid to people who don't get insurance at work or who don't sign up. Well that is not a terrible idea, but how do you weed out the people who simply can't be bothered to sign up because in the end if they simply don't do anything, FREE INSURANCE!
 
2013-09-30 09:19:56 PM

feckingmorons: They didn't. The House sent them the bill, they make changes and send it back. Simply saying no is not negotiating.


And saying "repeal the entire bill" is not an opening point of negotiation. Or, rather, it is as much a valid response as "repeal the entire bill" is a valid opening of negotiations. You can't say "Republicans just want to negotiate" when they started with "get rid of everything" but say that Democrats won't negotiate when they say "counter offer: we keep everything."
 
2013-09-30 09:20:09 PM

feckingmorons: peasandcarrots: That's what you, and thirty Congressmen, don't get. "I get everything and you get nothing,

You don't see the Continuing Resolution as something? You think that is nothing? That I think is where you fail to see there is a quid pro quo.


And you have no farking clue what a quid pro quo is, obviously.  If you did, you would see what the House is doing is producing ransom notes, not something that should be taken seriously by the Senate.  If there was any actual quid pro quo going on, they wouldn't be putting such batshiat crazy ideas in the CR bill to get it passed.

But I'm sure you already know that.
 
2013-09-30 09:21:15 PM

feckingmorons: peasandcarrots: Headso: feckingmorons: They've given the Senate 40+ bills to repeal it over the last two years.

and replace it with nothing, so go back to the way it was when people with preexisting conditions couldn't get coverage and we all had to pick up the tab anyway because of the Hippocratic oath, why don't you pass a law that allows doctors to ignore that first and then move on to repealing obamacare.

Call me a joker, call me a fool, but I think this would be a perfect time for the Senate to reveal a sweeping repeal bill of Obamacare that dismantles every provision and postpones every measure, watch the House jump at it, and then open it up and read:

"The Affordable Care Act is hereby repealed and replaced with a comprehensive single-payer system, the details of which are as follows:"

Well, they want it repealed and replaced. How badly do they want it repealed and replaced?


If you think you can set up single payer in a year or two (or ten for that matter) and still have hospitals and physicians I'll vote for you.


Where would they go?  Canada and the UK already have single payer systems, Australia has a pseudo-single payer system, so it's not like they could run off to another English speaking country to practice if they opposed single payer.  Plus, while cost controls absolutely should be implemented, and that may lower some wages, they'd still be making a very good living.  The success of the systems in Canada and the UK proves that single payer works.

Even better, open up more residency programs, and pay for the education of those willing to work in underserved and critical need areas for a number of years in return.   Put more doctors out there, the supply will bring down the salaries they can demand, and incentivize new doctors to work in areas that need them the most.

Also, give RNs, PAs, and NPs more power to do more without direct doctor supervision, and expand the things they're allowed to do in general.  Most routine ailments don't need a full fledged doctor to be diagnosed and treated successfully.
 
2013-09-30 09:21:31 PM

Headso: like the all the other nations with single payer? The real naivety in his post is thinking there's actually a party in power that would offer that as a solution.


I've lived in a country with single payer. I still got insurance so I could go to private hospitals and doctors. Single payer is not something we really want I don't think.
 
2013-09-30 09:21:37 PM

feckingmorons: peasandcarrots: That's what you, and thirty Congressmen, don't get. "I get everything and you get nothing,

You don't see the Continuing Resolution as something? You think that is nothing? That I think is where you fail to see there is a quid pro quo.


Except the CR isn't some kind of present for the Democrats; it's a required measure for the continuing functioning of government. That's where the coercion comes in.
 
2013-09-30 09:22:56 PM

nmrsnr: Or, rather, it "keep the entire bill" is as much a valid response as "repeal the entire bill" is a valid opening of negotiations.


Clarified that for me.
 
2013-09-30 09:23:41 PM

feckingmorons: Headso: like the all the other nations with single payer? The real naivety in his post is thinking there's actually a party in power that would offer that as a solution.

I've lived in a country with single payer. I still got insurance so I could go to private hospitals and doctors. Single payer is not something we really want I don't think.


Congrats on being rich enough to buy private.  What do you want to do about those who aren't?
 
2013-09-30 09:24:06 PM

pueblonative: feckingmorons: nmrsnr: why it should be incumbent on the Democrats to initiate negotiations:

They didn't. The House sent them the bill, they make changes and send it back. Simply saying no is not negotiating.

Look at the back and forth on the last CR and you'll see how they negotiated, the Senate didn't just say NO! and go home for the weekend.

Gee, I wonder what could have changed.  It wasn't like the House was led by a bunch of unreasonable loonies who kept moving the goalposts further and further to the right.


I do think it was a lot like the House won't talk to the Senate.  The Senate won't talk to the House.  And Obama is throwing insults at one side instead of reaching out and at least trying to meet with everyone to air out their grievances.  We got the government we deserve.
 
2013-09-30 09:25:02 PM

Headso: feckingmorons: peasandcarrots: Headso: feckingmorons: They've given the Senate 40+ bills to repeal it over the last two years.

and replace it with nothing, so go back to the way it was when people with preexisting conditions couldn't get coverage and we all had to pick up the tab anyway because of the Hippocratic oath, why don't you pass a law that allows doctors to ignore that first and then move on to repealing obamacare.

Call me a joker, call me a fool, but I think this would be a perfect time for the Senate to reveal a sweeping repeal bill of Obamacare that dismantles every provision and postpones every measure, watch the House jump at it, and then open it up and read:

"The Affordable Care Act is hereby repealed and replaced with a comprehensive single-payer system, the details of which are as follows:"

Well, they want it repealed and replaced. How badly do they want it repealed and replaced?


If you think you can set up single payer in a year or two (or ten for that matter) and still have hospitals and physicians I'll vote for you.

like the all the other nations with single payer? The real naivety in his post is thinking there's actually a party in power that would offer that as a solution.


Well, I really just meant it as a mental exercise. My emphasis was that if Obamacare is literally so hard to swallow that anything would be better, and single payer is part of the subset of "anything..."
 
2013-09-30 09:26:03 PM

feckingmorons: Headso: like the all the other nations with single payer? The real naivety in his post is thinking there's actually a party in power that would offer that as a solution.

I've lived in a country with single payer. I still got insurance so I could go to private hospitals and doctors. Single payer is not something we really want I don't think.


instead we want a system where people still get coverage when they can't afford it ultimately paid by the taxpayer and insurance holders?
 
2013-09-30 09:26:26 PM

nmrsnr: nmrsnr: Or, rather, it "keep the entire bill" is as much a valid response as "repeal the entire bill" is a valid opening of negotiations.

Clarified that for me.


There are lots that need fixed in Obamacare to make it work as advertised.  But you are right, neither side is looking at fixing.  They are looking at all or nothing.  From the perspective of the Senate...they do nothing and it stays, so why talk?  From the House, why bargain when we can hold it all hostage...which they can't because even with a shut down the White House decides who is essential personnel in the government and it still becomes law tomorrow...more law...more better law
 
2013-09-30 09:27:03 PM
Senate is already voting now to fling this turd back.
 
2013-09-30 09:27:57 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Also, give RNs, PAs, and NPs more power to do more without direct doctor supervision, and expand the things they're allowed to do in general.  Most routine ailments don't need a full fledged doctor to be diagnosed and treated successfully.


I'd rather see the worst physician than the best RN, and I am one of the best RNs.

My friend Rick who was an ER doc gave up his private practice to go to the ER, seven years later he quit that to fish for a living. He is much happier.

My friend Steve is an orthopedic surgeon, he pays $4 an hour, every hour of every day for all the insurance (all lines) his practice requires. He wishes he had done something else, but medical school really only prepares you for one thing. He is getting an executive MBA and going into consulting in a few years when he sells his practice to "Some idealistic SOB."

People simply won't go into medicine. Obamacare cuts reimbursements (I have no idea why they use that word when they mean payments, they are not reimbursing anyone they are paying doctors for their work).

Would you want to get paid $57.30 for an office visit from a commercial plan, $75 from a guy who pays cash, or $12,91 from medicare? The government funded rates are going down. Would you see patients for 1/6 of your value, would you see them at a net loss? Name a physician - not employed or affiliated with the government who still really sees patients in his own practice- who is in favor of Obamacare and I'll eat my hat.
 
2013-09-30 09:28:59 PM

feckingmorons: pueblonative: feckingmorons: Please, you're telling me a bill relating to repealing Obamacare can't be negotiated to fix provisions in Obmamcare

Okay, let's take one of those loyalty oaths described as a bill, strip out the derp , and add an amendment that reworks the individual mandate to a public option plus system where those who did not find their own insurance on the exchanges would be enrolled in Medicaid-E (other people could sign on as well).  You want to negotiate on that?

Thankfully I have developed enough good sense never to run for or accept public office again. I think you want to give medicaid to people who don't get insurance at work or who don't sign up. Well that is not a terrible idea, but how do you weed out the people who simply can't be bothered to sign up because in the end if they simply don't do anything, FREE INSURANCE!


Who mentioned "free"?   You can charge them on their tax returns (and give it a little more teeth by saying that your property can have a lien attached to it as with any other tax debt) OR you can do actual deductions on their paycheck based upon their rate of pay from the last year and send them an EOB and a health coverage card.  If they want out of it they produce proof of their own coverage.  Also, if you do have coverage and drop it during the year, you have a set period of time to pick up coverage or you're enrolled as of that date.
 
2013-09-30 09:29:23 PM

I_C_Weener: which they can't because even with a shut down the White House decides who is essential personnel in the government and it still becomes law tomorrow...more law...more better law


Which is why this whole thing is mind-bogglingly stupid.
 
2013-09-30 09:31:07 PM

12349876: feckingmorons: Headso: like the all the other nations with single payer? The real naivety in his post is thinking there's actually a party in power that would offer that as a solution.

I've lived in a country with single payer. I still got insurance so I could go to private hospitals and doctors. Single payer is not something we really want I don't think.

Congrats on being rich enough to buy private.  What do you want to do about those who aren't?


They get the HSE in Ireland, I had supplemental private cover BUPA. I think it was about $800/yr
 
2013-09-30 09:31:26 PM

feckingmorons: People simply won't go into medicine


Yes, this is why Europe has no doctors. Only shamanistic apothecaries.
 
2013-09-30 09:32:17 PM

feckingmorons: Name a physician - not employed or affiliated with the government who still really sees patients in his own practice- who is in favor of Obamacare and I'll eat my hat.


not every physician is in it for the money. well orthopedists are, but not all the rest of them.
 
2013-09-30 09:32:30 PM
31.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-09-30 09:32:36 PM

I_C_Weener: nmrsnr: nmrsnr: Or, rather, it "keep the entire bill" is as much a valid response as "repeal the entire bill" is a valid opening of negotiations.

Clarified that for me.

There are lots that need fixed in Obamacare to make it work as advertised.  But you are right, neither side is looking at fixing.  They are looking at all or nothing.  From the perspective of the Senate...they do nothing and it stays, so why talk?  From the House, why bargain when we can hold it all hostage...which they can't because even with a shut down the White House decides who is essential personnel in the government and it still becomes law tomorrow...more law...more better law


See you're way too smart for this garbage.

Where do you see the political will in the House to make any fixes? The reason you're not seeing patch bills come out of the Senate is because they're DOA in the House where the majority only wants to repeal.

This "plague on both their houses" stuff is really bunk in this context. The Republicans in the House are absolutists when it comes to Obamacare repeal.

The Senate and the President can hardly be blamed for their frostiness given the present climate in the House Republican caucus. It's like Israel being faulted for just not being a little more reasonable with Iran.
 
2013-09-30 09:33:35 PM

DamnYankees: Yes, this is why Europe has no doctors. Only shamanistic apothecaries.


Yeah, it's really cheap, but "ooh-ee-ooh-ah-ah ting, tang, walla-walla bing-bang" only did so much for my herniated disc.
 
2013-09-30 09:33:57 PM

pueblonative: feckingmorons: pueblonative: feckingmorons: Please, you're telling me a bill relating to repealing Obamacare can't be negotiated to fix provisions in Obmamcare

Okay, let's take one of those loyalty oaths described as a bill, strip out the derp , and add an amendment that reworks the individual mandate to a public option plus system where those who did not find their own insurance on the exchanges would be enrolled in Medicaid-E (other people could sign on as well).  You want to negotiate on that?

Thankfully I have developed enough good sense never to run for or accept public office again. I think you want to give medicaid to people who don't get insurance at work or who don't sign up. Well that is not a terrible idea, but how do you weed out the people who simply can't be bothered to sign up because in the end if they simply don't do anything, FREE INSURANCE!

Who mentioned "free"?   You can charge them on their tax returns (and give it a little more teeth by saying that your property can have a lien attached to it as with any other tax debt) OR you can do actual deductions on their paycheck based upon their rate of pay from the last year and send them an EOB and a health coverage card.  If they want out of it they produce proof of their own coverage.  Also, if you do have coverage and drop it during the year, you have a set period of time to pick up coverage or you're enrolled as of that date.


You mentioned free, you said Medicaid. What you're describing now is almost exactly what Obamacare is.

/an EOB is explaination of benefits - a medical claim response. You're thinking of a SPD - summary plan description.
// not a knock, I just knew the difference and thought I'd pass it along.
 
2013-09-30 09:34:39 PM

I_C_Weener: I do think it was a lot like the House won't talk to the Senate. The Senate won't talk to the House. And Obama is throwing insults at one side instead of reaching out and at least trying to meet with everyone to air out their grievances. We got the government we deserve.


No, Obama has realized that playing the good guy when the Repubs have abso-farking-lutely no intention of negotiating in good faith won't work.  Period.  He doesn't have another election to worry about. He can drop the hammer and let the GOP get their faces bashed in in the midterms.  Plus, we'll have one year of Obamacare which will make their opposition look even more teatarded than usual.
 
2013-09-30 09:34:45 PM

feckingmorons: 12349876: feckingmorons: Headso: like the all the other nations with single payer? The real naivety in his post is thinking there's actually a party in power that would offer that as a solution.

I've lived in a country with single payer. I still got insurance so I could go to private hospitals and doctors. Single payer is not something we really want I don't think.

Congrats on being rich enough to buy private.  What do you want to do about those who aren't?

They get the HSE in Ireland, I had supplemental private cover BUPA. I think it was about $800/yr


I was talking about YOUR IDEAL plan.  You think that single payer sucks and I'm happy you got to avoid it because you're rich, what do you want to do about the poor?
 
2013-09-30 09:36:11 PM

hasty ambush: [31.media.tumblr.com image 300x300]


Please tell me you don't honestly believe congress is exempt from the ACA. They negotiate for their healthcare coverage just like every other large business in America, and have their employer contribute to their health insurance premiums, just like every employee in America.
 
2013-09-30 09:37:41 PM
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-09-30 09:37:53 PM

DamnYankees: feckingmorons: People simply won't go into medicine

Yes, this is why Europe has no doctors. Only shamanistic apothecaries.


Would you go for heart surgery in Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK? They may have brilliant doctors, but the facilities are certainly not as numerous or as well staffed, sanitary or modern as ours. Even the Royal College or Nurses admits the nurses are overworked and understaffed and amazingly they're not a union.
 
2013-09-30 09:39:35 PM

FlashHarry: feckingmorons: Name a physician - not employed or affiliated with the government who still really sees patients in his own practice- who is in favor of Obamacare and I'll eat my hat.

not every physician is in it for the money. well orthopedists are, but not all the rest of them.


Anethesiologists are purely about the money...and free drugs....mostly the money though.
 
2013-09-30 09:41:52 PM

12349876: feckingmorons: 12349876: feckingmorons: Headso: like the all the other nations with single payer? The real naivety in his post is thinking there's actually a party in power that would offer that as a solution.

I've lived in a country with single payer. I still got insurance so I could go to private hospitals and doctors. Single payer is not something we really want I don't think.

Congrats on being rich enough to buy private.  What do you want to do about those who aren't?

They get the HSE in Ireland, I had supplemental private cover BUPA. I think it was about $800/yr

I was talking about YOUR IDEAL plan.  You think that single payer sucks and I'm happy you got to avoid it because you're rich, what do you want to do about the poor?


based on his posts he wants them to be covered as they were in the past using taxpayer money and insurance holder money he just wants to do it in the most expensive way possible by using the ER as a primary care facility for the poor instead of mandating they get insurance and providing subsidies.
 
2013-09-30 09:42:10 PM

nmrsnr: hasty ambush: [31.media.tumblr.com image 300x300]

Please tell me you don't honestly believe congress is exempt from the ACA. They negotiate for their healthcare coverage just like every other large business in America, and have their employer contribute to their health insurance premiums, just like every employee in America.


Oh my do you actually believe this? The FEHB is not Obamacare. That is true, but there are no Congressmen calling around to get the best rates from Blue Cross, United , and Golden Rule. As such they are exempt from finding other MEC as the coverage provided through their (and more than 9 million other federal employees) is exempt.
 
2013-09-30 09:42:32 PM

nmrsnr: DamnYankees: Yes, this is why Europe has no doctors. Only shamanistic apothecaries.

Yeah, it's really cheap, but "ooh-ee-ooh-ah-ah ting, tang, walla-walla bing-bang" only did so much for my herniated disc.


Yes, but Love Potion #9 cleared up my zitses...
 
2013-09-30 09:43:18 PM

feckingmorons: pueblonative: feckingmorons: pueblonative: feckingmorons: Please, you're telling me a bill relating to repealing Obamacare can't be negotiated to fix provisions in Obmamcare

Okay, let's take one of those loyalty oaths described as a bill, strip out the derp , and add an amendment that reworks the individual mandate to a public option plus system where those who did not find their own insurance on the exchanges would be enrolled in Medicaid-E (other people could sign on as well).  You want to negotiate on that?

Thankfully I have developed enough good sense never to run for or accept public office again. I think you want to give medicaid to people who don't get insurance at work or who don't sign up. Well that is not a terrible idea, but how do you weed out the people who simply can't be bothered to sign up because in the end if they simply don't do anything, FREE INSURANCE!

Who mentioned "free"?   You can charge them on their tax returns (and give it a little more teeth by saying that your property can have a lien attached to it as with any other tax debt) OR you can do actual deductions on their paycheck based upon their rate of pay from the last year and send them an EOB and a health coverage card.  If they want out of it they produce proof of their own coverage.  Also, if you do have coverage and drop it during the year, you have a set period of time to pick up coverage or you're enrolled as of that date.

You mentioned free, you said Medicaid. What you're describing now is almost exactly what Obamacare is.

/an EOB is explaination of benefits - a medical claim response. You're thinking of a SPD - summary plan description.
// not a knock, I just knew the difference and thought I'd pass it along.


My mistake on the acronyms

Almost, but there are differences.  Major one is that with Obamacare even if you pay the penalty you have no insurance.  This would make sure that the ones who didn't get the insurance would have some protection.  You'd probably have to up the premiums (or raise income taxes), but they would be covered by something.

Back to the point:  let's say the Senate did that with one of these 40+ "we hatez the Obamacare, yes we do" Gollum bills.  Do you reasonably expect the Repubs to come anywhere near this type of proposal?
 
2013-09-30 09:44:27 PM

birdmanesq: This "plague on both their houses" stuff is really bunk in this context. The Republicans in the House are absolutists when it comes to Obamacare repeal.


And the Senate is blind to the need to tweak.  They have the option to fix some of these issues too.  But they don't.  Its not an impasse because of one side only.  That's pure PR spin.  They both are to blame here.

Its not exactly bsabsvr, but the Senate is content to let it stand without change, and to continue with increased spending.  What do they care, they don't need to worry for 6 years.
 
2013-09-30 09:46:08 PM

I_C_Weener: birdmanesq: This "plague on both their houses" stuff is really bunk in this context. The Republicans in the House are absolutists when it comes to Obamacare repeal.

And the Senate is blind to the need to tweak.  They have the option to fix some of these issues too.  But they don't.  Its not an impasse because of one side only.  That's pure PR spin.  They both are to blame here.

Its not exactly bsabsvr, but the Senate is content to let it stand without change, and to continue with increased spending.  What do they care, they don't need to worry for 6 years.


Bullshiat.  The House GOP needs to cut their infantile bullshiat and pass a clean CR.
 
2013-09-30 09:48:26 PM

I_C_Weener: birdmanesq: This "plague on both their houses" stuff is really bunk in this context. The Republicans in the House are absolutists when it comes to Obamacare repeal.

And the Senate is blind to the need to tweak.  They have the option to fix some of these issues too.  But they don't.  Its not an impasse because of one side only.  That's pure PR spin.  They both are to blame here.

Its not exactly bsabsvr, but the Senate is content to let it stand without change, and to continue with increased spending.  What do they care, they don't need to worry for 6 years.


Um, a third of the senate is up for election each year.  Nice try, though.  The law has been passed, signed, and upheld.  Repubs throwing a hissy fit and threatening one of their basic functions is only going to help the Dems, particularly when the Repubs are engaging in an internal purge/civil war of anybody who doesn't tow the line.
 
2013-09-30 09:49:09 PM
pueblonative:
Um, a third of the senate is up for election each year.

*two years.
 
2013-09-30 09:50:22 PM

Headso: 12349876: feckingmorons: 12349876: feckingmorons: Headso: like the all the other nations with single payer? The real naivety in his post is thinking there's actually a party in power that would offer that as a solution.

I've lived in a country with single payer. I still got insurance so I could go to private hospitals and doctors. Single payer is not something we really want I don't think.

Congrats on being rich enough to buy private.  What do you want to do about those who aren't?

They get the HSE in Ireland, I had supplemental private cover BUPA. I think it was about $800/yr

I was talking about YOUR IDEAL plan.  You think that single payer sucks and I'm happy you got to avoid it because you're rich, what do you want to do about the poor?

based on his posts he wants them to be covered as they were in the past using taxpayer money and insurance holder money he just wants to do it in the most expensive way possible by using the ER as a primary care facility for the poor instead of mandating they get insurance and providing subsidies.


I would really appreciate if you didn't presume to know how I would answer.

There are many people who simply don't want insurance, a 25 year old college student may forgo insurance for beer money, or perhaps he wants a $10K deductible policy. He would be penailized for that.

Those who can't work because of disability are now provided for through medicare,medicaid, and state plans. Some smaller jurisdictions also have plans for others who aren't working.

Employers could previously offer mini-med plans with annual caps of perhaps $100K which is fine for 99% of those workers, the other few who exceed their cap can transfer to medicaid.

Yes, there will still be some involuntarily uninsured people, and we should have a solution that addresses that, preferably by finding them a good job with insurance. Obamacare is not creating jobs and not insuring those who are uninsured, unemployed and ineligible for medicaid or medicare either. Look at the Obamacare site for a 30 year old drunkard who isn't eligible for medicare or medicaid now. He is in the same position without insurance. I randomly picked Colorado.

Nobody is going to get insurance tomorrow if the CR is passed or not. Lets be clear on that.
 
2013-09-30 09:50:54 PM
I_C_Weener: 

Anethesiologists are purely about the money...and free drugs....mostly the money though.

true that.
 
2013-09-30 09:51:49 PM

feckingmorons: birdmanesq: birdmanesq: feckingmorons: birdmanesq: The reason that Obamacare can't get fixed during the normal legislative process is because the extremist, absolutist wing of the Republican Party cannot compromise in good faith. Instead they are forced to attempt to extract unreasonable demands in a hostage-type situation.

The House voted to repeal Obamacare more than 40 times, each time the Senate rejected that. They could have negotiated any one of those times. To suggest that this is a surprise and the Democrat controlled Senate was not given an opportunity to change Obamacare from the overly broad monstrosity that it is today is simply untrue.

You can have your own opinion. You can't have your own facts.

This is a case where you aren't entitled to your own facts. There was no atten

Er.

There was no attempt made to "fix" Obamacare in those House votes. It was entirely a mission of destruction.

Fortunately our constitutional democracy doesn't work that way.

But, if course, the Tea Party hates the Constitution so they're forced to find ways to bypass normal legislative processes to extort concessions. "I didn't get my way? Fine. I'm coming back with a gun and asking again."

You should be f*cking ashamed of yourself that you are condoning this behavior.

Please, you're telling me a bill relating to repealing Obamacare can't be negotiated to fix provisions in Obmamcare. I'm sure you've conveniently forgotten that the Obamacare bill started out as a completely different appropriations bill (as it was an appropriations bill it had to originate in the house) H.R. 3590, the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 by Charlie Rangel ( an admitted tax cheat). It was about servicemembers and taxes.

You can't in good conscience tell me that if they could turn something about military members housing and taxes into Obamacare they could not have used one of the 40+ repeal bills to compromise.

Bypassing normal legislative process, don't give me that ...


Come on.... you say I should be ashamed of myself and you don't reply when I refute your allegations with substance? I just hope you scrolled past it and this will prod you to reply.
 
2013-09-30 09:52:26 PM

pueblonative: pueblonative:
Um, a third of the senate is up for election each year.

*two years.


That would be so nice.
 
2013-09-30 09:52:41 PM

hasty ambush: [24.media.tumblr.com image 500x439]


that cartoon is so farking stupid, i'm not sure where to begin. but how about with the fact that 80 percent of americans get their healthcare through work or the govt. and won't have to do a farking thing. and if you don't want insurance, DON'T GET IT. you'll pay a tax penalty - that's all. i pay one for not having kids. for me, it's worth it.
 
2013-09-30 09:53:14 PM

feckingmorons: peasandcarrots: That's what you, and thirty Congressmen, don't get. "I get everything and you get nothing,

You don't see the Continuing Resolution as something? You think that is nothing? That I think is where you fail to see there is a quid pro quo.


Passing a cr is the house's job, not a favour they do for democrats.

If you don't want to do your job as a legislator, resign already.
 
2013-09-30 09:54:21 PM

I_C_Weener: pueblonative: feckingmorons: nmrsnr: why it should be incumbent on the Democrats to initiate negotiations:

They didn't. The House sent them the bill, they make changes and send it back. Simply saying no is not negotiating.

Look at the back and forth on the last CR and you'll see how they negotiated, the Senate didn't just say NO! and go home for the weekend.

Gee, I wonder what could have changed.  It wasn't like the House was led by a bunch of unreasonable loonies who kept moving the goalposts further and further to the right.

I do think it was a lot like the House won't talk to the Senate.  The Senate won't talk to the House.  And Obama is throwing insults at one side instead of reaching out and at least trying to meet with everyone to air out their grievances.  We got the government we deserve.


It is not the policy of the united states to negotiate with terrorists.
 
2013-09-30 09:54:23 PM

I_C_Weener: birdmanesq: This "plague on both their houses" stuff is really bunk in this context. The Republicans in the House are absolutists when it comes to Obamacare repeal.

And the Senate is blind to the need to tweak.  They have the option to fix some of these issues too.  But they don't.  Its not an impasse because of one side only.  That's pure PR spin.  They both are to blame here.

Its not exactly bsabsvr, but the Senate is content to let it stand without change, and to continue with increased spending.  What do they care, they don't need to worry for 6 years.


What, in anything the House has done over the last three years, would give you the idea that they would be amenable to any kind of patch? It would be a futile gesture--as the House has assured the Senate 40+ times.

In fact, it would be worse than futile because Republicans would bludgeon Senate Democrats the moment they got any whiff of an admission of a problem in the law. House Republicans have poisoned the well on this issue and the Democrats are right not to mess with it until the law is more settled--and they are certainly right not to entertain messing around with it in return for a 90-day continuing resolution.
 
2013-09-30 09:55:35 PM

feckingmorons: Yes, there will still be some involuntarily uninsured people, and we should have a solution that addresses that, preferably by finding them a good job with insurance. Obamacare is not creating jobs and not insuring those who are uninsured, unemployed and ineligible for medicaid or medicare either. Look at the Obamacare site for a 30 year old drunkard who isn't eligible for medicare or medicaid now. He is in the same position without insurance. I randomly picked Colorado.


*clicks link for SKG*

FTFL:

Lower Costs on Marketplace Coverage
Based on the information you provided, you may be able to get lower costs for your monthly premiums and out-of-pocket costs when you get insurance through the Marketplace. Whether you qualify will depend on your household size and income. Plans and prices will be available October 1, 2013. You will learn your exact costs and savings when you apply.


Based on the information you provided, you could be eligible for free or low-cost health coverage through Medicaid, which provides coverage to millions of Americans with limited incomes or disabilities. New rules in many states mean you may qualify in 2014 even if you haven't qualified before. Your eligibility will depend on your household income and family size.


You were saying?
 
2013-09-30 09:56:27 PM

Infernalist: Bullshiat.  The House GOP needs to cut their infantile bullshiat and pass a clean CR.


Let me put it this way.   The last time we were here, a last minute deal gave us the Punt and Sequester plan.  When that time expired after neither side blinked again, automatic cuts started to take place...and the Democrats called foul, trying to back out of it and seek all kinds of ways out of that agreement...avoid it, rewrite the law...but not compromise.  NEVER COMPROMISE.  And spend months making fun of the Republicans for that deal...

Then the Sequester goes into effect, cutting some spending and the world doesn't end.

Then...we're here again.

What incentive do the Republicans have that the Democrats will stick to any agreement anyway when scant months before they tried backing out of the last compromese?  In other words, the Republicans will be vilified regardless, and will get nothing out of it.  Why work with Democrats?  At all.
 
Displayed 50 of 407 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report