Do you have adblock enabled?
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 121
    More: Sad, House GOP, obamacare, GOP, Van Hollen, Majority Leader Harry Reid, individual mandate, ACA, Boehner  
•       •       •

2747 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Sep 2013 at 7:12 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

2013-09-30 05:18:24 PM  
6 votes:

feckingmorons: I see the headline has it well put. The House proposed something, the Senate said no.

The senate didn't say, well can we delay it for 3 months? Can we compromise on something, they just said no. They have made up their minds not to negotiate and yet people fault the House.


As we've said a million times, it's ridiculous to suggest that this is something to compromise on. The house says "Either you agree to delay Obamacare or we shut down the government."

That's it.

Tell me how this places a requirement on the Democrats to compromise. Go on. Explain why "Either do what we say or we'll shut down the government" is somehow a position that puts a positive obligation on the Democrats to do something. And then qualitatively differentiate this from "Either give me $1,000,000 or I'll shoot the hostages."
2013-09-30 05:20:58 PM  
5 votes:

Carn: feckingmorons: I see the headline has it well put. The House proposed something, the Senate said no.

The senate didn't say, well can we delay it for 3 months? Can we compromise on something, they just said no. They have made up their minds not to negotiate and yet people fault the House.

feckingmorons, I demand you pay for TF for me for 1 year.


If he doesn't at least pay for 1 month, he's being a complete absolutist. How dare he? It's his duty to compromise.
2013-09-30 05:19:33 PM  
5 votes:

feckingmorons: I see the headline has it well put. The House proposed something, the Senate said no.

The senate didn't say, well can we delay it for 3 months? Can we compromise on something, they just said no. They have made up their minds not to negotiate and yet people fault the House.


That's dumb.

The Republicans are attempting to extort enormous concessions in return for funding the government for 90 days. That is absurd on its face. It would be like the Democrats using the threat of a government shutdown in order to require mandatory licensing and registration for firearms in return for funding the government for 90 days.

It's crass. It's not an equivocal negotiation. And the press has done an enormous disservice to the public by not reporting this realistically.
2013-09-30 08:06:44 PM  
4 votes:
You have a hell of a slippery slope problem too. Is there any reason to think if the dems started giving them what they wanted that in the future they won't just do the same shiat and threaten gov shut downs and debt defaults if we didn't ban abortion, kill gun control, or fund NPR?
2013-09-30 06:42:37 PM  
4 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: what_now: Because we as a society have decided that health care is something we all pay for.

How much do you think you should be forced to pay for my heathcare?


Enough so that when ill-fortune strikes you that you aren't made destitute and holding me up at gunpoint for what's mine.  In exchange, you'll fork over an amount so that you won't have to spend additional money putting bars on your windows and buying another gun.

If you don't view providing base-level services that every human requires to be an obvious point of the social contract, then you're likely not interested in maintaining that contract at all.  Fair enough.  But don't drag the cost to society into the argument without calculating for externalities.

And don't drag freedom into the equation without considering the freedom from fear:  The fear of losing employer-based health benefits, or the fear of bankruptcy from an accident or bad luck.
2013-09-30 06:39:12 PM  
4 votes:

what_now: Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: i want european-style single-payer health coverage.

Because?

Because we as a society have decided that health care is something we all pay for. Like the Army and roads.


And schools.

Thinking about healthcare as insurance is already wrong. We should, like every other developed country in the world, have a society where everybody can rely on a basic level of healthcare regardless of their wealth, simply because it is better for each of us for all of us to be well, just as it is better for each of us for all of us to be educated.

And in the same way that I paid for other people's children's education when I was younger, and others are now helping to pay for mine, I should be happy to contribute to other people's health care when I was young and healthy (and by the way, not all young people are healthy) in the knowledge they will help pay for mine when I get old and sick (and by the way, not all old people are sick). This is simply how civilized nations do things.
2013-09-30 06:31:16 PM  
4 votes:
No matter how you spin it, the GOP is on the wrong side of this one, even if you don't want Obama Care for whatever reason.
2013-09-30 06:13:21 PM  
4 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: a market-based solution, which obamacare is

It is ANYTHING but market based.


It's more of a market based system than universal single payer.  Our previous system worked in a very convoluted way compared to the market as well.  There's essentially no price competition between different doctors and hospitals, it's nearly impossible to find out what the prices are for various services to comparison shop, and the prices can differ by huge amounts depending on if you pay cash, pay through an insurance company (and then it differs a lot depending on the insurance company paying), or if you don't pay at all.

It's been convoluted and obfuscated for decades.
2013-09-30 05:58:40 PM  
4 votes:
Try actually GIVING SOMETHING UP if you want to get something in return. You're tired of being called extortionists and terrorists, but when your only "offer" is a threat to destroy our banking system and plunge us into a Depression if you don't get what you want, WTF is the country supposed to call you?
2013-09-30 05:15:52 PM  
4 votes:

feckingmorons: I see the headline has it well put. The House proposed something, the Senate said no.

The senate didn't say, well can we delay it for 3 months? Can we compromise on something, they just said no. They have made up their minds not to negotiate and yet people fault the House.


What is the compromise for the House there? All they want to do is delay Obamacare. They want to raise the debt ceiling. They want everything else. Why give the House everything they want?
2013-09-30 08:26:15 PM  
3 votes:

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 seems to be your hang up. You think that repeal is a starting point for negotiation. It's not. Everyone knows it's not a starting point for negotiation. You're not going to convince anyone that it is.

Here, I'll offer to shoot you in the face in exchange for which you never speak in public again or participate in public forums in any way. Now you come back with a counter offer.
2013-09-30 08:17:55 PM  
3 votes:

feckingmorons: birdmanesq: In a way, I can totally understand viewing the budget CRs and the debt ceiling as leverage points. I mean, it is the desire to not have the US government shut down or for the US to not default on its obligation would seem to present serious incentive to acquiesce.

But in assigning blame, it's pretty clear that the party attempting to extract those concessions ought to be the group that bears the risk for the consequences.

We need a CR. It is obvious that Obamacare is defective as many parts of it have been delayed by Obama himself and other parts repealed - the 1099 for all small business transactions got the chop a few years ago if I recall. It is flawed and delaying that until it can be repaired is not unreasonable.

Refusing to delay flawed legislation and forcing the country into a governmental shutdown simply to make a point is improper, and yet that is the Democrat position.


You're wrong.

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.
2013-09-30 08:16:50 PM  
3 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: DarwiOdrade: At least this way we end up paying less.

You think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's free.*

*Plagiarized from PJ O'Rourke

unyon: I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you're not suffering from a chronic life threatening illness while having substandard insurance.

No, but I've been broke.


And during that time that you were broke, I presume that you put your limited resources into the basics- food, clothing, shelter. And, given limited resources and tough choices, likely rolled the bones with your health care and likely the health care of your family.

Do I have the scenario about right?  And during that time that you gambled with your families health, were you honestly more concerned about big government?
2013-09-30 07:58:51 PM  
3 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: You know, in the left wing derposphere that fark has devolved into I'm considered a far right winger. I think we spend too much and think ACA is a bad law, etc. etc.

But I want to go on record again and say this dance with shutdown and debt ceiling nonsense is petty and childish of the GOP. Ive shifted enough to the right in the past few years that I'd love to vote against the dems but alas the GOP isn't a viable alternative right now.


You've done far too much shilling for Wall Street. Nobody with more than two brain cells to rub together believes you.
2013-09-30 07:53:25 PM  
3 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: TuteTibiImperes: No, I think the government should appoint a panel of medical professionals to make those decisions

So you will willingly give control of decisions that affect your healthcare to some panel of professionals. It's ok though, because you live a healthy lifestyle so it really won't affect you in any way...it's the people like that guy over there that will be culled.


And this comment shows how you know nothing about how healthcare insurance has worked since it's inception.  Most decisions that are made at the insurance company are not made by doctors, but by actuarial specialists.  They looked at a cost benefit analysis, and decided whether you would get that lifesaving drug or surgery.

Couple that with the fact that so many insurance companies engaged in rescission (usually trying to find new and interesting ways to deny coverage to someone due to a specious 'pre-existing condition', and add in that many who did it for the companies got huge bonuses based on how many policies they could terminate), yeah, prior to the ACA, everything was just peachy.  But you go right on believing that our healthcare system was the best in the entire world compared to such 3rd world nations like the UK, Canada, and Germany.
2013-09-30 07:21:58 PM  
3 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: what_now: Because we as a society have decided that health care is something we all pay for.

How much do you think you should be forced to pay for my heathcare?


As much as it takes. Healthcare providers have to write-off millions a year due to unpaid ER visits, they pass those costs onto everyone else. You think it actually costs $4k to pick you up in an ambulance?

How about because my kids or my neighbors' kids might go to school with your kids. Or we might go to the same theater, or public sporting event. The more people are able to seek preventative care the fewer major outbreaks we'll have and the healthier the people are around us the less likely we are to get sick. Also the healthier people are the more productive they'll be and the more likely they'll be to have opportunities for advancement. Missing work because your sick and can't afford to see the doctor can have a significant impact on your ability to advance in a career or even complete higher education.

Which means that a healthier population is a more productive population which means that fewer people will NEED as much healthcare which means costs come down for everybody.
2013-09-30 07:01:29 PM  
3 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: what_now: Because we as a society have decided that health care is something we all pay for.

How much do you think you should be forced to pay for my heathcare?


If you don't get insurance, end up in the emergency room, and don't pay, we're forced to pay anyway. At least this way we end up paying less.
2013-09-30 06:04:41 PM  
3 votes:

FlashHarry: , that the mandate is there to offset the hit that insurance companies will take by not being able to deny coverage for preexisting conditions.


That's not why the mandate is there, actually. It's there to push healthy people onto the exchanges in order to create a larger risk pool and keep premiums down.
2013-09-30 05:18:38 PM  
3 votes:

feckingmorons: I see the headline has it well put. The House proposed something, the Senate said no.

The senate didn't say, well can we delay it for 3 months? Can we compromise on something, they just said no. They have made up their minds not to negotiate and yet people fault the House.


feckingmorons, I demand you pay for TF for me for 1 year.
paj
2013-09-30 09:09:31 PM  
2 votes:
pbs.twimg.com
2013-09-30 08:36:37 PM  
2 votes:
In exchange for the debt ceiling passage, the democrats should offer to repeal obamacare in its entirety and lower the Medicare qualifying age to 18.

That sounds like a compromise right up the GOP's alley. Obamacare completely repealed and the debt ceiling passage.
2013-09-30 08:12:15 PM  
2 votes:
In chart form:

pbs.twimg.com
2013-09-30 08:00:16 PM  
2 votes:

feckingmorons: Carn: feckingmorons: I see the headline has it well put. The House proposed something, the Senate said no.

The senate didn't say, well can we delay it for 3 months? Can we compromise on something, they just said no. They have made up their minds not to negotiate and yet people fault the House.

feckingmorons, I demand you pay for TF for me for 1 year.

What do I get in return, a continuing resolution to fund the government? OK you've got a deal.


Why do you care about what you get in return? You're clearly just in it for yourself if all you care about is what you get in return. So just give Carn his 1 year of TF and we'll consider what we feel you deserve later.
2013-09-30 07:39:42 PM  
2 votes:
I have never been so disgusted by anything in my life. Is healthcare a right? No but I would rather people got their shots and treatment for VD instead of worrying about catching something when I'm out in public.

And if I can get cheaper, better healthcare than my company's policy privately? Great. That's tax deductible.

Guys, conservative means not legislating people's life choices and freedoms. Its not being a Christian literalist.

Next election, I'm voting pro-gun democrat.
2013-09-30 07:33:20 PM  
2 votes:

feckingmorons: I see the headline has it well put. The House proposed something, the Senate said no.

The senate didn't say, well can we delay it for 3 months? Can we compromise on something, they just said no. They have made up their minds not to negotiate and yet people fault the House.


How about this, you give me all your money and I get to kick you in the nuts every day? No, don't like that? What's your counter proposal? How often would you like to get kicked in the nuts after you give me all your money? Okay, how about this, you give me all your money and you get to get to receive my foot swiftly in your nuts every day. See, I've giving you something as part of the deal, my foot.

Why aren't you negotiating?
2013-09-30 07:16:13 PM  
2 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: I don't have a problem with safety net programs.


You should given you started by asking how much you should be forced to pay for someone else's well being. How much should I be forced to pay for your retirement? For Medicare, that's really almost exactly the same question you posed "how much should I be forced to pay for your health care?" especially when you're old and going to be racking up the bills?

Why is being forced to pay okay if you're paying for old people, but not for people with preexisting conditions, or to people just above the poverty line?
2013-09-30 07:06:55 PM  
2 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: And now we're going to add 'free' heathcare for all to that list because it (like everything else you listed) the government has determined to be a moral duty.


Sure, if you'll admit that adding free healthcare to that list is not qualitatively a different kind of "forcing" than "forcing" you to pay for this little guy's bamboo:
cdn.freelancestar.com
2013-09-30 06:53:37 PM  
2 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: what_now: Because we as a society have decided that health care is something we all pay for.

How much do you think you should be forced to pay for my heathcare?


Ah, the old "forced" crybaby argument. Thanks for proving yet again you can't converse like an adult.
2013-09-30 06:35:36 PM  
2 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: what_now: Because we as a society have decided that health care is something we all pay for.

How much do you think you should be forced to pay for my heathcare?


How much do you think you should be forced to pay for my roads?  My police?
2013-09-30 06:34:32 PM  
2 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: what_now: Because we as a society have decided that health care is something we all pay for.

How much do you think you should be forced to pay for my heathcare?


Everyone should pay into the same pot and it will be divvied out as necessary.  Those who need more care will get it, those who need less will get what they need, but everyone pays in equally (well, based on progressive income brackets).

It won't matter if you're a Fortune 500 CEO or an out of work high school drop out - if you need to see a doctor you get to see a doctor free of charge, and everyone receives the same high quality level of care.

Not only is it a more fair option, it will save us money.  With the government acting as the only insurer, it will be free to mandate rates and reimbursements as necessary to control costs.  A panel of medical experts can update rates for reimbursement to hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and medical equipment companies each year to strike a balance between fair pay for those working in the industry and low costs being charged to the system.

Perhaps even better we could eventually move to just nationalize the entire healthcare industry.  All doctors, nurses, etc, will become government employees paid on a set scale, all pharmaceutical research will be done in government labs for the public good instead of for profit, etc.
2013-09-30 05:50:35 PM  
2 votes:

Rincewind53: Carn: feckingmorons: I see the headline has it well put. The House proposed something, the Senate said no.

The senate didn't say, well can we delay it for 3 months? Can we compromise on something, they just said no. They have made up their minds not to negotiate and yet people fault the House.

feckingmorons, I demand you pay for TF for me for 1 year.

If he doesn't at least pay for 1 month, he's being a complete absolutist. How dare he? It's his duty to compromise.


Ok ok, in order to keep the good faith negotiations going, I'll settle for 6 months.  Now that's a compromise!
jbc [TotalFark]
2013-09-30 05:26:37 PM  
2 votes:

feckingmorons: I see the headline has it well put. The House proposed something, the Senate said no.

The senate didn't say, well can we delay it for 3 months? Can we compromise on something, they just said no. They have made up their minds not to negotiate and yet people fault the House.


Why should anyone, much less the US government, negotiate with terrorists?
2013-10-01 01:18:35 AM  
1 votes:

SithLord: Well Democrats, are you gonna own this shutdown or are you gonna blame the House for something the Democrat-controlled Senate didn't wish to compromise on?


If you have a plate with four cookies, and one child wants all four and the other is willing to accept two and let the first one have two, you do not "compromise" by giving three cookies to the bully.
2013-10-01 12:08:16 AM  
1 votes:

LordJiro: Acording to Republicans, "Allowing the government to continue to function" is a compromise, and is in no way similar to a lunatic holding someone hostage.


And what's not being mentioned enough - functioning at GOP levels! Look at this chart of CR amounts, and remember what the fark the GOP is fighting about.

pbs.twimg.com
2013-09-30 10:54:10 PM  
1 votes:

Infernalist: DamnYankees: This conference thing is nutballs. What the frack is the GOP thinking?

My guess, eat up the clock so that they can send it back to the Senate one last time and then go home.


They aren't sending anything back. That's the point. They are done. They are just appointing conferees. I'm reading that they are doing this so they can say "hey, look, we are sending conferees to agree on a budget because Harry Reid is being so unreasonable." Of course, Reid has literally been trying to send Senate conferees for MONTHS, but the GOP won't let him do it since it needs 60 votes.
2013-09-30 10:49:46 PM  
1 votes:

feckingmorons: Do you disagree that the problems with Obamacare will fall more on the working poor than anyone else?


Yes, because they will have subsidized insurance rates on the exchanges and should be getting more comprehensive coverage based on ACA requirements, and the 85% rule ensures the insurance companies are spending their money on clients health care costs. But all of that is beside the point. The point is that budget debates are NOT the appropriate time to bring up such changes, and these sorts of fine details are NOT what the Republicans are interested in debating. They are advocating wholesale repeal, and nothing else. If they were serious about making changes, they had 3 years to suggest tweaking the law in any number of ways, but they never did, they maintained from the beginning that "Obamacare" required nothing less than full "repeal and replace."

Now, as a last ditch effort, they art holding the functioning of the federal government as a bargaining chip, when it is supposed to be the desire of ALL parties to keep the government running in good order.
2013-09-30 10:44:29 PM  
1 votes:

feckingmorons: Headso: feckingmorons: Obamacare will hurt the working poor more than anyone and I don't see a lot of people realizing that.

if that's actually true then subsidies should be raised so they can afford it but that might be a problem considering republicans/conservatives spent the whole last election talking about poor people getting "some skin in the game" and pay more. Is that suddenly not the case?

Where exactly does the money for those subsidies come from?


progressive taxation like other federally funded social services.
2013-09-30 10:42:28 PM  
1 votes:

feckingmorons: nmrsnr: feckingmorons: Obamacare will hurt the working poor more than anyone and I don't see a lot of people realizing that.

[www.visi.com image 500x75]

So they are not exempt, and they are not special. Any other argument is not what we were talking about. I asked if hasty ambush honestly believed that they were exempt, and you came to his defense.

Actually I responsed to you that they were 'exempt' in the sense that people with insurance through their employer are not required to use the exchanges.
/nor people on Medicare, VA health, people in Guam, lots of people don't have to use them.

Do you disagree that the problems with Obamacare will fall more on the working poor than anyone else?



I do.  The only states where the working poor will get the shaft are those states where the governors decided to turn down the Medicaid expansion, or in the case of a state like Florida or Georgia, where the state legislature has been doing their damnedest to screw with the law so less people have access to the exchanges.

Outside of that, I think quite a few people will be signing up for coverage.  Many who probably had NO access to any health insurance at any cost.
2013-09-30 10:37:53 PM  
1 votes:

feckingmorons: Obamacare will hurt the working poor more than anyone and I don't see a lot of people realizing that.


if that's actually true then subsidies should be raised so they can afford it but that might be a problem considering republicans/conservatives spent the whole last election talking about poor people getting "some skin in the game" and pay more. Is that suddenly not the case?
2013-09-30 10:31:00 PM  
1 votes:

feckingmorons: AurizenDarkstar: And you know damn well that delaying the individual mandate would cause the ACA to have severe funding problems.  It would end up going into an actuarial death spiral if enough healthy people decided they weren't going to sign up.  It's just another roundabout way to dismantle the law, abeit one that ends up failing due to the same reasons why when states tried to set up state healthcare plans that dealt with what the ACA does (without a mandate).

Do you think it is actuarially sound now? I don't know of an actuary who thinks it is. The disincentive as they are wont to call the 1% or $95 tax won't force healthy people into the plans.


Then why does it work in Massachusetts?  I mean, you can't all of a sudden say "Yeah, it will only work on a state by state basis, it could NEVER work on a national basis."

The only real reason that they want a delay of the mandate is due to the fact that it will either give them time to find another way to dismantle the law, or they realize it will force the ACA into the actuarial death spiral, which will kill it outright unless the government spends billions to prop it up.  They're hoping to delay it long enough to gain the majority in the Senate again, and if they don't, it just gives them long enough to demand yet another delay when the one they're asking for runs out.
2013-09-30 10:26:53 PM  
1 votes:

I_C_Weener: Am I wrong that I can choose the exchange even if I'm employed and have employer insurance?


You probably can, but I don't think your employer would be required to pitch in for it, so it would probably be more expensive, plus the government might not subsidize it, plus insurance shopping is annoying.
2013-09-30 10:26:09 PM  
1 votes:

feckingmorons: The $12.91 is the actual reimbursement for a Medicare limited scope office visit for an existing patient in my area. (99211 billing code). They can do three or four of those an hour and they still have to pay the light bill and the staff and insurance and medical supplies and and and.


medicare is made up of people who would make the worst possible risk poll a private company could ever imagine, it takes a huge burden of private insurers. You act like it's comparable at all to private insurance. It's like those people who talk about how great private schools are but never mention that all bad kids are just thrown out and go to public school.
2013-09-30 10:22:11 PM  
1 votes:
feckingmorons:

You can't categorize people like that. Perhaps he has a $10K CD that he could use if he had to but wants to save for a house after he graduates.
Insurance is a matter of acceptance and assignment of risk. The guy with the 10K deductible is retaining that risk, but paying someone else (the insurance company) to take the next $990000 of risk for him. Since most medical bills, even when added together, for the average 25 year old student won't reach 10K that is a pretty good risk for the insurance company to assume.



You're an RN, and you're suggesting that people should gamble with their lives by either not carrying insurance, or only carrying a catastrophic plan (just in case they get hit by a car or somehow get cancer).  I would suggest you find another line of work.

I'd really like to know from another health care worker why you really feel that leaving our national healthcare situation exactly the way it is right now, instead of dealing with the changes brought about by the ACA, and would rather see those changes streamlined and made better instead of just trashing the whole thing.
2013-09-30 10:20:17 PM  
1 votes:

feckingmorons: udhq: 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.

You realize if they resigned they would all be replaced with people who want Obamacare even less. It is polling like crap now :
"The CNN poll found that the public is growing more skeptical of Obamacare - 57 percent say they oppose the law, up 3 percentage points from a poll in May" From Christian Science Monitor

Please see the CSM article,as it shows that 60% of Americans also oppose a shutdown, as do I. The better answer is to delay implementation of the individual mandate and see if it can be imporved, and keep the lights on at the government.


And my answer is who cares about the polling on the ACA?

Is settled law, and the gop doesn't have the votes to overturn it through legitimate legislative means.

The fact that a 3 year campaign of obfuscation and lies by the gop has moved to polling needle is neither here nor there. 2012 was a referendum on the ACA, and the American people voted overwhelmingly to keep it in place.
2013-09-30 10:18:49 PM  
1 votes:

feckingmorons: Exempt from being forced to purchase insurance through an exchange. I think people would like to see members of congress restricted to the plans on the exchange.


Aside from petty spite, why? They are gainfully employed by an employer who provides insurance. Why should they have to break their own system and remove a benefit of employment for themselves that no one else has to follow?

Health insurance is still an employee benefit, the exchanges are for the unemployed, or small businesses for whom providing insurance would be a burden.
2013-09-30 10:17:37 PM  
1 votes:

feckingmorons: TuteTibiImperes: feckingmorons:

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.

Anyone under 30 can buy a high deductible 'catastrophic loss' plan and be good in terms of the ACA.

Ideally I'd like to see that moved up to 40, but things like that can be negotiated once things are rolling.

Could you show me that somewhere? If that is true that is good news, but I've never seen it.

Why can't we fix it before we 'get it rolling' ?


It was actually in the link from one of your previous posts, here's the direct page.
2013-09-30 10:17:16 PM  
1 votes:

feckingmorons: Why can't we fix it before we 'get it rolling' ?


Because the republicans don't want to get the ball rolling ever. Hundreds of posts and you're still not grasping that? Does it need to be worked out for you in interpretive dance or something?
2013-09-30 10:11:19 PM  
1 votes:

Headso: feckingmorons: There are many people who simply don't want insurance, a 25 year old college student may forgo insurance for beer money

then he/she drinks a whole 30 pack of keystone light and who pays for their ER visit? Like I said, you are advocating for a system where we still pay for all these people regardless.

He is in the same position without insurance.

and again, that position is one where his medical bills are  being paid for by everyone else.

I'd rather see a single payer system with private supplemental where like you did, at a cost per year what I spend a little over a month on insurance. I personally don't see a problem with that.


We'd continue having battles over stuff like "is it enough healthcare" like we do routinely with minimum wage, and other welfare.  But I'd prefer your option over Obamacare.  My option was the easiest to implement, but the time for that is long past.  I'd still love a public option to compete with the insurance companies in the exchanges.  Expand Medicare.
2013-09-30 10:10:39 PM  
1 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: From what I understand malpractice insurance is a major cost for a lot of doctors, so why not institute major tort reform along with it? Greatly limit what people can sue for, the amounts they can win, and make the standard of proof higher. If a doctor's malpractice insurance goes down $50K per year, he shouldn't care about a $50K per year reduction in income, it nets out the same.


The idea that medical malpractice insurance has any bearing on health care costs has been bunked, debunked, rebunked, and taken out back to the woodshed and done so hard even the chickens that Republicans fark shudder.
2013-09-30 10:10:07 PM  
1 votes:

feckingmorons: udhq: 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.

You realize if they resigned they would all be replaced with people who want Obamacare even less. It is polling like crap now :
"The CNN poll found that the public is growing more skeptical of Obamacare - 57 percent say they oppose the law, up 3 percentage points from a poll in May" From Christian Science Monitor

Please see the CSM article,as it shows that 60% of Americans also oppose a shutdown, as do I. The better answer is to delay implementation of the individual mandate and see if it can be imporved, and keep the lights on at the government.


And you know damn well that delaying the individual mandate would cause the ACA to have severe funding problems.  It would end up going into an actuarial death spiral if enough healthy people decided they weren't going to sign up.  It's just another roundabout way to dismantle the law, abeit one that ends up failing due to the same reasons why when states tried to set up state healthcare plans that dealt with what the ACA does (without a mandate).
2013-09-30 10:05:25 PM  
1 votes:

feckingmorons: FlashHarry: 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.

You don't see taxing people for not getting insurance as bad? 2.5% of your entire family's income if you don't get a plan that meets their definition of MEC. I used to have a commercial 80/20 plan with a 10K deductible for about $455/yr about 10 years ago. That would no longer qualify, I would be well insured but I would have to pay thousands in a tax penalty because I didn't want a more expensive plan that I didn't need.


Actually, having a NHS or something like the Canadian Medicare would be best, since there are no out of pocket expenses.  Or even a public/private system like Germany has.  Healthcare coverage in the US is an abomination, and whole the ACA isn't the best thing we could have gotten, it's most definitely a step in the right direction.  No matter how much you personally feel the need to rail on it.
2013-09-30 10:04:43 PM  
1 votes:

feckingmorons: There are many people who simply don't want insurance, a 25 year old college student may forgo insurance for beer money


then he/she drinks a whole 30 pack of keystone light and who pays for their ER visit? Like I said, you are advocating for a system where we still pay for all these people regardless.

He is in the same position without insurance.

and again, that position is one where his medical bills are  being paid for by everyone else.

I'd rather see a single payer system with private supplemental where like you did, at a cost per year what I spend a little over a month on insurance. I personally don't see a problem with that.
2013-09-30 10:03:00 PM  
1 votes:

feckingmorons: pueblonative: 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?

I think a reasonable compromise is possible, yes. It would involve not implementing Obamacare until the exchanges are properly set up. Removing the payments cuts to physicians, removing the non-essential bloat like grants to 4 HBCU medical schools required each year (I don't make this stuff up), stop passing costs along to providers and states as unfunded mandates and put some teeth into the tax collection.

I think the easier thing is to scrap it and start over with a bill not written by partisan lawyers. Stop including pork, and retain the conscience provisions.


Obamacare doesn't go into effect until the exchanges are in place. They go live tomorrow. The ACA and mandate start in three months. What's your beef?
2013-09-30 09:59:54 PM  
1 votes:

I_C_Weener: 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.


The GOP has given the Democratic party 3 years worth of reasons not to cooperate or compromise.  The entirety of Obamacare is a compromise to the GOP and they still voted, lockstep, against it.

And now?  The GOP is the minority party, the weaker party, and they're trying to set the legislative agenda by doing nothing but repeals of Obamacare for the last 3 years.

At any point in that three years, they could have tried to negotiate with the Democrats and the WH, but they didn't.  Well, sorry, but you're out of time and you have no lifelines left.

Issuing a list of demands or forcing a government shut down is not a negotiating starting point.  It's an ultimatum and it smacks of economic terrorism.

You want to compromise on Obamacare?  Fine.  Do it tomorrow.  Tonight, they do their farking jobs and pass a CR to keep the country running.
2013-09-30 09:57:09 PM  
1 votes:

feckingmorons: hat is true, but there are no Congressmen calling around to get the best rates from Blue Cross, United , and Golden Rule.


I have a friend, he is a lawyer in a private law firm. Tomorrow, he will not be forced to call Blue Cross, United , and Golden Rule for the best rates, since he is covered under the insurance policy provided by his employer (I think it's Aetna). Is he "exempt" from the ACA?
2013-09-30 09:54:23 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:48:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:46:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:41:52 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:39:35 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:34:39 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:32:36 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:21:37 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:21:15 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:16:15 PM  
1 votes:

feckingmorons: nmrsnr: And in not one of those bills did the Republicans show any interest in compromising, it was for show and everybody knew it.

List one of them which they passed back with amendments or negotiated in conference.


That's what you, and thirty Congressmen, don't get. "I get everything and you get nothing, or we all go down the drain" is an ultimatum, not a negotiations starting point. For someone as concerned about coercion as you seem to be, you actually believe that it's an appropriate opener for conversation.

A negotiations starting point would look more like, "Here are my provisions. Do you have any provisions?"

If you use the language of absolutism and ultimatum, you really need to stop being surprised when people see you as an uncompromising absolutist.
2013-09-30 09:15:01 PM  
1 votes:

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?
2013-09-30 08:58:15 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-09-30 08:50:26 PM  
1 votes:

feckingmorons: They've given the Senate 40+ bills to repeal it over the last two years. Any one of those could have been the start of compromise and negotiation but the Senate each and every time said no.


And in not one of those bills did the Republicans show any interest in compromising, it was for show and everybody knew it. I don't know you think it's the Democrats' responsibility to go "hey, we have what we want out of this bill, but they're clearly unhappy, so let's see what parts we can live without to make them happy." If the Republicans had specific issues they wanted to debate (note: "All of it" does not qualify as a specific point) then they could have introduced narrow bills to that effect. They have not done so, because there isn't a specific part they particularly don't like. They don't like that it might succeed, so they are trying anything they can to make sure it fails in any way they can.
2013-09-30 08:49:21 PM  
1 votes:

realmolo: Dancin In Anson is a typical conservative idiot. There is no social contract in their mind. You pay your way, or you die. Because...who-the-fark-knows.

He's a sociopath, basically. Again, like most conservatives.


I don't think Republicans are sociopaths, but it's clear that they think that government should be sociopathic, instead of compassionate, on the off chance that there's someone out there that doesn't want to be compassionate.

However, since we have a government Of The People, etc., we have a government that reflects the will of the compassionate. We want welfare, we want Medicare, we want Social Security, because we elect people who, like us, don't want to chuck the destitute into the cold and don't have the power to act individually.

Conservatives don't want that to be the role of government because they see it as a power grab. Which, when they tell you that they believe that largesse should be in the hands of private organizations and churches, kind of tells you who they want running your life...
2013-09-30 08:44:09 PM  
1 votes:

SlothB77: hasty ambush: List of Obamacare exemptions, no you are not on it.

hahaha.  that's when you know you have a good law.  when all those need exemptions.


reads like fwd:fwd:fwd:fwd:farkpost:fwd:fwd it probably just means their current insurance is acceptable under the law, like mine, I was also "exempted".
2013-09-30 08:39:46 PM  
1 votes:

bulldg4life: In exchange for the debt ceiling passage, the democrats should offer to repeal obamacare in its entirety and lower the Medicare qualifying age to 18.



that would require two things, one, the democrats would have to actually be a party of leftists, and two, they would have to actually have a spine/set of balls.
2013-09-30 08:37:08 PM  
1 votes:
If we delayed oObama care for a year right now, what would they want for the debt ceiling to get raised anyways? What do they want next year? Why would you think for a second they wouldn't continue to ask for Year delays forever and threaten to tank shiat if they ddon't get it? I mean hell at some point if aca is going to happens the dems had to say nope, not delaying it get farked. Why not now?
2013-09-30 08:32:23 PM  
1 votes:

feckingmorons: 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.


Here's a question: If Harry Reid (who controls all business in the Senate) said that he would further no bills and hear no amendments until the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has prosecutorial authority over all banks and hedge funds over a certain size, and could audit, at will, any financial institution, and the Republicans refused, so that no bills were passed and the government was forced into a shutdown, would you view this as a legitimate negotiation tactic by the Democrats?

If the Democrats offered to reduce their demands to just having the at-will auditing, and the Republicans refused, would you blame the Republicans for not willing to negotiate?
2013-09-30 08:28:37 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-09-30 08:25:37 PM  
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: So with single payer, there are no questions asked. You show up, you're ushered in, you get "the same high quality healhtcare" and you physician gets a check. Let's say that I'm unemployed, overweight, eat unhealthy food, smoke like a chimney, don't wear a seat belt etc etc etc...You feel that you are morally responsible to take care of me no questions asked.


As it stands, you go to the emergency room and they patch you up, they send you a bill you can't pay and the rest of us pay through higher hospital bills, either directly or by way of higher premiums.  Healing the patient properly will cost less in the end than putting out fires in the emergency room.

You may argue from moral hazard.  Moral hazard is a fine argument when speaking of speculators getting bailed out by the taxpayers, but it applies at most feebly to health care.  All the single payer in the world won't heal a damaged heart or get you out of a wheelchair.  Unhealthy lifestyles are still going to get you.
2013-09-30 08:24:07 PM  
1 votes:

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.


Why would you negotiate with someone that is dumping it in the trashcan? Why don't they pass something to make it better and then we can all take a look at that?
2013-09-30 08:23:55 PM  
1 votes:

jbc: feckingmorons: I see the headline has it well put. The House proposed something, the Senate said no.

The senate didn't say, well can we delay it for 3 months? Can we compromise on something, they just said no. They have made up their minds not to negotiate and yet people fault the House.

Why should anyone, much less the US government, negotiate with terrorists?


I'm starting to disagree with the "terrorists" metaphor (and yes, I know it's a metaphor; no one is literally calling them "terrorists") because it's starting to taste a bit emotionalistic. It's almost a sort of Godwinning, and it's adoption by some of the Democratic leadership has emboldened a lot of us to play kind of fast and loose with the comparison.

Make no mistake; the Republicans are definitely negotiating in bad faith. There was a Congressman on NPR earlier today who is clearly buffaloed by the unpopularity of the Republicans and thinks that this is what negotiation looks like. He's utterly convinced that Obama's temporary delay on certain complex ACA provisions mean that the President has put the whole thing on the table and can't figure out why he hasn't caved yet. The idea that the Democrats have simply given all the ground they're going to give has just not occurred to him. It was bizarre to listen to.

/libbiest lib who etc...
2013-09-30 08:20:32 PM  
1 votes:
And it's 90 days folks.

90 days.

What huge policy concessions are they going to demand in December so that they don't blow this thing up then? Privitization of Social Security?
2013-09-30 08:18:44 PM  
1 votes:

feckingmorons: HeartBurnKid: feckingmorons: I see the headline has it well put. The House proposed something, the Senate said no.

The senate didn't say, well can we delay it for 3 months? Can we compromise on something, they just said no. They have made up their minds not to negotiate and yet people fault the House.

The United States does not negotiate with terrorists.

Yes, several people have made that argument, Republicans have also been called arsonists, anarchists, extortionists, black mailers, hostage takers and an assistant to President Obama even went so far as to say they won't negotiate with 'People with bombs strapped to their chests."

I'm not certain if it is hyperbole or lunacy, but I suspect the latter. The name calling, especially after a Democratic call for more civil discourse after Rep. Giffords was shot, is fanning the flames.

Obama care is not that important, it is a bad law - even with the changes that have been made- and a year delay would allow time for a fix, or more probably a repeal. The Democrats are deathly afraid of that as it will be obvious to everyone that Obama is a failure. Now many of us see Obama as a failure and we can wait for history to also identify his as the inept leader he is. However the Democrats know the electorate is fickle and the want to hold on to the catastrophe that is their leader's crowning achievement for as long as possible.

You can insult those opposed to Obamacare, we all quite used to it, but you can't polish the pile of crap that it is any longer. We know what a nightmare it is. Obama's legacy will be a failed economy, ruined to a huge extent by this law that was enacted using scheme and artifice. If it was good would they have had to bribe people to get it passed? I'm not concerned about Obama care, I know I'll be taxed more, I have been taxed more. The poor people, the students, the people who can't get a full time job, those are the people it is hurting. I'll have to skip Banff next year.

So continue with the name calling, and have fun with your mandatory overpriced insurance. Want a commercial 80/20 plan with a high deductible. Sorry those don't meet MEP standards and you have to pay a fine - a tax really. The only way Obamacare is still a law is because it fines people who can't or won't buy insurance. It is legal simply because it punishes those who can least afford it.

No one can say in good conscience there is nothing wrong with Obamacare.


People that can't afford to buy insurance have no reason to buy a high deduct able 80/20 plan. If they had to use it, then it would bankrupt them so what is the point? aca does let them buy insurance that is really useful, affordable, and they can use it without going bankrupt though. So they got that going for them. We 'fine' people all the time for shiat. It is called taxes. We also let people out of taxes for doing certain things. For example iI own a house. The government reduces my taxes every year for the interest, property taxes, and a few other things.
2013-09-30 08:18:30 PM  
1 votes:

feckingmorons: HeartBurnKid: feckingmorons: I see the headline has it well put. The House proposed something, the Senate said no.

The senate didn't say, well can we delay it for 3 months? Can we compromise on something, they just said no. They have made up their minds not to negotiate and yet people fault the House.

The United States does not negotiate with terrorists.

Yes, several people have made that argument, Republicans have also been called arsonists, anarchists, extortionists, black mailers, hostage takers and an assistant to President Obama even went so far as to say they won't negotiate with 'People with bombs strapped to their chests."

I'm not certain if it is hyperbole or lunacy, but I suspect the latter. The name calling, especially after a Democratic call for more civil discourse after Rep. Giffords was shot, is fanning the flames.

Obama care is not that important, it is a bad law - even with the changes that have been made- and a year delay would allow time for a fix, or more probably a repeal. The Democrats are deathly afraid of that as it will be obvious to everyone that Obama is a failure. Now many of us see Obama as a failure and we can wait for history to also identify his as the inept leader he is. However the Democrats know the electorate is fickle and the want to hold on to the catastrophe that is their leader's crowning achievement for as long as possible.

You can insult those opposed to Obamacare, we all quite used to it, but you can't polish the pile of crap that it is any longer. We know what a nightmare it is. Obama's legacy will be a failed economy, ruined to a huge extent by this law that was enacted using scheme and artifice. If it was good would they have had to bribe people to get it passed? I'm not concerned about Obama care, I know I'll be taxed more, I have been taxed more. The poor people, the students, the people who can't get a full time job, those are the people it is hurting. I'll have to skip Banff next year.

So con ...


Yes, they're so deathly afraid of it, they want it implemented sooner rather than later- because they know it will be such a massive fail.  Right.
2013-09-30 08:17:51 PM  
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: what_now: Because we as a society have decided that health care is something we all pay for.

How much do you think you should be forced to pay for my heathcare?


Taxes are not a personal attack, they are an agreement you tacitly abide, by living here.

Once the baggers understand this, things can get moving again.
2013-09-30 08:17:50 PM  
1 votes:

orclover: Kit Fister: Debeo Summa Credo: You know, in the left wing derposphere that fark has devolved into I'm considered a far right winger. I think we spend too much and think ACA is a bad law, etc. etc.

But I want to go on record again and say this dance with shutdown and debt ceiling nonsense is petty and childish of the GOP. Ive shifted enough to the right in the past few years that I'd love to vote against the dems but alas the GOP isn't a viable alternative right now.

I feel the same, but nothing about the ACA in general is even bad. Right now progun democrat is the best alternative

ACA is an obomination.  We should have a single payer system.  Obamacare is all we get, its slightly better than having absolutely nothing.  But its a piece of shiat and you know it.


It depends on the implementation. Normally? I guess so. But I'm not convinced that arbitrarily setting prices vs. Allowing healthy competition determine prices where the consumer makes the choices is iffy in my mind.

What isn't iffy to me is that however we get there, part of our society means we take care of our own. And as long as the little guy contributes in return however he can, great. I don't believe in free rides, nor do I believe in just telling someone to fark off if they needed help.
2013-09-30 08:17:09 PM  
1 votes:

rustypouch: orclover: Kit Fister: Debeo Summa Credo: You know, in the left wing derposphere that fark has devolved into I'm considered a far right winger. I think we spend too much and think ACA is a bad law, etc. etc.

But I want to go on record again and say this dance with shutdown and debt ceiling nonsense is petty and childish of the GOP. Ive shifted enough to the right in the past few years that I'd love to vote against the dems but alas the GOP isn't a viable alternative right now.

I feel the same, but nothing about the ACA in general is even bad. Right now progun democrat is the best alternative

ACA is an obomination.  We should have a single payer system.  Obamacare is all we get, its slightly better than having absolutely nothing.  But its a piece of shiat and you know it.

Agreed. But that's what happens when you compromise with Republicans and implement their ideas.


The democrats were spineless. When they had control of the House they should have just rammed through the legislation in one of its more robust forms just like the Rethuglicans did when Bush the Lesser was in office. The moment they took single payer out of the bill, I knew the Republicans wouldn't stop there and would force them to make concession after concession. But then the democrats lost the House and we have this shiat instead.

There's stuff wrong with ACA, but it's thanks to the Democrats being spineless and cowing to Republican demands when they really shouldn't have, and it's certainly a lot better than what we had before. Which was having insurance companies fark everyone over.
2013-09-30 08:13:07 PM  
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: From what I've seen from my wife's account Facebook is for 30 something women sharing inane stories about their kids. Fark is for political shiat


Lots of politics on FB - LOTS of politics. In fact I see far more poli photoshops there than I do here anymore.
2013-09-30 08:12:15 PM  
1 votes:

orclover: Kit Fister: Debeo Summa Credo: You know, in the left wing derposphere that fark has devolved into I'm considered a far right winger. I think we spend too much and think ACA is a bad law, etc. etc.

But I want to go on record again and say this dance with shutdown and debt ceiling nonsense is petty and childish of the GOP. Ive shifted enough to the right in the past few years that I'd love to vote against the dems but alas the GOP isn't a viable alternative right now.

I feel the same, but nothing about the ACA in general is even bad. Right now progun democrat is the best alternative

ACA is an obomination.  We should have a single payer system.  Obamacare is all we get, its slightly better than having absolutely nothing.  But its a piece of shiat and you know it.


Agreed. But that's what happens when you compromise with Republicans and implement their ideas.
2013-09-30 08:09:57 PM  
1 votes:

Kit Fister: Debeo Summa Credo: You know, in the left wing derposphere that fark has devolved into I'm considered a far right winger. I think we spend too much and think ACA is a bad law, etc. etc.

But I want to go on record again and say this dance with shutdown and debt ceiling nonsense is petty and childish of the GOP. Ive shifted enough to the right in the past few years that I'd love to vote against the dems but alas the GOP isn't a viable alternative right now.

I feel the same, but nothing about the ACA in general is even bad. Right now progun democrat is the best alternative


ACA is an obomination.  We should have a single payer system.  Obamacare is all we get, its slightly better than having absolutely nothing.  But its a piece of shiat and you know it.
2013-09-30 08:08:25 PM  
1 votes:

SirVagTheTighty: You have a hell of a slippery slope problem too. Is there any reason to think if the dems started giving them what they wanted that in the future they won't just do the same shiat and threaten gov shut downs and debt defaults if we didn't ban abortion, kill gun control, or fund NPR?


The last three democratic presidents have faced government shutdowns and impeachment threats to varying degrees.

I would just go ahead and assume that when a democrat is president...this is standard operation procedure.
2013-09-30 08:03:16 PM  
1 votes:

Isitoveryet: Weatherkiss: It's bad because it was done under a Democrat's administration, not a Republican's.

politicians in the same party steal bills from one another just to feel that warm limelight.
Republicans would drown their mother if they though it would give them political clout.
ultimately, we've (the U.S.) have chosen unwisely as far as elected representatives.


Personally, I think we have the government we deserve. We go through this economic hostage situation every year. Every election year the same assholes keep getting re-elected. Noone recalls their senators or representatives for this kind of bullshiat they pull. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. The Teahadists are insane. We elect insane people to congress.

Yep. This is working exactly as intended and we get the government we deserve.
2013-09-30 08:02:50 PM  
1 votes:

feckingmorons: birdmanesq: In a way, I can totally understand viewing the budget CRs and the debt ceiling as leverage points. I mean, it is the desire to not have the US government shut down or for the US to not default on its obligation would seem to present serious incentive to acquiesce.

But in assigning blame, it's pretty clear that the party attempting to extract those concessions ought to be the group that bears the risk for the consequences.

We need a CR. It is obvious that Obamacare is defective as many parts of it have been delayed by Obama himself and other parts repealed - the 1099 for all small business transactions got the chop a few years ago if I recall. It is flawed and delaying that until it can be repaired is not unreasonable.

Refusing to delay flawed legislation and forcing the country into a governmental shutdown simply to make a point is improper, and yet that is the Democrat position.


The mandate is a huge part of it and is central to it working. Many flawed parts are being delayed as you noted, so the law can be refined and implemented as cleanly as possible. I don't see any repub ideas to strengthen it, just ideas to tank it.
2013-09-30 08:01:52 PM  
1 votes:

Reminder.

Also for the 1st time I heard a GOP rep (Gingrey) praise "sequester-level" funding in CR itself. Fact it's considered "clean" is a GOP win.

- Suzy Khimm (@SuzyKhimm) September 30, 2013
2013-09-30 07:56:14 PM  
1 votes:

TuteTibiImperes: DamnYankees: FlashHarry: , that the mandate is there to offset the hit that insurance companies will take by not being able to deny coverage for preexisting conditions.

That's not why the mandate is there, actually. It's there to push healthy people onto the exchanges in order to create a larger risk pool and keep premiums down.

Two different ways of saying the same thing.  The insurance companies will lose money taking on 60 year old diabetics with cancer, but they'll make money on healthy 30 year olds.

Since the companies can't charge different rates based on pre-existing conditions through the exchanges, it's the only way to help them keep afloat.

Personally, I don't really care if the health insurance companies stay afloat.  I'd rather see them all go bankrupt and a single payer system put in place.


This is the thing the repubs want to do. Delay the mandate to make insurance rates go crazy high as everyone with expensive healthcare gets onto plans without paying for are existing conditions. Meanwhilethe healthy blow it off. When either premiums go crazy high or companies start going bankrupt the republicans get to say see we told you so while they dont mention that they caused it.
2013-09-30 07:52:58 PM  
1 votes:

Debeo Summa Credo: You know, in the left wing derposphere that fark has devolved into I'm considered a far right winger. I think we spend too much and think ACA is a bad law, etc. etc.

But I want to go on record again and say this dance with shutdown and debt ceiling nonsense is petty and childish of the GOP. Ive shifted enough to the right in the past few years that I'd love to vote against the dems but alas the GOP isn't a viable alternative right now.


I feel the same, but nothing about the ACA in general is even bad. Right now progun democrat is the best alternative
2013-09-30 07:46:15 PM  
1 votes:

realmolo: Dancin In Anson is a typical conservative idiot. There is no social contract in their mind. You pay your way, or you die. Because...who-the-fark-knows.

He's a sociopath, basically. Again, like most conservatives.


Generally because most people don't like to feel obligated to people who they don't agree with. But as long as it benefits me and mine, I'm okay with it. Making healthcare cheaper and reducing the chance that I'll get sick is a win win for me. Also sticking it to the bastards at the inscos.
2013-09-30 07:42:42 PM  
1 votes:
People railing about death panels don't seem to know how insurance and transplant boards work
2013-09-30 07:41:29 PM  
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: czetie: And schools.

Yeah....central planned education has been a huge success.


The most productive workforce and strongest economy on the planet would suggest that, yes, public education has been a success.
2013-09-30 07:40:05 PM  
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: TuteTibiImperes: No, I think the government should appoint a panel of medical professionals to make those decisions

So you will willingly give control of decisions that affect your healthcare to some panel of professionals. It's ok though, because you live a healthy lifestyle so it really won't affect you in any way...it's the people like that guy over there that will be culled.


They already have protocols and boards to decide who gets transplants.
2013-09-30 07:36:39 PM  
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: i want european-style single-payer health coverage.

Because?


Why do you ask?
2013-09-30 07:24:34 PM  
1 votes:
cinemafanatic.files.wordpress.com
2013-09-30 07:12:38 PM  
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: It appears that it's my moral obligation to society.


I'd argue that it's your societal, not moral, obligation to pay taxes, and that Congress can then do with those taxes what it pleases, and if you have a problem with that your societal obligation is to attempt to vote them out of office.

The only forcing going on here is in the initial requirement to pay taxes, which you do. You are not more "forced to pay" for anything that those taxes go to. Unless it's a very specific tax that is budgeted only to one specific purpose, like a tax that said "You will pay X percentage of your income and these tax funds will go only to Y government program," which is generally  not how our tax system works and was not part of any debate over a national healthcare system.

So I guess right now you actually  are being forced to pay for other people's healthcare, because you have to pay specific Medicare taxes.
2013-09-30 07:03:45 PM  
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: What happens if you don't follow the law...any law?


Right now the law is facing you to pay taxes that went directly into buying me a drink two weekends ago.

Were you forced to buy me a drink?
2013-09-30 07:03:29 PM  
1 votes:
I think the Republicans will do little to nothing until October 17th approaches - right now, social security will get paid tomorrow. It won't on November 3rd - and then their constituency will rise up on their hoverrounds and squish them flat.
2013-09-30 06:58:59 PM  
1 votes:

vudutek: Dancin_In_Anson: what_now: Because we as a society have decided that health care is something we all pay for.

How much do you think you should be forced to pay for my heathcare?

How much do you think I should be forced to pay for our overbloated military?


Things that D_I_A is currently being forced to pay for:
- Housing relief for low-income families
- Oil subsidies to Exxon
- Agricultural subsidies to Monsanto
- Head Start programs for small children
- Food stamps for low-income families in Detroit
- The janitor whose job it is to clean the toilets at the Statue of Liberty
- Bamboo to feed the pandas at the National Zoo
- Hedge-trimming costs at Arlington National Cemetary
- President Obama's vacations
- My drink two weekends ago, which was paid for by my friend who is a Congressional staffer.

Thanks for the drink,  Dancing_in_Anson! I'll buy you one in return next time we hang.
2013-09-30 06:57:43 PM  
1 votes:

El_Perro: Dancin_In_Anson: what_now: Because we as a society have decided that health care is something we all pay for.

How much do you think you should be forced to pay for my heathcare?

How much do you think you should be forced to pay for my roads?  My police?


It is a cornerstone of republican economist shills that not a single one of them got to the chapter on externalities.
2013-09-30 06:50:55 PM  
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: what_now: Because we as a society have decided that health care is something we all pay for.

How much do you think you should be forced to pay for my heathcare?


How much do you think I should be forced to pay for our overbloated military?
2013-09-30 06:49:41 PM  
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: TuteTibiImperes: Everyone should pay into the same pot and it will be divvied out as necessary. Those who need more care will get it, those who need less will get what they need, but everyone pays in equally (well, based on progressive income brackets).

It won't matter if you're a Fortune 500 CEO or an out of work high school drop out - if you need to see a doctor you get to see a doctor free of charge, and everyone receives the same high quality level of care.

So with single payer, there are no questions asked. You show up, you're ushered in, you get "the same high quality healhtcare" and you physician gets a check. Let's say that I'm unemployed, overweight, eat unhealthy food, smoke like a chimney, don't wear a seat belt etc etc etc...You feel that you are morally responsible to take care of me no questions asked.


Yes.  Social programs to help promote healthy habits should be pushed, but at the end of the day, if you need medical care, you should get it regardless of personal choices (with a few limited exceptions, if you need a new liver due to alcoholism, you'd need to actually quit drinking first and be subject to random unannounced BAC tests while waiting to make sure you were following through for example).
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-30 06:40:25 PM  
1 votes:

El_Perro: Dancin_In_Anson: what_now: Because we as a society have decided that health care is something we all pay for.

How much do you think you should be forced to pay for my heathcare?

How much do you think you should be forced to pay for my roads?  My police?


The same amount you pay for mine?  Or I could be an adult and admit that we both use roads and police and so we should both pay for them.
2013-09-30 06:34:21 PM  
1 votes:

DamnYankees: Honestly, I think its valid to do this over a CR. The thing is, if you think about it, a CR is basically saying "we will keep funding the government as it currently exists". Well, there's no particularly reason to see "as it currently exists" as the baseline. The baseline can be anything. In that sense, the GOP does have a right to do this. I think its stupid and bad policy and bad politics, but its fundamentally a valid way to negotiate. I just think they will lose.

The debt ceiling is entirely different, and not in any way a valid negotiating point.


How 'Market based' it is depends a lot on the single payer structure.  You could have the NHS route (i.e.: also the same as VA care) where the doctors and staff are public servants, and the facilities are publicly owned.  You could have the Canadian model, with doctors being private and paid, employed, or contracted at standard rates by publicly owned facilities like hospitals, which is a bit more like Medicare.

Anyways, the US already has 4 health care models at work.  My argument isn't whether it's public or private, but whether its efficient.  Single payer is more administratively efficient and leverages economies of scale best.  Whether the doctors or hospitals are for-profit entities is really a function of preference, and isn't the most material factor in whether the system as a whole can be successful.  It's being done successfully with both models today.
2013-09-30 06:34:02 PM  
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: a market-based solution, which obamacare is

It is ANYTHING but market based.


You're kidding, right?

It's absolutely market based. It assumes a population-level customer base who will participate for life. But that doesn't make it any less market based.
2013-09-30 06:30:57 PM  
1 votes:
fark it.

Shoot the Hostage. Let's get this rolling.
2013-09-30 06:23:31 PM  
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: i want european-style single-payer health coverage.

Because?


Because we as a society have decided that health care is something we all pay for. Like the Army and roads.
2013-09-30 06:09:51 PM  
1 votes:

DamnYankees: FlashHarry: , that the mandate is there to offset the hit that insurance companies will take by not being able to deny coverage for preexisting conditions.

That's not why the mandate is there, actually. It's there to push healthy people onto the exchanges in order to create a larger risk pool and keep premiums down.


Two different ways of saying the same thing.  The insurance companies will lose money taking on 60 year old diabetics with cancer, but they'll make money on healthy 30 year olds.

Since the companies can't charge different rates based on pre-existing conditions through the exchanges, it's the only way to help them keep afloat.

Personally, I don't really care if the health insurance companies stay afloat.  I'd rather see them all go bankrupt and a single payer system put in place.
2013-09-30 06:02:31 PM  
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: FlashHarry: it was a republican idea anyway.

This is why you support it?


the mandate? no. i want european-style single-payer health coverage.

but i understand that if you're going to have a market-based solution, which obamacare is, that the mandate is there to offset the hit that insurance companies will take by not being able to deny coverage for preexisting conditions.
2013-09-30 06:02:16 PM  
1 votes:
I was getting an oil change today, and they had Fox News on in the waiting room.  I was surprised at the coverage - they weren't blaming the GOP (of course) but they weren't blaming the Democrats either.  They were actually somewhat sympathetic to the Democrats position and hinted that it was the GOP that was being a bit unreasonable.

They still played it off as mainly a partisan divide without one side being completely wrong, but for Fox News to do that instead of trying to hang this completely around the necks of the Democrats leads me to believe that the dissent amongst the ranks of conservatives is really starting to come to a head over this.
2013-09-30 06:00:40 PM  
1 votes:

feckingmorons: I see the headline has it well put. The House proposed something, the Senate said no.

The senate didn't say, well can we delay it for 3 months? Can we compromise on something, they just said no. They have made up their minds not to negotiate and yet people fault the House.


You can't possibly be this stupid without having some sort of court-appointed guardian. Are they supposed to let you on the internet this time of day?
2013-09-30 05:54:44 PM  
1 votes:

Carn: Rincewind53: Carn: feckingmorons: I see the headline has it well put. The House proposed something, the Senate said no.

The senate didn't say, well can we delay it for 3 months? Can we compromise on something, they just said no. They have made up their minds not to negotiate and yet people fault the House.

feckingmorons, I demand you pay for TF for me for 1 year.

If he doesn't at least pay for 1 month, he's being a complete absolutist. How dare he? It's his duty to compromise.

Ok ok, in order to keep the good faith negotiations going, I'll settle for 6 months.  Now that's a compromise!


Done. fecking, you now owe Carn six months of TF.
2013-09-30 05:41:12 PM  
1 votes:
delay the mandate? sure! it was a republican idea anyway. of course insurance companies will be pissed because they'll now have to cover everyone - even people with preexisting conditions - without the mandate to help pay for it. maybe they'll even get out of the business altogether, leaving us no option but single-payer.

so, sure, johnny boy, we'll give up the mandate!
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-09-30 05:38:51 PM  
1 votes:

feckingmorons: I see the headline has it well put. The House proposed something, the Senate said no.

The senate didn't say, well can we delay it for 3 months? Can we compromise on something, they just said no. They have made up their minds not to negotiate and yet people fault the House.


Yes, because they aren't fecking morons and realize that the minority party has forgotten how the constitution works and is trying to repeal a law that had already been enacted, despite the fact that they don't have enough votes to pass a bill, much less override a veto.

Not to mention that the constitution requires that the debt of the USA be honored, which the house is refusing to do.  The reason that Republicans are making so many bogus claims about the president violating the constitution is that they know they are the only ones violating it.

The problem is that by violating the Constitution, the GOP is going to weaken it.
2013-09-30 05:36:07 PM  
1 votes:
The Senate should send it back with one addition - agree to delay only the individual mandate for a year, but with rate freezes on all insurance policies so that the companies don't use it as an excuse to jack up premiums, and in exchange for that the GOP agrees to support legislation eliminating the need for a vote over the debt ceiling forevermore, it will just increase automatically by the needed amount from here out.
2013-09-30 05:33:45 PM  
1 votes:

birdmanesq: This comes down to a failure to budget--likely an intentional decision to continue to have these negotiating points every 90 days.

And I think that "budget" issues should be differentiated from "policy" issues. So, as disgusted as I was by the Sequester, at least it was germane.


That's fair enough. The contraception thing, for example, had no place coming up - there's a reason Obama led with it today. That being said though, I don't think "fund X, Y but not Z" is an inherently worse argument than "fund X, Y and Z simply because those programs were funded last time". The problem with the GOP here isn't that they are negotiating over the budget, but that (i) they aren't negotiating at all and (ii) their substantive positions are absurd.
2013-09-30 05:28:32 PM  
1 votes:

birdmanesq: In a way, I can totally understand viewing the budget CRs and the debt ceiling as leverage points. I mean, it is the desire to not have the US government shut down or for the US to not default on its obligation would seem to present serious incentive to acquiesce.

But in assigning blame, it's pretty clear that the party attempting to extract those concessions ought to be the group that bears the risk for the consequences.


Right. I guess it does make sense to negotiate with the man holding the bomb. After all, you don't want the bomb to go off.

But if the bomb does go off, you really can only blame the man with the, not the people who didn't negotiate with him.
2013-09-30 05:25:10 PM  
1 votes:
In a way, I can totally understand viewing the budget CRs and the debt ceiling as leverage points. I mean, it is the desire to not have the US government shut down or for the US to not default on its obligation would seem to present serious incentive to acquiesce.

But in assigning blame, it's pretty clear that the party attempting to extract those concessions ought to be the group that bears the risk for the consequences.
 
Displayed 121 of 121 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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