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.

(Opposing Views)   Rand Paul thinks congress should get veteran's benefits, food stamps and the special Medal of Honor stipend. OK, he doesn't really think that, but he's brilliantly crafted a constitutional amendment that would make it happen   (opposingviews.com) divider line 143
    More: Stupid, Medal of Honor, food stamps, constitutional amendments, welfare benefits, Americans, proposed amendments to the United States Constitution, Medal of Honor recipients  
•       •       •

10695 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Oct 2013 at 1:37 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



143 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-22 11:44:42 AM  
Rand Paul, who is pushing not just a simple piece of legislation but an actual amendment to the United States Constitution that would prohibit Congress from passing any law that did not apply equally to itself as to the rest of the American people.

So that means I could get those sweet insider trading benefits, right Rand? I think everyone will get on board with this amendment.
 
2013-10-22 11:52:08 AM  

Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."


Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?
 
2013-10-22 11:55:03 AM  

what_now: Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid?


Yes.
 
2013-10-22 12:14:42 PM  
The author misstates the basic facts of what transpired/argued and then proposes what would happen under his poor reading of the amendment.

With the advent of the information age, why do people insist on reading the opinions of the ignorant and dumb?
 
2013-10-22 12:26:29 PM  

Mrbogey: why do people insist on reading the opinions of the ignorant and dumb?


You know, I was just thinking the same thing
 
2013-10-22 12:28:29 PM  
He really is a chip off the old block. Daddy Ron with his "We the People Act" needed to be outdone for stupidity, eh Rand?
 
2013-10-22 12:35:30 PM  

Mrbogey: With the advent of the information age, why do people insist on reading the opinions of the ignorant and dumb?


I don't know, why do you read Fark?

/I may be ignorant, dumb, a communist, but I am *not* a porn star.
 
2013-10-22 12:36:06 PM  

Mrbogey: The author misstates the basic facts of what transpired/argued and then proposes what would happen under his poor reading of the amendment.

With the advent of the information age, why do people insist on reading the opinions of the ignorant and dumb?


Why did I read your post?

Good question...
 
2013-10-22 12:39:54 PM  
Oh if only I had worn my anti-glue suit, all of these sharp and witty barbs, which were completely unforeseeable, wouldn't have stuck to me.
 
2013-10-22 12:44:41 PM  

naughtyrev: Rand Paul, who is pushing not just a simple piece of legislation but an actual amendment to the United States Constitution that would prohibit Congress from passing any law that did not apply equally to itself as to the rest of the American people.

So that means I could get those sweet insider trading benefits, right Rand? I think everyone will get on board with this amendment.


No, that was a law that applied to Congress - it doesn't need to apply equally to the rest of the American people.

/Isn't it amazing how the language appears to be specifically worded to preserve the perks Congress granted itself?
 
2013-10-22 12:45:24 PM  
Oh, and for the curious, here's the actual proposed language:

'Section 1. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress.

'Section 2. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to the executive branch of Government, including the President, Vice President, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, including those provided for under this Constitution and by law, and inferior officers to the President established by law.

'Section 3. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, including the Chief Justice, and judges of such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

'Section 4. Nothing in this article shall preempt any specific provision of this Constitution.'

First off, this seems tautological, since all members of Congress are citizens of the US, so all laws which apply to a citizen of the US also, by default, applies to Congress.

Second, it doesn't necessarily go the other way, it doesn't say that any law applicable to members of Congress are necessarily applicable to all citizens of the US, which means that you can craft as many exemptions as you want, and as long as they are tailored specifically to Congress it doesn't violate this amendment.

So this amendment is both unnecessary and ineffective at achieving its stated purpose.
 
2013-10-22 12:48:37 PM  

nmrsnr: So this amendment is both unnecessary and ineffective at achieving its stated purpose.


Teabagger efficiency strikes again.
 
2013-10-22 12:51:46 PM  
That's it. I give up. The system is totally broken when being a circus clown/attention whore instead of a legislator is the way to get reelected.
 
2013-10-22 12:57:22 PM  

MrBallou: That's it. I give up. The system is totally broken when being a circus clown/attention whore instead of a legislator is the way to get reelected.


You're just now noticing? Rand Paul replaced a guy who was elected Senator just because he was a good pitcher.
 
2013-10-22 12:59:14 PM  
I am amazed that Rand Paul misunderstood the situation and proposed a completely ridiculous amendment to the Constitution in order to garner attention to himself. I mean, that is just amazing.
 
2013-10-22 01:47:00 PM  

what_now: Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?


As near as I can tell, from interviews, from his upbringing, from those wonderful moments when you hear him conversing when he doesn't realize he's being recorded, he really is just that stupid. I know with some Republicans they're putting on an act to draw in their stupid constituents, but I really do think Rand believes all his arguments and actually considers himself some kind of righteous crusader. Which is almost worse.
 
2013-10-22 01:49:59 PM  
Rand Paul should automatically draw a "Stupid" flag on Fark, just as Rubio should receive "Florida" as an automatic penalty.

Anyone in favor of a protest in favor of this rule?

<<yawn>> Didn't think so
 
2013-10-22 01:50:50 PM  
i.imgur.com
yay i get to pull this out again
 
2013-10-22 01:53:22 PM  
prohibit Congress from passing any law that did not apply equally to itself as to the rest of the American people.

so tag is for those who think laws should be applied equally to congress?
 
2013-10-22 01:54:24 PM  
Rand Paul ... he's brilliantly crafted

I call bullshiat.
 
2013-10-22 01:54:56 PM  
So he wants... what does he want? Does he want members of Congress to use the health care exchanges instead of the FEHB program? Because that's like the exact opposite of what he's promoting. All americans can participate in their employer sponsored health care program. If you require Congress to use the Exchange rather than FEHB, then you're actually exempting Congress from something the rest of America is subject to.

This sounds like it would actually do that exact opposite of what he wants it to do?

I'm so confused.
 
2013-10-22 02:00:53 PM  

naughtyrev: Rand Paul, who is pushing not just a simple piece of legislation but an actual amendment to the United States Constitution that would prohibit Congress from passing any law that did not apply equally to itself as to the rest of the American people.

So that means I could get those sweet insider trading benefits, right Rand? I think everyone will get on board with this amendment.


No, it means that Congress couldn't continue to skirt the law that prevents the rest of us from getting those sweet insider trading laws.  Which is one of a million reasons why this Amendment won't go anywhere.
 
2013-10-22 02:01:35 PM  
Wait. Are the articles on this (this one and the ThinkProgress one) really suggesting that Congress members should be  ineligible for those benefits if they qualify for them? I have no problem with a veteran Senator getting VA benefits. I have no problem with a destitute Congressman getting food stamps (they'd never qualify). I have a hell of a lot less than zero problem with a Medal of Honor winning Speaker of the House receiving their MoH stipend.

If they qualify, why the hell not?

Or I am completely missing the point of the "analysis" of the proposed amendment?

The ThinkProgress article even delves into Senate Rules, which (if I am not mistaken) would not be applicable in this case, as they are not laws.
 
2013-10-22 02:04:56 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Wait. Are the articles on this (this one and the ThinkProgress one) really suggesting that Congress members should be  ineligible for those benefits if they qualify for them?


That's the point, genius. Congress isn't exempt from "Obamacare" anymore than they're exempt from these benefits.
 
2013-10-22 02:05:05 PM  
The only law I know of that applies diectly to congress members is that "law enorcement shall not inhibit or detain a member of congress on their way to a vote"

/This, of course, means "you cannot detain a congressman ever"
//why aren't they mailed speeding tickets again?
 
2013-10-22 02:08:39 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: I am amazed that Rand Paul misunderstood the situation and proposed a completely ridiculous amendment to the Constitution in order to garner attention to himself. I mean, that is just amazing.


FTFY
 
2013-10-22 02:09:03 PM  
Ask him about his ophthalmology board certification.  When you can't operate within the rules, you make new rules.  Calvinball!
 
2013-10-22 02:09:03 PM  
He's not the sharpest bowling ball in the knife drawer.
 
2013-10-22 02:11:04 PM  

what_now: Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."

Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?


short answer - yes
long answer - are you kidding? yes!
 
2013-10-22 02:13:25 PM  

Joe Blowme: prohibit Congress from passing any law that did not apply equally to itself as to the rest of the American people.

so tag is for those who think laws should be applied equally to congress?


No, it's for somebody who thinks a Constitutional Amendment is necessary to make laws apply to members of Congress because laws ALREADY apply to members of Congress (unless specifically exempted, like insider trading).
 
2013-10-22 02:13:34 PM  

what_now: Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."

Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?


There are many stories of those who had insurance no longer having it. You are free to inform yourself.
 
2013-10-22 02:14:13 PM  
They should pass a law requiring all Americans to be scared half to death.


/wait, thats not how the joke goes....
 
2013-10-22 02:16:50 PM  

MyRandomName: what_now: Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."

Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?

There are many stories of those who had insurance no longer having it. You are free to inform yourself.


Stories, sure. But actual data? Nope.
 
2013-10-22 02:16:54 PM  
I really wish we would stop linking to Opposing Views.  I see an interesting headline, click it, and immediately my whole screen is taken up with the stupid popover with "30 Hottest Athletes", "One Weird Trick..." and so on.  I slide around on my phone screen trying to find the damn "X" to close it and it just re-centers itself.  Fark that... surely there's some other source.
 
2013-10-22 02:16:56 PM  
Old and Busted: Propose changes to legislation that are never going to pass and throw a tantrum and shut down the government to prove you mean business.

New Hotness: Proposing constitutional amendments that will never gain traction and then claiming the other side hates the constitution and that this is why we need a Constitutional Convention. (Which will also never happen)
 
2013-10-22 02:17:44 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Wait. Are the articles on this (this one and the ThinkProgress one) really suggesting that Congress members should be  ineligible for those benefits if they qualify for them?

That's the point, genius. Congress isn't exempt from "Obamacare" anymore than they're exempt from these benefits.


No other employer in the US can opt into ACA exchanges and pay 80% of the costs. Not one. But OMB declared that ability for the federal government.

The correct action would be offering a raise that offset exchanges costs, not what OMB did.
 
2013-10-22 02:17:46 PM  
Uh, wouldn't that mean that Congress would be under the same eligibility rules as any American citizen? Congresscritters couldn't get welfare benifits without poverty means testing, and Congresscritters couldn't get a Medal of Honor without being a member of the military, and carrying out extreme examples of conspicuous gallantry and valor on the field of battle?
 
2013-10-22 02:18:06 PM  
Ron Paul is an idiot.  The author of that story is also an idiot.
 
2013-10-22 02:18:21 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: MyRandomName: what_now: Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."

Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?

There are many stories of those who had insurance no longer having it. You are free to inform yourself.

Stories, sure. But actual data? Nope.


Define data. There is data showing companies dropping coverage. That is data. Are you that slow?
 
2013-10-22 02:20:52 PM  

VendorXeno: what_now: Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?

As near as I can tell, from interviews, from his upbringing, from those wonderful moments when you hear him conversing when he doesn't realize he's being recorded, he really is just that stupid. I know with some Republicans they're putting on an act to draw in their stupid constituents, but I really do think Rand believes all his arguments and actually considers himself some kind of righteous crusader. Which is almost worse.


Given the misognyist platforms he supports, it's not merely "almost" worse.
 
2013-10-22 02:21:39 PM  

Mrbogey: Oh if only I had worn my anti-glue suit, all of these sharp and witty barbs, which were completely unforeseeable, wouldn't have stuck to me.


That will teach you not to wear a rubber.
 
2013-10-22 02:23:08 PM  

what_now: Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?


That is exactly what conservatives have been saying, and Hannity has been trotting out examples of people who have supposedly "lost their insurance to Obamacare".  These claims tend not to stand up to any scrutiny, though:

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/inside_the_fox_news_lie_machine_i_fa ct _checked_sean_hannity_on_obamacare/
 
2013-10-22 02:23:10 PM  

MyRandomName: No other employer in the US can opt into ACA exchanges and pay 80% of the costs. Not one. But OMB declared that ability for the federal government.

The correct action would be offering a raise that offset exchanges costs, not what OMB did.


Why would you say that's the "correct" action. Is the OMB blocked from providing subsidies to its employees to buy insurance on the exchange? Is any other employer legally bound to force their employers on the exchange due to Republican amendment?
 
2013-10-22 02:23:13 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Wait. Are the articles on this (this one and the ThinkProgress one) really suggesting that Congress members should be  ineligible for those benefits if they qualify for them?

That's the point, genius. Congress isn't exempt from "Obamacare" anymore than they're exempt from these benefits.


Thanks for telling me what I've known for a while now. I was commenting on the article writer's (I hesitate to use 'journalist') assertion that this amendment would open the floodgates for Congresscritters to start getting benefits they don't qualify for simply because they are Congresscritters.

The analysis of the amendment is the point of my contention, not the actual ridiculous amendment itself.
 
2013-10-22 02:23:14 PM  
Berate the Tea Party all day long if you like, but there is a point here.  Congress should not make laws which they or their political allies are exempt from while the rest of us have to abide.  I think that a constitutional amendment to that effect, but short of the Tea Party somehow gaining much more influence or more likely a new Sulla or Marius coming to the fore it will not happen.  And yes there are several exceptions for different (influential) entities and groups within the Affordable Care Act/Obamacare that they are loath to advertise, along with several other groups seeking exemptions.
 
2013-10-22 02:23:14 PM  

Aquapope: Joe Blowme: prohibit Congress from passing any law that did not apply equally to itself as to the rest of the American people.

so tag is for those who think laws should be applied equally to congress?

No, it's for somebody who thinks a Constitutional Amendment is necessary to make laws apply to members of Congress because laws ALREADY apply to members of Congress (unless specifically exempted, like insider trading).


I thought it was for the guy who thinks that this amendment that will not allow congress to specifically exempt itself from laws would ever get passed.
 
2013-10-22 02:23:50 PM  
Rand "Ayn" Paul sure as hell ain't Ron. Guess which one doesn't give a fark about personal liberties. Just another stuffed suit.
 
2013-10-22 02:23:53 PM  

MyRandomName: cameroncrazy1984: MyRandomName: what_now: Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."

Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?

There are many stories of those who had insurance no longer having it. You are free to inform yourself.

Stories, sure. But actual data? Nope.

Define data. There is data showing companies dropping coverage. That is data. Are you that slow?


Do those people no longer have insurance? What companies?
 
2013-10-22 02:24:16 PM  

Mrbogey: The author misstates the basic facts of what transpired/argued and then proposes what would happen under his poor reading of the amendment.

With the advent of the information age, why do people insist on reading the opinions of the ignorant and dumb?



Some people pay 5 bucks a month to do it.
 
2013-10-22 02:27:00 PM  

antidumbass: Rand "Ayn" Paul sure as hell ain't Ron. Guess which one doesn't give a fark about personal liberties. Just another stuffed suit.


If you can only guess one, there is no wrong answer.
 
2013-10-22 02:28:17 PM  

naughtyrev: Rand Paul, who is pushing not just a simple piece of legislation but an actual amendment to the United States Constitution that would prohibit Congress from passing any law that did not apply equally to itself as to the rest of the American people.

So that means I could get those sweet insider trading benefits, right Rand? I think everyone will get on board with this amendment.


Since that law has already been passed, Congress would continue to enjoy immunity from insider trading.  Funny, Rand Paul didn't make his proposed amendment that far simpler "The members of the United States Congress shall be subject to the same laws as all other residents and citizens of the United States."
 
2013-10-22 02:29:01 PM  

nmrsnr: Oh, and for the curious, here's the actual proposed language:

'Section 1. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress.

'Section 2. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to the executive branch of Government, including the President, Vice President, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, including those provided for under this Constitution and by law, and inferior officers to the President established by law.

'Section 3. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, including the Chief Justice, and judges of such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

'Section 4. Nothing in this article shall preempt any specific provision of this Constitution.'

First off, this seems tautological, since all members of Congress are citizens of the US, so all laws which apply to a citizen of the US also, by default, applies to Congress.

Second, it doesn't necessarily go the other way, it doesn't say that any law applicable to members of Congress are necessarily applicable to all citizens of the US, which means that you can craft as many exemptions as you want, and as long as they are tailored specifically to Congress it doesn't violate this amendment.

So this amendment is both unnecessary and ineffective at achieving its stated purpose.


Really? Go try to get a congressman arrested for a misdemeanor. See what happens?
 
2013-10-22 02:30:24 PM  

what_now: Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."

Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?


Uh, almost everyone thinks this.
 
2013-10-22 02:30:30 PM  

Mrbogey: The author misstates the basic facts of what transpired/argued and then proposes what would happen under his poor reading of the amendment.

With the advent of the information age, why do people insist on reading the opinions of the ignorant and dumb?


Clearly you were born yesterday.  Just about every piece of information out there in the "information age" is skewed or opinionated in some sense.  Yes, it's possible to dig deeper and find actual intelligently written, unbiased facts.  But what comes out instantly and publicly, is pretty much crap.

//This is just my opinion, of course.
 
2013-10-22 02:31:42 PM  

Aquapope: Joe Blowme: prohibit Congress from passing any law that did not apply equally to itself as to the rest of the American people.

so tag is for those who think laws should be applied equally to congress?

No, it's for somebody who thinks a Constitutional Amendment is necessary to make laws apply to members of Congress because laws ALREADY apply to members of Congress (unless specifically exempted, like insider trading).


So maybe we just need to enforce what we have then because the insider trading thing is insanely obvious. Elected worth 1 million and come out 1 term later worth 10 million? something stinks and everyone knows it but the powers that be have us fighting each other instead of them.
 
2013-10-22 02:32:15 PM  
jayphat:  Really? Go try to get a congressman arrested for a misdemeanor. See what happens?

www.moonbattery.com
Do you know who I am?
 
2013-10-22 02:36:09 PM  

James!: what_now: Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid?

Yes.


Kentucky voters
 
2013-10-22 02:36:18 PM  
Yeah. what a ridiculous idea.
 
2013-10-22 02:37:30 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Wait. Are the articles on this (this one and the ThinkProgress one) really suggesting that Congress members should be  ineligible for those benefits if they qualify for them?

That's the point, genius. Congress isn't exempt from "Obamacare" anymore than they're exempt from these benefits.


The thing is, they see themselves as Congressmen, not citizens.  They are the elite, not civilians  They are your better, and above you.  It's only fitting that they should share the bounty that the mere citizen receives.  They worked so hard to bring it to you, after all.  That's how I read it: they are deserving of special considerations above and beyond the typical citizen, since they aim to never again rejoin the citizenry/want to stay in office indefinitely.
 
2013-10-22 02:39:22 PM  
Of course, the "exemption" was never an exemption at all. The new law requires only that Americans have some kind of health care coverage. Only people who are currently uninsured are required to buy insurance through the online health insurance exchanges created by the law (or through some other means).

No one who currently receives insurance through an employer, private or governmental, would be required to do anything different.


I'm not surprised that Rand Paul doesn't understand this, but I'm sort of sad he doesn't.
 
2013-10-22 02:39:29 PM  

nmrsnr: Oh, and for the curious, here's the actual proposed language:

'Section 1. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress.

'Section 2. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to the executive branch of Government, including the President, Vice President, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, including those provided for under this Constitution and by law, and inferior officers to the President established by law.

'Section 3. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, including the Chief Justice, and judges of such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

'Section 4. Nothing in this article shall preempt any specific provision of this Constitution.'

First off, this seems tautological, since all members of Congress are citizens of the US, so all laws which apply to a citizen of the US also, by default, applies to Congress.

Second, it doesn't necessarily go the other way, it doesn't say that any law applicable to members of Congress are necessarily applicable to all citizens of the US, which means that you can craft as many exemptions as you want, and as long as they are tailored specifically to Congress it doesn't violate this amendment.

So this amendment is both unnecessary and ineffective at achieving its stated purpose.


So it is a law that will do nothing *and* be really popular with idiots?   Isn't this the very core of what politicians hope for?
 
2013-10-22 02:41:08 PM  

MyRandomName: Define data. There is data showing companies dropping coverage. That is data. Are you that slow?


But what kind of data is it? And how is it being used?

http://www.thenation.com/blog/176711/nothing-ted-cruz-said-about-aca -t oday-true#

"No doubt the health law is imposingsome additional costs on employers, though once again Cruz elides any debate over the benefit trade-offs involved. But even UPS is emphasizing (not that Republicans will listen) that the ACA isn't a controlling factor in ending spousal benefits. "One way of saying this is that we are restructuring our benefits 'because of the ACA'-but that's not accurate," Andy McGowan, a UPS spokesman, told Cohn. "We are doing this because we are looking at many different factors adding to our costs, and ACA is one of them."

Finally, you might have wondered if UPS only has 15,000 employees. It does not! The company is only ending the benefits of spouses who already have a job where they can get health insurance. In other words, not a single person is actually losing coverage because of this move. Cruz doesn't mention that."


Then as regards the whole congressional exemption, it's mostly mythology. 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/network.asp 

And that's the problem with Rand Paul's whole approach. It's not that congress is exempt, it's that many of these bills aren't aimed at them. The ACA is largely about expanding insurance coverage to more people. Members of Congress already have excellent insurance coverage. Those aspects of the ACA shouldn't apply to them. So Paul is rallying stupidly around a stupid cause. 

It sure would be nice if certain instances where Congress is exempt from the rules that govern the rest of us would be eliminated, but Rand Paul noticeably isn't referring to those.  He's just show boating around the ACA, because he's an idiot, and trying to portray this as some noble effort to end Congressional corruption is crap.
 
2013-10-22 02:41:56 PM  

MyRandomName: cameroncrazy1984: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Wait. Are the articles on this (this one and the ThinkProgress one) really suggesting that Congress members should be  ineligible for those benefits if they qualify for them?

That's the point, genius. Congress isn't exempt from "Obamacare" anymore than they're exempt from these benefits.

No other employer in the US can opt into ACA exchanges and pay 80% of the costs. Not one. But OMB declared that ability for the federal government.

The correct action would be offering a raise that offset exchanges costs, not what OMB did.


Setting aside the trivial matter that your numbers are wrong, the federal government's contribution to its employees' health insurance premiums is a part of their pay. What you are arguing is that Congressmen and their staffers should take a pay cut (a pretty sizable one at that) and not that they should be treated the same as employees of private companies.
 
2013-10-22 02:42:18 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: nmrsnr: Oh, and for the curious, here's the actual proposed language:

'Section 1. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress.

'Section 2. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to the executive branch of Government, including the President, Vice President, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, including those provided for under this Constitution and by law, and inferior officers to the President established by law.

'Section 3. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, including the Chief Justice, and judges of such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

'Section 4. Nothing in this article shall preempt any specific provision of this Constitution.'

First off, this seems tautological, since all members of Congress are citizens of the US, so all laws which apply to a citizen of the US also, by default, applies to Congress.

Second, it doesn't necessarily go the other way, it doesn't say that any law applicable to members of Congress are necessarily applicable to all citizens of the US, which means that you can craft as many exemptions as you want, and as long as they are tailored specifically to Congress it doesn't violate this amendment.

So this amendment is both unnecessary and ineffective at achieving its stated purpose.

So it is a law that will do nothing *and* be really popular with idiots?   Isn't this the very core of what politicians hope for?


Yep, see gun control.
 
2013-10-22 02:42:45 PM  
I respect Ron Paul, although I disagree with him about the gold standard.

Rand Paul, though, seems to get less relevant every day.

Maybe he's adopted or something...apple seems to have fallen pretty far from the farking tree.
 
2013-10-22 02:43:48 PM  

what_now: Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."

Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?


Surprisingly a lot of people believe this "exception" BS. I casually mentioned that our state one Republican house Rep votes against the debt/shutdown agreement (the one that finally passed last week). The two moderate conservatives who sit closest to me stated that while they thought the agreement was good, that they understood the representatives stated argument that he voted against it because the exception was unfair.  I tried to set them straight, and pointed out several articles that were even written by conservatives such as the national review, pointing out that its a fake argument. They really didn't want to hear it... :(
 
2013-10-22 02:45:03 PM  
I don't think he's introduced a single piece of legislation that's passed. Ever.

But, sure. A constitutional amendment should be a piece of cake.

Just a two year old who wants some attention, so he has an outburst. He should be but in time out for a while.
 
2013-10-22 02:46:10 PM  
I just want to note: The Equal Rights Amendment will get ratified before this thing will. (Which is to say, never.)
 
2013-10-22 02:46:55 PM  

nmrsnr: Section 2. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to the executive branch of Government, including the President, Vice President, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, including those provided for under this Constitution and by law, and inferior officers to the President established by law.


So I'm curious, does this mean that I can just go barge into the Oval Office any time I want? After all, any law allowing the President powers or freedoms I don't have would seem to violate this concept. Can I now negotiate treaties on the Nation's behalf? Again, why should some law made by congress prevent me from doing it, but allow the President or Congress to do it? I know it says that these provisions won't trump prior Constitutional rules, but a whole lot of this isn't directly covered in the Constitution. Overall, sounds like a really bad idea, done entirely for attention seeking purposes...
 
2013-10-22 02:49:45 PM  
For "opposingviews", it ready pretty partisan...
 
2013-10-22 02:51:19 PM  

naughtyrev: Rand Paul, who is pushing not just a simple piece of legislation but an actual amendment to the United States Constitution that would prohibit Congress from passing any law that did not apply equally to itself as to the rest of the American people.

So that means I could get those sweet insider trading benefits, right Rand? I think everyone will get on board with this amendment.


F'in this!
 
2013-10-22 02:52:41 PM  

Mrbogey: The author misstates the basic facts of what transpired/argued and then proposes what would happen under his poor reading of the amendment.

With the advent of the information age, why do people insist on reading the opinions of the ignorant and dumb?


Advent?  What are you talking about Christmas calendars for?
HAW HAW this guy sure is dumb.
 
2013-10-22 02:53:28 PM  

Aquapope: No, it means that Congress couldn't continue to skirt the law that prevents the rest of us from getting those sweet insider trading laws. Which is one of a million reasons why this Amendment won't go anywhere.


This.
 
2013-10-22 02:54:53 PM  

Aquapope: No, it means that Congress couldn't continue to skirt the law that prevents the rest of us from getting those sweet insider trading laws. Which is one of a million reasons why this Amendment won't go anywhere.


Uh, no. That's not what this amendment says at all. And no, it wouldn't that.
 
2013-10-22 02:56:45 PM  

what_now: Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid?


cdn.meme.li
 
2013-10-22 02:59:07 PM  

RexTalionis: I just want to note: The Equal Rights Amendment will get ratified before this thing will. (Which is to say, never.)


The constitution already has an equal rights amendment (the 14th):

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

...so passing another amendment saying the same thing would be superfluous.
 
2013-10-22 03:00:28 PM  
FTFH: "Rand Paul thinks congress should get veteran's benefits..."

No Subby...he doesn't.
 
2013-10-22 03:01:35 PM  

what_now: Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."

Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider?

img.pandawhale.com
 
2013-10-22 03:02:05 PM  
 THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS NOT A POLITICAL PARTY.

It is a financial venture for people who want to make an obscene amount of money through short-term exploitation, at the cost of long-term consequences they will not live to see.

They DO NOT believe what they say.
They DO NOT have loyalty to a party.
They DO NOT hate what you hate.

They speak and act in any way that they think you want to them to, in order to gather your support and donations, and make obscene profits, and then move on in 5-8 years.

This requires a complete lack of empathy, and the willingness to screw not only you, me, and everyone else; they must be perfectly happy to screw GENERATIONS of people.  You, your children, your grandchildren, and at least SEVEN generations of Americans will suffer the effects of their actions.  And they don't care.  they don't.  They really don't.  They sleep comfortably, warm, and sound.  They truly DO NOT feel bad about what they have done, and are doing.  They grin when they think how they'll be dead long before all the bad things happen to everyone, everywhere.  They are sociopaths.  They truly believe they are LIFE'S WINNERS.

After all... they got rich.
 
2013-10-22 03:03:41 PM  

jshine: RexTalionis: I just want to note: The Equal Rights Amendment will get ratified before this thing will. (Which is to say, never.)

The constitution already has an equal rights amendment (the 14th):

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

...so passing another amendment saying the same thing would be superfluous.


I didn't say I endorse it. I'm just pointing out another Constitutional Amendment that went nowhere. But feel free to be patronizing about it.
 
2013-10-22 03:04:13 PM  

jshine: RexTalionis: I just want to note: The Equal Rights Amendment will get ratified before this thing will. (Which is to say, never.)

The constitution already has an equal rights amendment (the 14th):

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

...so passing another amendment saying the same thing would be superfluous.


Yeah, but Scalia told me that amendment clearly only applies to equal protection of people based on the color of their skin! You can tell by looking at the quill scratchings.
 
2013-10-22 03:05:46 PM  
Politicians having to follow the same laws as the rest of us? What kind of idiot could ever think this could be a good idea?
 
2013-10-22 03:14:25 PM  
Get a brain! Moran!

GO USA!
 
2013-10-22 03:17:58 PM  

Sh0nuff: Politicians having to follow the same laws as the rest of us? What kind of idiot could ever think this could be a good idea?



are you like immune to the logic of what he's proposing?
 
2013-10-22 03:20:50 PM  

what_now: Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."

Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?


Oh, but they CAN force you to choose a new provider. Allow me to explain, my dear Watson. First, I work in the financial side of the healthcare industry. An actual primary care physician's practice, so I have the credentials to answer this question. There are insurance companies being forced to drop all types of coverage plans in order to comply with Obamacare. Some new plans are only hand picking a small (comparitively) group of participating physicians to participate with the "affordable" plan. Your health care is going to cost you more and provide less coverage. Your current physician may not be included to participate with the plans your current coverage offers or because the allowed amount (the amount the physician is actually paid) is reduced to the point of ridiculous and the doctor chooses to no long participate with your plan because he'd practically be working for free. What happens then? You are forced to choose a new physician in order to accomodate your health insurance plan or pay for your own insurance out of pocket in order to keep seeing your choice of a physician. This will cost you an astronomical amount of money.

Go ahead...tell me how wonderful Obamacare is going to be and I'll be happy to shoot all manner of holes in your pet theories. You don't know shiat about what a farce Obamacare is or how much it's going to end up costing you. Go ahead, sign up and hand the governement the rest of the information that the NSA hasn't already gathered about you. Idiot.
 
2013-10-22 03:23:33 PM  
MyRandomName


cameroncrazy1984
(favorite: blamed tea-party 4 boston bombing said perp would not be islamist) :
MyRandomName: what_now: Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."

Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?

There are many stories of those who had insurance no longer having it. You are free to inform yourself.

Stories, sure. But actual data? Nope.

Define data. There is data showing companies dropping coverage. That is data. Are you that slow?

Yes, he is. Liberal blinders are huge.
 
2013-10-22 03:25:37 PM  
Rand Paul thinks

forum.sportsmogul.com

I don't read political fiction.
 
2013-10-22 03:27:35 PM  

ShardingGreat: what_now: Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."

Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?

Oh, but they CAN force you to choose a new provider. Allow me to explain, my dear Watson. First, I work in the financial side of the healthcare industry. An actual primary care physician's practice, so I have the credentials to answer this question. There are insurance companies being forced to drop all types of coverage plans in order to comply with Obamacare. Some new plans are only hand picking a small (comparitively) group of participating physicians to participate with the "affordable" plan. Your health care is going to cost you more and provide less coverage. Your current physician may not be included to participate with the plans your current coverage offers or because the allowed amount (the amount the physician is actually paid) is reduced to the point of ridiculous and the doctor chooses to no long participate with your plan because he'd practically be working for free. What happens then? You are forced to choose a new physician in order to accomodate your health insurance plan or pay for your own insurance out of pocket in order to keep seeing your choice of a physician. This will cost you an astronomical amount of money.

Go ahead...tell me how wonderful Obamacare is going to be and I'll be happy to shoot all manner of holes in your pet theories. You don't know shiat about what a farce Obamacare is or how much it's going to end up costing you. Go ahead, sign up and hand the governement the rest of the information that the NSA hasn't already gathered about you. Idiot.



The Farker you're trying to troll lives in Massachusetts , where 'ObamaCare' has been running strong since 2006 when Romney passed it into law.
 
2013-10-22 03:27:41 PM  

OnlyM3: MyRandomName


cameroncrazy1984
(favorite: blamed tea-party 4 boston bombing said perp would not be islamist) :
MyRandomName: what_now: Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."

Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?

There are many stories of those who had insurance no longer having it. You are free to inform yourself.

Stories, sure. But actual data? Nope.

Define data. There is data showing companies dropping coverage. That is data. Are you that slow?
Yes, he is. Liberal blinders are huge.


Since he won't provide data, where are yours?
 
2013-10-22 03:29:44 PM  

Aquapope: Ask him about his ophthalmology board certification.  When you can't operate within the rules, you make new rules.  Calvinball!


What a classy asshole he is.
 
2013-10-22 03:30:22 PM  
Better wording might have been: "Congress shall not exempt itself from any law of general applicability."
 
2013-10-22 03:30:34 PM  

what_now: Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?


He thinks we are.

Remember, he's a Republican, and their usual electoral strategy is to throw full-bore derp out into the public, see what gets some traction, and repeat the lies until they get results.  No facts, no substance, just spin and propaganda.

Sad thing is, it works a good chunk of the time.
 
2013-10-22 03:32:56 PM  

ShardingGreat: what_now: Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."

Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?

Oh, but they CAN force you to choose a new provider. Allow me to explain, my dear Watson. First, I work in the financial side of the healthcare industry. An actual primary care physician's practice, so I have the credentials to answer this question. There are insurance companies being forced to drop all types of coverage plans in order to comply with Obamacare. Some new plans are only hand picking a small (comparitively) group of participating physicians to participate with the "affordable" plan. Your health care is going to cost you more and provide less coverage. Your current physician may not be included to participate with the plans your current coverage offers or because the allowed amount (the amount the physician is actually paid) is reduced to the point of ridiculous and the doctor chooses to no long participate with your plan because he'd practically be working for free. What happens then? You are forced to choose a new physician in order to accomodate your health insurance plan or pay for your own insurance out of pocket in order to keep seeing your choice of a physician. This will cost you an astronomical amount of money.

Go ahead...tell me how wonderful Obamacare is going to be and I'll be happy to shoot all manner of holes in your pet theories. You don't know shiat about what a farce Obamacare is or how much it's going to end up costing you. Go ahead, sign up and hand the governement the rest of the information that the NSA hasn't already gathered about you. Idiot.


1/10. Account created: 2013-10-04 15:28:04. Nice try.
 
2013-10-22 03:33:44 PM  

RightToWork: Better wording might have been: "Congress shall not exempt itself from any law of general applicability."


That's even dumber.


See here's the thing.  Health insurance is compensation.  What farkwits in the GOP are trying to do is give federal workers a pay cut before going into the exchanges out of spite, nothing more, nothing less.  There's no "exemption."
 
2013-10-22 03:38:23 PM  

DarnoKonrad: That's even dumber.

See here's the thing. Health insurance is compensation. What farkwits in the GOP are trying to do is give federal workers a pay cut before going into the exchanges out of spite, nothing more, nothing less. There's no "exemption."


I'm not arguing the Obamacare "exemption" point. I'm just trying to clean up his messy amendment as an intellectual exercise. As I worded it, it might not prevent that specific action, but it would prevent a lot of other B.S. Congressional exemptions.
 
2013-10-22 03:40:11 PM  

Snarfangel: Mrbogey: Oh if only I had worn my anti-glue suit, all of these sharp and witty barbs, which were completely unforeseeable, wouldn't have stuck to me.

That will teach you not to wear a rubber.


Too bad it didn't teach his dad.
 
2013-10-22 03:43:38 PM  

RightToWork: DarnoKonrad: That's even dumber.

See here's the thing. Health insurance is compensation. What farkwits in the GOP are trying to do is give federal workers a pay cut before going into the exchanges out of spite, nothing more, nothing less. There's no "exemption."

I'm not arguing the Obamacare "exemption" point. I'm just trying to clean up his messy amendment as an intellectual exercise. As I worded it, it might not prevent that specific action, but it would prevent a lot of other B.S. Congressional exemptions.



No one knows what "general applicability" is supposed to mean, and we already have a clear and adjudicated legal principal called  "equal protection."
 
2013-10-22 03:47:04 PM  

DarnoKonrad: RightToWork: DarnoKonrad: That's even dumber.

See here's the thing. Health insurance is compensation. What farkwits in the GOP are trying to do is give federal workers a pay cut before going into the exchanges out of spite, nothing more, nothing less. There's no "exemption."

I'm not arguing the Obamacare "exemption" point. I'm just trying to clean up his messy amendment as an intellectual exercise. As I worded it, it might not prevent that specific action, but it would prevent a lot of other B.S. Congressional exemptions.


No one knows what "general applicability" is supposed to mean, and we already have a clear and adjudicated legal principal called  "equal protection."


Laws are already written to be generally applicable. For example, Congress and the President could approve of a tax credit given to all businesses originally incorporated in Sharon, MA with less than $1 million in payroll whose exclusive industry is making ice cream in pint containers. That's a generally applicable law even though it, in practice, would almost certainly apply to just one company.
 
2013-10-22 03:49:28 PM  

DarnoKonrad: No one knows what "general applicability" is supposed to mean


Actually, there is a mountain of existing case law on what it means in discrimination cases, first amendment cases, and other legal contexts.

and we already have a clear and adjudicated legal principal called "equal protection."

The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment doesn't prevent Congress from exempting itself from laws. Paul's amendment is a (poor) attempt to do so. I respect the intent of it, even if the Obamacare exemption isn't in fact an exemption.
 
2013-10-22 03:54:04 PM  

Serious Black: Laws are already written to be generally applicable. For example, Congress and the President could approve of a tax credit given to all businesses originally incorporated in Sharon, MA with less than $1 million in payroll whose exclusive industry is making ice cream in pint containers. That's a generally applicable law even though it, in practice, would almost certainly apply to just one company.


They call that the "rifleshot." However, it's worth pointing out that courts do examine intent, e.g., Obamacare surviving on the basis that it is a "tax" even though it calls itself a penalty.
 
2013-10-22 03:57:56 PM  
Wow. Just... wow.

A Congressperson attempts to promote a law which substantially closes the "Class Gap" between Legislators and the common citizen, and all people can do is argue semantics and the typical "Republican vs. Democrat" rhetoric.

We are truly farked. We are stuck between  the greedy and the avaricious.
 
2013-10-22 03:58:11 PM  
WE MUST TAKE DECENT HEALTH CARE COVERAGE AWAY FROM AS MANY AMERICANS AS POSSIBLE. YOU KNOW...TO SAVE THE REPUBLIC. OR SOMETHING. #tcot #bengazi
 
2013-10-22 04:00:04 PM  
ShardingGreat:
Go ahead...tell me how wonderful Obamacare is going to be and I'll be happy to shoot all manner of holes in your pet theories. You don't know shiat about what a farce Obamacare is or how much it's going to end up costing you. Go ahead, sign up and hand the governement the rest of the information that the NSA hasn't already gathered about you. Idiot.

This is a new one, and I'm excited to read it here on Fark.  You're saying that the purpose of the healthcare exchanges is a thinly veiled ploy by the government to gather information on my need for an annual pap smear?  Fantastical.  And now i get why some people are going to say they are unable to shop for new insurance on the exchanges...because they don't want the evil gub'mint all up in their business, spying on them as they pick out a pediatrician.

Good stuff.
 
2013-10-22 04:00:45 PM  

buckler: Uh, wouldn't that mean that Congress would be under the same eligibility rules as any American citizen? Congresscritters couldn't get welfare benifits without poverty means testing, and Congresscritters couldn't get a Medal of Honor without being a member of the military, and carrying out extreme examples of conspicuous gallantry and valor on the field of battle?



Goddammit, why do you have to go and interrupt a good anti-GOP circlejerk!
 
2013-10-22 04:05:38 PM  
Okay I'll go with it, but only if it also means they make minimal wage.
 
2013-10-22 04:09:07 PM  

what_now: Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."

Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?


My neighbor was just complaining this weekend that he just took a $700 paycut because he just had to buy insurance from his work even though he is covered by his wife's insurance.  He says now he has to pay for double coverage now because according to Obamacare if your employer provides medical insurance you HAVE to buy it.

I told him I hope your open enrollment isn't closed already because that is not the case, you just have to have insurance from somewhere, or hell take the tax penelty because at his income that would be WAY less than $700 a month.
 
2013-10-22 04:10:10 PM  

Serious Black: ShardingGreat: what_now: Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."

Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?

Oh, but they CAN force you to choose a new provider. Allow me to explain, my dear Watson. First, I work in the financial side of the healthcare industry. An actual primary care physician's practice, so I have the credentials to answer this question. There are insurance companies being forced to drop all types of coverage plans in order to comply with Obamacare. Some new plans are only hand picking a small (comparitively) group of participating physicians to participate with the "affordable" plan. Your health care is going to cost you more and provide less coverage. Your current physician may not be included to participate with the plans your current coverage offers or because the allowed amount (the amount the physician is actually paid) is reduced to the point of ridiculous and the doctor chooses to no long participate with your plan because he'd practically be working for free. What happens then? You are forced to choose a new physician in order to accomodate your health insurance plan or pay for your own insurance out of pocket in order to keep seeing your choice of a physician. This will cost you an astronomical amount of money.

Go ahead...tell me how wonderful Obamacare is going to be and I'll be happy to shoot all manner of holes in your pet theories. You don't know shiat about what a farce Obamacare is or how much it's going to end up costing you. Go ahead, sign up and hand the governement the rest of the information that the NSA hasn't already gathered about you. Idiot.

1/10. Acc ...


Dammit I fell right for it.  I am the sunfish of beginning trolls.
 
2013-10-22 04:12:48 PM  

teenytinycornteeth: This is a new one, and I'm excited to read it here on Fark. You're saying that the purpose of the healthcare exchanges is a thinly veiled ploy by the government to gather information on my need for an annual pap smear? Fantastical. And now i get why some people are going to say they are unable to shop for new insurance on the exchanges...because they don't want the evil gub'mint all up in their business, spying on them as they pick out a pediatrician.


Not sure about the veracity of the poster, but I can testify to the fact that the ACA forced me from my wife's insurance plan onto my own employer's plan, which is nowhere near as good.
 
2013-10-22 04:13:25 PM  
You can choose to believe what you will, but I'm telling you guys, Obamacare is a BAD idea. Rand Paul is batshiat crazy, Ted Cruz is a farking Neo Nazi  and I'm terrified for all of us poor farkers who have to break our asses for a living every day.
 
2013-10-22 04:14:22 PM  

HAMMERTOE: Wow. Just... wow.

A Congressperson attempts to promote a law which substantially closes the "Class Gap" between Legislators and the common citizen, and all people can do is argue semantics and the typical "Republican vs. Democrat" rhetoric.

We are truly farked. We are stuck between  the greedy and the avaricious.


No, see, that's spin. What's happening here is that an idiot drafted up a ridiculous bill with huge flaws in it as another in a long line of foolish publicity stunts. Nothing about this relates to any serious attempt to pursue class equality. We're more farked if people really fall for that excuse.
 
2013-10-22 04:18:25 PM  
Rand Paul think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be overturned, so he's not the font of wisdom his worshippers put him up to be.
 
2013-10-22 04:19:24 PM  

antidumbass: Rand "Ayn" Paul sure as hell ain't Ron. Guess which one doesn't give a fark about personal liberties. Just another stuffed suit.


Ayn Rand was a pro-choice atheist.  Don't insult her like that.
 
2013-10-22 04:19:26 PM  

Cagey B: MrBallou: That's it. I give up. The system is totally broken when being a circus clown/attention whore instead of a legislator is the way to get reelected.

You're just now noticing? Rand Paul replaced a guy who was elected Senator just because he was a good pitcher.


I didn't know Kentucky even swung that way.
 
2013-10-22 04:20:29 PM  
Obamacare kicked my dog, poured sugar in my gas tank, reported me to the MLB for giving my account of the game, without the express written consent of Major League Baseball, and put anchovies on my pizza. Obamacare is bad news, y'all.
 
2013-10-22 04:21:44 PM  

HAMMERTOE: teenytinycornteeth: This is a new one, and I'm excited to read it here on Fark. You're saying that the purpose of the healthcare exchanges is a thinly veiled ploy by the government to gather information on my need for an annual pap smear? Fantastical. And now i get why some people are going to say they are unable to shop for new insurance on the exchanges...because they don't want the evil gub'mint all up in their business, spying on them as they pick out a pediatrician.

Not sure about the veracity of the poster, but I can testify to the fact that the ACA forced me from my wife's insurance plan onto my own employer's plan, which is nowhere near as good.


Have you been on the exchanges to see if there's a better plan for you?
 
2013-10-22 04:23:20 PM  

ShardingGreat: You can choose to believe what you will, but I'm telling you guys, Obamacare is a BAD idea. Rand Paul is batshiat crazy, Ted Cruz is a farking Neo Nazi  and I'm terrified for all of us poor farkers who have to break our asses for a living every day.



Account created:2013-10-04 15:28:04


www.loveyourdash.com
THE NEW TROLLS ARE HERE!!!!
 
2013-10-22 04:24:08 PM  

teenytinycornteeth: ShardingGreat:
Go ahead...tell me how wonderful Obamacare is going to be and I'll be happy to shoot all manner of holes in your pet theories. You don't know shiat about what a farce Obamacare is or how much it's going to end up costing you. Go ahead, sign up and hand the governement the rest of the information that the NSA hasn't already gathered about you. Idiot.

This is a new one, and I'm excited to read it here on Fark.  You're saying that the purpose of the healthcare exchanges is a thinly veiled ploy by the government to gather information on my need for an annual pap smear?  Fantastical.  And now i get why some people are going to say they are unable to shop for new insurance on the exchanges...because they don't want the evil gub'mint all up in their business, spying on them as they pick out a pediatrician.

Good stuff.


It's more than when you have your annual pap smear or what pediatrician you choose for your child. It's your private financial information, your ssn, and a great deal of personal information which, btw, is going to be entered into a government web site (when it's working, that is) that isn't as secure as it should be. Personally, rather than go near Obamacare, I'll bite the bullet and pay for my own healthcare out of my own pocket. Good luck to you!
 
2013-10-22 04:27:21 PM  
ShardingGreat:
It's more than when you have your annual pap smear or what pediatrician you choose for your child. It's your private financial information, your ssn, and a great deal of personal information which, btw, is going to be entered into a government web site (when it's working, that is) that isn't as secure as it should be. Personally, rather than go near Obamacare, I'll bite the bullet and pay for my own healthcare out of my own pocket. Good luck to you!

DEAR GOD NOT MY SSN!  Next thing you'll be telling me that they government needs my SSN in order for me to collect Social Security when I retire!
 
2013-10-22 04:27:23 PM  

ShardingGreat: teenytinycornteeth: ShardingGreat:
Go ahead...tell me how wonderful Obamacare is going to be and I'll be happy to shoot all manner of holes in your pet theories. You don't know shiat about what a farce Obamacare is or how much it's going to end up costing you. Go ahead, sign up and hand the governement the rest of the information that the NSA hasn't already gathered about you. Idiot.

This is a new one, and I'm excited to read it here on Fark.  You're saying that the purpose of the healthcare exchanges is a thinly veiled ploy by the government to gather information on my need for an annual pap smear?  Fantastical.  And now i get why some people are going to say they are unable to shop for new insurance on the exchanges...because they don't want the evil gub'mint all up in their business, spying on them as they pick out a pediatrician.

Good stuff.

It's more than when you have your annual pap smear or what pediatrician you choose for your child. It's your private financial information, your ssn, and a great deal of personal information which, btw, is going to be entered into a government web site (when it's working, that is) that isn't as secure as it should be. Personally, rather than go near Obamacare, I'll bite the bullet and pay for my own healthcare out of my own pocket. Good luck to you!


I hope you don't get cancer or hit by a bus.
 
2013-10-22 04:28:10 PM  

teenytinycornteeth: Have you been on the exchanges to see if there's a better plan for you?


Tried once. Not going back until the kinks are ironed out. Since my employer pays the premiums, I'm not sure it's even worth my time to.
 
2013-10-22 04:34:41 PM  

HAMMERTOE: teenytinycornteeth: Have you been on the exchanges to see if there's a better plan for you?

Tried once. Not going back until the kinks are ironed out. Since my employer pays the premiums, I'm not sure it's even worth my time to.


Well, that's your decision then.  But understand there's a difference between "being forced" onto a plan and "I'd rather just do what's easiest because i have a grudge against the ACA and don't feel like doing the research".
 
2013-10-22 04:45:32 PM  

HAMMERTOE: teenytinycornteeth: Have you been on the exchanges to see if there's a better plan for you?

Tried once. Not going back until the kinks are ironed out. Since my employer pays the premiums, I'm not sure it's even worth my time to.


Wait...you were on your wife's insurance, right? Did her employer pay the premiums, or did that come out of her paycheck? And now you're on the insurance provided by your employer, right? And your company pays your insurance premiums?

If you were paying for the premiums before, when you were on her insurance, and now you have less coverage, but no premiums to pay, are you saving enough money on the premiums to get some sort of additional coverage...like Aflac, or something, to make up the difference in coverage?
 
2013-10-22 04:52:40 PM  

HAMMERTOE: teenytinycornteeth: This is a new one, and I'm excited to read it here on Fark. You're saying that the purpose of the healthcare exchanges is a thinly veiled ploy by the government to gather information on my need for an annual pap smear? Fantastical. And now i get why some people are going to say they are unable to shop for new insurance on the exchanges...because they don't want the evil gub'mint all up in their business, spying on them as they pick out a pediatrician.

Not sure about the veracity of the poster, but I can testify to the fact that the ACA forced me from my wife's insurance plan onto my own employer's plan, which is nowhere near as good.


I don't think you understand the meaning of the term "forced"
 
2013-10-22 04:54:37 PM  

Sin_City_Superhero: HAMMERTOE: teenytinycornteeth: Have you been on the exchanges to see if there's a better plan for you?

Tried once. Not going back until the kinks are ironed out. Since my employer pays the premiums, I'm not sure it's even worth my time to.

Wait...you were on your wife's insurance, right? Did her employer pay the premiums, or did that come out of her paycheck? And now you're on the insurance provided by your employer, right? And your company pays your insurance premiums?

If you were paying for the premiums before, when you were on her insurance, and now you have less coverage, but no premiums to pay, are you saving enough money on the premiums to get some sort of additional coverage...like Aflac, or something, to make up the difference in coverage?


But that's a lot of woooooooork.  I wasn't told I'd have to put forth any efforrrt!  Plus, it's very hard for me to work up a frothy cup of sympathy when you don't even have to pay the premiums.  My employer pays mine as well...and in my book...that's a pretty good deal, even if it means I don't have every choice I ever wanted.
 
2013-10-22 05:19:51 PM  

James!: what_now: Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid?

Yes.


Yes. And RP is supposed to be one of the brighter demogogues in the Reichstag.
 
2013-10-22 05:27:31 PM  

Serious Black: DarnoKonrad: RightToWork: DarnoKonrad: That's even dumber.

See here's the thing. Health insurance is compensation. What farkwits in the GOP are trying to do is give federal workers a pay cut before going into the exchanges out of spite, nothing more, nothing less. There's no "exemption."

I'm not arguing the Obamacare "exemption" point. I'm just trying to clean up his messy amendment as an intellectual exercise. As I worded it, it might not prevent that specific action, but it would prevent a lot of other B.S. Congressional exemptions.


No one knows what "general applicability" is supposed to mean, and we already have a clear and adjudicated legal principal called  "equal protection."

Laws are already written to be generally applicable. For example, Congress and the President could approve of a tax credit given to all businesses originally incorporated in Sharon, MA with less than $1 million in payroll whose exclusive industry is making ice cream in pint containers. That's a generally applicable law even though it, in practice, would almost certainly apply to just one company.


I stand corrected.  Although I can't see what the proposed amendment really means in this context.
 
2013-10-22 05:43:05 PM  
What I don't understand is that it's the states that elect and send senators and representatives to Washington.. why aren't the state legislators responsible for setting the salaries and benefits of their representatives.

The idea that Senators and republicans can vote their own salary out of the federal budget is nonsense.
 
2013-10-22 06:02:02 PM  

dwrash: What I don't understand is that it's the states that elect and send senators and representatives to Washington.. why aren't the state legislators responsible for setting the salaries and benefits of their representatives.

The idea that Senators and republicans can vote their own salary out of the federal budget is nonsense.


Wait, so if you're either a senator *or* a Republican you can vote yourself a salary?  Or is it only if you're a senator *and* a Republican?  'Cause if it's the first one I think I might have to join up for reals.  Either way, Democrats are excluded or not?  Sorry for all the questions.  This is new to me.
 
2013-10-22 06:10:13 PM  

what_now: Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."

Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?


except that lots of those same plans are not available anymore. so ya.

thanks obama!!
 
2013-10-22 06:17:27 PM  

Serious Black: ShardingGreat: what_now: Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."

Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?

Oh, but they CAN force you to choose a new provider. Allow me to explain, my dear Watson. First, I work in the financial side of the healthcare industry. An actual primary care physician's practice, so I have the credentials to answer this question. There are insurance companies being forced to drop all types of coverage plans in order to comply with Obamacare. Some new plans are only hand picking a small (comparitively) group of participating physicians to participate with the "affordable" plan. Your health care is going to cost you more and provide less coverage. Your current physician may not be included to participate with the plans your current coverage offers or because the allowed amount (the amount the physician is actually paid) is reduced to the point of ridiculous and the doctor chooses to no long participate with your plan because he'd practically be working for free. What happens then? You are forced to choose a new physician in order to accomodate your health insurance plan or pay for your own insurance out of pocket in order to keep seeing your choice of a physician. This will cost you an astronomical amount of money.

Go ahead...tell me how wonderful Obamacare is going to be and I'll be happy to shoot all manner of holes in your pet theories. You don't know shiat about what a farce Obamacare is or how much it's going to end up costing you. Go ahead, sign up and hand the governement the rest of the information that the NSA hasn't already gathered about you. Idiot.

1/10. Acc ...


wow, stunning argument
and by 'stunning' i mean you fail and should feel bad & let the adults talk
 
2013-10-22 06:23:26 PM  
Pointless populist nonsense!  Hooray!
 
2013-10-22 06:32:03 PM  
How does the derpy author see "Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress" and read that as "and benefit equally on a case-by-case basis"?

"Therefore, when Congress passes a special law that gives, for example, a one-time death benefit to the widow of a deceased congressmember - as it recently did for the wife of late New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg - under Paul's amendment, every single member of Congress would receive the same amount of money."

Yes, you lunatic: when they die. It means that they can benefit from the same law, not that they get paid when you do.

Otherwise, you nitwit, if I go to jail for 3 days all of Congress would have to go to jail for 3 days as well. Given incarceration rates in this country, that would pretty much keep every member of Congress in jail for life.

. . .

Wait, I think I am on to something....
/seriously, though, is the author huffing paint thinner?
 
2013-10-22 06:34:44 PM  

nmrsnr: Oh, and for the curious, here's the actual proposed language:

'Section 1. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to Congress.

'Section 2. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to the executive branch of Government, including the President, Vice President, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and all other officers of the United States, including those provided for under this Constitution and by law, and inferior officers to the President established by law.

'Section 3. Congress shall make no law applicable to a citizen of the United States that is not equally applicable to judges of the Supreme Court of the United States, including the Chief Justice, and judges of such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

'Section 4. Nothing in this article shall preempt any specific provision of this Constitution.'

First off, this seems tautological, since all members of Congress are citizens of the US, so all laws which apply to a citizen of the US also, by default, applies to Congress.

Second, it doesn't necessarily go the other way, it doesn't say that any law applicable to members of Congress are necessarily applicable to all citizens of the US, which means that you can craft as many exemptions as you want, and as long as they are tailored specifically to Congress it doesn't violate this amendment.

So this amendment is both unnecessary and ineffective at achieving its stated purpose.


I draft documents for a living. Whoever drafted this POS obviously does not.
 
2013-10-22 07:26:21 PM  
So Congressmen would have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, right?
 
2013-10-22 08:22:55 PM  

weltallica: THE REPUBLICAN PARTY IS NOT A POLITICAL PARTY.

It is a financial venture for people who want to make an obscene amount of money through short-term exploitation, at the cost of long-term consequences they will not live to see.

They DO NOT believe what they say.
They DO NOT have loyalty to a party.
They DO NOT hate what you hate.

They speak and act in any way that they think you want to them to, in order to gather your support and donations, and make obscene profits, and then move on in 5-8 years.

This requires a complete lack of empathy, and the willingness to screw not only you, me, and everyone else; they must be perfectly happy to screw GENERATIONS of people.  You, your children, your grandchildren, and at least SEVEN generations of Americans will suffer the effects of their actions.  And they don't care.  they don't.  They really don't.  They sleep comfortably, warm, and sound.  They truly DO NOT feel bad about what they have done, and are doing.  They grin when they think how they'll be dead long before all the bad things happen to everyone, everywhere.  They are sociopaths.  They truly believe they are LIFE'S WINNERS.

After all... they got rich.


You just described the Obama administration
 
2013-10-22 09:18:05 PM  
Therefore, when Congress passes a special law that gives, for example, a one-time death benefit to the widow of a deceased congressmember - as it recently did for the wife of late New Jersey Senator Frank Lautenberg - under Paul's amendment, every single member of Congress would receive the same amount of money.

Is it just me, or is anyone else wondering why Congress felt it necessary to pass special legislation to provide a death benefit to the widow of someone with a net worth of almost $60 million?
 
2013-10-22 10:08:50 PM  

JuggleGeek: Ron Paul is an idiot.  The author of that story is also an idiot.


The author of the post I quoted is an idiot.

/Rand Paul proposed the amendment.
//Ron Paul is Rand Paul's father
///much like Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father--doesn't matter how many times you save the farking galaxy if all you do is whine about it
 
2013-10-22 11:01:55 PM  
The subby and author of the fark HEADLINE is a farking idiot.
 
2013-10-23 12:13:28 AM  
I want a constitutional amendment that congress must work without pay till the budget is balanced.
 
2013-10-23 05:14:56 AM  

stuffy: I want a constitutional amendment that congress must work without pay till the budget is balanced.


/sign
 
2013-10-23 06:22:19 AM  

skraptastic: what_now: Ever since the health care law passed in 2010, conservatives have railed against what they said was an "exemption" for members of congress, who received their health insurance through a federal plan. Paul's amendment would end that so-called "exemption."

Just out of curiosity, is anyone that stupid? Does anyone actually think that people who already have insurance will be forced to choose a new provider? Is Rand Paul that stupid, or does he think we are?

My neighbor was just complaining this weekend that he just took a $700 paycut because he just had to buy insurance from his work even though he is covered by his wife's insurance.  He says now he has to pay for double coverage now because according to Obamacare if your employer provides medical insurance you HAVE to buy it.

I told him I hope your open enrollment isn't closed already because that is not the case, you just have to have insurance from somewhere, or hell take the tax penelty because at his income that would be WAY less than $700 a month.


My sister told me today that her husband's insurance went up from $1,500 a month to $7,000. I don't believe her as a far as I could throw her. I mean maybe his spending on prostitutes and ugly trannies on the internet went up but I don't believe his insurance rate went up that much.
 
2013-10-23 10:32:58 AM  
Rand Paul is so goddamn stupid it's staggering. How does he have a cult following.
 
2013-10-23 11:16:03 AM  

raatz01: Rand Paul is so goddamn stupid it's staggering. How does he have a cult following.


There's a reason we have the expression, "As stupid as a Kentucky voter."
 
Displayed 143 of 143 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