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.

(Yahoo)   White House grants extension on health law sign-up   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 197
    More: Followup, White House, health law, Jay Carney  
•       •       •

1910 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Oct 2013 at 1:55 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



197 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-29 12:05:30 AM  
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2013-10-29 12:15:13 AM  
Good.  Now if we could just get more Republican governors to stop acting like babies and do their jobs.

Yeah, right.
 
2013-10-29 12:30:34 AM  
"NOW will the Asshole in Chief repeal this failure of a law?!"

(Obama has a brain tumor or something and makes the Democrats pass the repeal in both houses of Congress, which he then signs.)

"Why did he take insurance away from people!?"
 
2013-10-29 12:41:27 AM  
Good, if the signup is causing people problems, extend the deadline the length of time the signup was broken.  I bet the Republicans will be thrilled with this news.  Right guys?  Right?
 
2013-10-29 01:04:23 AM  
Teabaggers will be thrilled!
 
2013-10-29 01:41:59 AM  

The RIchest Man in Babylon: Good, if the signup is causing people problems, extend the deadline the length of time the signup was broken. I bet the Republicans will be thrilled with this news. Right guys? Right?


Makes sense to me.  Moving on, next issue folks.
 
2013-10-29 02:01:20 AM  

DemonEater: The RIchest Man in Babylon: Good, if the signup is causing people problems, extend the deadline the length of time the signup was broken. I bet the Republicans will be thrilled with this news. Right guys? Right?

Makes sense to me.  Moving on, next issue folks.


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-10-29 02:03:32 AM  
i.imgur.com

images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-10-29 02:07:47 AM  
I forgot, does this mean America is doomed, or redeemed?

/tough keeping the megatwaddle straight these days
 
2013-10-29 02:09:10 AM  

DanZero:


I like that image.

It makes me feel good.
 
2013-10-29 02:11:50 AM  
Wait a minute, so Obama can change the law at will, but if anyone else wants to change it it's terrorism?
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-adm i n-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite


Throwing away unfetchable URL http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-adm i n-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance%3Flite:
  Really fark? Screw you, the link is good, fix it in your browser and take a look.
 
2013-10-29 02:21:29 AM  
So, the right wing talking heads are saying this is what the shutdown was all about and now it's proof that Obama was the one who wanted the government shut down.  They seem to forget about the call to defund the ACA.  Think I'm kidding, give them a listen.
 
2013-10-29 02:29:06 AM  

ArmednHammered: Wait a minute, so Obama can change the law at will, but if anyone else wants to change it it's terrorism?
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-adm i n-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite


Throwing away unfetchable URL http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-adm i n-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance%3Flite:
  Really fark? Screw you, the link is good, fix it in your browser and take a look.


Because the assholes in charge of 26 states went full derple straightjacket and turned down the federal money to insure 5.2 million Americans.
Or were you talking about the idiots who were grossly underinsured biatching about the price of minimum coverage?
 
2013-10-29 02:30:04 AM  

ArmednHammered: Wait a minute, so Obama can change the law at will, but if anyone else wants to change it it's terrorism?
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-adm i n-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite


Throwing away unfetchable URL http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-adm i n-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance%3Flite:
  Really fark? Screw you, the link is good, fix it in your browser and take a look.


So catastrophic plans that offered no real coverage are being phased out.  What exactly is the problem here?
 
2013-10-29 02:30:43 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: ArmednHammered: Wait a minute, so Obama can change the law at will, but if anyone else wants to change it it's terrorism?
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-adm i n-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite


Throwing away unfetchable URL http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-adm i n-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance%3Flite:
  Really fark? Screw you, the link is good, fix it in your browser and take a look.

Because the assholes in charge of 26 states went full derple straightjacket and turned down the federal money to insure 5.2 million Americans.
Or were you talking about the idiots who were grossly underinsured biatching about the price of minimum coverage?


Yes.
 
2013-10-29 02:34:24 AM  
In TX we can't register to vote online. Why should we expect healthcare to work otherwise? This website BS is ridiculous. That being said, any delays should be ignored due to the problems.

But still, if I move, I have to print a form, sign it, snail mail it in and wait for a card TO VOTE. But I should be pissed about purchasing insurance. Suck it.
 
2013-10-29 02:42:45 AM  
I predict this thread will be a calm and rational discussion.
 
2013-10-29 02:43:02 AM  

ArmednHammered: Wait a minute, so Obama can change the law at will, but if anyone else wants to change it it's terrorism?


The President often has wide latitude in a law's implementation details. Congress did not pass a law that says "You must do these exact things at these exact times, or Sarah Palin is automatically the President."
 
2013-10-29 02:43:43 AM  
This is what you get when you vote with your head up your ass. Failure of leadership.
 
2013-10-29 02:48:18 AM  
Similar to a teacher facing angry parents at conference night, she extended the deadline so that the little snowflakes could all get A's.

But in this case, the teacher was busy having sex with students, the system went down, and the snowflakes need the class to survive.

Or, we could just go with single payer, government funded healthcare, but that would be too hard.
 
2013-10-29 02:49:43 AM  

ArmednHammered: Wait a minute, so Obama can change the law at will, but if anyone else wants to change it it's terrorism?


Obama has altered the deal. Pray he does not alter it any further.
 
2013-10-29 02:50:57 AM  

ArmednHammered: Wait a minute, so Obama can change the law at will



You aren't all that familiar with the details of governance are you?
 
2013-10-29 02:51:02 AM  

Fart_Machine: ArmednHammered: Wait a minute, so Obama can change the law at will, but if anyone else wants to change it it's terrorism?
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-adm i n-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite


Throwing away unfetchable URL http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-adm i n-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance%3Flite:
  Really fark? Screw you, the link is good, fix it in your browser and take a look.

So catastrophic plans that offered no real coverage are being phased out.  What exactly is the problem here?


A lot of the plans, including mine, were fine and offered coverage that was right for me. Now I have to pay hundreds more to meet the 'minimum', which shock and surprise, isn't that much better.
 
2013-10-29 02:53:16 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: ArmednHammered: Wait a minute, so Obama can change the law at will, but if anyone else wants to change it it's terrorism?
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-adm i n-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite


Throwing away unfetchable URL http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-adm i n-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance%3Flite:
  Really fark? Screw you, the link is good, fix it in your browser and take a look.

Because the assholes in charge of 26 states went full derple straightjacket and turned down the federal money to insure 5.2 million Americans.
Or were you talking about the idiots who were grossly underinsured biatching about the price of minimum coverage?


I don't see any of that in the story I linked. I see people who had good plans getting farked by having to pay 3x or more for coverage under the ACA. I had a good plan, it's taken care of me for 20 years and now I'm going to lose it thanks to the ACA because my insurance company is bailing out of the state. What part of that don't you understand farkwad?
 
2013-10-29 02:57:09 AM  

ArmednHammered: demaL-demaL-yeH: ArmednHammered: Wait a minute, so Obama can change the law at will, but if anyone else wants to change it it's terrorism?
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-adm i n-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite


Throwing away unfetchable URL http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-adm i n-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance%3Flite:
  Really fark? Screw you, the link is good, fix it in your browser and take a look.

Because the assholes in charge of 26 states went full derple straightjacket and turned down the federal money to insure 5.2 million Americans.
Or were you talking about the idiots who were grossly underinsured biatching about the price of minimum coverage?

I don't see any of that in the story I linked. I see people who had good plans getting farked by having to pay 3x or more for coverage under the ACA. I had a good plan, it's taken care of me for 20 years and now I'm going to lose it thanks to the ACA because my insurance company is bailing out of the state. What part of that don't you understand farkwad?


Unless they know of an ACA-free state, your insurance company is lying to you,
 
2013-10-29 02:57:59 AM  

Harry_Seldon: ArmednHammered: Wait a minute, so Obama can change the law at will, but if anyone else wants to change it it's terrorism?

The President often has wide latitude in a law's implementation details. Congress did not pass a law that says "You must do these exact things at these exact times, or Sarah Palin is automatically the President."


No he doesn't, the Congress makes the laws and the Senate either signs off on them and sends them to the President or sends them back to Congress for revision. The President can't just make arbitrary changes and call it good without the approval of the Congress and the Senate.
 
2013-10-29 02:59:15 AM  

Notabunny: ArmednHammered: demaL-demaL-yeH: ArmednHammered: Wait a minute, so Obama can change the law at will, but if anyone else wants to change it it's terrorism?
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-adm i n-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite


Throwing away unfetchable URL http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-adm i n-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance%3Flite:
  Really fark? Screw you, the link is good, fix it in your browser and take a look.

Because the assholes in charge of 26 states went full derple straightjacket and turned down the federal money to insure 5.2 million Americans.
Or were you talking about the idiots who were grossly underinsured biatching about the price of minimum coverage?

I don't see any of that in the story I linked. I see people who had good plans getting farked by having to pay 3x or more for coverage under the ACA. I had a good plan, it's taken care of me for 20 years and now I'm going to lose it thanks to the ACA because my insurance company is bailing out of the state. What part of that don't you understand farkwad?

Unless they know of an ACA-free state, your insurance company is lying to you,


Tell that to the 500,000 people in California that just lost their insurance.
 
2013-10-29 03:00:32 AM  
This law is like using one of your 3 wishes to make infinite wishes.  Obama gets to rewrite this law on the fly.  Amazing.  It has deadlines set by law, but Obama can arbitrarily change the deadlines as he pleases.  It has requirements that ALL Americans must must be forced to buy Insurance through the Obamacare exchanges, but Obama gets to make exemptions to that rule for whoever he pleases (including himself, his buddies in congress, unions, big corporations, etc).

Why not skip the pretense of the 2000+ pages of the original law and just write:  "This is a law.  Obama can change whatever the law says whenever he wants.  Oh - and you can't call it tyranny".  ; )
 
2013-10-29 03:01:00 AM  

vatica40: A lot of the plans, including mine, were fine and offered coverage that was right for me. Now I have to pay hundreds more to meet the 'minimum', which shock and surprise, isn't that much better.


Is this before or after taking this stuff into account?

/Too many talking hairdos/radio ranters pulling this nonsense for me not to ask.
 
2013-10-29 03:01:32 AM  

garron: This law is like using one of your 3 wishes to make infinite wishes.  Obama gets to rewrite this law on the fly.  Amazing.  It has deadlines set by law, but Obama can arbitrarily change the deadlines as he pleases.  It has requirements that ALL Americans must must be forced to buy Insurance through the Obamacare exchanges, but Obama gets to make exemptions to that rule for whoever he pleases (including himself, his buddies in congress, unions, big corporations, etc).

Why not skip the pretense of the 2000+ pages of the original law and just write:  "This is a law.  Obama can change whatever the law says whenever he wants.  Oh - and you can't call it tyranny".  ; )


Thank you!
 
2013-10-29 03:02:39 AM  

Notabunny: ArmednHammered: Wait a minute, so Obama can change the law at will, but if anyone else wants to change it it's terrorism?

Obama has altered the deal. Pray he does not alter it any further.


Winnah!
 
2013-10-29 03:02:56 AM  

ArmednHammered: Harry_Seldon: ArmednHammered: Wait a minute, so Obama can change the law at will, but if anyone else wants to change it it's terrorism?

The President often has wide latitude in a law's implementation details. Congress did not pass a law that says "You must do these exact things at these exact times, or Sarah Palin is automatically the President."

No he doesn't, the Congress makes the laws and the Senate either signs off on them and sends them to the President or sends them back to Congress for revision. The President can't just make arbitrary changes and call it good without the approval of the Congress and the Senate.


Congress passes a great deal of legislation that is mostly a framework for the law, and the executive branch creates the regulations for implementation. Dodd-Frank is an excellent example.

There is a variety of reasons for this practice, but an important part is to not take responsibility for decisions.
 
2013-10-29 03:03:34 AM  

ArmednHammered: Notabunny: ArmednHammered: demaL-demaL-yeH: ArmednHammered: Wait a minute, so Obama can change the law at will, but if anyone else wants to change it it's terrorism?
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-adm i n-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite


Throwing away unfetchable URL http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-adm i n-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance%3Flite:
  Really fark? Screw you, the link is good, fix it in your browser and take a look.

Because the assholes in charge of 26 states went full derple straightjacket and turned down the federal money to insure 5.2 million Americans.
Or were you talking about the idiots who were grossly underinsured biatching about the price of minimum coverage?

I don't see any of that in the story I linked. I see people who had good plans getting farked by having to pay 3x or more for coverage under the ACA. I had a good plan, it's taken care of me for 20 years and now I'm going to lose it thanks to the ACA because my insurance company is bailing out of the state. What part of that don't you understand farkwad?

Unless they know of an ACA-free state, your insurance company is lying to you,

Tell that to the 500,000 people in California that just lost their insurance.


You may have lost your policy, but it wasn't because the ACA forced your insurance company to leave your state.
 
2013-10-29 03:06:37 AM  

garron: This law is like using one of your 3 wishes to make infinite wishes.  Obama gets to rewrite this law on the fly.  Amazing.  It has deadlines set by law, but Obama can arbitrarily change the deadlines as he pleases.  It has requirements that ALL Americans must must be forced to buy Insurance through the Obamacare exchanges, but Obama gets to make exemptions to that rule for whoever he pleases (including himself, his buddies in congress, unions, big corporations, etc).

Why not skip the pretense of the 2000+ pages of the original law and just write:  "This is a law.  Obama can change whatever the law says whenever he wants.  Oh - and you can't call it tyranny".  ; )


Do you really think Congress creates the myriad of regulations necessary to implement many laws? It doesn't work like this, no matter what ABC told you...

3.bp.blogspot.com

//Ph.d political science, former congressional staffer
 
2013-10-29 03:07:30 AM  

Fart_Machine: ArmednHammered: Wait a minute, so Obama can change the law at will, but if anyone else wants to change it it's terrorism?
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-adm i n-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite


Throwing away unfetchable URL http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-adm i n-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance%3Flite:
  Really fark? Screw you, the link is good, fix it in your browser and take a look.

So catastrophic plans that offered no real coverage are being phased out.  What exactly is the problem here?


IT'S SOSHULIZM THAT'S WHAT!!!
 
2013-10-29 03:12:09 AM  
I suppose averaging only benefits about half of us.
 
2013-10-29 03:15:54 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Fart_Machine: ArmednHammered: Wait a minute, so Obama can change the law at will, but if anyone else wants to change it it's terrorism?
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-adm i n-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite


Throwing away unfetchable URL http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-adm i n-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance%3Flite:
  Really fark? Screw you, the link is good, fix it in your browser and take a look.

So catastrophic plans that offered no real coverage are being phased out.  What exactly is the problem here?

IT'S SOSHULIZM THAT'S WHAT!!!


Go ahead and keep on thinking that. When NBC starts biatching, it's time to take a look. My plan wasn't a catastrophic plan by any stretch, it was what my company offered. And I've been on the internet since it was 300 baud bbs's.
 
2013-10-29 03:16:20 AM  

garron: It has requirements that ALL Americans must must be forced to buy Insurance through the Obamacare exchanges,


Really? I'm not getting my healthcare insurance through an exchange.  Weird that, I had no idea Obama made exceptions just for little ol' me.
 
2013-10-29 03:17:35 AM  

ArmednHammered: I don't see any of that in the story I linked. I see people who had good plans getting farked by having to pay 3x or more for coverage under the ACA. I had a good plan, it's taken care of me for 20 years and now I'm going to lose it thanks to the ACA because my insurance company is bailing out of the state. What part of that don't you understand farkwad?


As a matter of fact, I don't understand farkwad. Try using plain ol' 'Mercan in the future.

Your insurance company is bailing out of your state. Let's see.
UnitedHealthcare said:
"Our individual business in California has always been relatively small and we currently serve less than 8,000 individual customers across the state," the company said in a statement. "Over the years, it has become more difficult to administer these plans in a cost-effective way for our members in California."
Aetna:
"Aetna says it has about 58,000 individual enrollees in the state and expects to have about 49,000 by the end of the year. It plans to withdraw from the state at the end of the year but will continue to offer small and large group plans, as well as Medicare, dental and life insurance products."

Here's what you couldn't see in the article you failed to iink:
"Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC NEWS that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a "cancellation" letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don't meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience "sticker shock.""

When you have adequate insurance, maybe you could have your eyes checked.

And all we have is your bare assertion that your coverage met the federal minimums. (We won't even talk about the fact that California runs its own state exchange.)

/Also won't discuss how profit caps might have affected a decision affecting a total of 60,000 people out of 38 million in the state.
 
2013-10-29 03:20:26 AM  

timujin: garron: It has requirements that ALL Americans must must be forced to buy Insurance through the Obamacare exchanges,

Really? I'm not getting my healthcare insurance through an exchange.  Weird that, I had no idea Obama made exceptions just for little ol' me.


Really? There are lots of exemptions. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/obamacare-exemptions-individual - mandate-98297.html
 
2013-10-29 03:23:03 AM  
White House's authority to grant an extension on the health care law?  Absolutely none; not like anyone cares.
 
2013-10-29 03:23:54 AM  

ArmednHammered: I see people who had good plans getting farked by having to pay 3x or more for coverage under the ACA.


Where does it say they were good plans?

vatica40: A lot of the plans, including mine, were fine and offered coverage that was right for me.


So you had catastrophic coverage and were gambling that you wouldn't use any other services.
 
2013-10-29 03:28:30 AM  

ArmednHammered: timujin: garron: It has requirements that ALL Americans must must be forced to buy Insurance through the Obamacare exchanges,

Really? I'm not getting my healthcare insurance through an exchange.  Weird that, I had no idea Obama made exceptions just for little ol' me.

Really? There are lots of exemptions. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/obamacare-exemptions-individual - mandate-98297.html


Yes, I know there are lots of exemptions, I was countering garron's assertion that "ALL Americans must must be forced to buy Insurance through the Obamacare exchanges" except for Obama's besties.  You aren't required to go through the exchange, you're simply required to have insurance.  You can still shop for insurance directly from a provider, if that's what floats your boat.  You can go through an insurance co-op, like many of my coworkers who are 10-99 contractors have done.
 
2013-10-29 03:28:45 AM  

ArmednHammered: Tell that to the 500,000 people in California that just lost their insurance.


Before I go all "you're a moron" I have to do due diligence and look up any news relating to "California", "lost", and "insurance".

And here we go:
Thousands Of Consumers Get Insurance Cancellation Notices Due To Health Law Changes

"The main reason insurers offer is that the policies fall short of what the Affordable Care Act requires starting Jan. 1.
[...]
By all accounts, the new policies will offer consumers better coverage, in some cases, for comparable cost -- especially after the inclusion of federal subsidies for those who qualify."

You're a moron.
 
2013-10-29 03:30:05 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: ArmednHammered: I don't see any of that in the story I linked. I see people who had good plans getting farked by having to pay 3x or more for coverage under the ACA. I had a good plan, it's taken care of me for 20 years and now I'm going to lose it thanks to the ACA because my insurance company is bailing out of the state. What part of that don't you understand farkwad?

As a matter of fact, I don't understand farkwad. Try using plain ol' 'Mercan in the future.

Your insurance company is bailing out of your state. Let's see.
UnitedHealthcare said:
"Our individual business in California has always been relatively small and we currently serve less than 8,000 individual customers across the state," the company said in a statement. "Over the years, it has become more difficult to administer these plans in a cost-effective way for our members in California."
Aetna:
"Aetna says it has about 58,000 individual enrollees in the state and expects to have about 49,000 by the end of the year. It plans to withdraw from the state at the end of the year but will continue to offer small and large group plans, as well as Medicare, dental and life insurance products."

Here's what you couldn't see in the article you failed to iink:
"Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC NEWS that 50 to 714 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a "cancellation" letter5 percent of the  or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don't meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience "sticker shock.""

When you have adequate insurance, maybe you could have your eyes checked.

And all we have is your bare assertion that your coverage met the federal minimums. (We won't even talk about the fact that California runs its own state exchange.)

/Also won't discuss ho ...


The standards are bullshiat for most people, my plan was a fortune 500 corporate plan and it was just fine for the last 20 farking years. Nothing in the ACA would improve on the plan I had. It had nothing to do with the California exchange, I'm a Federal contractor. What you fail to see is the fact that we are losing our coverage as a direct result of the ACA.
 
2013-10-29 03:32:46 AM  

StopLurkListen: ArmednHammered: Tell that to the 500,000 people in California that just lost their insurance.

Before I go all "you're a moron" I have to do due diligence and look up any news relating to "California", "lost", and "insurance".

And here we go:
Thousands Of Consumers Get Insurance Cancellation Notices Due To Health Law Changes

"The main reason insurers offer is that the policies fall short of what the Affordable Care Act requires starting Jan. 1.
[...]
By all accounts, the new policies will offer consumers better coverage, in some cases, for comparable cost -- especially after the inclusion of federal subsidies for those who qualify."

You're a moron.


You have no clue what my plan included.
 
2013-10-29 03:33:26 AM  
I hear hundreds of thousands of people are losing their non-converge as a direct result of the ACA.
 
2013-10-29 03:35:04 AM  

StopLurkListen: especially after the inclusion of federal subsidies for those who qualify."


That's a huge factor that seems to be swept under by those either ignorant or with an agenda.  I live in California and the exchange rate under Kaiser for a comparable policy to what I have now is actually about a hundred dollars cheaper after the subsidy.  Not really a huge difference but it's hardly Herp Derp 140% Higher Premiums that Forbes was screaming about.
 
2013-10-29 03:35:50 AM  

timujin: ArmednHammered: timujin: garron: It has requirements that ALL Americans must must be forced to buy Insurance through the Obamacare exchanges,

Really? I'm not getting my healthcare insurance through an exchange.  Weird that, I had no idea Obama made exceptions just for little ol' me.

Really? There are lots of exemptions. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/obamacare-exemptions-individual - mandate-98297.html

Yes, I know there are lots of exemptions, I was countering garron's assertion that "ALL Americans must must be forced to buy Insurance through the Obamacare exchanges" except for Obama's besties.  You aren't required to go through the exchange, you're simply required to have insurance.  You can still shop for insurance directly from a provider, if that's what floats your boat.  You can go through an insurance co-op, like many of my coworkers who are 10-99 contractors have done.


Sorry about that, the morans are getting a bit overwhelming.
No harm, no foul?
 
2013-10-29 03:36:02 AM  

garron: It has requirements that ALL Americans must must be forced to buy Insurance through the Obamacare exchanges, but Obama gets to make exemptions to that rule for whoever he pleases (including himself, his buddies in congress, unions, big corporations, etc).


There are two kinds of ignorance in the world... 

One is plain ignorance and the other is willful ignorance. Plain ignorance can be forgiven. We cannot expect everyone to be exposed to accurate information all of the time. Willful ignorance is not as easily forgivable. The reason that willful ignorance is so hard to forgive is because it means that you have been exposed to accurate information and have made the choice to ignore, dismiss, or simply pretend that you were never exposed to that accurate information in the first place.

So my question to you is; were you ignorant, or willfully ignorant when you typed out that load of bullshiat?
 
2013-10-29 03:37:46 AM  

ArmednHammered: StopLurkListen: ArmednHammered: Tell that to the 500,000 people in California that just lost their insurance.

Before I go all "you're a moron" I have to do due diligence and look up any news relating to "California", "lost", and "insurance".

And here we go:
Thousands Of Consumers Get Insurance Cancellation Notices Due To Health Law Changes

"The main reason insurers offer is that the policies fall short of what the Affordable Care Act requires starting Jan. 1.
[...]
By all accounts, the new policies will offer consumers better coverage, in some cases, for comparable cost -- especially after the inclusion of federal subsidies for those who qualify."

You're a moron.

You have no clue what my plan included.


And yet you haven't ventured anything on the subject of any details to refute these arguments.
 
2013-10-29 03:38:12 AM  

ArmednHammered: You have no clue what my plan included.


Correct.  All we have is your broad-brush claim of 500,000 not what your mystery miracle plan consisted of and that's what he was responding to.  But hey, not everything is about you.
 
2013-10-29 03:40:08 AM  

garron: This law is like using one of your 3 wishes to make infinite wishes.  Obama gets to rewrite this law on the fly.  Amazing.  It has deadlines set by law, but Obama can arbitrarily change the deadlines as he pleases.  It has requirements that ALL Americans must must be forced to buy Insurance through the Obamacare exchanges, but Obama gets to make exemptions to that rule for whoever he pleases (including himself, his buddies in congress, unions, big corporations, etc).

Why not skip the pretense of the 2000+ pages of the original law and just write:  "This is a law.  Obama can change whatever the law says whenever he wants.  Oh - and you can't call it tyranny".  ; )


My company made changes on our health insurance for next year and nobody was forced to do anything if they didn't make changes from this year.  I wouldn't believe everything I read on the internet if I were you.  As long as your company's policy is ACA compliant, there needs to be no changes made.  Why do you say all insurance must be purchased through the exchanges when it's not true?
 
2013-10-29 03:41:43 AM  

ArmednHammered: timujin: ArmednHammered: timujin: garron: It has requirements that ALL Americans must must be forced to buy Insurance through the Obamacare exchanges,

Really? I'm not getting my healthcare insurance through an exchange.  Weird that, I had no idea Obama made exceptions just for little ol' me.

Really? There are lots of exemptions. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/obamacare-exemptions-individual - mandate-98297.html

Yes, I know there are lots of exemptions, I was countering garron's assertion that "ALL Americans must must be forced to buy Insurance through the Obamacare exchanges" except for Obama's besties.  You aren't required to go through the exchange, you're simply required to have insurance.  You can still shop for insurance directly from a provider, if that's what floats your boat.  You can go through an insurance co-op, like many of my coworkers who are 10-99 contractors have done.

Sorry about that, the morans are getting a bit overwhelming.
No harm, no foul?


For that? Nah, but here's one... you're a "federal contractor" and you're losing your plan?  Might want to look to your contracting company, as I'm a federal contractor and my plan isn't changing at all.  It's not even going up in price.
 
2013-10-29 03:45:01 AM  

ArmednHammered: StopLurkListen: ArmednHammered: Tell that to the 500,000 people in California that just lost their insurance.

Before I go all "you're a moron" I have to do due diligence and look up any news relating to "California", "lost", and "insurance".

And here we go:
Thousands Of Consumers Get Insurance Cancellation Notices Due To Health Law Changes

"The main reason insurers offer is that the policies fall short of what the Affordable Care Act requires starting Jan. 1.
[...]
By all accounts, the new policies will offer consumers better coverage, in some cases, for comparable cost -- especially after the inclusion of federal subsidies for those who qualify."

You're a moron.

You have no clue what my plan included.


There is an easy fix for that.  Post the plan you had in 2013.
 
2013-10-29 03:51:37 AM  

ArmednHammered: The standards are bullshiat for most people, my plan was a fortune 500 corporate plan and it was just fine for the last 20 farking years. Nothing in the ACA would improve on the plan I had. It had nothing to do with the California exchange, I'm a Federal contractor. What you fail to see is the fact that we are losing our coverage as a direct result of the ACA.


Riiiiiight. Didn't I already tell you I don't understand farkwad?

Your insurance company is withdrawing from a specific market because you are not a profitable customer.

You'll be buying a different plan that has higher minimum coverages and a shiat-ton of preventive services that were not included under your old plan. Did you even go to the Kaiser site and calculate your real rate?
 
2013-10-29 03:52:30 AM  
I can't wait for a decade from now when tea party people start showing up to protest with signs reading:

Keep your government hands out of my aca!
 
2013-10-29 03:55:39 AM  

Cheater71: I can't wait for a decade from now when tea party people start showing up to protest with signs reading:

Keep your government hands out of my aca!


10 years? Being awfully optimistic, aren't we?

I give it 3 years.
 
2013-10-29 03:59:46 AM  

Cheater71: I can't wait for a decade from now when tea party people start showing up to protest with signs reading:

Keep your government hands out of my aca!


You Demon-Rats are going to try to take credit for Romneycare - I just know it!
 
2013-10-29 04:11:17 AM  
Eh, I'm still confused. Health insurance at work is $180 a pay period, or $360 a month thanks to most of the employees being older with above average rates of cancer and other serious illness. I went and got my own insurance online with similar coverage for $120 a month.

I can still get my own insurance which is cheaper than the one offered by my employer since I'm in my late 20's with no pre-existing conditions and I'm a non-smoker, right?
 
2013-10-29 04:19:34 AM  

DoomPaul: Eh, I'm still confused. Health insurance at work is $180 a pay period, or $360 a month thanks to most of the employees being older with above average rates of cancer and other serious illness. I went and got my own insurance online with similar coverage for $120 a month.

I can still get my own insurance which is cheaper than the one offered by my employer since I'm in my late 20's with no pre-existing conditions and I'm a non-smoker, right?


yep
 
2013-10-29 04:23:09 AM  

DoomPaul: Eh, I'm still confused. Health insurance at work is $180 a pay period, or $360 a month thanks to most of the employees being older with above average rates of cancer and other serious illness. I went and got my own insurance online with similar coverage for $120 a month.

I can still get my own insurance which is cheaper than the one offered by my employer since I'm in my late 20's with no pre-existing conditions and I'm a non-smoker, right?


That is very unlikely.  It is very likely that your employer is making pre-tax contributions to your healthcare payment that almost assuredly makes it cheaper for you than if you tried your luck on the individual market.
 
2013-10-29 04:33:35 AM  

SunsetLament: DoomPaul: Eh, I'm still confused. Health insurance at work is $180 a pay period, or $360 a month thanks to most of the employees being older with above average rates of cancer and other serious illness. I went and got my own insurance online with similar coverage for $120 a month.

I can still get my own insurance which is cheaper than the one offered by my employer since I'm in my late 20's with no pre-existing conditions and I'm a non-smoker, right?

That is very unlikely.  It is very likely that your employer is making pre-tax contributions to your healthcare payment that almost assuredly makes it cheaper for you than if you tried your luck on the individual market.


He doesn't want something better and cheaper than what he's got. He wants to have something to biatch about, so he can cry victim.
 
2013-10-29 04:36:50 AM  

ArmednHammered: Harry_Seldon: ArmednHammered: Wait a minute, so Obama can change the law at will, but if anyone else wants to change it it's terrorism?

The President often has wide latitude in a law's implementation details. Congress did not pass a law that says "You must do these exact things at these exact times, or Sarah Palin is automatically the President."

No he doesn't, the Congress makes the laws and the Senate either signs off on them and sends them to the President or sends them back to Congress for revision. The President can't just make arbitrary changes and call it good without the approval of the Congress and the Senate.


I'm sorry, but I just have to correct you on something here, because the error you have made will otherwise cause me to immediately disregard anything you might have to say.

The U.S. Congress is a bicameral legislature- bicameral meaning composed of two houses.  The "Upper" house of Congress is the Senate.  The "Lower" house of Congress is the House of Representatives.

So if you want to talk about the two houses of the Legislative branch, it's the House and the Senate, not Congress and the Senate.

Both houses of Congress have the authority to author legislation; which ever house passes the legislation then sends the bill to the other house, who can pass it and forward it to the President for signature, reject it, or alter it and pass their own version - if the last of these options, members from both houses should then meet in a "Conference Commitee" to consilidate the two versions of the legistlation, with the result being sent to the President.

The Senate does not merely decide whether or not to pass bills that have already been voted on by the House.
 
2013-10-29 04:46:41 AM  

SunsetLament: DoomPaul: Eh, I'm still confused. Health insurance at work is $180 a pay period, or $360 a month thanks to most of the employees being older with above average rates of cancer and other serious illness. I went and got my own insurance online with similar coverage for $120 a month.

I can still get my own insurance which is cheaper than the one offered by my employer since I'm in my late 20's with no pre-existing conditions and I'm a non-smoker, right?

That is very unlikely.  It is very likely that your employer is making pre-tax contributions to your healthcare payment that almost assuredly makes it cheaper for you than if you tried your luck on the individual market.


Thanks. I was worried I would have my insurance rates increase drastically. I still haven't heard from my employer what are new rates will be for the upcoming cycle though.
 
2013-10-29 05:07:41 AM  
The executive branch executes the laws that have been passed.

By changing the way in which the law is executed, the law is not being changed.  Just the timetable.
 
2013-10-29 05:09:25 AM  
I wonder how some people persuade themselves that the president.. head of one of the 3 branches of government.. is supposed to be a farking office-boy for congress.
 
2013-10-29 05:13:04 AM  

DoomPaul: SunsetLament: DoomPaul: Eh, I'm still confused. Health insurance at work is $180 a pay period, or $360 a month thanks to most of the employees being older with above average rates of cancer and other serious illness. I went and got my own insurance online with similar coverage for $120 a month.

I can still get my own insurance which is cheaper than the one offered by my employer since I'm in my late 20's with no pre-existing conditions and I'm a non-smoker, right?

That is very unlikely.  It is very likely that your employer is making pre-tax contributions to your healthcare payment that almost assuredly makes it cheaper for you than if you tried your luck on the individual market.

Thanks. I was worried I would have my insurance rates increase drastically. I still haven't heard from my employer what are new rates will be for the upcoming cycle though.


Oh, your rates (or deductibles) may still increase drastically.  In fact, I'd venture a guess that it will go up (as you're now going to be paying for other people to have insurance).  It's just more likely than not that it will still be cheaper than if you tried to go out and purchase the insurance yourself on the individual market.
 
2013-10-29 05:14:04 AM  
Well I see a fresh set of talking points has been uploaded to the dittoheads.

They're soooo ruggedly individualistic, you know.
 
2013-10-29 05:15:10 AM  

Jorn the Younger: Both houses of Congress have the authority to author legislation; which ever house passes the legislation then sends the bill to the other house, who can pass it and forward it to the President for signature, reject it, or alter it and pass their own version - if the last of these options, members from both houses should then meet in a "Conference Commitee" to consilidate the two versions of the legistlation, with the result being sent to the President.

The Senate does not merely decide whether or not to pass bills that have already been voted on by the House.


Unless the bill deals with raising revenue. Then it has to originate in the House.

The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 7: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."
 
2013-10-29 05:16:45 AM  

Agarista: The executive branch executes the laws that have been passed.

By changing the way in which the law is executed, the law is not being changed.  Just the timetable.


You're right - the law is not being changed ... it's being ignored.

The law says you have to have insurance for 9 months in a year or you have to pay the Obamacare penalty tax.  Obama just unilaterally changed that to 7.5 months for 2014.  That's not regulating the law; that's ignoring the law and behaving as if it says something else.  It's what dictators and kings do.
 
2013-10-29 05:19:14 AM  

Harry_Seldon: The President often has wide latitude in a law's implementation details. Congress did not pass a law that says "You must do these exact things at these exact times, or Sarah Palin is automatically the President."


There are plenty of 'exact times' mandated in the ACA.

(1) PENALTY FEE-
(A) IN GENERAL- Not later than April 1, 2014, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall assess a penalty fee (as determined under subparagraph (B)) against a health plan that has failed to meet the requirements under subsection (h) with respect to certification and documentation of compliance with--
(i) the standards and associated operating rules described under paragraph (1) of such subsection; and
(ii) a standard (as described under subsection (a)(1)(B)) and associated operating rules (as described under subsection (i)(5)) for any other financial and administrative transactions.
 
2013-10-29 05:20:12 AM  

SunsetLament: Agarista: The executive branch executes the laws that have been passed.

By changing the way in which the law is executed, the law is not being changed.  Just the timetable.

You're right - the law is not being changed ... it's being ignored.

The law says you have to have insurance for 9 months in a year or you have to pay the Obamacare penalty tax.  Obama just unilaterally changed that to 7.5 months for 2014.  That's not regulating the law; that's ignoring the law and behaving as if it says something else.  It's what dictators and kings do.


Preach it, Brother.
Halleluljah! Amen!
There's nothing like the passion of an area man to invigorate one's morning!
 
2013-10-29 05:37:00 AM  

Alien Robot: Jorn the Younger: Both houses of Congress have the authority to author legislation; which ever house passes the legislation then sends the bill to the other house, who can pass it and forward it to the President for signature, reject it, or alter it and pass their own version - if the last of these options, members from both houses should then meet in a "Conference Commitee" to consilidate the two versions of the legistlation, with the result being sent to the President.

The Senate does not merely decide whether or not to pass bills that have already been voted on by the House.

Unless the bill deals with raising revenue. Then it has to originate in the House.

The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 7: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."


It's true this the exception to the 'both houses of Congress can author legislation' rule, which I didn't mention as I didn't want to further confuse the issue, but simply to offer a correction to the statement "the Congress makes the laws and the Senate either signs off on them and sends them to the President or sends them back to Congress for revision" to which I was responding. =)
 
2013-10-29 05:44:48 AM  

SunsetLament: DoomPaul: Eh, I'm still confused. Health insurance at work is $180 a pay period, or $360 a month thanks to most of the employees being older with above average rates of cancer and other serious illness. I went and got my own insurance online with similar coverage for $120 a month.

I can still get my own insurance which is cheaper than the one offered by my employer since I'm in my late 20's with no pre-existing conditions and I'm a non-smoker, right?

That is very unlikely.  It is very likely that your employer is making pre-tax contributions to your healthcare payment that almost assuredly makes it cheaper for you than if you tried your luck on the individual market.


You're not a very good reader are you.  He's ALREADY getting insurance outside of work that is less expensive than what his workplace offers.
 
2013-10-29 05:50:27 AM  

Atillathepun: SunsetLament: DoomPaul: Eh, I'm still confused. Health insurance at work is $180 a pay period, or $360 a month thanks to most of the employees being older with above average rates of cancer and other serious illness. I went and got my own insurance online with similar coverage for $120 a month.

I can still get my own insurance which is cheaper than the one offered by my employer since I'm in my late 20's with no pre-existing conditions and I'm a non-smoker, right?

That is very unlikely.  It is very likely that your employer is making pre-tax contributions to your healthcare payment that almost assuredly makes it cheaper for you than if you tried your luck on the individual market.

You're not a very good reader are you.  He's ALREADY getting insurance outside of work that is less expensive than what his workplace offers.


You're right, I read it wrong.
 
2013-10-29 06:13:09 AM  
Next up, getting rid of insurance companies steering people to particular doctors and hospitals. And declaring how many days of recovery, physical therapy etc they'll cover. Basically get insurance companies out of trying to practice medicine by economic coercion.
 
2013-10-29 06:13:41 AM  
I wish I had time to code and analyze the diction of every Tea Party blogger, pundit, and politician during the ACA shutdown.

I swear to God their language parallels the 19th century anarchists.
 
2013-10-29 06:15:24 AM  

Kittypie070: Well I see a fresh set of talking points has been uploaded to the dittoheads.

They're soooo ruggedly individualistic, you know.


My favorite part is that just a short while ago they were making a 1 year delay part of their list of demands before the shutdown and now the slow-ass roll out has made a 6 week extension make sense.

One would think that they'd be happy that they finally got one of their demands at least partially met but no they're all zOMG! That Tyrant! By what authority?! And the like. Too too funny.
 
2013-10-29 06:21:10 AM  

quatchi: Kittypie070: Well I see a fresh set of talking points has been uploaded to the dittoheads.

They're soooo ruggedly individualistic, you know.

My favorite part is that just a short while ago they were making a 1 year delay part of their list of demands before the shutdown and now the slow-ass roll out has made a 6 week extension make sense.

One would think that they'd be happy that they finally got one of their demands at least partially met but no they're all zOMG! That Tyrant! By what authority?! And the like. Too too funny.


That's because we acknowledge two truths simultaneously:

1.  It is in the best interest of everyone involved that the individual mandate be delayed for at least a year, and

2.  It is fundamentally illegal for the President of the United States to unilaterally implement a one year delay of the individual mandate (just as it was illegal for him to implement a one year delay of the business mandate).

These are not mutually exclusive and, further, the proper remedy is just what Cruz and Lee said it was ... for the Congress to legislate the one year delay into law.  It's the difference between having (liberals) and not having (conservatives) a "The Ends Justify the Means" approach to governance.
 
2013-10-29 06:23:07 AM  

vatica40: Fart_Machine: ArmednHammered: Wait a minute, so Obama can change the law at will, but if anyone else wants to change it it's terrorism?
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-adm i n-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite


Throwing away unfetchable URL http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-adm i n-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance%3Flite:
  Really fark? Screw you, the link is good, fix it in your browser and take a look.

So catastrophic plans that offered no real coverage are being phased out.  What exactly is the problem here?

A lot of the plans, including mine, were fine and offered coverage that was right for me. Now I have to pay hundreds more to meet the 'minimum', which shock and surprise, isn't that much better.


I just got my 2014 plan info yesterday. My premiums (>$1200/mo, family of 4) will rise....$23/mo. The first increase of less than $100/mo in over 4 years. And we'll have better coverage. Now, if you're like my brother, where your employer paid most of your tab and gave you the illusion of how cheap your insurance was-absolutely, it is a big change. For me, I'm thrilled. And to anyone who calls this "socialism" or my family being "dependent" on govenrment, go fark yourself. I've paid more for health insurance than my mortgage for years. The difference now is that the PUBLICLY TRADED, multia-national, capitalist mega-corporation providing it actually has to hold up their end of the deal from now on.
 
2013-10-29 06:26:14 AM  

Alien Robot: Harry_Seldon: The President often has wide latitude in a law's implementation details. Congress did not pass a law that says "You must do these exact things at these exact times, or Sarah Palin is automatically the President."

There are plenty of 'exact times' mandated in the ACA.

(1) PENALTY FEE-
(A) IN GENERAL- Not later than April 1, 2014, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall assess a penalty fee (as determined under subparagraph (B)) against a health plan that has failed to meet the requirements under subsection (h) with respect to certification and documentation of compliance with--
(i) the standards and associated operating rules described under paragraph (1) of such subsection; and
(ii) a standard (as described under subsection (a)(1)(B)) and associated operating rules (as described under subsection (i)(5)) for any other financial and administrative transactions.


What part of the President often "has wide latitude" in the implementation of a law that I was not clear about.

There are libraries full of books that deal with the US  administration of law. Just because the law says, "No later than," does not mean that the executive branch is going to enforce that provision to the letter of a law. In the US, there is wide swaths of conflict between Congressional law making power, and Executive administration of the law. The President claims huge powers in the administration that is often at odds with Congressional intent. This can be a source of conflict between Congress and the Executive branch. Rarely, does it become such an issue that it becomes a major court case.  One of the major test  cases on this topic was back in the Nixon Administration, and the impoundment of appropriated funds (which Congress won).
 
2013-10-29 06:26:45 AM  
My very good BCBS plan along with my MET Dental plan from my employer combined have stayed a very afordable $212.39/Month.

When will this madness end, 0blamer?
 
2013-10-29 06:27:27 AM  
*f
 
2013-10-29 06:36:37 AM  
Here's the thing - Boy Who Cried Wolf syndrome has set in. i have heard so many lies, bare assertions, and failed predictions of Obama's "failures" from the current group of righties that I am inclined to dismiss anything they say out of hand - and most Americans have come to feel the same way.
This attempt to turn some minor computer glitches into a cause celebre will fail, also.
Nobody is listening to your sermon but the choir.
 
2013-10-29 06:40:17 AM  

SunsetLament: quatchi: Kittypie070: Well I see a fresh set of talking points has been uploaded to the dittoheads.

They're soooo ruggedly individualistic, you know.

My favorite part is that just a short while ago they were making a 1 year delay part of their list of demands before the shutdown and now the slow-ass roll out has made a 6 week extension make sense.

One would think that they'd be happy that they finally got one of their demands at least partially met but no they're all zOMG! That Tyrant! By what authority?! And the like. Too too funny.

That's because we acknowledge two truths simultaneously:

1. It is in the best interest of everyone involved that the individual mandate be delayed for at least a year, and


Just out of curiosity, do you have any citations to data that supports the assertion?  I've seen people say that a delay of the implentation is neccessary, but I've been unable to find any reason why, except of couse for blanket "Obamacare bad!" statements, which aren't really helpful to actual discussion.
 
2013-10-29 06:48:27 AM  

Jorn the Younger: SunsetLament: quatchi: Kittypie070: Well I see a fresh set of talking points has been uploaded to the dittoheads.

They're soooo ruggedly individualistic, you know.

My favorite part is that just a short while ago they were making a 1 year delay part of their list of demands before the shutdown and now the slow-ass roll out has made a 6 week extension make sense.

One would think that they'd be happy that they finally got one of their demands at least partially met but no they're all zOMG! That Tyrant! By what authority?! And the like. Too too funny.

That's because we acknowledge two truths simultaneously:

1. It is in the best interest of everyone involved that the individual mandate be delayed for at least a year, and

Just out of curiosity, do you have any citations to data that supports the assertion?  I've seen people say that a delay of the implentation is neccessary, but I've been unable to find any reason why, except of couse for blanket "Obamacare bad!" statements, which aren't really helpful to actual discussion.


Sure.  Since the day the new healthcare law started seriously being discussed until present day, the majority of the country has been adamant that it doesn't want it.  This has never changed.  Even more specifically, the feature of the law that people find most disagreeable is the individual mandate.

i1234.photobucket.com
 
2013-10-29 06:54:08 AM  
scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-10-29 07:01:54 AM  
Mighty white of em
 
2013-10-29 07:06:46 AM  

Agneska: ANR

Agneska: This is what you get when you vote with your head up your ass. Failure of leadership.


www.anunews.net
 
2013-10-29 07:14:05 AM  

SunsetLament: Jorn the Younger: SunsetLament: quatchi: Kittypie070: Well I see a fresh set of talking points has been uploaded to the dittoheads.

They're soooo ruggedly individualistic, you know.

My favorite part is that just a short while ago they were making a 1 year delay part of their list of demands before the shutdown and now the slow-ass roll out has made a 6 week extension make sense.

One would think that they'd be happy that they finally got one of their demands at least partially met but no they're all zOMG! That Tyrant! By what authority?! And the like. Too too funny.

That's because we acknowledge two truths simultaneously:

1. It is in the best interest of everyone involved that the individual mandate be delayed for at least a year, and

Just out of curiosity, do you have any citations to data that supports the assertion?  I've seen people say that a delay of the implentation is neccessary, but I've been unable to find any reason why, except of couse for blanket "Obamacare bad!" statements, which aren't really helpful to actual discussion.

Sure.  Since the day the new healthcare law started seriously being discussed until present day, the majority of the country has been adamant that it doesn't want it.  This has never changed.  Even more specifically, the feature of the law that people find most disagreeable is the individual mandate.

[i1234.photobucket.com image 605x491]


Obamacare bad!

Representative democracies aren't run that way. Neither are constitutional republics.
 
2013-10-29 07:14:34 AM  

Agneska: This is what you get when you vote with your head up your ass. Failure of leadership.


http://sc.news.yahoo.com/fla-blue-dropping-300-000-142302560.html

Yep, anyone that voted for Obama should be executed or deported.  You have to be 35 to be President.  Military and those 35 or over are the only ones that get to vote next time.
 
2013-10-29 07:16:29 AM  

vatica40: A lot of the plans, including mine, were fine and offered coverage that was right for me. Now I have to pay hundreds more to meet the 'minimum', which shock and surprise, isn't that much better.


It was fine for you, but was it fine with the tax payer?
 
2013-10-29 07:17:27 AM  
Phil McKraken:

Obamacare bad!

Representative democracies aren't run that way. Neither are constitutional republics.


Are they run by bribery?  Because that's how this piece of shiat legislation got through Congress.
 
2013-10-29 07:52:32 AM  

SunsetLament: Jorn the Younger: SunsetLament: quatchi: Kittypie070: Well I see a fresh set of talking points has been uploaded to the dittoheads.

They're soooo ruggedly individualistic, you know.

My favorite part is that just a short while ago they were making a 1 year delay part of their list of demands before the shutdown and now the slow-ass roll out has made a 6 week extension make sense.

One would think that they'd be happy that they finally got one of their demands at least partially met but no they're all zOMG! That Tyrant! By what authority?! And the like. Too too funny.

That's because we acknowledge two truths simultaneously:

1. It is in the best interest of everyone involved that the individual mandate be delayed for at least a year, and

Just out of curiosity, do you have any citations to data that supports the assertion?  I've seen people say that a delay of the implentation is neccessary, but I've been unable to find any reason why, except of couse for blanket "Obamacare bad!" statements, which aren't really helpful to actual discussion.

Sure.  Since the day the new healthcare law started seriously being discussed until present day, the majority of the country has been adamant that it doesn't want it.  This has never changed.  Even more specifically, the feature of the law that people find most disagreeable is the individual mandate.

[i1234.photobucket.com image 605x491]


2 problems:

1) That's one of those polls that disingenuously includes people who don't like the ACA because there is no public option, or it otherwise doesn't "go far enough" in with the "Oppose" numbers to falsely create the impression that more people oppose the ACA than actually do

2) Even were the data not laughably skewed, it is data regarding people not liking the AC, not data supporting that the ACA, or the individual mandate, is a bad thing.  What people like and what is in their best interests are not the same thing.

You have failed to provide data to support your assertion: "It is in the best interest of everyone involved that the individual mandate be delayed for at least a year"

Care to try again?
 
2013-10-29 07:57:07 AM  

Fart_Machine: So catastrophic plans that offered no real coverage are being phased out.  What exactly is the problem here?


People too stupid to realize that they are being ripped off are pissed that the government is forcing insurance companies from ripping them off.
 
2013-10-29 08:12:32 AM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Fart_Machine: So catastrophic plans that offered no real coverage are being phased out.  What exactly is the problem here?

People too stupid to realize that they are being ripped off are pissed that the government is forcing insurance companies from ripping them off.


"If you're one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance," Obama said. "This law will only make it more secure and more affordable."

He left out the "unless we think you're too stupid part"
 
2013-10-29 08:14:31 AM  

Jorn the Younger: You have failed to provide data to support your assertion: "It is in the best interest of everyone involved that the individual mandate be delayed for at least a year"

Care to try again?


Sure.  I'll present a lengthy dissertation.  But first, I would like to see your data supporting the assertion that it is not in the best interest of everyone involved that the individual mandate be delayed for at least a year.
 
2013-10-29 08:16:20 AM  

fusillade762: I predict this thread will be a calm and rational discussion.


You're like a prophet.
 
2013-10-29 08:34:43 AM  
You see - the shutdown was worth it!
 
2013-10-29 08:44:22 AM  
Obamacare Defense Brigade, assemble!!
 
2013-10-29 08:49:06 AM  
More delays, and now millions of people are going to lose coverage that Obama said they could keep. Even if the law itself is well-intentioned, even fans of it need to acknowledge what a shiat show the messaging and rollout has been.

/Maybe one day we'll grow up and adopt single payer.
 
2013-10-29 08:52:30 AM  

SunsetLament: Phil McKraken:

Obamacare bad!

Representative democracies aren't run that way. Neither are constitutional republics.

Are they run by bribery?  Because that's how this piece of shiat legislation got through Congress.


I think that might be a legitimate criticism. It's too bad an alternative wasn't offered. I like the French style single payer system because it's cheap and effective.
 
2013-10-29 09:01:02 AM  

SunsetLament: Jorn the Younger: You have failed to provide data to support your assertion: "It is in the best interest of everyone involved that the individual mandate be delayed for at least a year"

Care to try again?

Sure.  I'll present a lengthy dissertation.  But first, I would like to see your data supporting the assertion that it is not in the best interest of everyone involved that the individual mandate be delayed for at least a year.


No, that's not how things work.  You made an assertion, you have to support it.

I have made no such assertion.  I have made no assertions at all.  You made an assertion, I challenged yuo to prove it, you failed.  You can try again to provide evidence, or admit it's something you made up to support the position you decided you wanted to take.
 
2013-10-29 09:02:53 AM  

skullkrusher: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Fart_Machine: So catastrophic plans that offered no real coverage are being phased out.  What exactly is the problem here?

People too stupid to realize that they are being ripped off are pissed that the government is forcing insurance companies from ripping them off.

"If you're one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance," Obama said. "This law will only make it more secure and more affordable."

He left out the "unless we think you're too stupid part"


Obama lied and people...

got better access to healthcare?

Yeah. Go with that.
 
2013-10-29 09:03:25 AM  

Karma Chameleon: More delays, and now millions of people are going to lose coverage that Obama said they could keep. Even if the law itself is well-intentioned, even fans of it need to acknowledge what a shiat show the messaging and rollout has been.

/Maybe one day we'll grow up and adopt single payer.


That chicken is waiting.

/you should also bring up how many people in Congress may have mentioned their Native American ancestry, I don't think that talking point is abused enough yet
 
2013-10-29 09:04:00 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Obamacare Defense Brigade, assemble!!


When a libertarian robot breaks down, does it fix itself?
 
2013-10-29 09:09:18 AM  
So insurance companies don't get to sell worthless plans anymore, to healthy freeloaders who are using minimal plans as a form of going uninsured (or underinsured).
Freeloading's over. Tough titty.
Contrary to lying troll ITT, majority of populace approves.
Game over, righties lose.

Don't like your health plan? Go to college and get a better job, is what us "conservatives" say to that, right?
 
2013-10-29 09:09:47 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: skullkrusher: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Fart_Machine: So catastrophic plans that offered no real coverage are being phased out.  What exactly is the problem here?

People too stupid to realize that they are being ripped off are pissed that the government is forcing insurance companies from ripping them off.

"If you're one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance," Obama said. "This law will only make it more secure and more affordable."

He left out the "unless we think you're too stupid part"

Obama lied and people...

got better access to healthcare?

Yeah. Go with that.


Even when he lies he awesome!
 
2013-10-29 09:10:46 AM  

Triple Oak: Karma Chameleon: More delays, and now millions of people are going to lose coverage that Obama said they could keep. Even if the law itself is well-intentioned, even fans of it need to acknowledge what a shiat show the messaging and rollout has been.

/Maybe one day we'll grow up and adopt single payer.

That chicken is waiting.

/you should also bring up how many people in Congress may have mentioned their Native American ancestry, I don't think that talking point is abused enough yet


Wow
 
2013-10-29 09:12:11 AM  

skullkrusher: Mighty white of em


Wow
 
2013-10-29 09:12:23 AM  

Karma Chameleon: More delays, and now millions of people are going to lose coverage that Obama said they could keep. Even if the law itself is well-intentioned, even fans of it need to acknowledge what a shiat show the messaging and rollout has been.

/Maybe one day we'll grow up and adopt single payer.


You're right, the messaging was flawed, though you have to admit at least part of the blame for the unclear messaging was due to the constant noise being generated by the opposition.

And yes, the roll-out has had some difficulties, like, I don't know, pretty much every government or private endevour in the entirety of history.  This is an endevour that is getting a great deal of media coverage, so of course the bumps in the road are receiving media coverage, but a lack of media coverage concerning the roll-outs of other programs doesn't mean those other programs were any more or less flawed;  It's really the response to this one that's different.  See the Bill Clinton quote someone posted upthread.

I am acknowledging the flaws.  I am not agreeing that those flaws are indicative of the program being bad, or bad for America, nor reasons for its repeal.  I am also not going to get down on the President for making predictions during his (first) campaign that turned out to be more than he was able to acheive.

President Obama did misspeak when he said "If you like your current coverage, you can keep it", but I don't think he expected so many people would "like" coverage that is so poor it fails to meet the new federal requirements.  He thought too highly of the American people, it would appear.  Hardly seems a sin worth vilify him for.
 
2013-10-29 09:13:34 AM  
So let me see if I have this right. We pass a 2000 page bill that nobody reads prior to implementation. We then pick and choose who actually participates, realize there is not nearly enough time to implement the law and extend the time for some folks and exempt others. Then we fight like kindergarteners, shutting down the government and costing the taxpayers money because no one can get past their egos to discuss options. Now, we extend the law anyway? This is the best and brightest this country has to offer? What is worse is that people are acting like this is somehow fine behavior on either side.
 
2013-10-29 09:14:42 AM  

jso2897: So insurance companies don't get to sell worthless plans anymore, to healthy freeloaders who are using minimal plans as a form of going uninsured (or underinsured).
Freeloading's over. Tough titty.
Contrary to lying troll ITT, majority of populace approves.
Game over, righties lose.

Don't like your health plan? Go to college and get a better job, is what us "conservatives" say to that, right?


Why would someone use "minimal plans" as a form of "going uninsured" when it is still ok to just not be uninsured?
 
2013-10-29 09:16:10 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: skullkrusher: Mighty white of em

Wow


Don't pretend at being offense by my obvious joke. You do a fine
job at appearing less than bright when you're being sincere
 
2013-10-29 09:18:03 AM  

skullkrusher: Uranus Is Huge!: skullkrusher: Mighty white of em

Wow

Don't pretend at being offense by my obvious joke. You do a fine
job at appearing less than bright when you're being sincere


Why not? You only posted it to provoke a reaction.

Someone should come up with a word for that.
 
2013-10-29 09:22:13 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: skullkrusher: Uranus Is Huge!: skullkrusher: Mighty white of em

Wow

Don't pretend at being offense by my obvious joke. You do a fine
job at appearing less than bright when you're being sincere

Why not? You only posted it to provoke a reaction.

Someone should come up with a word for that.


Actually I didn't think anyone would be lame enough to actually have a reaction. Didn't know you were poking around trying to feign offense
 
2013-10-29 09:22:21 AM  

RantingAlex: So let me see if I have this right. We pass a 2000 page bill that nobody reads prior to implementation. We then pick and choose who actually participates, realize there is not nearly enough time to implement the law and extend the time for some folks and exempt others. Then we fight like kindergarteners, shutting down the government and costing the taxpayers money because no one can get past their egos to discuss options. Now, we extend the law anyway? This is the best and brightest this country has to offer? What is worse is that people are acting like this is somehow fine behavior on either side.


No, you don't have that right.  The bill was read prior to implementation.  The bill was read prior to being voted on.  You're presumably referring to the imfamously taken out of context "We won't know what's in it till we read it" quote, which, since you have an active FARK account, you must know by now was a reference to a revised version of the bill that hadn't been read by anybody at the time of the quote because the revisions hadn't been finished.

And then we gave companies who already provide insurance to their employees some extra time to get their new ACA complient paperwork in order, since they already provide insurance to their employees so we're not as hard pressed about it since the flagship goal of the ACA is making insurance available to those who don't already have it.

And then the Republicans in Congress shut down the government because they wanted to get rid of the entire legislation but could not do so through legislative or judicial means (they didn't have the votes to repeal it and the Supremes found it Constitutional).

And while that was going on, there were some glitches with the roll-out, and people have experienced difficulties and delays signing up, and so now people are being given extra time to get signed up before being penalized for not being signed up because of those difficulties with the sign up process.
 
2013-10-29 09:27:47 AM  

skullkrusher: Uranus Is Huge!: skullkrusher: Uranus Is Huge!: skullkrusher: Mighty white of em

Wow

Don't pretend at being offense by my obvious joke. You do a fine
job at appearing less than bright when you're being sincere

Why not? You only posted it to provoke a reaction.

Someone should come up with a word for that.

Actually I didn't think anyone would be lame enough to actually have a reaction. Didn't know you were poking around trying to feign offense


Actually you didn't actually to actually actually?
 
2013-10-29 09:29:01 AM  

Triple Oak: skullkrusher: Uranus Is Huge!: skullkrusher: Uranus Is Huge!: skullkrusher: Mighty white of em

Wow

Don't pretend at being offense by my obvious joke. You do a fine
job at appearing less than bright when you're being sincere

Why not? You only posted it to provoke a reaction.

Someone should come up with a word for that.

Actually I didn't think anyone would be lame enough to actually have a reaction. Didn't know you were poking around trying to feign offense

Actually you didn't actually to actually actually?


Was my clearly written English too much? Welcome to our fine country, good sir!
 
2013-10-29 09:29:59 AM  

skullkrusher: Uranus Is Huge!: skullkrusher: Uranus Is Huge!: skullkrusher: Mighty white of em

Wow

Don't pretend at being offense by my obvious joke. You do a fine
job at appearing less than bright when you're being sincere

Why not? You only posted it to provoke a reaction.

Someone should come up with a word for that.

Actually I didn't think anyone would be lame enough to actually have a reaction. Didn't know you were poking around trying to feign offense


I literally don't get the "obvious joke". It also just dawned on me how little you ever bring to the discussion. There are plenty of other talking point bots that are actually entertaining. Enjoy annoying others.
 
2013-10-29 09:30:18 AM  

Jorn the Younger: RantingAlex: So let me see if I have this right. We pass a 2000 page bill that nobody reads prior to implementation. We then pick and choose who actually participates, realize there is not nearly enough time to implement the law and extend the time for some folks and exempt others. Then we fight like kindergarteners, shutting down the government and costing the taxpayers money because no one can get past their egos to discuss options. Now, we extend the law anyway? This is the best and brightest this country has to offer? What is worse is that people are acting like this is somehow fine behavior on either side.

No, you don't have that right.  The bill was read prior to implementation.  The bill was read prior to being voted on.  You're presumably referring to the imfamously taken out of context "We won't know what's in it till we read it" quote, which, since you have an active FARK account, you must know by now was a reference to a revised version of the bill that hadn't been read by anybody at the time of the quote because the revisions hadn't been finished.

And then we gave companies who already provide insurance to their employees some extra time to get their new ACA complient paperwork in order, since they already provide insurance to their employees so we're not as hard pressed about it since the flagship goal of the ACA is making insurance available to those who don't already have it.

And then the Republicans in Congress shut down the government because they wanted to get rid of the entire legislation but could not do so through legislative or judicial means (they didn't have the votes to repeal it and the Supremes found it Constitutional).

And while that was going on, there were some glitches with the roll-out, and people have experienced difficulties and delays signing up, and so now people are being given extra time to get signed up before being penalized for not being signed up because of those difficulties with the sign up process.


I like the "either side" comment, it really brings home how infromed this six-day old account really is. BSABSVD
 
2013-10-29 09:31:45 AM  
We were raping you with sh*tty insurance and now here are 2 other ACA-approved, non-raping policies you can choose from =/= losing your health insurance.
 
2013-10-29 09:32:17 AM  

skullkrusher: Triple Oak: skullkrusher: Uranus Is Huge!: skullkrusher: Uranus Is Huge!: skullkrusher: Mighty white of em

Wow

Don't pretend at being offense by my obvious joke. You do a fine
job at appearing less than bright when you're being sincere

Why not? You only posted it to provoke a reaction.

Someone should come up with a word for that.

Actually I didn't think anyone would be lame enough to actually have a reaction. Didn't know you were poking around trying to feign offense

Actually you didn't actually to actually actually?

Was my clearly written English too much? Welcome to our fine country, good sir!


Clearly you're a wonderful influence because I ended up doing the same thing. Great, now I'm getting dumber.

/I really really to really really, did I
 
2013-10-29 09:37:13 AM  

coeyagi: We were raping you with sh*tty insurance and now here are 2 other ACA-approved, non-raping policies you can choose from =/= losing your health insurance.


they always ignore the subsidies/medicare expansion aspect of the law when they are talking about it too, these low wage and lower middle class families who are going to "lose their (scam) insurance" will qualify for them.
 
2013-10-29 09:39:58 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: skullkrusher: Uranus Is Huge!: skullkrusher: Uranus Is Huge!: skullkrusher: Mighty white of em

Wow

Don't pretend at being offense by my obvious joke. You do a fine
job at appearing less than bright when you're being sincere

Why not? You only posted it to provoke a reaction.

Someone should come up with a word for that.

Actually I didn't think anyone would be lame enough to actually have a reaction. Didn't know you were poking around trying to feign offense

I literally don't get the "obvious joke". It also just dawned on me how little you ever bring to the discussion. There are plenty of other talking point bots that are actually entertaining. Enjoy annoying others.


Oooh so I still get to call you out on the stupid shiat you say without having to roll my eyes at your weak ass defenses? Best of both worlds! Thanks for the ignore, bud. You keep engaging those entertaining talking point bots like randomjsa. Your reasoning behind your ignore choices isn't painfully apparent. Don't worry
 
2013-10-29 09:48:39 AM  
In this thread, 24 year old OWS Gen-Yers who have never had a job or employer offered medical plan tell you how you're stupid.
 
2013-10-29 09:48:51 AM  
here's a subsidy calculator to give people an idea of what people would actually end up paying for based on income and family size, if you are poor or lower middle class you might be surprised at how cheap your insurance will end up being...

http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/
 
2013-10-29 09:51:12 AM  
They took my health care.
 
2013-10-29 09:58:19 AM  

topcon: In this thread, 24 year old OWS Gen-Yers who have never had a job or employer offered medical plan tell you how you're stupid.


To be fair, doesn't everyone tell you that?
 
2013-10-29 10:09:18 AM  

Bigdogdaddy: So, the right wing talking heads are saying this is what the shutdown was all about and now it's proof that Obama was the one who wanted the government shut down.  They seem to forget about the call to defund the ACA.  Think I'm kidding, give them a listen.


well, yeah this does now mean that the shutdown was all Obaba's fault.

It went
Repeal ACA-"no that's bomb strapped to yor chest terrirism!"
Defund ACA - "why are you holding a gun to murikca's head?"
Delay ACA -"you are murdering people!"
Delay the individual mandate- "that's bomber vest mall shooting crashing planes terrorism!"
Other derp followed by derp terrorism claims
Complete republican surrender.

Now The President delays the individual mandate. Which would have stopped the shutdown when first suggested! But when the president does it it isn't bomber vest terrorism.

It isn't terrorism when we do it amiright!
 
2013-10-29 10:11:14 AM  

Tricky Chicken: Bigdogdaddy: So, the right wing talking heads are saying this is what the shutdown was all about and now it's proof that Obama was the one who wanted the government shut down.  They seem to forget about the call to defund the ACA.  Think I'm kidding, give them a listen.

well, yeah this does now mean that the shutdown was all Obaba's fault.

It went
Repeal ACA-"no that's bomb strapped to yor chest terrirism!"
Defund ACA - "why are you holding a gun to murikca's head?"
Delay ACA -"you are murdering people!"
Delay the individual mandate- "that's bomber vest mall shooting crashing planes terrorism!"
Other derp followed by derp terrorism claims
Complete republican surrender.

Now The President delays the individual mandate. Which would have stopped the shutdown when first suggested! But when the president does it it isn't bomber vest terrorism.

It isn't terrorism when we do it amiright!


I don't understand what point you think you're making
 
2013-10-29 10:13:59 AM  

CPennypacker: Tricky Chicken: Bigdogdaddy: So, the right wing talking heads are saying this is what the shutdown was all about and now it's proof that Obama was the one who wanted the government shut down.  They seem to forget about the call to defund the ACA.  Think I'm kidding, give them a listen.

well, yeah this does now mean that the shutdown was all Obaba's fault.

It went
Repeal ACA-"no that's bomb strapped to yor chest terrirism!"
Defund ACA - "why are you holding a gun to murikca's head?"
Delay ACA -"you are murdering people!"
Delay the individual mandate- "that's bomber vest mall shooting crashing planes terrorism!"
Other derp followed by derp terrorism claims
Complete republican surrender.

Now The President delays the individual mandate. Which would have stopped the shutdown when first suggested! But when the president does it it isn't bomber vest terrorism.

It isn't terrorism when we do it amiright!

I don't understand what point you think you're making


Of course you don't.
 
2013-10-29 10:14:19 AM  

Tricky Chicken: Bigdogdaddy: So, the right wing talking heads are saying this is what the shutdown was all about and now it's proof that Obama was the one who wanted the government shut down.  They seem to forget about the call to defund the ACA.  Think I'm kidding, give them a listen.

well, yeah this does now mean that the shutdown was all Obaba's fault.

It went
Repeal ACA-"no that's bomb strapped to yor chest terrirism!"
Defund ACA - "why are you holding a gun to murikca's head?"
Delay ACA -"you are murdering people!"
Delay the individual mandate- "that's bomber vest mall shooting crashing planes terrorism!"
Other derp followed by derp terrorism claims
Complete republican surrender.

Now The President delays the individual mandate. Which would have stopped the shutdown when first suggested! But when the president does it it isn't bomber vest terrorism.

It isn't terrorism when we do it amiright!


Quite a bit different. "Do x or we'll defund the government and refuse to raise the debt ceiling" is nothing at all like "We're doing x because we farked up and it isn't fair"
 
2013-10-29 10:15:40 AM  

SunsetLament: Agarista: The executive branch executes the laws that have been passed.

By changing the way in which the law is executed, the law is not being changed.  Just the timetable.

You're right - the law is not being changed ... it's being ignored.

The law says you have to have insurance for 9 months in a year or you have to pay the Obamacare penalty tax.  Obama just unilaterally changed that to 7.5 months for 2014.  That's not regulating the law; that's ignoring the law and behaving as if it says something else.  It's what dictators and kings do.


Executive Order: You are considered to be insured on date X if you have paid your first month's premium and completed all your paperwork. It's not your fault the health insurance company couldn't turn around your order instantly like my car and home insurance company did.
 
2013-10-29 10:16:53 AM  

Tricky Chicken: CPennypacker: Tricky Chicken: Bigdogdaddy: So, the right wing talking heads are saying this is what the shutdown was all about and now it's proof that Obama was the one who wanted the government shut down.  They seem to forget about the call to defund the ACA.  Think I'm kidding, give them a listen.

well, yeah this does now mean that the shutdown was all Obaba's fault.

It went
Repeal ACA-"no that's bomb strapped to yor chest terrirism!"
Defund ACA - "why are you holding a gun to murikca's head?"
Delay ACA -"you are murdering people!"
Delay the individual mandate- "that's bomber vest mall shooting crashing planes terrorism!"
Other derp followed by derp terrorism claims
Complete republican surrender.

Now The President delays the individual mandate. Which would have stopped the shutdown when first suggested! But when the president does it it isn't bomber vest terrorism.

It isn't terrorism when we do it amiright!

I don't understand what point you think you're making

Of course you don't.


I don't think you do either
 
2013-10-29 10:19:44 AM  

CPennypacker: Tricky Chicken: CPennypacker: Tricky Chicken: Bigdogdaddy: So, the right wing talking heads are saying this is what the shutdown was all about and now it's proof that Obama was the one who wanted the government shut down.  They seem to forget about the call to defund the ACA.  Think I'm kidding, give them a listen.

well, yeah this does now mean that the shutdown was all Obaba's fault.

It went
Repeal ACA-"no that's bomb strapped to yor chest terrirism!"
Defund ACA - "why are you holding a gun to murikca's head?"
Delay ACA -"you are murdering people!"
Delay the individual mandate- "that's bomber vest mall shooting crashing planes terrorism!"
Other derp followed by derp terrorism claims
Complete republican surrender.

Now The President delays the individual mandate. Which would have stopped the shutdown when first suggested! But when the president does it it isn't bomber vest terrorism.

It isn't terrorism when we do it amiright!

I don't understand what point you think you're making

Of course you don't.

I don't think you do either


it is simple, Obama now owns the shutdown.
 
2013-10-29 10:20:31 AM  

skullkrusher: Tricky Chicken: Bigdogdaddy: So, the right wing talking heads are saying this is what the shutdown was all about and now it's proof that Obama was the one who wanted the government shut down.  They seem to forget about the call to defund the ACA.  Think I'm kidding, give them a listen.

well, yeah this does now mean that the shutdown was all Obaba's fault.

It went
Repeal ACA-"no that's bomb strapped to yor chest terrirism!"
Defund ACA - "why are you holding a gun to murikca's head?"
Delay ACA -"you are murdering people!"
Delay the individual mandate- "that's bomber vest mall shooting crashing planes terrorism!"
Other derp followed by derp terrorism claims
Complete republican surrender.

Now The President delays the individual mandate. Which would have stopped the shutdown when first suggested! But when the president does it it isn't bomber vest terrorism.

It isn't terrorism when we do it amiright!

Quite a bit different. "Do x or we'll defund the government and refuse to raise the debt ceiling" is nothing at all like "We're doing x because we farked up and it isn't fair"


^^^

If you want to negotiate with me, treat me like a dignified human being. Come to me on even ground. Before you make an offer, ask yourself if you would accept the offer were you in my shoes. Don't stick a loaded gun to my head or strap a bomb to your chest. That's coercion...almost exactly like the government coercion free market-hardliners insist they detest.
 
2013-10-29 10:20:32 AM  

Tricky Chicken: CPennypacker: Tricky Chicken: CPennypacker: Tricky Chicken: Bigdogdaddy: So, the right wing talking heads are saying this is what the shutdown was all about and now it's proof that Obama was the one who wanted the government shut down.  They seem to forget about the call to defund the ACA.  Think I'm kidding, give them a listen.

well, yeah this does now mean that the shutdown was all Obaba's fault.

It went
Repeal ACA-"no that's bomb strapped to yor chest terrirism!"
Defund ACA - "why are you holding a gun to murikca's head?"
Delay ACA -"you are murdering people!"
Delay the individual mandate- "that's bomber vest mall shooting crashing planes terrorism!"
Other derp followed by derp terrorism claims
Complete republican surrender.

Now The President delays the individual mandate. Which would have stopped the shutdown when first suggested! But when the president does it it isn't bomber vest terrorism.

It isn't terrorism when we do it amiright!

I don't understand what point you think you're making

Of course you don't.

I don't think you do either

it is simple, Obama now owns the shutdown.


lol ok
 
2013-10-29 10:25:37 AM  

Tricky Chicken: Bigdogdaddy: So, the right wing talking heads are saying this is what the shutdown was all about and now it's proof that Obama was the one who wanted the government shut down.  They seem to forget about the call to defund the ACA.  Think I'm kidding, give them a listen.

well, yeah this does now mean that the shutdown was all Obaba's fault.

It went
Repeal ACA-"no that's bomb strapped to yor chest terrirism!"
Defund ACA - "why are you holding a gun to murikca's head?"
Delay ACA -"you are murdering people!"
Delay the individual mandate- "that's bomber vest mall shooting crashing planes terrorism!"
Other derp followed by derp terrorism claims
Complete republican surrender.

Now The President delays the individual mandate. Which would have stopped the shutdown when first suggested! But when the president does it it isn't bomber vest terrorism.

It isn't terrorism when we do it amiright!


So you're ok with one chamber of Congress trying to force changes to legislation that was legally passed by both chambers, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court? And did they try to change it by passing laws? Yes, 40+ times and they failed to get those through both chambers of Congress. So instead they went with we will ruin the dollar as the world reserve currency and possibly tank the global economy if we don't get our way and fundamentally shift the balance of governmental power. And the delay that they wanted was a full 1 year delay in the mandate, what we have instead is an extension of the time period to enroll, same start date, and a a later ending. However, even if the President had decided to repeal the ACA after the shut down was over he would have taken the right path, to do otherwise would have left the Senate and Presidency significantly weakened next to the House of Reps.
 
2013-10-29 10:29:09 AM  
IRONIC Tag still trying to log in to Healthcare.gov

/Yesterdays Technology -- Tomorrow!

www.zdnet.com
 
2013-10-29 10:30:34 AM  
So the govt extended the sign up period.

This is nothing at all like what the tea party wanted. The tea party wanted the entire bill pushed back, they did not want to give people a longer time in which to sign up for healthcare. If they did, that would mean they supported the ACA, and that they were trying to help people get health insurance. The tea parry did not want that, they wanted all of ACA gone.
 
2013-10-29 10:43:24 AM  

obamacaresucks.com

 
2013-10-29 10:43:40 AM  
My goodness! The sock puppets are busy today...
 
2013-10-29 10:43:52 AM  

physt: Agneska: ANRAgneska: This is what you get when you vote with your head up your ass. Failure of leadership.

[www.anunews.net image 574x315]


...did you just 'b-but Bush' Obamacare?
 
2013-10-29 10:45:13 AM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Obamacare Defense Brigade, assemble!!


Trisomy 21 Support Council, potato!
 
2013-10-29 10:47:41 AM  
Whiny b*tches who are lying through their teeth.... we again ask... what is your alternative?

www.altergroup.com
 
2013-10-29 10:47:51 AM  

BrotherThaddeus: Tricky Chicken: Bigdogdaddy: 

So you're ok with one chamber of Congress trying to force changes to legislation that was legally passed by both chambers, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court? And did they try to change it by passing laws? Yes, 40+ times and they failed to get those through both chambers of Congress. So instead they went with we will ruin the dollar as the world reserve currency and possibly tank the global economy if we don't get our way and fundamentally shift the balance of governmental power. And the delay that they wanted was a full 1 year delay in the mandate, what we have instead is an extension of the time period to enroll, same start date, and a a later ending. However, even if the President had decided to repeal the ACA after the shut down was over he would have taken the right path, to do otherwise would have left the Senate and Presidency significantly weakened next to the House of Reps.


Yes, I'm perfectly fine with one chamber using the only tool at its disposal to try to get change to current law. If the other side arbitrarily decides that THIS time budget negotiations are not negotiable, then they had no other course. It isn't terrorism to force a reluctant side to the table.

It is hilarious that the obstinate party has to later turn tail and do what the other side asked for earlier.
 
2013-10-29 10:48:41 AM  
So they're part of the conspiracy to make it look like there are problems with healthcare.gov.
 
2013-10-29 10:48:41 AM  

OregonVet: [obamacaresucks.com image 610x472]


And then he told the trollers... your Fox news talking points are the stuff of mongoloid wet dreams.
 
2013-10-29 10:51:35 AM  

coeyagi: OregonVet: [obamacaresucks.com image 610x472]

And then he told the trollers... your Fox news talking points are the stuff of mongoloid wet dreams.


The news on this broke this AM. Do you honesty think the "loltalkingpoint!" is a legitimate defense already if it ever is?
 
2013-10-29 10:53:18 AM  

topcon: In this thread, 24 year old OWS Gen-Yers who have never had a job or employer offered medical plan tell you how you're stupid.


No you're stupid if you believe everyone falls into that category.
 
2013-10-29 10:57:56 AM  

skullkrusher: coeyagi: OregonVet: [obamacaresucks.com image 610x472]

And then he told the trollers... your Fox news talking points are the stuff of mongoloid wet dreams.

The news on this broke this AM. Do you honesty think the "loltalkingpoint!" is a legitimate defense already if it ever is?


I had no idea that 4 days ago was this morning.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/25/more-losing-insurance-cov er age-than-signing-up-on-obamacare-exchanges/
 
2013-10-29 10:57:56 AM  

Tricky Chicken: BrotherThaddeus: Tricky Chicken: Bigdogdaddy: 

So you're ok with one chamber of Congress trying to force changes to legislation that was legally passed by both chambers, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court? And did they try to change it by passing laws? Yes, 40+ times and they failed to get those through both chambers of Congress. So instead they went with we will ruin the dollar as the world reserve currency and possibly tank the global economy if we don't get our way and fundamentally shift the balance of governmental power. And the delay that they wanted was a full 1 year delay in the mandate, what we have instead is an extension of the time period to enroll, same start date, and a a later ending. However, even if the President had decided to repeal the ACA after the shut down was over he would have taken the right path, to do otherwise would have left the Senate and Presidency significantly weakened next to the House of Reps.

Yes, I'm perfectly fine with one chamber using the only tool at its disposal to try to get change to current law. If the other side arbitrarily decides that THIS time budget negotiations are not negotiable, then they had no other course. It isn't terrorism to force a reluctant side to the table.

It is hilarious that the obstinate party has to later turn tail and do what the other side asked for earlier.


Here are the 19 separate times Democratic Senators requested a conference committee to negotiate a consensus budget resolution with the House of Representatives and what happened to those requests:

1. 4/23 Senator Reid requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Toomey blocked.
2. 5/6 Senator Reid requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Cruz blocked.
3. 5/7 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.
4. 5/8 Senator Warner asked unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.
5. 5/9 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.
6. 5/14 Senator Warner asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator McConnell blocked.
7. 5/15 Senator Wyden asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator McConnell blocked.
8. 5/16 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Lee blocked.
9. 5/21 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Paul blocked.
10. 5/22 Senator Kaine asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Rubio blocked.
11. 5/23 Senator McCaskill asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Lee blocked.
12. 6/4 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Rubio blocked.
13. 6/12 Senator Kaine asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Lee blocked.
14. 6/19 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Toomey blocked.
15. 6/26 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Cruz blocked.
16. 7/11 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Marco Rubio blocked.
17. 7/17 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Mike Lee blocked.
18. 8/1 Senator Durbin requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Marco Rubio blocked.
19. 10/2 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Toomey blocked.

By any chance, did you murder your parents as a child and then request leniency for being an orphan?
 
2013-10-29 11:00:05 AM  

coeyagi: skullkrusher: coeyagi: OregonVet: [obamacaresucks.com image 610x472]

And then he told the trollers... your Fox news talking points are the stuff of mongoloid wet dreams.

The news on this broke this AM. Do you honesty think the "loltalkingpoint!" is a legitimate defense already if it ever is?

I had no idea that 4 days ago was this morning.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/25/more-losing-insurance-cov er age-than-signing-up-on-obamacare-exchanges/


Interesting. I guess you pay more attention to Fox News than I do. Ok, so is "loltalkingpoint!" a valid defense after 4 days if it ever is?
 
2013-10-29 11:06:40 AM  

skullkrusher: coeyagi: skullkrusher: coeyagi: OregonVet: [obamacaresucks.com image 610x472]

And then he told the trollers... your Fox news talking points are the stuff of mongoloid wet dreams.

The news on this broke this AM. Do you honesty think the "loltalkingpoint!" is a legitimate defense already if it ever is?

I had no idea that 4 days ago was this morning.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/25/more-losing-insurance-cov er age-than-signing-up-on-obamacare-exchanges/

Interesting. I guess you pay more attention to Fox News than I do. Ok, so is "loltalkingpoint!" a valid defense after 4 days if it ever is?


Probably slightly more defensible than the goal posts moving of "is it a talking point if it's from this morning?" to "is it a talking point after 4 days?"

I don't have hard evidence to support that it is a talking point after 4 days - I can only say that watching Fox News or reading their drivel makes you less informed per several studies.  To my knowledge, there is no study that says how long it takes for you to become a moron after watching Fox News.

//don't pay attention to Fox, but I have been known to Google.  It's a wonderful tool, you should try it.
///resident morons / conservatrolls, how long does it take for you to adopt the bubble that is impervious to facts? anyone care to contribute?
 
2013-10-29 11:07:19 AM  

Tricky Chicken: BrotherThaddeus: Tricky Chicken: Bigdogdaddy: 

So you're ok with one chamber of Congress trying to force changes to legislation that was legally passed by both chambers, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court? And did they try to change it by passing laws? Yes, 40+ times and they failed to get those through both chambers of Congress. So instead they went with we will ruin the dollar as the world reserve currency and possibly tank the global economy if we don't get our way and fundamentally shift the balance of governmental power. And the delay that they wanted was a full 1 year delay in the mandate, what we have instead is an extension of the time period to enroll, same start date, and a a later ending. However, even if the President had decided to repeal the ACA after the shut down was over he would have taken the right path, to do otherwise would have left the Senate and Presidency significantly weakened next to the House of Reps.

Yes, I'm perfectly fine with one chamber using the only tool at its disposal to try to get change to current law. If the other side arbitrarily decides that THIS time budget negotiations are not negotiable, then they had no other course. It isn't terrorism to force a reluctant side to the table.

It is hilarious that the obstinate party has to later turn tail and do what the other side asked for earlier.


You're right, it's not terrorism to force an unwilling side to the table.  But when one side has walked away from the table and declared "We'll blow up the whole place unless we get our way" then that is terrorism- they are attempting to create fear - fear that they will destroy things - in order to achieve their objectives.

The Shut-Down was not the "Only tool" at the disposal of the "Get Sick & Die" party.  It wasn't even a correct tool.  The tools at there disposal to overturn the law are legislative- passing a repeal, or judicial, having the law struck down by the courts.  That the GS&D party wasn't successful in their attempt to use these tools does not mean they don't exist, it means there aren't enough people supporting the GS&D party for them to accomplish their goal.

So they then refused to keep the government open unless the majority of it bowed to their minority will.  That is not how government is supposed to work.  The ACA had nothing to do with the budget negotiations, and no, budget negotiations shouldn't also be open to all sorts of other unrelated crap.  Just like the ACA had nothing to do with the debt ceiling, but the GS&D'ers tried to use that too.

And you're fine with that?

So lets hypothesize- what if the situations were reversed.  What if a slim Democratic majority in the house, paired with a Republican Senate and President, declared "We're not funding the government unless all GMOs are banned"?  It's not something they could pass legislatively, not having both houses of Congress, and not having the Presidency, and it's not something they could do judicially, so would you be fine with that?  Would you consider that an appropriate part of budget negotiations also?
 
2013-10-29 11:17:08 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: vatica40: A lot of the plans, including mine, were fine and offered coverage that was right for me. Now I have to pay hundreds more to meet the 'minimum', which shock and surprise, isn't that much better.

Is this before or after taking this stuff into account?

/Too many talking hairdos/radio ranters pulling this nonsense for me not to ask.


My old plan was $172/mo with a $500 deductible and max outta pocket of $2500. 80/20 copay, $40 office visits and free generic drugs. Perfect for a 30 year old male with no kids.

Got my notice in the mail that my coverage was being cancelled.

Compareable plans on the marketplace by deductible/outta pocket are $266-$320

Compareable plans by premium between $150-$190 carry an avg deductible of $5000 with max out of pocket of $6350

According to the link above I'm not eligible for a subsidy. My employer offers health insurance but they don't pay for it, and when I got hired here their plan was group policy with a high deductible so I kept my plan. (And even if they didn't offer insurance I make just enough to not qualify for the subsidy)
 
2013-10-29 11:17:18 AM  

coeyagi: skullkrusher: coeyagi: skullkrusher: coeyagi: OregonVet: [obamacaresucks.com image 610x472]

And then he told the trollers... your Fox news talking points are the stuff of mongoloid wet dreams.

The news on this broke this AM. Do you honesty think the "loltalkingpoint!" is a legitimate defense already if it ever is?

I had no idea that 4 days ago was this morning.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/25/more-losing-insurance-cov er age-than-signing-up-on-obamacare-exchanges/

Interesting. I guess you pay more attention to Fox News than I do. Ok, so is "loltalkingpoint!" a valid defense after 4 days if it ever is?

Probably slightly more defensible than the goal posts moving of "is it a talking point if it's from this morning?" to "is it a talking point after 4 days?"

I don't have hard evidence to support that it is a talking point after 4 days - I can only say that watching Fox News or reading their drivel makes you less informed per several studies.  To my knowledge, there is no study that says how long it takes for you to become a moron after watching Fox News.

//don't pay attention to Fox, but I have been known to Google.  It's a wonderful tool, you should try it.
///resident morons / conservatrolls, how long does it take for you to adopt the bubble that is impervious to facts? anyone care to contribute?


Haha from "talking point" to "goal posts" now? You're like a breathing cliche.
No, it wasn't "goal post" moving. First I heard of it was this AM on CNBC. Irrelevant to the larger point about whether calling something a "talking point" instantly discredits it and whether it is even accurate to call it one at this point. Also, how does a factually correct statement matter to the "impervious to facts bubble"?
Lastly, in this instance, I would've been informed on this topic 4 days ago if I watched Fox, not less.
 
2013-10-29 11:17:29 AM  

Jorn the Younger: And while that was going on, there were some glitches with the roll-out,


*snert*...the last time there was a glitch like this, Noah had to build himself a boat.
 
2013-10-29 11:19:27 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Jorn the Younger: And while that was going on, there were some glitches with the roll-out,

*snert*...the last time there was a glitch like this, thousands died in a pointless Middle Eastern war, so I guess a website isn't that bad.


Perspective.
 
2013-10-29 11:20:38 AM  
jesus, will conservatives ever farking STOP LYING
 
2013-10-29 11:21:44 AM  

Alien Robot: Jorn the Younger: Both houses of Congress have the authority to author legislation; which ever house passes the legislation then sends the bill to the other house, who can pass it and forward it to the President for signature, reject it, or alter it and pass their own version - if the last of these options, members from both houses should then meet in a "Conference Commitee" to consilidate the two versions of the legistlation, with the result being sent to the President.

The Senate does not merely decide whether or not to pass bills that have already been voted on by the House.

Unless the bill deals with raising revenue. Then it has to originate in the House.

The U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 7: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."


Yes, but that doesn't really mean anything, because the senate can take up any bill that was passed in the house, amend it and hey what do you know a revenue bill that originated in the house.
 
2013-10-29 11:32:54 AM  
Oh thank you masters for not punishing me for your fark ups,,,,
 
2013-10-29 11:37:35 AM  

Jackson Herring: jesus, will conservatives ever farking STOP LYING


We're just trying to catch up.
 
2013-10-29 11:38:18 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: As a matter of fact, I don't understand farkwad.


www.avitable.com

/ thread is a derpfest anyway
 
2013-10-29 11:42:22 AM  

Tricky Chicken: BrotherThaddeus: Tricky Chicken: Bigdogdaddy: 

So you're ok with one chamber of Congress trying to force changes to legislation that was legally passed by both chambers, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court? And did they try to change it by passing laws? Yes, 40+ times and they failed to get those through both chambers of Congress. So instead they went with we will ruin the dollar as the world reserve currency and possibly tank the global economy if we don't get our way and fundamentally shift the balance of governmental power. And the delay that they wanted was a full 1 year delay in the mandate, what we have instead is an extension of the time period to enroll, same start date, and a a later ending. However, even if the President had decided to repeal the ACA after the shut down was over he would have taken the right path, to do otherwise would have left the Senate and Presidency significantly weakened next to the House of Reps.

Yes, I'm perfectly fine with one chamber using the only tool at its disposal to try to get change to current law. If the other side arbitrarily decides that THIS time budget negotiations are not negotiable, then they had no other course. It isn't terrorism to force a reluctant side to the table.

It is hilarious that the obstinate party has to later turn tail and do what the other side asked for earlier.


Ok, I'll bite, what budget negotiations were going on prior to the shutdown?  The Senate had asked the House 19 times to negotiate on a budget, and the House refused each time, so what are you talking about?
 
2013-10-29 11:42:36 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Jorn the Younger: And while that was going on, there were some glitches with the roll-out,

*snert*...the last time there was a glitch like this, Noah had to build himself a boat.


heh, people who think the earth is 6000 years old are concerned about how this piece of technology was launched.
 
2013-10-29 11:44:30 AM  

skullkrusher: coeyagi: skullkrusher: coeyagi: skullkrusher: coeyagi: OregonVet: [obamacaresucks.com image 610x472]

And then he told the trollers... your Fox news talking points are the stuff of mongoloid wet dreams.

The news on this broke this AM. Do you honesty think the "loltalkingpoint!" is a legitimate defense already if it ever is?

I had no idea that 4 days ago was this morning.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/25/more-losing-insurance-cov er age-than-signing-up-on-obamacare-exchanges/

Interesting. I guess you pay more attention to Fox News than I do. Ok, so is "loltalkingpoint!" a valid defense after 4 days if it ever is?

Probably slightly more defensible than the goal posts moving of "is it a talking point if it's from this morning?" to "is it a talking point after 4 days?"

I don't have hard evidence to support that it is a talking point after 4 days - I can only say that watching Fox News or reading their drivel makes you less informed per several studies.  To my knowledge, there is no study that says how long it takes for you to become a moron after watching Fox News.

//don't pay attention to Fox, but I have been known to Google.  It's a wonderful tool, you should try it.
///resident morons / conservatrolls, how long does it take for you to adopt the bubble that is impervious to facts? anyone care to contribute?

Haha from "talking point" to "goal posts" now? You're like a breathing cliche.
No, it wasn't "goal post" moving. First I heard of it was this AM on CNBC. Irrelevant to the larger point about whether calling something a "talking point" instantly discredits it and whether it is even accurate to call it one at this point. Also, how does a factually correct statement matter to the "impervious to facts bubble"?
Lastly, in this instance, I would've been informed on this topic 4 days ago if I watched Fox, not less
.


Um, because it isn't.  The liars at Fox News only counted the applications on healthcare.gov, not the state exchanges.

Thanks Fox News for not keeping skull infromed!
 
2013-10-29 11:46:56 AM  

koinbahd: demaL-demaL-yeH: vatica40: A lot of the plans, including mine, were fine and offered coverage that was right for me. Now I have to pay hundreds more to meet the 'minimum', which shock and surprise, isn't that much better.

Is this before or after taking this stuff into account?

/Too many talking hairdos/radio ranters pulling this nonsense for me not to ask.

My old plan was $172/mo with a $500 deductible and max outta pocket of $2500. 80/20 copay, $40 office visits and free generic drugs. Perfect for a 30 year old male with no kids.

Got my notice in the mail that my coverage was being cancelled.

Compareable plans on the marketplace by deductible/outta pocket are $266-$320

Compareable plans by premium between $150-$190 carry an avg deductible of $5000 with max out of pocket of $6350

According to the link above I'm not eligible for a subsidy. My employer offers health insurance but they don't pay for it, and when I got hired here their plan was group policy with a high deductible so I kept my plan. (And even if they didn't offer insurance I make just enough to not qualify for the subsidy)


You sound male.
 
2013-10-29 11:48:21 AM  

coeyagi: skullkrusher: coeyagi: skullkrusher: coeyagi: skullkrusher: coeyagi: OregonVet: [obamacaresucks.com image 610x472]

And then he told the trollers... your Fox news talking points are the stuff of mongoloid wet dreams.

The news on this broke this AM. Do you honesty think the "loltalkingpoint!" is a legitimate defense already if it ever is?

I had no idea that 4 days ago was this morning.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/25/more-losing-insurance-cov er age-than-signing-up-on-obamacare-exchanges/

Interesting. I guess you pay more attention to Fox News than I do. Ok, so is "loltalkingpoint!" a valid defense after 4 days if it ever is?

Probably slightly more defensible than the goal posts moving of "is it a talking point if it's from this morning?" to "is it a talking point after 4 days?"

I don't have hard evidence to support that it is a talking point after 4 days - I can only say that watching Fox News or reading their drivel makes you less informed per several studies.  To my knowledge, there is no study that says how long it takes for you to become a moron after watching Fox News.

//don't pay attention to Fox, but I have been known to Google.  It's a wonderful tool, you should try it.
///resident morons / conservatrolls, how long does it take for you to adopt the bubble that is impervious to facts? anyone care to contribute?

Haha from "talking point" to "goal posts" now? You're like a breathing cliche.
No, it wasn't "goal post" moving. First I heard of it was this AM on CNBC. Irrelevant to the larger point about whether calling something a "talking point" instantly discredits it and whether it is even accurate to call it one at this point. Also, how does a factually correct statement matter to the "impervious to facts bubble"?
Lastly, in this instance, I would've been informed on this topic 4 days ago if I watched Fox, not less.

Um, because it isn't.  The liars at Fox News only counted the applications on healthcare.gov, not the state exchanges.

Thanks Fox News for not keeping skull infromed!


If you look back to what began our conversation you'll note it wasn't about the Fox story I wast even aware of but rather the fact that a shiatload of people don't get to keep their insurance
 
2013-10-29 11:48:35 AM  

Headso: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Jorn the Younger: And while that was going on, there were some glitches with the roll-out,

*snert*...the last time there was a glitch like this, Noah had to build himself a boat.

heh, people who think the earth is 6000 years old are concerned about how this piece of technology was launched.


See, that's the problem with today's average liberal lunatic.  They have no sense of humor. All they do is bite the pillow and whine because sarcasm confuses their tiny minds.
 
2013-10-29 11:50:09 AM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Jorn the Younger: And while that was going on, there were some glitches with the roll-out,

*snert*...the last time there was a glitch like this, Noah had to build himself a boat.


So you're saying that the flood that God created was a "glitch?"
 
2013-10-29 11:55:23 AM  

ArmednHammered: Wait a minute, so Obama can change the law at will, but if anyone else wants to change it it's terrorism?
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-adm i n-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite


Throwing away unfetchable URL http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-adm i n-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance%3Flite:
  Really fark? Screw you, the link is good, fix it in your browser and take a look.


It's a bit early to be huffing nail polish remover.
 
2013-10-29 12:00:13 PM  

WhyteRaven74: [scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net image 550x600]


Medicare Part D was more unpopular than Obamacare? Um, yeah. No.
 
2013-10-29 12:05:42 PM  

jigger: WhyteRaven74: [scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net image 550x600]

Medicare Part D was more unpopular than Obamacare? Um, yeah. No.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/oct/04/barac k- obama/obama-says-medicare-part-d-was-less-popular-obamac/
 
2013-10-29 12:19:25 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Headso: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Jorn the Younger: And while that was going on, there were some glitches with the roll-out,

*snert*...the last time there was a glitch like this, Noah had to build himself a boat.

heh, people who think the earth is 6000 years old are concerned about how this piece of technology was launched.

See, that's the problem with today's average liberal lunatic.  They have no sense of humor. All they do is bite the pillow and whine because sarcasm confuses their tiny minds.


No, they're just used to seeing you posting stupid shait.
 
Bf+
2013-10-29 12:21:34 PM  

fusillade762: I predict this thread will be a calm and rational discussion.


I had a calm and rational discussion... with YOUR MOM!!
 
2013-10-29 12:34:48 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Headso: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Jorn the Younger: And while that was going on, there were some glitches with the roll-out,

*snert*...the last time there was a glitch like this, Noah had to build himself a boat.

heh, people who think the earth is 6000 years old are concerned about how this piece of technology was launched.

See, that's the problem with today's average liberal lunatic.  They have no sense of humor. All they do is bite the pillow and whine because sarcasm confuses their tiny minds.


why even waste time berating me over the internet I'd go right for the prayer assault if I were you.
 
2013-10-29 12:38:38 PM  

koinbahd: demaL-demaL-yeH: vatica40: A lot of the plans, including mine, were fine and offered coverage that was right for me. Now I have to pay hundreds more to meet the 'minimum', which shock and surprise, isn't that much better.

Is this before or after taking this stuff into account?

/Too many talking hairdos/radio ranters pulling this nonsense for me not to ask.

My old plan was $172/mo with a $500 deductible and max outta pocket of $2500. 80/20 copay, $40 office visits and free generic drugs. Perfect for a 30 year old male with no kids.

Got my notice in the mail that my coverage was being cancelled.

Compareable plans on the marketplace by deductible/outta pocket are $266-$320

Compareable plans by premium between $150-$190 carry an avg deductible of $5000 with max out of pocket of $6350

According to the link above I'm not eligible for a subsidy. My employer offers health insurance but they don't pay for it, and when I got hired here their plan was group policy with a high deductible so I kept my plan. (And even if they didn't offer insurance I make just enough to not qualify for the subsidy)


I would be amazed if your previous plan met the federal minimum coverages. (And even for Nebraska, the monthly premium sounds too low to be true, if you know what I mean.)
 
2013-10-29 01:01:09 PM  

Jorn the Younger: Tricky Chicken: BrotherThaddeus: Tricky Chicken: Bigdogdaddy: 

So you're ok with one chamber of Congress trying to force changes to legislation that was legally passed by both chambers, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court? And did they try to change it by passing laws? Yes, 40+ times and they failed to get those through both chambers of Congress. So instead they went with we will ruin the dollar as the world reserve currency and possibly tank the global economy if we don't get our way and fundamentally shift the balance of governmental power. And the delay that they wanted was a full 1 year delay in the mandate, what we have instead is an extension of the time period to enroll, same start date, and a a later ending. However, even if the President had decided to repeal the ACA after the shut down was over he would have taken the right path, to do otherwise would have left the Senate and Presidency significantly weakened next to the House of Reps.

Yes, I'm perfectly fine with one chamber using the only tool at its disposal to try to get change to current law. If the other side arbitrarily decides that THIS time budget negotiations are not negotiable, then they had no other course. It isn't terrorism to force a reluctant side to the table.

It is hilarious that the obstinate party has to later turn tail and do what the other side asked for earlier.

You're right, it's not terrorism to force an unwilling side to the table.  But when one side has walked away from the table and declared "We'll blow up the whole place unless we get our way" then that is terrorism- they are attempting to create fear - fear that they will destroy things - in order to achieve their objectives.

The Shut-Down was not the "Only tool" at the disposal of the "Get Sick & Die" party.  It wasn't even a correct tool.  The tools at there disposal to overturn the law are legislative- passing a repeal, or judicial, having the law struck down by the courts.  That the GS&D party was ...


If the GS&D party was successful, you can bet abortion would be next on their hit list.
 
2013-10-29 01:03:25 PM  
I've learned my insurance is really apparently relatively good, although it only meets the Minimum Value Standard of 60%, and it does meet the Minimum Essential Coverage.  I don't have preventative locally though, which really does suck.

I had a really long post here detailing the differences between what I am paying for and getting now, but stopped, because I don't know what I will be paying in 2014, and do not have the 2013 list of benefits in front of me, only the 2014 ones, so it would not be a fair comparison.

I will say this though.  My plan for 2014 has a better deductible than every plan available to me through Cover Oregon.  It's $750 for the family.
 
2013-10-29 01:05:27 PM  

Headso: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Jorn the Younger: And while that was going on, there were some glitches with the roll-out,

*snert*...the last time there was a glitch like this, Noah had to build himself a boat.

heh, people who think the earth is 6000 years old are concerned about how this piece of technology was launched.


imageshack.us

It really is amusing, isn't it?
 
2013-10-29 01:15:42 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: koinbahd: demaL-demaL-yeH: vatica40: A lot of the plans, including mine, were fine and offered coverage that was right for me. Now I have to pay hundreds more to meet the 'minimum', which shock and surprise, isn't that much better.

Is this before or after taking this stuff into account?

/Too many talking hairdos/radio ranters pulling this nonsense for me not to ask.

My old plan was $172/mo with a $500 deductible and max outta pocket of $2500. 80/20 copay, $40 office visits and free generic drugs. Perfect for a 30 year old male with no kids.

Got my notice in the mail that my coverage was being cancelled.

Compareable plans on the marketplace by deductible/outta pocket are $266-$320

Compareable plans by premium between $150-$190 carry an avg deductible of $5000 with max out of pocket of $6350

According to the link above I'm not eligible for a subsidy. My employer offers health insurance but they don't pay for it, and when I got hired here their plan was group policy with a high deductible so I kept my plan. (And even if they didn't offer insurance I make just enough to not qualify for the subsidy)

I would be amazed if your previous plan met the federal minimum coverages. (And even for Nebraska, the monthly premium sounds too low to be true, if you know what I mean.)


You're right, as a single male with 0 kids, I didn't have maternity or pediatric dental or vision insurance.

Now I will have it incase I get pregnant.
 
2013-10-29 01:24:25 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: ArmednHammered: Wait a minute, so Obama can change the law at will, but if anyone else wants to change it it's terrorism?
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-adm i n-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite


Throwing away unfetchable URL http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-adm i n-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance%3Flite:
  Really fark? Screw you, the link is good, fix it in your browser and take a look.

Because the assholes in charge of 26 states went full derple straightjacket and turned down the federal money to insure 5.2 million Americans.
Or were you talking about the idiots who were grossly underinsured biatching about the price of minimum coverage?


Hey, there is nothing that Republicans will fight harder for than the right to let businesses take advantage of the stupid. People having to sign up for better insurance that costs the same and offers better coverage is a travesty, a travesty, I tell you!
 
2013-10-29 01:30:07 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Headso: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Jorn the Younger: And while that was going on, there were some glitches with the roll-out,

*snert*...the last time there was a glitch like this, Noah had to build himself a boat.

heh, people who think the earth is 6000 years old are concerned about how this piece of technology was launched.

[imageshack.us image 460x652]

It really is amusing, isn't it?


What is this I don't even.
 
2013-10-29 01:35:44 PM  

koinbahd: demaL-demaL-yeH: koinbahd: demaL-demaL-yeH: vatica40: A lot of the plans, including mine, were fine and offered coverage that was right for me. Now I have to pay hundreds more to meet the 'minimum', which shock and surprise, isn't that much better.

Is this before or after taking this stuff into account?

/Too many talking hairdos/radio ranters pulling this nonsense for me not to ask.

My old plan was $172/mo with a $500 deductible and max outta pocket of $2500. 80/20 copay, $40 office visits and free generic drugs. Perfect for a 30 year old male with no kids.

Got my notice in the mail that my coverage was being cancelled.

Compareable plans on the marketplace by deductible/outta pocket are $266-$320

Compareable plans by premium between $150-$190 carry an avg deductible of $5000 with max out of pocket of $6350

According to the link above I'm not eligible for a subsidy. My employer offers health insurance but they don't pay for it, and when I got hired here their plan was group policy with a high deductible so I kept my plan. (And even if they didn't offer insurance I make just enough to not qualify for the subsidy)

I would be amazed if your previous plan met the federal minimum coverages. (And even for Nebraska, the monthly premium sounds too low to be true, if you know what I mean.)

You're right, as a single male with 0 kids, I didn't have maternity or pediatric dental or vision insurance.

Now I will have it incase I get pregnant.


You plan on never having sex with girls ever again?
 
2013-10-29 01:36:11 PM  

koinbahd: I would be amazed if your previous plan met the federal minimum coverages. (And even for Nebraska, the monthly premium sounds too low to be true, if you know what I mean.)

You're right, as a single male with 0 kids, I didn't have maternity or pediatric dental or vision insurance.

Now I will have it incase I get pregnant.


And the preventive care with no copays that applies to you?
(You seem to have skipped over those to the second and third pages. I'm certain that was completely accidental.)
 
2013-10-29 01:45:26 PM  

Fart_Machine: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Headso: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Jorn the Younger: And while that was going on, there were some glitches with the roll-out,

*snert*...the last time there was a glitch like this, Noah had to build himself a boat.

heh, people who think the earth is 6000 years old are concerned about how this piece of technology was launched.

[imageshack.us image 460x652]

It really is amusing, isn't it?

What is this I don't even.


Went right over you're pointed noggin like a David Ortiz line drive.
 
2013-10-29 02:09:36 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: koinbahd: I would be amazed if your previous plan met the federal minimum coverages. (And even for Nebraska, the monthly premium sounds too low to be true, if you know what I mean.)

You're right, as a single male with 0 kids, I didn't have maternity or pediatric dental or vision insurance.

Now I will have it incase I get pregnant.

And the preventive care with no copays that applies to you?
(You seem to have skipped over those to the second and third pages. I'm certain that was completely accidental.)


Not sure if serious?

Only a few of those apply and of those almost all of them are taken care of by routine physicals...1 a year covered by my old insurance. And I'd gladly pay $40 for a drs visit plus 20% to have anything else checked out.

Diet counseling? Totally worth the extra premium and thousands of dollars in deductibles to get free diet advice.

$50 at Walgreens and I can buy a blood pressure cuff and get all the screenings I need!

And I know plenty of people that don't have / can't have / will never have kids.

I'm sure the new law is great for some people, those with pre existing conditions, people who can't afford it and will get a good sized subsidy, but why must we pretend it's great for everyone? There is a large portion of the population that will be effected negatively by this, myself included.
 
2013-10-29 05:54:03 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Fart_Machine: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Headso: Lt. Cheese Weasel: Jorn the Younger: And while that was going on, there were some glitches with the roll-out,

*snert*...the last time there was a glitch like this, Noah had to build himself a boat.

heh, people who think the earth is 6000 years old are concerned about how this piece of technology was launched.

[imageshack.us image 460x652]

It really is amusing, isn't it?

What is this I don't even.

Went right over you're pointed noggin like a David Ortiz line drive.


Yup, your stupid is indeed incomprehensible.
 
2013-10-29 07:23:45 PM  
'We have to pass it so you can see what's in it' evolves into 'we have to delay it because it's a clusterfark'.
 
2013-10-29 07:28:05 PM  

Serious Black: Tricky Chicken: BrotherThaddeus: Tricky Chicken: Bigdogdaddy: 

So you're ok with one chamber of Congress trying to force changes to legislation that was legally passed by both chambers, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court? And did they try to change it by passing laws? Yes, 40+ times and they failed to get those through both chambers of Congress. So instead they went with we will ruin the dollar as the world reserve currency and possibly tank the global economy if we don't get our way and fundamentally shift the balance of governmental power. And the delay that they wanted was a full 1 year delay in the mandate, what we have instead is an extension of the time period to enroll, same start date, and a a later ending. However, even if the President had decided to repeal the ACA after the shut down was over he would have taken the right path, to do otherwise would have left the Senate and Presidency significantly weakened next to the House of Reps.

Yes, I'm perfectly fine with one chamber using the only tool at its disposal to try to get change to current law. If the other side arbitrarily decides that THIS time budget negotiations are not negotiable, then they had no other course. It isn't terrorism to force a reluctant side to the table.

It is hilarious that the obstinate party has to later turn tail and do what the other side asked for earlier.

Here are the 19 separate times Democratic Senators requested a conference committee to negotiate a consensus budget resolution with the House of Representatives and what happened to those requests:

1. 4/23 Senator Reid requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Toomey blocked.
2. 5/6 Senator Reid requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Cruz blocked.
3. 5/7 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.
4. 5/8 Senator Warner asked unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.
5. 5/9 Senator Murray asked unan ...


I love this post! One guy mocks 40+ votes by one side! and the next guy doesn't even bother to delete the reference when he white knights the other side for doing the exact same thing 19 times! It is terrorism when one side demands a delay to the individual mandate, but when our side actually DOES it, it is responsible governing! What exactly is the definition of cognitive dissonance?  I'm going to have to go look it up again. This may just be hipocrisy.
 
2013-10-29 07:40:53 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Serious Black: Tricky Chicken: BrotherThaddeus: Tricky Chicken: Bigdogdaddy: 

So you're ok with one chamber of Congress trying to force changes to legislation that was legally passed by both chambers, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court? And did they try to change it by passing laws? Yes, 40+ times and they failed to get those through both chambers of Congress. So instead they went with we will ruin the dollar as the world reserve currency and possibly tank the global economy if we don't get our way and fundamentally shift the balance of governmental power. And the delay that they wanted was a full 1 year delay in the mandate, what we have instead is an extension of the time period to enroll, same start date, and a a later ending. However, even if the President had decided to repeal the ACA after the shut down was over he would have taken the right path, to do otherwise would have left the Senate and Presidency significantly weakened next to the House of Reps.

Yes, I'm perfectly fine with one chamber using the only tool at its disposal to try to get change to current law. If the other side arbitrarily decides that THIS time budget negotiations are not negotiable, then they had no other course. It isn't terrorism to force a reluctant side to the table.

It is hilarious that the obstinate party has to later turn tail and do what the other side asked for earlier.

Here are the 19 separate times Democratic Senators requested a conference committee to negotiate a consensus budget resolution with the House of Representatives and what happened to those requests:

1. 4/23 Senator Reid requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Toomey blocked.
2. 5/6 Senator Reid requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Cruz blocked.
3. 5/7 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.
4. 5/8 Senator Warner asked unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.
5. 5/9 Senator Murray asked unan ...

I love this post! One guy mocks 40+ votes by one side! and the next guy doesn't even bother to delete the reference when he white knights the other side for doing the exact same thing 19 times! It is terrorism when one side demands a delay to the individual mandate, but when our side actually DOES it, it is responsible governing! What exactly is the definition of cognitive dissonance?  I'm going to have to go look it up again. This may just be hipocrisy.


It's funny because you completely missed the point because you don't understand that a repeal is different that trying to negotiate a compromise?
 
2013-10-29 07:45:08 PM  

armoredbulldozer: Agneska: This is what you get when you vote with your head up your ass. Failure of leadership.

http://sc.news.yahoo.com/fla-blue-dropping-300-000-142302560.html

Yep, anyone that voted for Obama should be executed or deported.  You have to be 35 to be President.  Military and those 35 or over are the only ones that get to vote next time.


FarkMods

I want to point out this Armoredbulldozer's posts are all violent in nature, in large part calling for executions or other kinds of violence.

go back and look at his previous posts. It's true.

You need to give this information to his local authorities for his and others safety.  Hes clearly disturbed. His Farkname is even from a mad man who went on a rampage with a deadly weapon.

If you think this is silly, just imagine when he finally hurts someone and they go over his PC, and it shows his favorite hangout was fark.com.
 
2013-10-29 08:53:13 PM  
Republicans are against "postmark" deadlines. Sounds about right. Good luck with taxes.
 
2013-10-30 06:36:49 AM  

powhound: Similar to a teacher facing angry parents at conference night, she extended the deadline so that the little snowflakes could all get A's.

But in this case, the teacher was busy having sex with students, the system went down, and the snowflakes need the class to survive.

Or, we could just go with single payer, government funded healthcare, but that would be too hard.


How is it government funded when it comes right out of your taxes?
vatica40: A lot of the plans, including mine, were fine and offered coverage that was right for me.

So you had catastrophic coverage and were gambling that you wouldn't use any other services.


Does it matter? It was a plan that suited his needs.
 
Displayed 197 of 197 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