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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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!
 
Displayed 50 of 197 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

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