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  
•       •       •

1907 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Oct 2013 at 1:55 AM (46 weeks 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 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 47 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 »






Report