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 59
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-10-29 06:54:08 AM  
5 votes:
scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net
2013-10-29 03:17:35 AM  
5 votes:

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 03:28:45 AM  
4 votes:

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 03:36:02 AM  
3 votes:

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 03:03:34 AM  
3 votes:

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 02:57:09 AM  
3 votes:

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 12:15:13 AM  
3 votes:
Good.  Now if we could just get more Republican governors to stop acting like babies and do their jobs.

Yeah, right.
2013-10-29 09:22:21 AM  
2 votes:

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 09:12:23 AM  
2 votes:

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 06:23:07 AM  
2 votes:

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 05:09:25 AM  
2 votes:
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 05:07:41 AM  
2 votes:
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 04:36:50 AM  
2 votes:

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 03:52:30 AM  
2 votes:
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 03:33:26 AM  
2 votes:
I hear hundreds of thousands of people are losing their non-converge as a direct result of the ACA.
2013-10-29 03:23:03 AM  
2 votes:
White House's authority to grant an extension on the health care law?  Absolutely none; not like anyone cares.
2013-10-29 03:00:32 AM  
2 votes:
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 02:59:15 AM  
2 votes:

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 02:57:59 AM  
2 votes:

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 02:53:16 AM  
2 votes:

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 02:29:06 AM  
2 votes:

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 02:11:50 AM  
2 votes:
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 11:19:27 AM  
1 votes:

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 11:07:19 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:57:56 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:53:18 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:47:41 AM  
1 votes:
Whiny b*tches who are lying through their teeth.... we again ask... what is your alternative?

www.altergroup.com
2013-10-29 10:25:37 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:20:32 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:20:31 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:19:44 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:16:53 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:14:19 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:11:14 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:09:18 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:58:19 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:48:39 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:31:45 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:13:34 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:03:25 AM  
1 votes:

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 07:16:29 AM  
1 votes:

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 06:36:37 AM  
1 votes:
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 06:21:10 AM  
1 votes:

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 05:19:14 AM  
1 votes:

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 05:16:45 AM  
1 votes:

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 05:14:04 AM  
1 votes:
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 03:55:39 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:51:37 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:41:43 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:38:12 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:37:46 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:35:04 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:32:46 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:30:05 AM  
1 votes:

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 03:16:20 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:50:57 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:43:43 AM  
1 votes:
This is what you get when you vote with your head up your ass. Failure of leadership.
2013-10-29 02:30:04 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:41:27 AM  
1 votes:
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?
 
Displayed 59 of 59 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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