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.

(The Raw Story)   If you had some of those substandard shoes before the Affordable Shoe Act became law, and you liked those shoes, you will be able to keep them   (rawstory.com) divider line 139
    More: Dumbass, health care markets, Martha MacCallum  
•       •       •

4912 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Oct 2013 at 3:08 PM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



139 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-31 02:35:40 PM
Yes, requiring that private health insurance policies meet certain standards is exactly like banning plastic Solo cups. No false equivalency there.
 
2013-10-31 03:04:34 PM
I fully expect Republicans to start eating un-inspected meat, because FDA standards are anti-freedom.
 
2013-10-31 03:10:45 PM
When I was in elementary school, our PE teacher used to divide the kids up by brand-name shoes (e.g., Nike, Reebok) vs. generic shoes (e.g., Pay-Less, Pic-Way) to be funny. Think that would fly today?
 
2013-10-31 03:13:08 PM

FarkinCubsFan: When I was in elementary school, our PE teacher used to divide the kids up by brand-name shoes (e.g., Nike, Reebok) vs. generic shoes (e.g., Pay-Less, Pic-Way) to be funny. Think that would fly today?


Once.
 
2013-10-31 03:14:47 PM
I strongly support her right to paint her house with a high quality lead-based paint.
 
2013-10-31 03:15:10 PM
It should never have been legal to call those bullshiat payment plans "insurance" in the first place. My employer (a large temp agency) offers a product they call "health insurance" with a maximum annual benefit of $10,000. Basically that covers the ambulance ride -- for the rest of the charges, you're on your farking own. This fails to meet the most basic definitional requirement of "insurance," because it doesn't reduce the customer's exposure to risk.
 
2013-10-31 03:18:11 PM
I'm really bummed that I can't buy the Solo cup of health insurance anymore.
 
2013-10-31 03:19:24 PM
"Some people like to drive a Ford, not a Ferrari," Blackburn had quipped at the hearing.

Healthcare is not a single-purchase commodity. Your opinions on the issue are null and void. Anybody who listens to you on this issue is a fool.
 
2013-10-31 03:20:27 PM

cameroncrazy1984: I fully expect Republicans to start eating un-inspected meat, because FDA standards are anti-freedom.


Now you're just being ridiculous. The FDA could be completely demolished and the private sector would replace it, create jobs and stimulate the economy at the same time. The food industry has no incentive to sell sub-standard or tainted food, as they would just be hurting their customers. If the food industry hurts its customers, those customers will just start ingesting other products, like shoes or tree bark. At the same time, as a second level of protection, risk-averse job-creators would hire personal food-tasters who would insure that their meals are untainted. This would have huge trickle-down benefits. Many of the ostensible "poor" hired for these positions would be getting paid to eat free meals. Meanwhile, they would be building up immunities to any of the very few food-borne diseases that might slip through. (That's that evolution thing you liberal atheists love so much.) Finally, if job creators don't get sick from food, they'll be even harder-working and more efficient and valuable than they already are, and their job creation will grow exponentially.
 
2013-10-31 03:21:30 PM
Taking the analogy down a logical path, the Affordable Shoe Act will ensure that your shoes will have, at a minimum, soles. "Shoes" without soles can no longer be marketed as such.
 
2013-10-31 03:21:33 PM

reductive: It should never have been legal to call those bullshiat payment plans "insurance" in the first place. My employer (a large temp agency) offers a product they call "health insurance" with a maximum annual benefit of $10,000. Basically that covers the ambulance ride -- for the rest of the charges, you're on your farking own. This fails to meet the most basic definitional requirement of "insurance," because it doesn't reduce the customer's exposure to risk.


These aren't mini-medical plans that are being cancelled.  These are plans that don't include things like maternity benefits or mental health.  Despite the fact that a consumer would be willing to accept coverage without those benefits seems irrelevant.  Comparing a Ford with a Ferrari isn't accurate, though.  More like comparing a motorcycle with a car.
 
2013-10-31 03:22:00 PM

kronicfeld: The FDA could be completely demolished and the private sector would replace


Somebody should really write a book about how something like that would work...
 
2013-10-31 03:22:29 PM

skozlaw: "Some people like to drive a Ford, not a Ferrari," Blackburn had quipped at the hearing.

Healthcare is not a single-purchase commodity. Your opinions on the issue are null and void. Anybody who listens to you on this issue is a fool.


Also, a Ford has to meet minimum standards for them to be able to sell it in the US.
 
2013-10-31 03:23:12 PM
Alright. I'm really getting sick of this derp cluttering up the farking front page. Leave it in the farking politics tab for the bots to troll each other over.

/Yeah yeah, I know, no one put a gun to my head and forced me to RTFA and/or comment.
 
2013-10-31 03:23:32 PM

Bruce Campbell: These are plans that don't include things like maternity benefits or mental health.  Despite the fact that a consumer would be willing to accept coverage without those benefits seems irrelevant.


Some consumers would be willing to accept meat with a certain amount of bacteria in it. Doesn't make it OK to sell it.
 
2013-10-31 03:24:02 PM

skozlaw: "Some people like to drive a Ford, not a Ferrari," Blackburn had quipped at the hearing.

Healthcare is not a single-purchase commodity. Your opinions on the issue are null and void. Anybody who listens to you on this issue is a fool.


Yeah a Ford Pinto.  What you really need when you're driving in your car is to catch on fire.
 
2013-10-31 03:26:08 PM

cameroncrazy1984: I fully expect Republicans to start eating un-inspected meat, because FDA standards are anti-freedom.


Obtaining uninspected meat is still legally possible if one so desires. Buying health insurance other than the type the government wants you to isn't. One gives you the choice, the other doesn't.
 
2013-10-31 03:27:58 PM

jjorsett: cameroncrazy1984: I fully expect Republicans to start eating un-inspected meat, because FDA standards are anti-freedom.

Obtaining uninspected meat is still legally possible if one so desires. Buying health insurance other than the type the government wants you to isn't. One gives you the choice, the other doesn't.


It's not? Wait, so you're telling me there ISN'T an alternative to buying health insurance, like say paying extra on your taxes?
 
2013-10-31 03:28:55 PM

jjorsett: cameroncrazy1984: I fully expect Republicans to start eating un-inspected meat, because FDA standards are anti-freedom.

Obtaining uninspected meat is still legally possible if one so desires. Buying health insurance other than the type the government wants you to isn't. One gives you the choice, the other doesn't.


Help help, I'm being repressed!
 
2013-10-31 03:30:04 PM

xenophon10k: Yes, requiring that private health insurance policies meet certain standards is exactly like banning plastic Solo cups. No false equivalency there.


Certain standards = being able to hold liquid so I can drink it.  Both the Solo Cup and the stemware qualify on that count.  Obama just doesn't like Red Solo Cups because of the stupid song.

Affordable healthcare is a laudable goal, but there were a few things we were told up front when this was passed and one of the most important things was "This won't interfere with your current coverage and if you like your current plan you can keep it."  Turns out that in many cases this was wrong. If the administration actually thought that implementation of the exchanges would not result in major changes in the insurance market they were incredibly naive.  On the other hand, if they knew this was coming and downplayed it/lied about it, then I'll chalk it up to politics as usual.
 
2013-10-31 03:30:15 PM
"Some people like to drive a Ford, not a Ferrari," Blackburn had quipped at the hearing. "And some people like to drink out of a red Solo cup, not a crystal stem. You're taking away their choice."

Some people would like to purchase a cheap red solo cup with a big hole in the bottom. Sure, it's technically still a cup, but if you ever decide to use it as a cup, you'll soon find out that it's a really horrible cup that doesn't hold shiat. Now HUSSEIN Obama over here, he wants to force companies to sell only red solo cups that have no holes in them and actually will do something for you if you ever need to use them. They'll be the same price as the other ones, or maybe a little cheaper, or maybe a little more, depending on your market. But selling only cups that don't have holes in them reduces consumer options, and that, my friends, is SOCIALISM.
 
2013-10-31 03:31:29 PM

Anderson's Pooper: there were a few things we were told up front when this was passed and one of the most important things was "This won't interfere with your current coverage and if you like your current plan you can keep it."


You're right. I hereby recant the vote that I cast for passage of the ACA.
 
2013-10-31 03:32:01 PM

jjorsett: cameroncrazy1984: I fully expect Republicans to start eating un-inspected meat, because FDA standards are anti-freedom.

Obtaining uninspected meat is still legally possible if one so desires.


It's illegal to sell it, just like it's illegal to sell shiatty insurance now.
 
2013-10-31 03:32:17 PM
LOL so now its about stupid analogies instead of the stupid ACA and obamas lies. I know, its ok if your team does it right tards?
God know men everywhere need pap smears

Lets focus on the sid show acts and not the main stage stooge

"That means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health-care plan, you'll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."
- President Obama,speech to the American Medical Association, June 15, 2009 (as the health-care law was being written.)

"And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn't happened yet. It won't happen in the future."
- Obama, remarks in Portland, April 1, 2010, after the health-care law was signed into law.

"FACT: Nothing in Obamacare forces people out of their health plans. No change is required unless insurance companies change existing plans."
- tweet by Obama aide Valerie Jarrett, Oct. 28, 2013, after NBC News airs a report that the Obama administration knew "millions" could not keep their health insurance.

Not even Nixon or Clinton can match this liar
 
2013-10-31 03:32:48 PM

Anderson's Pooper: This won't interfere with your current coverage and if you like your current plan you can keep it."  Turns out that in many cases this was wrong


You're right. Some plans were mandated to include things such as "coverage"
 
2013-10-31 03:33:23 PM
The death of healthcare in this country was the day that companies had to honor their coverage, and could not drop coverage because they did not want to pay for someone's medical bills.  Mark my words.
 
2013-10-31 03:33:50 PM

Joe Blowme: "FACT: Nothing in Obamacare forces people out of their health plans. No change is required unless insurance companies change existing plans."
- tweet by Obama aide Valerie Jarrett, Oct. 28, 2013, after NBC News airs a report that the Obama administration knew "millions" could not keep their health insurance.


So you're just going to pretend that the phrase "unless insurance companies change existing plans" doesn't exist.
 
2013-10-31 03:34:05 PM

Anderson's Pooper: Turns out that in many cases this was wrong.


Define "many." Five percent of current insurance holders purchase their own insurance. And of that five percent, a percentage of those people are actually affected by this. No one else would be affected by this.
 
2013-10-31 03:36:02 PM
Actually, the government's most basic job is to enforce the implied warranty of contracts. If I sell you an apple and give you a piece of fruit instead of the computer you were promised, you can sue me; similarly shoddy products/taunted food, etc. are all government-endorced so we get what we pay for.

Not being able to label a thing 'X' unless it actually provides for 'X' is the very core of what government is even for.
 
2013-10-31 03:36:45 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Joe Blowme: "FACT: Nothing in Obamacare forces people out of their health plans. No change is required unless insurance companies change existing plans."
- tweet by Obama aide Valerie Jarrett, Oct. 28, 2013, after NBC News airs a report that the Obama administration knew "millions" could not keep their health insurance.

So you're just going to pretend that the phrase "unless insurance companies change existing plans" doesn't exist.


And you are going to pretend all the cancelation notices were not because they did not meet the new ACA requirements, but becuase they were changed by the insurance company??? Huffing paint is no way to go through life son.

/typical cult of personality worshiper.
 
2013-10-31 03:36:52 PM

Anderson's Pooper: This won't interfere with your current coverage and if you like your current plan you can keep it.


At the time it was stated and the law was passed, it was true. Even if you were dumb enough to cling to cinderblock in a shipwreck while somebody was throwing a life preserver right at you, your cinderblock was grandfathered in prior to 2010. If your plan was modified after 2010 - to be out of compliance with a law everyone knew was coming - due to your actions or the actions of your employer or insurer, maybe you should try being mad at yourself, your employer or your insurer. It's not like this all just snuck up you.

But I often forget that the party of personal responsibility doesn't seem to think they ever have to be personally responsible for anything.
 
2013-10-31 03:37:54 PM

Joe Blowme: cameroncrazy1984: Joe Blowme: "FACT: Nothing in Obamacare forces people out of their health plans. No change is required unless insurance companies change existing plans."
- tweet by Obama aide Valerie Jarrett, Oct. 28, 2013, after NBC News airs a report that the Obama administration knew "millions" could not keep their health insurance.

So you're just going to pretend that the phrase "unless insurance companies change existing plans" doesn't exist.

And you are going to pretend all the cancelation notices were not because they did not meet the new ACA requirements, but becuase they were changed by the insurance company??? Huffing paint is no way to go through life son.

/typical cult of personality worshiper.


Were they changed by the insurance company or not? Also, who lost their insurance? Please tell me 1 single person that is without insurance right now because of this.
 
2013-10-31 03:39:06 PM
We should have stopped Obama when he came after our lightbulbs and toilets. Now its too late.
 
2013-10-31 03:39:44 PM

Joe Blowme: Not even Nixon or Clinton can match this liar


FACT: Obama must be the very first President you actually paid any attention to.
 
2013-10-31 03:40:02 PM
And obviously you haven't seen the 'unpastruized milk' fools...
 
2013-10-31 03:40:33 PM
A lot of people have found out that their health coverage premiums are going up, in some cases substantially. So much for "affordable" health care.
 
2013-10-31 03:41:44 PM

cameroncrazy1984: skozlaw: "Some people like to drive a Ford, not a Ferrari," Blackburn had quipped at the hearing.

Healthcare is not a single-purchase commodity. Your opinions on the issue are null and void. Anybody who listens to you on this issue is a fool.

Also, a Ford has to meet minimum standards for them to be able to sell it in the US.


exactly. And red Solo cups cannot be made with materials banned by the FDA.  But they should have called it like it is and first passed a law of minimal insurance standards before springing it on the public.  Her argument should have been on the level of ex post facto.
 
2013-10-31 03:42:04 PM

ReapTheChaos: A lot of people have found out that their health coverage premiums are going up, in some cases substantially. So much for "affordable" health care.


Yes, I can also make unsubstantiated claims to make a point too!
 
2013-10-31 03:42:18 PM

ReapTheChaos: A lot of people have found out that their health coverage premiums are going up, in some cases substantially. So much for "affordable" health care.


"A lot"

"substantially"

Tell us some more nothing.
 
2013-10-31 03:42:25 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Taking the analogy down a logical path, the Affordable Shoe Act will ensure that your shoes will have, at a minimum, soles. "Shoes" without soles can no longer be marketed as such.


They will also be orthopedic whether you need that or not.
 
2013-10-31 03:42:54 PM

highendmighty: But they should have called it like it is and first passed a law of minimal insurance standards before springing it on the public


You're kidding, right? You know that the law was passed in 2010, right?
 
2013-10-31 03:43:12 PM
Women don't need prostate exams either but their insurance covers it too, just like insurance that men purchase covers pregnancies, birth control and breast exams. For that matter, why should women have to buy insurance that covers prostate or testicular cancer surgery? Hey, I've already had my prostate removed, I don't need insurance that covers a prostate exam either!

Or, maybe the whole idea of 'insurance covering things you don't need' is so the costs go down when more people purchase the coverage, but of course the faux libertarians and conservatives aren't interested in things like that.

My wife told me a story about a woman who was upset because her insurance company had sent her a letter cancelling her policy. It was so perfect for her, the woman said, it required only a $50 copay for whatever medical procedure she needed, and was only costing her $100/month.

Except, that wasn't what the policy covered at all. The policy paid $50 of some medical procedures; the woman was obligated to pay the rest of it, and didn't cover hospital visits or prescription drugs at all. Basically it was a sham policy, and one that the company was fleecing the woman with for years. She'd been better off putting her $100/month into a savings account and keeping it there.
 
2013-10-31 03:43:26 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Joe Blowme: cameroncrazy1984: Joe Blowme: "FACT: Nothing in Obamacare forces people out of their health plans. No change is required unless insurance companies change existing plans."
- tweet by Obama aide Valerie Jarrett, Oct. 28, 2013, after NBC News airs a report that the Obama administration knew "millions" could not keep their health insurance.

So you're just going to pretend that the phrase "unless insurance companies change existing plans" doesn't exist.

And you are going to pretend all the cancelation notices were not because they did not meet the new ACA requirements, but becuase they were changed by the insurance company??? Huffing paint is no way to go through life son.

/typical cult of personality worshiper.

Were they changed by the insurance company or not? Also, who lost their insurance? Please tell me 1 single person that is without insurance right now because of this.


Heres one link, you will have to do your own homework from here on out... and its not even FOXNEWS
 
2013-10-31 03:45:13 PM

Joe Blowme: cameroncrazy1984: Joe Blowme: cameroncrazy1984: Joe Blowme: "FACT: Nothing in Obamacare forces people out of their health plans. No change is required unless insurance companies change existing plans."
- tweet by Obama aide Valerie Jarrett, Oct. 28, 2013, after NBC News airs a report that the Obama administration knew "millions" could not keep their health insurance.

So you're just going to pretend that the phrase "unless insurance companies change existing plans" doesn't exist.

And you are going to pretend all the cancelation notices were not because they did not meet the new ACA requirements, but becuase they were changed by the insurance company??? Huffing paint is no way to go through life son.

/typical cult of personality worshiper.

Were they changed by the insurance company or not? Also, who lost their insurance? Please tell me 1 single person that is without insurance right now because of this.

Heres one link, you will have to do your own homework from here on out... and its not even FOXNEWS


Wasn't that one actually debunked BY Fox News? I mean, when the derp is that bad, maybe you should just give up.
 
2013-10-31 03:45:58 PM
Now you're just being ridiculous. The FDA could be completely demolished and the private sector would replace it, create jobs and stimulate the economy at the same time. The food industry has no incentive to sell sub-standard or tainted food, as they would just be hurting their customers. If the food industry hurts its customers, those customers will just start ingesting other products, like shoes or tree bark.

You are aware that the strength/quality of the fasteners, materials, etc. that everything from airplanes to automobiles are made of are certified by an entirely private organization, i.e., American Society for Testing and materials (ASTM), right?

ASTM and Underwriters Labs were in the business of protecting the public *long* before the government got it's grubby, bossy, overpaid, underworked hands into the business? They do it cheaply, efficiently, and aren't corrupted by politicians.

Right now we (and our pets) are being harmed by defective/comtaminated food from China, but your precious  gub'mint FDA is looking the other way because the politicians are actively avoiduing the shiatstorm that will surely follow when it gets widely publicized.

Keep working your Obamessiah's shaft there, Farktards, for Your Leader can do no wrong....
 
2013-10-31 03:46:50 PM

skozlaw: At the time it was stated and the law was passed, it was true. Even if you were dumb enough to cling to cinderblock in a shipwreck while somebody was throwing a life preserver right at you, your cinderblock was grandfathered in prior to 2010. If your plan was modified after 2010 - to be out of compliance with a law everyone knew was coming - due to your actions or the actions of your employer or insurer, maybe you should try being mad at yourself, your employer or your insurer. It's not like this all just snuck up you.

But I often forget that the party of personal responsibility doesn't seem to think they ever have to be personally responsible for anything.


Did you read the rest of my post?  I knew it was coming, the administration knew it was coming. We all knew this was going to make a huge splash in the market and that there would be ripples.  The administration downplayed it or outright denied it was going to happen.  That's politics.

/fark spellcheck doesn't seem to like cinderblock or snuck for some reason.
 
2013-10-31 03:47:20 PM

mark12A: Keep working your Obamessiah's shaft there, Farktards, for Your Leader can do no wrong....


Always with the cock references. Does it bother you that you think about dicks so much?
 
2013-10-31 03:47:49 PM

ReapTheChaos: A lot of people have found out that their health coverage premiums are going up, in some cases substantially. So much for "affordable" health care.


my crappy HMO 40 went up 16%, and I would be paying more for the equivalent under ACA.  Also, the pre-tax exemption from my employer-based insurance saves me more money than ACA's credit waiver would - so, for me, ACA is a crock of shiat.
Now, that being said, if I were unemployed and otherwise uninsurable because of a pre-existing condition before ACA, I would be farked.  So, I guess, mazel tov to those who it helps.
 
2013-10-31 03:48:44 PM

Anderson's Pooper: We all knew this was going to make a huge splash in the market and that there would be ripples


Please explain to me how something that affects something like 5% of the entire market can conceivably make "a huge splash"
 
2013-10-31 03:49:42 PM

cameroncrazy1984: highendmighty: But they should have called it like it is and first passed a law of minimal insurance standards before springing it on the public

You're kidding, right? You know that the law was passed in 2010, right?


What, ACA?  Fine. I'm not arguing with you.  All I'm saying is that there should have been a minimum standard set for insurance provisions before ACA was passed.
 
Displayed 50 of 139 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report