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 Daily Caller)   The Liar in Chief suddenly doesn't recall saying you can keep your health-care plan. Fark: 29 times. Double-down: Videotaped   (dailycaller.com) divider line 386
    More: Unlikely, Obama, health cares  
•       •       •

1001 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Nov 2013 at 10:59 AM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



386 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-05 10:37:07 AM
Funny thing is, most of these people whose insurance has been canceled didn't have health insurance worth a flying f*ck to begin with.
 
2013-11-05 10:38:28 AM
FTFA:He did confess that he and his aides may have made some mistakes, such as failing to manage the development of the Obamacare website.

"We got [Obamacare] done. Now, let's face it, a lot of us didn't realize that passing the law was the easy part."


LOLWUT? What the fark did you think would happen - you'd pass the law and the magical fairies of liberalism would take care of everything else?
 
2013-11-05 10:40:59 AM
old news is exciting
 
2013-11-05 10:44:52 AM

Elegy: FTFA:He did confess that he and his aides may have made some mistakes, such as failing to manage the development of the Obamacare website.

"We got [Obamacare] done. Now, let's face it, a lot of us didn't realize that passing the law was the easy part."

LOLWUT? What the fark did you think would happen - you'd pass the law and the magical fairies of liberalism would take care of everything else?


Yep, the conservative plan of doing nothing was so much better. Letting people die because they can't afford to go to the doctor is the "Murican way.
 
2013-11-05 10:46:29 AM
By Neil Munroe, White House "correspondent" with the Faily Caller.

Yeah . Im not saying Obama is right, but this guy has NO business writing about anything other than how good Nilla wafers are.
 
2013-11-05 10:51:18 AM
Yeah, so this is the new Benghazi, isn't it?

In that it's another "MPEACH THE LIAR IN CHIEF!!111!!" scandal-du-jour that Republican talk radio and only Republican talk radio will scream incessantly about for about 2 months before realizing it isn't sticking and then promptly drop into the memory hole in favor of a new one?
 
2013-11-05 10:55:23 AM
The cover up is always worse than the facts.  Politicians never learn this.
 
2013-11-05 10:55:33 AM
Munro's writing is hilarious. It's so frothy you can stir it with a spoon.
 
2013-11-05 10:58:19 AM
Here's what it comes down to. Did Obama lie? Yes. Should he admit he lied? Yes.

BUT. The vast majority of Americans do get to keep their health insurance through their employer. Another good percentage of those that buy their own health insurance also get to keep their health insurance. And the ones who don't get to keep their health insurance have better coverage because the other plans didn't meet basic requirements.
 
2013-11-05 11:01:30 AM
politicians sometimes tell half truths and sometimes they lie, welcome to earf subby.
 
2013-11-05 11:02:02 AM
We abolished slavery for THIS?
 
2013-11-05 11:02:31 AM

bdub77: Here's what it comes down to. Did Obama lie? Yes. Should he admit he lied? Yes.

BUT. The vast majority of Americans do get to keep their health insurance through their employer. Another good percentage of those that buy their own health insurance also get to keep their health insurance. And the ones who don't get to keep their health insurance have better coverage because the other plans didn't meet basic requirements.


this is the politics tab, you asshole. get out of here with your reasoned, sensible analysis!!!
 
2013-11-05 11:02:39 AM

gilgigamesh: Yeah, so this is the new Benghazi, isn't it?

In that it's another "MPEACH THE LIAR IN CHIEF!!111!!" scandal-du-jour that Republican talk radio and only Republican talk radio will scream incessantly about for about 2 months before realizing it isn't sticking and then promptly drop into the memory hole in favor of a new one?


They've been yelling impeach since January 21, 2009.  They cry when they criticize the president then cry some more when no one shares their criticism.

There are plenty of things to criticize the President on, too bad all the right wants to focus on are the things that look good on a bumper sticker or in a campaign ad.
 
2013-11-05 11:02:57 AM
Why are all you Kool Aid soaked 0'Bama worshippers refusing to accept that this article proves there is in fact a WOLF headed towards the village
 
2013-11-05 11:03:44 AM
a5.img.talkingpointsmemo.com
 
2013-11-05 11:03:49 AM

bdub77: Here's what it comes down to. Did Obama lie? Yes. Should he admit he lied? Yes.


he made a substantially true statement

if you liked the insurance you had in 2009, you could indeed keep regardless of whether it was compliant with the ACA

unless of course your insurance company made major changes to the policy, in which case guess what it's not the same policy that you liked in the first place
 
2013-11-05 11:04:16 AM
the fascinating point here is how upset people are that a promise that the government won't take your health insurance plan away from you doesn't extend to insurance companies choosing of their own volition to discontinue people's plans
 
2013-11-05 11:04:19 AM
Some rubes need government regulation to protect them from con-artists. Film at 11.
 
2013-11-05 11:04:38 AM
Is the Caller going to admit they were lying about millions losing their insurance?
 
2013-11-05 11:05:09 AM
The party that cheerleaded the Iraq War even as it became apparent that Bush had lied and manipulated intelligence to sell it so he could send thousand to their deaths can go fark themselves.
 
2013-11-05 11:05:14 AM

Elegy: FTFA:He did confess that he and his aides may have made some mistakes, such as failing to manage the development of the Obamacare website.

"We got [Obamacare] done. Now, let's face it, a lot of us didn't realize that passing the law was the easy part."

LOLWUT? What the fark did you think would happen - you'd pass the law and the magical fairies of liberalism would take care of everything else?


The magical fairies of leaving partisanship by the wayside, taking your lumps like a man and handling your state's exchange instead of deferring it to the Fed. You know, personal responsibility.
 
2013-11-05 11:05:21 AM
So Barack Obama should have said "For 97% of Americans, if you like your insurance plan, you can keep it." Got it. Nobody will ever ignore that qualifying clause at the front of the sentence. I mean, nobody ever forgets that Ronald Reagan said "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem."
 
2013-11-05 11:05:31 AM
Claims from the Daily Caller?  Seems legit.

/I'm sure the videos exist, but I'm also sure they've been spun more than cotton candy
 
2013-11-05 11:05:47 AM

bdub77: Here's what it comes down to. Did Obama lie? Yes. Should he admit he lied? Yes.

BUT. The vast majority of Americans do get to keep their health insurance through their employer. Another good percentage of those that buy their own health insurance also get to keep their health insurance. And the ones who don't get to keep their health insurance have better coverage because the other plans didn't meet basic requirements.


But what if they liked paying an insurance company to get no coverage?
 
2013-11-05 11:06:02 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-11-05 11:06:15 AM

Headso: politicians sometimes tell half truths and sometimes they lie...


And you can tell this is happening if their lips are moving but no food is involved.
 
2013-11-05 11:06:31 AM

vernonFL: By Neil Munroe, White House "correspondent" with the Faily Caller.

Yeah . Im not saying Obama is right, but this guy has NO business writing about anything other than how good Nilla wafers are.


I will click on a Daily Caller article link the day Neil Munro is found dead, hanging by his neck from Tucker Carlson's scrotum with one of Tucker's bowties.
 
2013-11-05 11:06:47 AM

swaniefrmreddeer: Funny thing is, most of these people whose insurance has been canceled didn't have health insurance worth a flying f*ck to begin with.


Who the fark are you to determine what's best for someone you don't even farking know?

And then make them pay for it.
 
2013-11-05 11:07:10 AM

swaniefrmreddeer: Elegy: FTFA:He did confess that he and his aides may have made some mistakes, such as failing to manage the development of the Obamacare website.

"We got [Obamacare] done. Now, let's face it, a lot of us didn't realize that passing the law was the easy part."

LOLWUT? What the fark did you think would happen - you'd pass the law and the magical fairies of liberalism would take care of everything else?

Yep, the conservative plan of doing nothing was so much better. Letting people die because they can't afford to go to the doctor is the "Murican way.


Fail.

I said nothing about the conservative alternative, or lack thereof.

Try again.
 
2013-11-05 11:07:50 AM

Flab: bdub77: Here's what it comes down to. Did Obama lie? Yes. Should he admit he lied? Yes.

BUT. The vast majority of Americans do get to keep their health insurance through their employer. Another good percentage of those that buy their own health insurance also get to keep their health insurance. And the ones who don't get to keep their health insurance have better coverage because the other plans didn't meet basic requirements.

But what if they liked paying an insurance company to get no coverage?


Then they are farking morons who really need help.
 
2013-11-05 11:08:30 AM

sprawl15: the fascinating point here is how upset people are that a promise that the government won't take your health insurance plan away from you doesn't extend to insurance companies choosing of their own volition to discontinue people's plans


ELFBAMA LEID
 
2013-11-05 11:08:36 AM
The reality is that the only people who are losing their coverage don't have real insurance. They have absolute bare-bones disaster coverage that does basically nothing unless you are close to death.
 
2013-11-05 11:08:53 AM

sprawl15: the fascinating point here is how upset people are that a promise that the government won't take your health insurance plan away from you doesn't extend to insurance companies choosing of their own volition to discontinue people's plans


I'm sure when schools stopped carrying soda pop in the cafeteria or vending machines, some irresponsible parents were a bit upset.  If they thought this was because of Michele Obama's influence they would be mad as hell.
 
2013-11-05 11:08:59 AM

bdub77: Here's what it comes down to. Did Obama lie? Yes. Should he admit he lied? Yes.

BUT. The vast majority of Americans do get to keep their health insurance through their employer. Another good percentage of those that buy their own health insurance also get to keep their health insurance. And the ones who don't get to keep their health insurance have better coverage because the other plans didn't meet basic requirements.


Agreed. However, if a politician admitted that wouldn't it be like dividing by zero or something? We wouldn't want all life as we know it to end now would we? (This is BSABSVD argument)
 
2013-11-05 11:09:16 AM
"If you *like* your current insurance, you get to keep it."

Are people actually saying that they "like" their crap plans with impossibly high deductibles that are subject to cancellation at the whims of an insurance exec?
 
2013-11-05 11:09:20 AM
That's still fewer than the Republicans have tried to repeal it.
 
2013-11-05 11:09:32 AM

Elegy: FTFA:He did confess that he and his aides may have made some mistakes, such as failing to manage the development of the Obamacare website.

"We got [Obamacare] done. Now, let's face it, a lot of us didn't realize that passing the law was the easy part."

LOLWUT? What the fark did you think would happen - you'd pass the law and the magical fairies of liberalism would take care of everything else?


He rightly understood he would face massive political challenges in the passage of the law, despite having unprecedented majorities in the Congress.  Once the law was passed, he expected most states would act rationally and take vast amounts of federal money to tailor the health care law to their states needs.

See if you can identify his mistake.
 
2013-11-05 11:09:46 AM

steverockson: The party that cheerleaded the Iraq War even as it became apparent that Bush had lied and manipulated intelligence to sell it so he could send thousand to their deaths can go fark themselves.


Uh, the Iraq War killed brown people. Ortegacare kills white people. If you could remove your partisan blinders for just a second, you'd see the difference.
 
2013-11-05 11:09:55 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: swaniefrmreddeer: Funny thing is, most of these people whose insurance has been canceled didn't have health insurance worth a flying f*ck to begin with.

Who the fark are you to determine what's best for someone you don't even farking know?

And then make them pay for it.


The alternative would be if somebody shows up to the hospital suffering from a heart attack, the doctors should do a wallet biopsy and figure out if his insurance covers emergency cardiology care before they pump him full of anticoagulants.
 
2013-11-05 11:10:02 AM
The problem here isn't the ACA, it's insurance companies that have been gouging people for decades, selling people shiat plans.
 
2013-11-05 11:10:02 AM

ManateeGag: They've been yelling impeach since January 21, 2009.


So when's it gonna happen?  Either shiat or get off the pot, guys!
 
2013-11-05 11:10:03 AM

Serious Black: Ronald Reagan said "In this present crisis, government is not the solution to the problem; government is the problem."


How dare you use Saint Reagan's name in the same statement as Ballsack HUSSAIN 0bummerbongo!  You hath sullied His memory.  You must say 5 Hail Nancys and 3 Our Reagans as penance.
 
2013-11-05 11:10:11 AM

bdub77: Here's what it comes down to. Did Obama lie? Yes. Should he admit he lied? Yes.


I don't believe Obama specifically lied about this--as in, "tee hee hee, imma pull the wool over EVERYONE'S eyes".  I just don't think he had the foresight to see the consequences of (a) the DHHS changing certain requirements for insurance plans and (b) the insurance companies having shiatty plans to begin with.  Again, this is one of those instances where his advisers could've done a better job of keeping him up to speed.

Now, should he own up to it, whether a lie, a miscalculation, or whatever?  Sure.  He's the captain of the ship.  He's ultimately responsible.  He needs to explain WHY people aren't able to keep their shiatty insurance, and WHY what he said in the past is no longer (or maybe never was) valid.  Won't make *me* think any less of him.  And maybe it'll take some of the spin on this story and turn it into something useful.
 
2013-11-05 11:10:17 AM

Elegy: FTFA:He did confess that he and his aides may have made some mistakes, such as failing to manage the development of the Obamacare website.

"We got [Obamacare] done. Now, let's face it, a lot of us didn't realize that passing the law was the easy part."

LOLWUT? What the fark did you think would happen - you'd pass the law and the magical fairies of liberalism would take care of everything else?


I thought it was Republicans and Libertarians who believe in the invisible fairy of the free market.
 
2013-11-05 11:10:20 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: swaniefrmreddeer: Funny thing is, most of these people whose insurance has been canceled didn't have health insurance worth a flying f*ck to begin with.

Who the fark are you to determine what's best for someone you don't even farking know?


yeah like what do you know math or something swaniefrmreddeer

i mean who are YOU to say that paying $54/month for $50 in coverage is not financially sound

who are YOU to say that those people are not meaningfully different than the uninsured, forcing significant financial burdens on the rest of the economy by creating costs that must be paid by others

if someone WANTS to leech off society, getting unearned benefits while also being scammed by an insurance company, that's what patriots like sam adams and jim beam died for

who ARE you
 
2013-11-05 11:10:23 AM

Jackson Herring: bdub77: Here's what it comes down to. Did Obama lie? Yes. Should he admit he lied? Yes.

he made a substantially true statement

if you liked the insurance you had in 2009, you could indeed keep regardless of whether it was compliant with the ACA

unless of course your insurance company made major minor changes to the policy, in which case guess what it's not the same policy that you liked in the first place


now it's a true statement
 
2013-11-05 11:10:45 AM

swaniefrmreddeer: Funny thing is, most of these people whose insurance has been canceled didn't have health insurance worth a flying f*ck to begin with.



Funnier is many of them are the same people who aren't so outraged about the lie that got us into a decade long war.
 
2013-11-05 11:10:47 AM
Until he lies us into a war that KILLS, instead of saving, hundreds of thousands of people and cost trillions of dollars, he can lie all he wants.
 
2013-11-05 11:11:01 AM

Elegy: FTFA:He did confess that he and his aides may have made some mistakes, such as failing to manage the development of the Obamacare website.

"We got [Obamacare] done. Now, let's face it, a lot of us didn't realize that passing the law was the easy part."

LOLWUT? What the fark did you think would happen - you'd pass the law and the magical fairies of liberalism would take care of everything else?


I'm sure that what they thought would happen wasn't "the Republicans would use the next few years delaying and refusing to fund the citizen-facing portions of the law and sabatoging the law on a state-by-state basis."

He probably assumed that the Republicans would act like people who actually give a damn about the citizens of the US.

Boy was he wrong.

Additionally. I'm guessing that when those promises were made the administration might not have realized just how many of the insurance policies out there are absolute junk.
 
2013-11-05 11:11:16 AM

Jackson Herring: sprawl15: the fascinating point here is how upset people are that a promise that the government won't take your health insurance plan away from you doesn't extend to insurance companies choosing of their own volition to discontinue people's plans

ELFBAMA LEID


I would say I distrust dark elves on principle, but I don't want to sound racist and/or speciesist.
 
2013-11-05 11:11:17 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: swaniefrmreddeer: Funny thing is, most of these people whose insurance has been canceled didn't have health insurance worth a flying f*ck to begin with.

Who the fark are you to determine what's best for someone you don't even farking know?

And then make them pay for it.


Who the fark are you to not hold individuals to a basic level of personal responsibility? How about you pay for the inevitable emergency room bills for people without insurance, Captain America?
 
2013-11-05 11:11:18 AM
Whatever happened to the classic "X is Obama's Katrina" ?
 
2013-11-05 11:11:25 AM
Obama Lied: A small percentage folk, generally with crappy insurance, will need to get better insurance.
Bush Lied: A smaller percentage of contractors and military folk are dead or maimed all so we could destabilize a country and put it on our credit card.

Obviously both sides are bad
 
2013-11-05 11:11:27 AM
The overwhelming majority of people support the provisions of the ACA when polled about them as issues. Obama says "If you like your health insurance, you can keep it." One would assume that, if your health insurance doesn't cover these overwhelmingly popular provisions, you don't much care for that health insurance. ACA is passed that mandates insurance cover those things. Insurance companies drop the cut-rate, useless insurance plans. People complain that Obama took away their insurance.
 
2013-11-05 11:11:45 AM

Serious Black: The alternative would be if somebody shows up to the hospital suffering from a heart attack, the doctors should do a wallet biopsy and figure out if his insurance covers emergency cardiology care before they pump him full of anticoagulants.


I'll ask you again:

Dancin_In_Anson: Who the fark are you to determine what's best for someone you don't even farking know?

And then make them pay for it.

 
2013-11-05 11:12:01 AM

ox45tallboy: "If you *like* your current insurance, you get to keep it."

Are people actually saying that they "like" their crap plans with impossibly high deductibles that are subject to cancellation at the whims of an insurance exec?


They only like them because they haven't had the opportunity to find out just how truly heinously awful their insurance plan is. Curse of deferred judgment.
 
2013-11-05 11:12:16 AM

bdub77: Here's what it comes down to. Did Obama lie? YesNo. Should he admit he lied? YesN/A.

BUT. The vast majority of Americans do get to keep their health insurance through their employer. Another good percentage of those that buy their own health insurance also get to keep their health insurance. And the ones who don't get to keep their health insurance have better coverage because the other plans didn't meet basic requirements.


Obama didn't say that your insurance company would continue offering your policy.  The insurance companies chose to eliminate legacy policies for their own reasons.
 
2013-11-05 11:12:18 AM

Elegy: Fail.

I said nothing about the conservative alternative, or lack thereof.

Try again.


because people from the republican party have offered no real alternative they really should stfu about the whole program though. They can take potshots from the sidelines and monday morning quarterback, but don't be surprised when people respond by calling out the fact that there are no alternatives offered and effectively blow off the criticism dejour.
 
2013-11-05 11:13:21 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: swaniefrmreddeer: Funny thing is, most of these people whose insurance has been canceled didn't have health insurance worth a flying f*ck to begin with.

Who the fark are you to determine what's best for someone you don't even farking know?

And then make them pay for it.


When they're women
 
2013-11-05 11:13:36 AM
Tucker Carlson won't be getting any clicks from me, so I don't know what the derp they're talking about, but the President was just talking about saying it last night.
 
2013-11-05 11:13:46 AM
andrewjpatrick.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-11-05 11:14:02 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Serious Black: The alternative would be if somebody shows up to the hospital suffering from a heart attack, the doctors should do a wallet biopsy and figure out if his insurance covers emergency cardiology care before they pump him full of anticoagulants.

I'll ask you again: Dancin_In_Anson: Who the fark are you to determine what's best for someone you don't even farking know?

And then make them pay for it.


Who the fark am I? I'm the guy paying tons of money in taxes and tons more money in increased insurance premiums because they made a short-sighted decision not to get insurance coverage for some life-saving treatment and then stuck me with the bill!
 
2013-11-05 11:14:05 AM
The problem with these junk policies that these people "like" is that they don't cover basic things like preventive care and chemo if you get cancer. Can you see how that might be a problem for society at large?
 
2013-11-05 11:14:16 AM

wingnut396: Obama Lied: A small percentage folk, generally with crappy insurance, will need to get better insurance.
Bush Lied: A smaller percentage of contractors and military folk are dead or maimed all so we could destabilize a country and put it on our credit card.

Obviously both sides are bad


Unfortunately "Obama lied, people had to get insurance policies that were worth more than the paper they were printed on" doesn't make a good sign.
 
2013-11-05 11:14:25 AM
this is obama's "i didn't have sex with that woman" moment, which will live in infamy.
 
2013-11-05 11:14:27 AM
FACT: Every single person complaining about this lie is unaffected by it in the slightest
 
2013-11-05 11:14:31 AM

Elegy: FTFA:He did confess that he and his aides may have made some mistakes, such as failing to manage the development of the Obamacare website.

"We got [Obamacare] done. Now, let's face it, a lot of us didn't realize that passing the law was the easy part."

LOLWUT? What the fark did you think would happen - you'd pass the law and the magical fairies of liberalism would take care of everything else?


This is the Heritage Foundation's plan.  There is nothing "liberal" about it.
 
2013-11-05 11:14:54 AM
I would like to hear the Republican healthcare alternative that doesn't involve letting poor people die.
 
2013-11-05 11:15:00 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Dancin_In_Anson: Who the fark are you to determine what's best for someone you don't even farking know?

And then make them pay for it.


"who" being the people of America who elected the people who made the laws and then re-elected them.
 
2013-11-05 11:15:05 AM
 
2013-11-05 11:15:12 AM

steverockson: The party that cheerleaded the Iraq War even as it became apparent that Bush had lied and manipulated intelligence to sell it so he could send thousand to their deaths can go fark themselves.


I wondered how long it would take for the "B..B..But Bush..." to start. LOL
 
2013-11-05 11:15:16 AM

ox45tallboy: "If you *like* your current insurance, you get to keep it."

Are people actually saying that they "like" their crap plans with impossibly high deductibles that are subject to cancellation at the whims of an insurance exec?


Some people claim to like Justin Bieber. I don't understand them, either.
 
2013-11-05 11:15:38 AM
I don't think it was a lie, so much as it was an, "Oops, didn't see THAT coming."
 
2013-11-05 11:16:07 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: swaniefrmreddeer: Funny thing is, most of these people whose insurance has been canceled didn't have health insurance worth a flying f*ck to begin with.

Who the fark are you to determine what's best for someone you don't even farking know?

And then make them pay for it.


Are you me? I hate things and I hate paying. If there's one thing I hate more than things and paying, it's having to pay for things. And the Dutch.
 
2013-11-05 11:16:24 AM
Obama lied, nobody died...
 
2013-11-05 11:16:52 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: swaniefrmreddeer: Funny thing is, most of these people whose insurance has been canceled didn't have health insurance worth a flying f*ck to begin with.

Who the fark are you to determine what's best for someone you don't even farking know?

And then make them pay for it.


Because everyone else has to pick up the slack because you bought a shaitty policy and defaulted on the deductible.
 
2013-11-05 11:17:32 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: swaniefrmreddeer: Funny thing is, most of these people whose insurance has been canceled didn't have health insurance worth a flying f*ck to begin with.

Who the fark are you to determine what's best for someone you don't even farking know?

And then make them pay for it.


You're absolutely right.  Also, why am I not allowed to buy spoiled meat?  It would be a lot cheaper.  Why is the government forcing me to buy filet mignon?
 
2013-11-05 11:17:40 AM
he had to lie.  the ACA would never have passed if people knew that millions would be losing their insurance.

the end justifies the means.
 
2013-11-05 11:17:41 AM

Stile4aly: Elegy: FTFA:He did confess that he and his aides may have made some mistakes, such as failing to manage the development of the Obamacare website.

"We got [Obamacare] done. Now, let's face it, a lot of us didn't realize that passing the law was the easy part."

LOLWUT? What the fark did you think would happen - you'd pass the law and the magical fairies of liberalism would take care of everything else?

He rightly understood he would face massive political challenges in the passage of the law, despite having unprecedented majorities in the Congress.  Once the law was passed, he expected most states would act rationally and take vast amounts of federal money to tailor the health care law to their states needs.

See if you can identify his mistake.


His mistake was thinking the magical fairies of liberalism would take care of everything, over the stiff and vigorous opposition of the opposing party?
 
2013-11-05 11:17:48 AM

Print'sNotDead: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/11/obama-ha s -lied-to-american-people-says-lying-expert.html


Laughter OL
 
2013-11-05 11:17:55 AM

Cozret: Whatever happened to the classic "X is Obama's Katrina" ?


Benghazi.
 
2013-11-05 11:18:23 AM

wingnut396: Obama Lied: A small percentage folk, generally with crappy insurance, will need to get better insurance.
Bush Lied: A smaller percentage of contractors and military folk are dead or maimed all so we could destabilize a country and put it on our credit card.

Obviously both sides are bad


"Obama - Hey, at least I'm better than Bush!"

He should have run on that. Come to think of it, he did.
 
2013-11-05 11:18:26 AM
Also, its hilarious that the same people who are outraged because "Who the fark are you to determine what's best for people" want CCTVs set up in women's wombs to make sure there's no funny business going on
 
2013-11-05 11:18:29 AM
You lost, get over it.
 
2013-11-05 11:18:33 AM

colon_pow: this is obama's "i didn't have sex with that woman" moment, which will live in infamy.


Here's a list of 301 Obama scandals that will never be forgotten.  I mean, that people have already forgotten.

http://obamascandalslist.blogspot.ca/
 
2013-11-05 11:19:00 AM
itt: raging right wing idiots angry at liberals because liberals want to stop uninsured or horribly insured people from mooching free health care at the expense of hard working middle class real americans and their white daughters
 
2013-11-05 11:19:00 AM
Hmm, lets see if I have this straight. Lie that you can keep your own insurance, even though that's a simplification is BAD (I agree). Lies about death panels, rationing of medical care, congress is exempt, free healthcare for all/including illegals, businesses will have to fire everyone/more part time workers, etc. Those are still good though right?

Honestly, I'd love for both sides to stop lying and you know do their job but its sort of what politicians do.
 
2013-11-05 11:19:51 AM
Does anyone else find the Fark Politics tab most enjoyable when the Obama faithful are faced with making excuses for "their guy"?

So efficiently ruthless in cutting down the other guys, but when it's the home team, completely different story.

"Yeah, well doesn't matter...'cause those existing plans were crap anyway!"

"The author of that article and/or the organization that published it aren't credible!"

"At least we had a plan!"

So, so sweet.
 
2013-11-05 11:19:53 AM

djkutch: Who the fark are you to not hold individuals to a basic level of personal responsibility?


Like letting them make their own decisions and living with the consequences?
 
2013-11-05 11:20:01 AM

CPennypacker: FACT: Every single person complaining about this lie is unaffected by it in the slightest


What about those of us who don't care about the lie but enjoy watching people pretend it wasn't who aren't affected by it in the slightest? We're people too, dammit!
 
2013-11-05 11:20:04 AM

Elegy: Stile4aly: Elegy: FTFA:He did confess that he and his aides may have made some mistakes, such as failing to manage the development of the Obamacare website.

"We got [Obamacare] done. Now, let's face it, a lot of us didn't realize that passing the law was the easy part."

LOLWUT? What the fark did you think would happen - you'd pass the law and the magical fairies of liberalism would take care of everything else?

He rightly understood he would face massive political challenges in the passage of the law, despite having unprecedented majorities in the Congress.  Once the law was passed, he expected most states would act rationally and take vast amounts of federal money to tailor the health care law to their states needs.

See if you can identify his mistake.

His mistake was thinking the magical fairies of liberalism would take care of everything, over the stiff and vigorous opposition of the opposing party?


That's actually kind of how it's going, but there is no magic involved.
 
2013-11-05 11:20:13 AM

Kuroshin: The insurance companies chose to eliminate legacy policies for their own reasons.


Yeah, like they don't comply to all the requirements of the ACA.  Hence they need to be cancelled and replaced with something else.

My awesome policy was replaced with a middle of the road policy for $60/mo more.
 
2013-11-05 11:20:33 AM

crab66: The reality is that the only people who are losing their coverage don't have real insurance. They have absolute bare-bones disaster coverage that does basically nothing unless you are close to death.


You know that plans ceased to be compliant (and thus needed to be changed, and thus could no longer be kept) if they failed to provide prevailing drug coverage, right?  Which was a complete sop to Big Pharma?  So your cheap plan might've been cheap because it restricted you to generics, but now you've got to go on a "compliant" plan that's more expensive so you can continue to support Merck and Pfizer.  Yay.  I can see why the intellectual heirs of Jack Kerouac are so excited to support this governmental largesse to major donors corporations.

The basic details, about which you seem blissfully unaware, are just as clear cut.  I love it that a plan with a $10k deductible is the spawn of Satan, but Obamacare's run-of-the-mill "bronze" plans commonly have $6-7k deductibles, and that makes them just aces.  No need to examine what the premiums are:  what don't you understand about the fact that the new policies are BETTER!

But hey, your brother's unexpected pregnancy or your aunt's prostate problems will be covered once you meet the deductibles, and subject to the 30-40% co-insurance requirement, so there's that.  Must be money well spent.
 
2013-11-05 11:20:34 AM
ObamaCare's good side (kids get covered till 25, pre-conditions) are ok by me.  But now the folks are tasting the bad side (higher premiums and cancelled policies).   Its not likely the back end of this law will stand.
 
2013-11-05 11:20:59 AM

Serious Black: I'm the guy paying tons of money in taxes and tons more money in increased insurance premiums because they made a short-sighted decision not to get insurance coverage for some life-saving treatment and then stuck me with the bill!


That's what you get for thinking that you have to be responsible for someone else's shiatty decisions.
 
2013-11-05 11:21:05 AM

CPennypacker: Also, its hilarious that the same people who are outraged because "Who the fark are you to determine what's best for people" want CCTVs set up in women's wombs to make sure there's no funny business going on


And want to reform Medicare to force people over 65 to buy insurance plans from private companies or give up outrageously huge benefits.
 
2013-11-05 11:21:22 AM

InmanRoshi: [a5.img.talkingpointsmemo.com image 652x365]


That chart is missing the clear loser, those who believe in faith healing and other junk who are now forced to buy insurance that covers actual medicine. //Of course exceptions can be had but it requires paperwork, another thing in which many don't believe in.
 
2013-11-05 11:21:30 AM

CPennypacker: Also, its hilarious that the same people who are outraged because "Who the fark are you to determine what's best for people" want CCTVs set up in women's wombs to make sure there's no funny business going on


I'd settle for CCTV set up in women's locker rooms. Why won't you compromise, liebrul?
 
2013-11-05 11:21:48 AM

Elegy: Stile4aly: Elegy: FTFA:He did confess that he and his aides may have made some mistakes, such as failing to manage the development of the Obamacare website.

"We got [Obamacare] done. Now, let's face it, a lot of us didn't realize that passing the law was the easy part."

LOLWUT? What the fark did you think would happen - you'd pass the law and the magical fairies of liberalism would take care of everything else?

He rightly understood he would face massive political challenges in the passage of the law, despite having unprecedented majorities in the Congress.  Once the law was passed, he expected most states would act rationally and take vast amounts of federal money to tailor the health care law to their states needs.

See if you can identify his mistake.

His mistake was thinking the magical fairies of liberalism would take care of everything, over the stiff and vigorous opposition of the opposing party?


Yup he failed to see that conservatives are petulant children.
 
2013-11-05 11:21:51 AM

Elegy: Stile4aly: Elegy: FTFA:He did confess that he and his aides may have made some mistakes, such as failing to manage the development of the Obamacare website.

"We got [Obamacare] done. Now, let's face it, a lot of us didn't realize that passing the law was the easy part."

LOLWUT? What the fark did you think would happen - you'd pass the law and the magical fairies of liberalism would take care of everything else?

He rightly understood he would face massive political challenges in the passage of the law, despite having unprecedented majorities in the Congress.  Once the law was passed, he expected most states would act rationally and take vast amounts of federal money to tailor the health care law to their states needs.

See if you can identify his mistake.

His mistake was thinking the magical fairies of liberalism would take care of everything, over the stiff and vigorous opposition of the opposing party?


Oh, I'm sorry.  The correct answer was expecting the states, particularly Republican states, to act rationally.

The federal exchange website has technical issues which makes it the first complex tech project in history to have defects.  The exchange sites which were built at the state level are working great.
 
2013-11-05 11:22:21 AM

Jackson Herring: sprawl15: the fascinating point here is how upset people are that a promise that the government won't take your health insurance plan away from you doesn't extend to insurance companies choosing of their own volition to discontinue people's plans

ELFBAMA LEID


Needs more fat dog.
 
2013-11-05 11:22:27 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: djkutch: Who the fark are you to not hold individuals to a basic level of personal responsibility?

Like letting them make their own decisions and living with the consequences?


They can still make their own decisions. They cannot decide to purchase things that aren't offered, though. That's not how reality works.
 
2013-11-05 11:22:52 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Serious Black: I'm the guy paying tons of money in taxes and tons more money in increased insurance premiums because they made a short-sighted decision not to get insurance coverage for some life-saving treatment and then stuck me with the bill!

That's what you get for thinking that you have to be responsible for someone else's shiatty decisions.


so is this you on record saying you want uninsured/underinsured people to just go off somewhere and die
 
2013-11-05 11:23:01 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: djkutch: Who the fark are you to not hold individuals to a basic level of personal responsibility?

Like letting them make their own decisions and living with the consequences?


You forgot to mention if you were going to pay the ER bills for people without insurance.

I'd pitch in for you. On the other hand, you are the perfect example of a compassionate conservative.
 
2013-11-05 11:23:02 AM

CPennypacker: Every single person complaining about this lie is unaffected by it in the slightest


Really?  Do you know my situation?  Look above for my 'unaffected' insurance policy.

You need to change your handle to 'Bagdad Bob'.  Maybe I'll just farkie you as such.
 
2013-11-05 11:23:08 AM
fark off, nut dick
 
2013-11-05 11:23:23 AM

sprawl15: the fascinating point here is how upset people are that a promise that the government won't take your health insurance plan away from you doesn't extend to insurance companies choosing of their own volition to discontinue people's plans


you should have posted this in a larger font - in bold - underlined
twice
 
2013-11-05 11:24:12 AM

HotWingConspiracy: You lost, get over it.


You know what it's called when you get something by lying in order to deliberately manipulate someone else into giving it to you?

Seriously, just for a second escape your echo chamber and ask yourself how you'd react if the insurance companies had made these promises directly to consumers, and then revealed that they knew that for 5-10% of people, it was simply untrue.
 
2013-11-05 11:24:29 AM

Elegy: Stile4aly: Elegy: FTFA:He did confess that he and his aides may have made some mistakes, such as failing to manage the development of the Obamacare website.

"We got [Obamacare] done. Now, let's face it, a lot of us didn't realize that passing the law was the easy part."

LOLWUT? What the fark did you think would happen - you'd pass the law and the magical fairies of liberalism would take care of everything else?

He rightly understood he would face massive political challenges in the passage of the law, despite having unprecedented majorities in the Congress.  Once the law was passed, he expected most states would act rationally and take vast amounts of federal money to tailor the health care law to their states needs.

See if you can identify his mistake.

His mistake was thinking the magical fairies of liberalism would take care of everything, over the stiff and vigorous opposition of the opposing party?


So you're arguing that the "magical fairies of liberalism" equates to "act rationally"

Good to know, good to know.
 
2013-11-05 11:24:45 AM

Serious Black: Dancin_In_Anson: swaniefrmreddeer: Funny thing is, most of these people whose insurance has been canceled didn't have health insurance worth a flying f*ck to begin with.

Who the fark are you to determine what's best for someone you don't even farking know?

And then make them pay for it.

The alternative would be if somebody shows up to the hospital suffering from a heart attack, the doctors should do a wallet biopsy and figure out if his insurance covers emergency cardiology care before they pump him full of anticoagulants.


How dare those doctors determine what's best for someone they don't even farking know? And then make them (or someone else) pay for it.
 
2013-11-05 11:24:56 AM

Stile4aly: Why is the government forcing me to buy filet mignon?


they're not even making you buy filet mignon.  you can get chopped meat, you just can't get the chopped meat with worms in it and mold covering it.
 
2013-11-05 11:25:07 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Dancin_In_Anson: djkutch: Who the fark are you to not hold individuals to a basic level of personal responsibility?

Like letting them make their own decisions and living with the consequences?

They can still make their own decisions. They cannot decide to purchase things that aren't offered, though. That's not how reality works.


assets.diylol.com
 
2013-11-05 11:25:09 AM

sprawl15: so is this you on record saying you want uninsured/underinsured people to just go off somewhere and die


And people say there's no Republican alternative
 
2013-11-05 11:26:03 AM

BunkoSquad: sprawl15: so is this you on record saying you want uninsured/underinsured people to just go off somewhere and die

And people say there's no Republican alternative


antibiotics aren't in the constitution

audit the fed
 
2013-11-05 11:26:35 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Serious Black: I'm the guy paying tons of money in taxes and tons more money in increased insurance premiums because they made a short-sighted decision not to get insurance coverage for some life-saving treatment and then stuck me with the bill!

That's what you get for thinking that you have to be responsible for someone else's shiatty decisions.


I think all human beings have dignity. I think all human beings deserve the right to live, including the statutory right to basic health care that will save their life and promote their well-being. Even the exceptionally uncharitable and the short-sighted.
 
2013-11-05 11:26:36 AM

Garet Garrett: HotWingConspiracy: You lost, get over it.

You know what it's called when you get something by lying in order to deliberately manipulate someone else into giving it to you?


Success?

Seriously, just for a second escape your echo chamber and ask yourself how you'd react if the insurance companies had made these promises directly to consumers, and then revealed that they knew that for 5-10% of people, it was simply untrue.

That would have been preferable to their business practices prior to ACA reforms.
 
2013-11-05 11:27:52 AM

Garet Garrett: HotWingConspiracy: You lost, get over it.

You know what it's called when you get something by lying in order to deliberately manipulate someone else into giving it to you?

Seriously, just for a second escape your echo chamber and ask yourself how you'd react if the insurance companies had made these promises directly to consumers, and then revealed that they knew that for 5-10% of people, it was simply untrue.


You mean like the insurance companies do already?
 
2013-11-05 11:28:55 AM

Stile4aly: Elegy: Stile4aly: Elegy: FTFA:He did confess that he and his aides may have made some mistakes, such as failing to manage the development of the Obamacare website.

"We got [Obamacare] done. Now, let's face it, a lot of us didn't realize that passing the law was the easy part."

LOLWUT? What the fark did you think would happen - you'd pass the law and the magical fairies of liberalism would take care of everything else?

He rightly understood he would face massive political challenges in the passage of the law, despite having unprecedented majorities in the Congress.  Once the law was passed, he expected most states would act rationally and take vast amounts of federal money to tailor the health care law to their states needs.

See if you can identify his mistake.

His mistake was thinking the magical fairies of liberalism would take care of everything, over the stiff and vigorous opposition of the opposing party?

Oh, I'm sorry.  The correct answer was expecting the states, particularly Republican states, to act rationally.

The federal exchange website has technical issues which makes it the first complex tech project in history to have defects.  The exchange sites which were built at the state level are working great.


Ah, I see.

You're mad because republicans played by the rules.

The rules Obama himself established in his signature piece of legislation that his administration put forward, got passed, and signed into law.
 
2013-11-05 11:28:56 AM

bdub77: Here's what it comes down to. Did Obama lie? Yes. Should he admit he lied? Yes.

BUT. The vast majority of Americans do get to keep their health insurance through their employer. Another good percentage of those that buy their own health insurance also get to keep their health insurance. And the ones who don't get to keep their health insurance have better coverage because the other plans didn't meet basic requirements.


I think this is only due to the employer insurance plan being delayed for a year. You can't see the total effect of Obamacare on businesses until they have to actually participate in the program.
 
2013-11-05 11:29:26 AM

sprawl15: the fascinating point here is how upset people are that a promise that the government won't take your health insurance plan away from you doesn't extend to insurance companies choosing of their own volition to discontinue people's plans


Yep, this is a farking case study in goddam semantics.
 
2013-11-05 11:29:30 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: djkutch: Who the fark are you to not hold individuals to a basic level of personal responsibility?

Like letting them make their own decisions and living with the consequences?


What exactly do you think happens when someone doesn't pay a hospital bill?
 
2013-11-05 11:29:56 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Who the fark are you to determine what's best for someone you don't even farking know?

And then make them pay for it.


since you put it that way, who are you to tell a woman that she needs to have a medical procedure before having a different medical procedure?

Are you going to pay for that?  they aren't farking free you know.
 
2013-11-05 11:30:39 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: djkutch: Who the fark are you to not hold individuals to a basic level of personal responsibility?

Like letting them make their own decisions and living with the consequences?


you mean like when it comes to abortion and birth control?
 
2013-11-05 11:31:14 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: djkutch: Who the fark are you to not hold individuals to a basic level of personal responsibility?

Like letting them make their own decisions and living with the consequences?


Except the status quo (which Republicans advocate) is that taxpayers pay for people who have shiatty insurance and can't pay their bills....


If the taxpayer is going to pay for healtcare anyway, I rather not pay for the least effective and most expensive healthcare available.
 
2013-11-05 11:31:24 AM

Stile4aly: Elegy: FTFA:He did confess that he and his aides may have made some mistakes, such as failing to manage the development of the Obamacare website.

"We got [Obamacare] done. Now, let's face it, a lot of us didn't realize that passing the law was the easy part."

LOLWUT? What the fark did you think would happen - you'd pass the law and the magical fairies of liberalism would take care of everything else?

He rightly understood he would face massive political challenges in the passage of the law, despite having unprecedented majorities in the Congress.  Once the law was passed, he expected most states would act rationally and take vast amounts of federal money to tailor the health care law to their states needs.

See if you can identify his mistake.


He's a Democrat.
He's black.
 
2013-11-05 11:31:57 AM

vonster: steverockson: The party that cheerleaded the Iraq War even as it became apparent that Bush had lied and manipulated intelligence to sell it so he could send thousand to their deaths can go fark themselves.

I wondered how long it would take for the "B..B..But Bush..." to start. LOL


I realize that you delicate flowers don't like to have your hypocrisy pointed out but somebody had to do it.
 
2013-11-05 11:32:02 AM

ManateeGag: Stile4aly: Why is the government forcing me to buy filet mignon?

they're not even making you buy filet mignon.  you can get chopped meat, you just can't get the chopped meat with worms in it and mold covering it.


Maybe I like red mold, and worms are full of protein.  But here I am, unable to buy the meat of my choice.  My butcher sent me a letter saying he would no longer be allowed to offer me spoiled meat, but has signed me up for his filet mignon plan.
 
2013-11-05 11:32:04 AM

crab66: The reality is that the only people who are losing their coverage don't have real insurance. They have absolute bare-bones disaster coverage that does basically nothing unless you are close to death.


This will be the OTHER reality

As this becomes more apparent (and it will the more the administration is forced to say this) the Republicans will have lost this talking point.
It may eventually be understood that, yes, the Republicans shut down the government in order to allow a segment of the population the "right" to overpay for nothing - and that they also, on a state-by-state case, worked actively to deny people coverage once they WERE dropped. There may come a day when some of the more savvy Americans understand some insurance companies were (gasp) interested in making profits rather than health care.

I am not happy with the web site, not happy with the misunderstanding of how many people would be dropped BY INSURANCE carriers, not happy that POTUS hasn't just addressed the nation - but I can't label him a liar-on-purpose about this

frankly? i know where the bear shiat in the woods on this and am over FARK greenlights allowing posters to go "look! watch while I fling MORE urisne poo!"

it's getting tiresome - no more clicks from me about the ACA -
 
2013-11-05 11:32:16 AM
Seriously, just for a second escape your echo chamber and ask yourself how you'd react if the insurance companies had made these promises directly to consumers, and then revealed that they knew that for 5-10% of people, it was simply untrue.

and here is the big lie again

in reality, if you had a plan prior to 2010 that you liked, it was and still is grandfathered in even if it doesn't meet the standards of the ACA

the government has no control over whether your shiatty insurance company changed your farking plan so that it could no longer be grandfathered in
 
2013-11-05 11:32:44 AM

Elegy: Ah, I see.

You're mad because republicans played by the rules.

The rules Obama himself established in his signature piece of legislation that his administration put forward, got passed, and signed into law.


"Play by the rules" now means farking over your constituents to score political points.

Got it.
 
2013-11-05 11:32:58 AM
By the way, where was all the right-wing fauxrage when insurance companies were cancelling peoples policies arbitrarily and denying benefits for the last 70 years?
 
2013-11-05 11:33:00 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Serious Black: The alternative would be if somebody shows up to the hospital suffering from a heart attack, the doctors should do a wallet biopsy and figure out if his insurance covers emergency cardiology care before they pump him full of anticoagulants.

I'll ask you again: Dancin_In_Anson: Who the fark are you to determine what's best for someone you don't even farking know?

And then make them pay for it.




You sound angry. That's funny.
 
2013-11-05 11:33:21 AM

Elegy: Stile4aly: Elegy: Stile4aly: Elegy: FTFA:He did confess that he and his aides may have made some mistakes, such as failing to manage the development of the Obamacare website.

"We got [Obamacare] done. Now, let's face it, a lot of us didn't realize that passing the law was the easy part."

LOLWUT? What the fark did you think would happen - you'd pass the law and the magical fairies of liberalism would take care of everything else?

He rightly understood he would face massive political challenges in the passage of the law, despite having unprecedented majorities in the Congress.  Once the law was passed, he expected most states would act rationally and take vast amounts of federal money to tailor the health care law to their states needs.

See if you can identify his mistake.

His mistake was thinking the magical fairies of liberalism would take care of everything, over the stiff and vigorous opposition of the opposing party?

Oh, I'm sorry.  The correct answer was expecting the states, particularly Republican states, to act rationally.

The federal exchange website has technical issues which makes it the first complex tech project in history to have defects.  The exchange sites which were built at the state level are working great.

Ah, I see.

You're mad because republicans played by the rules.

The rules Obama himself established in his signature piece of legislation that his administration put forward, got passed, and signed into law.


The original legislation approved by the House would have established a single national exchange with a single set of federal insurance regulations. The original legislation moved forward by the Senate would have done the same. Democratic Senators from Republican states, other Republican Senators, and Republican Governors demanded the exchanges and regulations be devolved to the states in exchange for their support. They then welched on the deal by making the federal government establish their exchanges for them and implement their state's insurance regulations, complicating the task by several factors.
 
2013-11-05 11:34:08 AM

scottymac: Does anyone else find the Fark Politics tab most enjoyable when the Obama faithful are faced with making excuses for "their guy"?

So efficiently ruthless in cutting down the other guys, but when it's the home team, completely different story.

"Yeah, well doesn't matter...'cause those existing plans were crap anyway!"

"The author of that article and/or the organization that published it aren't credible!"

"At least we had a plan!"

So, so sweet.


I voted for Obama twice, something I don't regret considering Bomb Bomb McCain and 47 percent/Binders of Women Romney but that doesn't mean I am faithful to him in anyway when he doesn't do shiat. Indeed, I even disagree with him on several points (GASP). I think Plan B should be sold over the counter, I think we should stop droning everyone to death without any accountability, and I think the NSA should stop spying on everyone (though, the last one isn't entirely his fault considering its a continuation of what past presidents/congress have been doing more or less).

Anyway, I guess my point is what sickens me more than anything about politics is the game that Republicans and Democrats play. Your side won points, yay, you're cheering from the sideline as the bleachers are on fire. Hell, at least your side won some points! That made you feel good! Meanwhile the place is burning around you, and we'd all rather die than work together to put out the fire. No points to be won in that eh?

Now, keep in mind I think the Republicans are full of shiat in a general sense. So if I criticize them more its because their anti-government stance is a lot more problematic than the Democrats general incompetence. Especially if you know, you want the government to run and do its farking job. Either way I am so sick and tired of this "my side" "your side" shiat. Can't we just be you know Americans, and work together like George Washington would of wanted?
 
2013-11-05 11:34:34 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: swaniefrmreddeer: Funny thing is, most of these people whose insurance has been canceled didn't have health insurance worth a flying f*ck to begin with.

Who the fark are you to determine what's best for someone you don't even farking know?

And then make them pay for it.


Everytime that moron goes to the emergency room, he's making ME pay for it. fark him, and fark you.
 
2013-11-05 11:34:52 AM

HeadLever: CPennypacker: Every single person complaining about this lie is unaffected by it in the slightest

Really?  Do you know my situation?  Look above for my 'unaffected' insurance policy.

You need to change your handle to 'Bagdad Bob'.  Maybe I'll just farkie you as such.


I mean the rich people talking about it on TV like they  lost their catastrophic plan and now can't afford rice
 
2013-11-05 11:35:09 AM

Garet Garrett: HotWingConspiracy: You lost, get over it.

You know what it's called when you get something by lying in order to deliberately manipulate someone else into giving it to you?

Seriously, just for a second escape your echo chamber and ask yourself how you'd react if the insurance companies had made these promises directly to consumers, and then revealed that they knew that for 5-10% of people, it was simply untrue.


Are you completely blind to the irony of the question you just asked?

The people losing insurance were largely people who had insurance in name only, that provided little to no coverage. These people may think they were getting a good deal, but I have yet to hear a single anecdote from someone who is losing COVERAGE that they were satisfied with.
 
2013-11-05 11:35:11 AM

steverockson: By the way, where was all the right-wing fauxrage when insurance companies were cancelling peoples policies arbitrarily and denying benefits for the last 70 years?


Get this - they say that was all ok because "buyer beware" and "you can take your business elsewhere if you don't like it". Questions regarding pre-existing conditions are met with a shrug and a suggestion to join a church.

It's like talking to a retard that is just smart enough to be cruel.
 
2013-11-05 11:35:25 AM

bartink: Elegy: Ah, I see.

You're mad because republicans played by the rules.

The rules Obama himself established in his signature piece of legislation that his administration put forward, got passed, and signed into law.

"Play by the rules" now means farking over your constituents to score political points.

Got it.


Also Obama established rules that date back to the 70's? There's that time machine again.
 
2013-11-05 11:35:56 AM

bartink: Elegy: Ah, I see.

You're mad because republicans played by the rules.

The rules Obama himself established in his signature piece of legislation that his administration put forward, got passed, and signed into law.

"Play by the rules" now means farking over your constituents to score political points.

Got it.


That doesn't even make sense

By simple logic, republican representatives were elected by the proportion of people that (largely) do not want to see the ACA enacted.

Opposing the implementation of the ACA would therefore be doing exactly what your constituents elected you to do.
 
2013-11-05 11:36:12 AM

InmanRoshi: [a5.img.talkingpointsmemo.com image 652x365]


Unaffected = huge rate increase
 
2013-11-05 11:36:39 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: djkutch: Who the fark are you to not hold individuals to a basic level of personal responsibility?

Like letting them make their own decisions and living with the consequences?


i739.photobucket.com

And yet Republicans got all offended when this logic was explored as policy.
 
2013-11-05 11:36:43 AM

Mikey1969: sprawl15: the fascinating point here is how upset people are that a promise that the government won't take your health insurance plan away from you doesn't extend to insurance companies choosing of their own volition to discontinue people's plans

Yep, this is a farking case study in goddam semantics.


Not really
 
2013-11-05 11:36:59 AM

HotWingConspiracy: steverockson: By the way, where was all the right-wing fauxrage when insurance companies were cancelling peoples policies arbitrarily and denying benefits for the last 70 years?

Get this - they say that was all ok because "buyer beware" and "you can take your business elsewhere if you don't like it". Questions regarding pre-existing conditions are met with a shrug and a suggestion to join a church.

It's like talking to a retard that is just smart enough to be cruel.


Exactly.
 
2013-11-05 11:37:09 AM

Elegy: bartink: Elegy: Ah, I see.

You're mad because republicans played by the rules.

The rules Obama himself established in his signature piece of legislation that his administration put forward, got passed, and signed into law.

"Play by the rules" now means farking over your constituents to score political points.

Got it.

That doesn't even make sense

By simple logic, republican representatives were elected by the proportion of people that (largely) do not want to see the ACA enacted.

Opposing the implementation of the ACA would therefore be doing exactly what your constituents elected you to do.


They told their stupid constituents that its what they wanted. It has nothing to do with whats actually best for them.
 
2013-11-05 11:37:30 AM

DROxINxTHExWIND: I don't think it was a lie, so much as it was an, "Oops, didn't see THAT coming."


Exactly.
 
2013-11-05 11:38:43 AM

sprawl15: so is this you on record saying you want uninsured/underinsured people to just go off somewhere and die


Nope. Try again, slugger.

ManateeGag: since you put it that way, who are you to tell a woman that she needs to have a medical procedure before having a different medical procedure?


I don't have any say in what kind of procedure anyone should have done and I think the laws to which you refer that have been put into place are complete and total bullshiat.

ManateeGag: you mean like when it comes to abortion and birth control?


Yep. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Aldon: If the taxpayer is going to pay for healtcare anyway,


Well, there's your problem.
 
2013-11-05 11:39:03 AM

Elegy: Stile4aly: Elegy: Stile4aly: Elegy: FTFA:He did confess that he and his aides may have made some mistakes, such as failing to manage the development of the Obamacare website.

"We got [Obamacare] done. Now, let's face it, a lot of us didn't realize that passing the law was the easy part."

LOLWUT? What the fark did you think would happen - you'd pass the law and the magical fairies of liberalism would take care of everything else?

He rightly understood he would face massive political challenges in the passage of the law, despite having unprecedented majorities in the Congress.  Once the law was passed, he expected most states would act rationally and take vast amounts of federal money to tailor the health care law to their states needs.

See if you can identify his mistake.

His mistake was thinking the magical fairies of liberalism would take care of everything, over the stiff and vigorous opposition of the opposing party?

Oh, I'm sorry.  The correct answer was expecting the states, particularly Republican states, to act rationally.

The federal exchange website has technical issues which makes it the first complex tech project in history to have defects.  The exchange sites which were built at the state level are working great.

Ah, I see.

You're mad because republicans played by the rules.

The rules Obama himself established in his signature piece of legislation that his administration put forward, got passed, and signed into law.


Obama passed a relatively mild version of health reform and the Republicans spent 4 years shiatting themselves.  Now they're complaining that things smell bad and their pants feel strangely full.  I'm not mad, I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy.
 
2013-11-05 11:40:02 AM
The Republican plan is the stupidest most expensive kind of Socialized medicine...ER care. Get sick? Just go to the ER, no problem!

Big problem, hospitals write off millions every month in uncollected claims. That's why a band-aid at the hospital costs $20. The more people we get insured, the more people go to their private physicians, get preventative care, the less people show up at the ER for routine treatment or with massive medical emergencies that could have been prevented with a few dollars a month in preventative care.
 
2013-11-05 11:40:17 AM

xanadian: DROxINxTHExWIND: I don't think it was a lie, so much as it was an, "Oops, didn't see THAT coming."

Exactly.


Though I fault him more for thinking that the insurance companies would behave ethically and honestly rather than trying to rape their customers one last more time.  Also he couldn't have predicted the Supreme Court saying the states don't have to expand their Medicare.
 
2013-11-05 11:40:18 AM

Madbassist1: Everytime that moron goes to the emergency room, he's making ME pay for it fark him, and fark you.


No, you have taken it upon yourself that you are responsible so go fark yourself.
 
2013-11-05 11:40:57 AM

Elegy: By simple logic, republican representatives were elected by the proportion of people that (largely) do not want to see the ACA enacted.

Opposing the implementation of the ACA would therefore be doing exactly what your constituents elected you to do.


The constituents elect reps to see to their best interests, lying to your people to convince them that the nibong is out to get them, and keeping your people from being able to afford health care so you can get reelected is not their best interests.
 
2013-11-05 11:41:01 AM

HeadLever: Kuroshin: The insurance companies chose to eliminate legacy policies for their own reasons.

Yeah, like they don't comply to all the requirements of the ACA.  Hence they need to be cancelled and replaced with something else.

My awesome policy was replaced with a middle of the road policy for $60/mo more.


That is a lie.

Those plans were grandfathered in.  If your insurance company wished to continue offering it to you, they could have.

Your insurance company chose not to.  That isn't the fault of the FedGov, the ACA, or Obama.  He did not lie.
 
2013-11-05 11:41:17 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-11-05 11:41:31 AM

pueblonative: xanadian: DROxINxTHExWIND: I don't think it was a lie, so much as it was an, "Oops, didn't see THAT coming."

Exactly.

Though I fault him more for thinking that the insurance companies would behave ethically and honestly rather than trying to rape their customers one last more time.  Also he couldn't have predicted the Supreme Court saying the states don't have to expand their Medicare.


Umm his administration wrote the regulations that are causing the policies to be cancelled
 
2013-11-05 11:41:51 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Aldon: If the taxpayer is going to pay for healtcare anyway,

Well, there's your problem.


Apparently Dancin_In_Anson supports abolishing not just ObamaCare, but CHIP, the Veterans Health Administration, TRICARE, Medicare, Medicaid, the employer-sponsored health insurance tax exclusion, the medical care expenses tax deduction, and EMTALA.
 
2013-11-05 11:41:53 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Serious Black: The alternative would be if somebody shows up to the hospital suffering from a heart attack, the doctors should do a wallet biopsy and figure out if his insurance covers emergency cardiology care before they pump him full of anticoagulants.

I'll ask you again: Dancin_In_Anson: Who the fark are you to determine what's best for someone you don't even farking know?

And then make them pay for it.


That would have been Reagan when he signed COBRA of 1985 which included the EMTALA that madates ERs must provide care regardless of the ability to pay if it is an emergent situation.  Further it states that it is not a criminal act to go for care knowing that you do not have the ability to pay.

So there it is.  Reagan made it so that a person could get care and force somebody else to pay for it.  What a farking libby lib lib.
 
2013-11-05 11:41:56 AM
Mine is being cancelled December 31. New York Life is getting out of health care business
I liked it
High deductible which I used a savings account to deal with

Won't get a subsidy. Not sure what replacement policy will cost

Reserving anger until I get a quote on new policy
 
2013-11-05 11:42:19 AM
Yeah, like they don't comply to all the requirements of the ACA.  Hence they need to be cancelled and replaced with something else.

this is a lie of course

if your plan existed before the law took effect in 2010, it is grandfathered in
 
2013-11-05 11:42:33 AM

CPennypacker: Elegy: bartink: Elegy: Ah, I see.

You're mad because republicans played by the rules.

The rules Obama himself established in his signature piece of legislation that his administration put forward, got passed, and signed into law.

"Play by the rules" now means farking over your constituents to score political points.

Got it.

That doesn't even make sense

By simple logic, republican representatives were elected by the proportion of people that (largely) do not want to see the ACA enacted.

Opposing the implementation of the ACA would therefore be doing exactly what your constituents elected you to do.

They told their stupid constituents that its what they wanted. It has nothing to do with whats actually best for them.


So you know what's better for the self-interest of the 50% of Americans that vote republican than those people do themselves?

That's not paternalistic and condescending at ALL.
 
2013-11-05 11:42:37 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: ManateeGag: you mean like when it comes to abortion and birth control?

Yep. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.


so, you're saying, if a woman is going to die of she doesn't abort a fetus (that she would absolutely keep if it wasn't going to kill her), fark her, she made her bed and should lay in it.
 
2013-11-05 11:43:34 AM

sprawl15: [i.imgur.com image 576x255]


hey!  New Torg pictures!  where do you people get these?
 
2013-11-05 11:43:42 AM

MugzyBrown: InmanRoshi: [a5.img.talkingpointsmemo.com image 652x365]

Unaffected = huge rate increase


where are these huge rate increases? My plan went up 50 bucks. I purchase my own insurance, unlike the vast majority of you uninformed whiners, and these huge rate increases just arent happening for me. Granted, I like my plan and havent shopped around on the exchanges, but an extra 50 bucks tacked on to my premium so EVERYONE can be insured? Hell yes, I'll pay it. I'm human, after all.
 
2013-11-05 11:44:02 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: sprawl15: so is this you on record saying you want uninsured/underinsured people to just go off somewhere and die

Nope.


Dancin_In_Anson: Aldon: If the taxpayer is going to pay for healtcare anyway,

Well, there's your problem.


you do know that the health care fairy is not real right

your parents were lying to you

they actually were paying the bills
 
2013-11-05 11:44:03 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Aldon: If the taxpayer is going to pay for healtcare anyway,

Well, there's your problem.


Instead of repealing Obummercare 50 times why not spend your political capital writing law that allows doctors and hospitals to refuse treatment to people who can't afford it? that's what you are arguing for here right?
 
2013-11-05 11:44:18 AM

ManateeGag: sprawl15: [i.imgur.com image 576x255]

hey!  New Torg pictures!  where do you people get these?


it isn't new, i just edited one that I had made during the last election

i.imgur.com
 
2013-11-05 11:44:37 AM

Jacobin: Mine is being cancelled December 31. New York Life is getting out of health care business
I liked it
High deductible which I used a savings account to deal with

Won't get a subsidy. Not sure what replacement policy will cost

Reserving anger until I get a quote on new policy


If you're under 30 or over 30 but make less than a certain amount, you can still get a catastrophic health care plan instead of a Bronze or higher plan.
 
2013-11-05 11:44:50 AM

Jackson Herring: Seriously, just for a second escape your echo chamber and ask yourself how you'd react if the insurance companies had made these promises directly to consumers, and then revealed that they knew that for 5-10% of people, it was simply untrue.

and here is the big lie again

in reality, if you had a plan prior to 2010 that you liked, it was and still is grandfathered in even if it doesn't meet the standards of the ACA

the government has no control over whether your shiatty insurance company changed your farking plan so that it could no longer be grandfathered in


But due to the ACA, the insurance companies had no choice but to change their plans...leading to people being dropped from insurance.

This is all due to the implementation of Obamacare.
 
2013-11-05 11:45:00 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Madbassist1: Everytime that moron goes to the emergency room, he's making ME pay for it fark him, and fark you.

No, you have taken it upon yourself that you are responsible so go fark yourself.


that is intellectually dishonest and you know it, asshole. You can sign papers till you're blue in the face SAYING you'll pay, but you arent paying. You know this. fark you, you lying piece of shiat.
 
2013-11-05 11:45:05 AM

Jackson Herring: Yeah, like they don't comply to all the requirements of the ACA.  Hence they need to be cancelled and replaced with something else.

this is a lie of course

if your plan existed before the law took effect in 2010, it is grandfathered in


If it exists exactly like it did before in 2010, it is grandfathered in.  Considering insurance policies almost always change a bit from year to year, the grandfathering clause is worthless for many people.
 
2013-11-05 11:45:10 AM

ManateeGag: sprawl15: [i.imgur.com image 576x255]

hey!  New Torg pictures!  where do you people get these?


i stole it from jackson's post in the dont thread on me
 
2013-11-05 11:45:29 AM
Guys, the important takeaway from this thread is that everyone paid for their own medical bills until Obama came along
 
2013-11-05 11:45:31 AM

Elegy: CPennypacker: Elegy: bartink: Elegy: Ah, I see.

You're mad because republicans played by the rules.

The rules Obama himself established in his signature piece of legislation that his administration put forward, got passed, and signed into law.

"Play by the rules" now means farking over your constituents to score political points.

Got it.

That doesn't even make sense

By simple logic, republican representatives were elected by the proportion of people that (largely) do not want to see the ACA enacted.

Opposing the implementation of the ACA would therefore be doing exactly what your constituents elected you to do.

They told their stupid constituents that its what they wanted. It has nothing to do with whats actually best for them.

So you know what's better for the self-interest of the 50% of Americans that vote republican than those people do themselves?

That's not paternalistic and condescending at ALL.


I'm sorry, did I stutter when I called them idiots?
 
2013-11-05 11:45:47 AM

Elegy: CPennypacker: Elegy: bartink: Elegy: Ah, I see.

You're mad because republicans played by the rules.

The rules Obama himself established in his signature piece of legislation that his administration put forward, got passed, and signed into law.

"Play by the rules" now means farking over your constituents to score political points.

Got it.

That doesn't even make sense

By simple logic, republican representatives were elected by the proportion of people that (largely) do not want to see the ACA enacted.

Opposing the implementation of the ACA would therefore be doing exactly what your constituents elected you to do.

They told their stupid constituents that its what they wanted. It has nothing to do with whats actually best for them.

So you know what's better for the self-interest of the 50% of Americans that vote republican than those people do themselves?

That's not paternalistic and condescending at ALL.


Um 50% of the population didnt vote in favor of forming a suicide pact to shut down the ACA by any means necessary.
 
2013-11-05 11:45:55 AM
This is a big f*cking deal.
 
2013-11-05 11:46:15 AM

Headso: Dancin_In_Anson: Aldon: If the taxpayer is going to pay for healtcare anyway,

Well, there's your problem.

Instead of repealing Obummercare 50 times why not spend your political capital writing law that allows doctors and hospitals to refuse treatment to people who can't afford it? that's what you are arguing for here right?


Shh. His answers are supposed to be taken compartmentalized, without looking at the results of those answers beyond the most obvious and direct situations. There are no externalities, there is no social contract, there are no price adjustments based on rates of bill collection, everything is its own neat little packet and you can feel good about it.
 
2013-11-05 11:46:25 AM

sprawl15: ManateeGag: sprawl15: [i.imgur.com image 576x255]

hey!  New Torg pictures!  where do you people get these?

i stole it from jackson's post in the dont thread on me


but really torg belongs to everyone so 'stole' is a bit harsh
 
2013-11-05 11:46:53 AM

skullkrusher: Mikey1969: sprawl15: the fascinating point here is how upset people are that a promise that the government won't take your health insurance plan away from you doesn't extend to insurance companies choosing of their own volition to discontinue people's plans

Yep, this is a farking case study in goddam semantics.

Not really


Yes, really. He didn't quite phrase the shiat in a way that makes the mentally inferior happy. He didn't "lie", he didn't "twist the truth", he just phrased it in a way that lets people cream in their piss-stained panties. It's a semantic argument.

He never took anyone's insurance away.
Most of the policies canceled weren't actually "insurance" in any way.
The insurance companies have had 2 years to plan for this and change their plans accordingly.

This whole argument is being backed by a bunch of desperate morons without 2 brain cells to rub together, and it's one of the weakest arguments anyone has come up with yet.
 
2013-11-05 11:47:03 AM

Madbassist1: where are these huge rate increases? My plan went up 50 bucks. I purchase my own insurance, unlike the vast majority of you uninformed whiners, and these huge rate increases just arent happening for me. Granted, I like my plan and havent shopped around on the exchanges, but an extra 50 bucks tacked on to my premium so EVERYONE can be insured? Hell yes, I'll pay it. I'm human, after all.


My former employer's plan is up 11%.  My current employer's plan would have increased 40% if we waited until 1/1 to renew it.  We did an early renewal so that it only increased 6%.
 
2013-11-05 11:47:37 AM

MugzyBrown: If it exists exactly like it did before in 2010, it is grandfathered in.  Considering insurance policies almost always change a bit from year to year, the grandfathering clause is worthless for many people.


So if you no longer have the health care plan you liked because it was  changed, you no longer have the health care plan you like?
 
2013-11-05 11:47:45 AM

MugzyBrown: pueblonative: xanadian: DROxINxTHExWIND: I don't think it was a lie, so much as it was an, "Oops, didn't see THAT coming."

Exactly.

Though I fault him more for thinking that the insurance companies would behave ethically and honestly rather than trying to rape their customers one last more time.  Also he couldn't have predicted the Supreme Court saying the states don't have to expand their Medicare.

Umm his administration wrote the regulations that are causing the policies to be cancelled


And what were those regulations again?

- May not significantly cut or reduce benefits (e.g. removing coverage for cystic fibrosis),
- May not raise co-insurance charges (any change at all),
- May not significantly increase co-payment charges ($5 or more beyond medical inflation),
- May not significantly raise deductibles (15% or more beyond medical inflation),
- May not significantly decrease the employer contribution (5% or more),
- May not tighten the annual limit of what the insurer will pay, and
- May not change insurance providers.

If the insurance plan you had with X in March 2010 went from a $1,000 deductible to a $3,000 in 2014, doubled your coinsurance from 15% to 30%, and dropped the annual limit from $500,000 to $250,000, is it really the same insurance plan you had back in 2010?
 
2013-11-05 11:48:22 AM

Bloody William: So if you no longer have the health care plan you liked because it was  changed, you no longer have the health care plan you like?


Minor changes happen every year.  Cancellations do not.
 
2013-11-05 11:48:57 AM

Mikey1969: skullkrusher: Mikey1969: sprawl15: the fascinating point here is how upset people are that a promise that the government won't take your health insurance plan away from you doesn't extend to insurance companies choosing of their own volition to discontinue people's plans

Yep, this is a farking case study in goddam semantics.

Not really

Yes, really. He didn't quite phrase the shiat in a way that makes the mentally inferior happy. He didn't "lie", he didn't "twist the truth", he just phrased it in a way that lets people cream in their piss-stained panties. It's a semantic argument.

He never took anyone's insurance away.
Most of the policies canceled weren't actually "insurance" in any way.
The insurance companies have had 2 years to plan for this and change their plans accordingly.

This whole argument is being backed by a bunch of desperate morons without 2 brain cells to rub together, and it's one of the weakest arguments anyone has come up with yet.


Nah, he phrased it in a way to make his statement "false"
 
2013-11-05 11:48:58 AM

ferretman: Jackson Herring: Seriously, just for a second escape your echo chamber and ask yourself how you'd react if the insurance companies had made these promises directly to consumers, and then revealed that they knew that for 5-10% of people, it was simply untrue.

and here is the big lie again

in reality, if you had a plan prior to 2010 that you liked, it was and still is grandfathered in even if it doesn't meet the standards of the ACA

the government has no control over whether your shiatty insurance company changed your farking plan so that it could no longer be grandfathered in

But due to the ACA, the insurance companies had no choice but to change their plans...leading to people being dropped from insurance.

This is all due to the implementation of Obamacare.


Obama lied! people got better health insurance with the help of subsidies! rolls right off the tongue...
 
2013-11-05 11:49:09 AM

Mikey1969: skullkrusher: Mikey1969: sprawl15: the fascinating point here is how upset people are that a promise that the government won't take your health insurance plan away from you doesn't extend to insurance companies choosing of their own volition to discontinue people's plans

Yep, this is a farking case study in goddam semantics.

Not really

Yes, really. He didn't quite phrase the shiat in a way that makes the mentally inferior happy. He didn't "lie", he didn't "twist the truth", he just phrased it in a way that lets people cream in their piss-stained panties. It's a semantic argument.

He never took anyone's insurance away.
Most of the policies canceled weren't actually "insurance" in any way.
The insurance companies have had 2 years to plan for this and change their plans accordingly.

This whole argument is being backed by a bunch of desperate morons without 2 brain cells to rub together, and it's one of the weakest arguments anyone has come up with yet.


And now you get a pretty color and SMART tag too.
 
2013-11-05 11:49:57 AM

Serious Black: And what were those regulations again?


I still think you're making a pretty big rhetorical mistake by not including "no more rescission" and explaining that rescission is when an insurance company suddenly drops you from their coverage and shifts costs incurred back to you even if your plan would have covered them.
 
2013-11-05 11:50:13 AM

Mikey1969: skullkrusher: Mikey1969: sprawl15: the fascinating point here is how upset people are that a promise that the government won't take your health insurance plan away from you doesn't extend to insurance companies choosing of their own volition to discontinue people's plans

Yep, this is a farking case study in goddam semantics.

Not really

Yes, really. He didn't quite phrase the shiat in a way that makes the mentally inferior happy. He didn't "lie", he didn't "twist the truth", he just phrased it in a way that lets people cream in their piss-stained panties. It's a semantic argument.

He never took anyone's insurance away.
Most of the policies canceled weren't actually "insurance" in any way.
The insurance companies have had 2 years to plan for this and change their plans accordingly.

This whole argument is being backed by a bunch of desperate morons without 2 brain cells to rub together, and it's one of the weakest arguments anyone has come up with yet.




It reminds me very much of the flap over "You didn't build that."
 
2013-11-05 11:50:27 AM

Elegy: CPennypacker: Elegy: bartink: Elegy: Ah, I see.

You're mad because republicans played by the rules.

The rules Obama himself established in his signature piece of legislation that his administration put forward, got passed, and signed into law.

"Play by the rules" now means farking over your constituents to score political points.

Got it.

That doesn't even make sense

By simple logic, republican representatives were elected by the proportion of people that (largely) do not want to see the ACA enacted.

Opposing the implementation of the ACA would therefore be doing exactly what your constituents elected you to do.

They told their stupid constituents that its what they wanted. It has nothing to do with whats actually best for them.

So you know what's better for the self-interest of the 50% of Americans that vote republican than those people do themselves?

That's not paternalistic and condescending at ALL.


WHY WON'T OBAMA SELL ME SPOILED MEAT?
 
2013-11-05 11:50:31 AM
But due to the ACA, the insurance companies had no choice but to change their plans...leading to people being dropped from insurance.

holy shiat

can you read

this is literally the exact opposite of reality
 
2013-11-05 11:51:18 AM
The Liar in Chief

And that's where I stopped reading.
 
2013-11-05 11:51:51 AM

Garet Garrett: HotWingConspiracy: You lost, get over it.

You know what it's called when you get something by lying in order to deliberately manipulate someone else into giving it to you?

Seriously, just for a second escape your echo chamber and ask yourself how you'd react if the insurance companies had made these promises directly to consumers, and then revealed that they knew that for 5-10% of people, it was simply untrue.


I live in hurricane alley and have been familiar with that practice (storm policy) for 30 years
you know how * I * react?
"well, f*k" - here we go again"
this is also true for the vast majority of health insurance policies
 
2013-11-05 11:52:12 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: swaniefrmreddeer: Funny thing is, most of these people whose insurance has been canceled didn't have health insurance worth a flying f*ck to begin with.

Who the fark are you to determine what's best for someone you don't even farking know?

And then make them pay for it.


Because one of the great "examples" they used of someone who got cancelled had a plan as follows:

$54/month premium.

For that $54/month, she got:

$50 towards a doctor's visit. No, not a copay, no not a reduction to $50 on her part. No, not a negotiated price. They paid $50, which probably about covers a well visit. Nothing else. Anything more, she loses money.

$15 towards a prescription. No, not a $15 'script, just $15 towards what could easily be a $50 fill.

$50 towards a hospital visit, IF it was a visit related to "complications" from pregnancy.

Mammograms and a few cancer screenings.

IN other words, it doesn't matter "who you are", it's pretty easy to determine that any "insurance" that will leave you owing thousands while covering $50 and costing you $648/year isn't "insurance". You aren't insuring against ANYTHING, so it isn't insurance by definition.

Keep in mind, this was one of the "poster boy" cases the antis drug out.
 
2013-11-05 11:53:26 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: swaniefrmreddeer: Funny thing is, most of these people whose insurance has been canceled didn't have health insurance worth a flying f*ck to begin with.

Who the fark are you to determine what's best for someone you don't even farking know?

And then make them pay for it.


Do you have no social conscience? You have a, "I've got mine mentality", f*ck paying for those who through mental illness, disability, or being dealt a sh*tty hand hand in life cannot afford even basic healthcare. If caring about people is wrong, I don't want to be right you self centered douche bag.
 
2013-11-05 11:53:28 AM
Sure you can keep your health care plan.

But the wonderful hand of the free market doesn't have to keep giving it to you.
/Trickle down baby. Trickle down.
 
2013-11-05 11:53:47 AM

MugzyBrown: Bloody William: So if you no longer have the health care plan you liked because it was  changed, you no longer have the health care plan you like?

Minor changes happen every year.  Cancellations do not.


They're still changes. So, logically, you no longer have the plan you liked anyway. He didn't say "you can keep your health care plan if you like it, and I can guarantee it will never change based on the decisions of insurance providers."
 
2013-11-05 11:53:55 AM

Serious Black: - May not significantly cut or reduce benefits (e.g. removing coverage for cystic fibrosis),
- May not raise co-insurance charges (any change at all),
- May not significantly increase co-payment charges ($5 or more beyond medical inflation),
- May not significantly raise deductibles (15% or more beyond medical inflation),
- May not significantly decrease the employer contribution (5% or more),
- May not tighten the annual limit of what the insurer will pay, and
- May not change insurance providers.


quotin' this

stop lying about obamcare you subhuman farks
 
2013-11-05 11:54:53 AM

CPennypacker: Elegy: CPennypacker: Elegy: bartink: Elegy: Ah, I see.

You're mad because republicans played by the rules.

The rules Obama himself established in his signature piece of legislation that his administration put forward, got passed, and signed into law.

"Play by the rules" now means farking over your constituents to score political points.

Got it.

That doesn't even make sense

By simple logic, republican representatives were elected by the proportion of people that (largely) do not want to see the ACA enacted.

Opposing the implementation of the ACA would therefore be doing exactly what your constituents elected you to do.

They told their stupid constituents that its what they wanted. It has nothing to do with whats actually best for them.

So you know what's better for the self-interest of the 50% of Americans that vote republican than those people do themselves?

That's not paternalistic and condescending at ALL.

I'm sorry, did I stutter when I called them idiots?


(Shrug) Ok then.

I suppose I'm ok with ignoring the wishes of the white conservatives in the suburb, as long we can mutually agree to keep poor inner city blacks out of politics.

After all, if the middle class conservatives - with their private schools and 2 parent homes - are so stupid they don't even know what is in their own self-interest, how much stupider must the people raised in poverty in the inner city be?

It's for their own good, after all.
 
2013-11-05 11:54:56 AM

sprawl15: Serious Black: And what were those regulations again?

I still think you're making a pretty big rhetorical mistake by not including "no more rescission" and explaining that rescission is when an insurance company suddenly drops you from their coverage and shifts costs incurred back to you even if your plan would have covered them.


Recission is a rule that even grandfathered plans have to adhere to. Others include a ban on lifetime coverage limits, covering dependents until they turn 26, meeting a minimum medical loss ratio, and providing short, standardized statements of benefits and coverage to beneficiaries.
 
2013-11-05 11:55:03 AM
scottymac:   So, so sweet.

I think you'll enjoy this.  And this.
 
2013-11-05 11:55:25 AM

swaniefrmreddeer: Do you have no social conscience?


i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2013-11-05 11:56:36 AM
Bait and switch, pure and simple.

The people who fought against Obamacare saw this coming, how could he have not?

What else?
We're not seeing the average family saving $2,500.00.  More like they are paying that much more, a $5K swing.
We're not being able to keep you plan that you like.
Many already know their Dr. will change and many more will find that out.

Obama has thrown away what little credibility he had left and if you're covering for him you have too.

Respect yourself enough to call him out rather than cover for him.

He also told us we won't see death panels....

$ paying more, getting less...Obamacare.
 
2013-11-05 11:56:41 AM

Serious Black: Exactly.

Though I fault him more for thinking that the insurance companies would behave ethically and honestly rather than trying to rape their customers one last more time.  Also he couldn't have predicted the Supreme Court saying the states don't have to expand their Medicare.

Umm his administration wrote the regulations that are causing the policies to be cancelled

And what were those regulations again?

- May not significantly cut or reduce benefits (e.g. removing coverage for cystic fibrosis),
- May not raise co-insurance charges (any change at all),
- May not significantly increase co-payment charges ($5 or more beyond medical inflation),
- May not significantly raise deductibles (15% or more beyond medical inflation),
- May not significantly decrease the employer contribution (5% or more),
- May not tighten the annual limit of what the insurer will pay, and
- May not change insurance providers.

If the insurance plan you had with X in March 2010 went from a $1,000 deductible to a $3,000 in 2014, doubled your coinsurance from 15% to 30%, and dropped the annual limit from $500,000 to $250,000, is it really the same insurance plan you had back in 2010?


Many of the people affected by this are in the individual market because they may have changed carriers in the past 3 years but kept the same coverage structure.  But because of the rules, you don't get grandfathered status.

Now you have to pay for all of that "free" coverage you get in your plan too.

Ohh I get free Tobacco use screening and obesity counseling.  Awesome, but I've never smoked and I'm not fat... but I have to pay the premium for the 'free' services and for everybody elses too.
 
2013-11-05 11:56:50 AM

MugzyBrown: Madbassist1: where are these huge rate increases? My plan went up 50 bucks. I purchase my own insurance, unlike the vast majority of you uninformed whiners, and these huge rate increases just arent happening for me. Granted, I like my plan and havent shopped around on the exchanges, but an extra 50 bucks tacked on to my premium so EVERYONE can be insured? Hell yes, I'll pay it. I'm human, after all.

My former employer's plan is up 11%.  My current employer's plan would have increased 40% if we waited until 1/1 to renew it.  We did an early renewal so that it only increased 6%.


My current employer's plan went up on the low cost high deductible plan and dropped significantly on the high cost no deductible plan. Go figure. Different companies are able to negotiate different rates with different results. So weird how that works.

Fun fact: Insurance goes up every year anyway.
 
2013-11-05 11:57:22 AM

sprawl15: sprawl15: ManateeGag: sprawl15: [i.imgur.com image 576x255]

hey!  New Torg pictures!  where do you people get these?

i stole it from jackson's post in the dont thread on me

but really torg belongs to everyone so 'stole' is a bit harsh


We'll leave stealing to RAND PAUL
 
2013-11-05 11:57:27 AM
Is You-Can-Keep-Your-Insurance-(Unless-the-Insurance-Policy-Is-A-Piece-of -Sh*t-And-the-Insurer-Must-Cancel-It)-ghazi a scandal yet?
 
2013-11-05 11:57:30 AM

Bloody William: Headso: Dancin_In_Anson: Aldon: If the taxpayer is going to pay for healtcare anyway,

Well, there's your problem.

Instead of repealing Obummercare 50 times why not spend your political capital writing law that allows doctors and hospitals to refuse treatment to people who can't afford it? that's what you are arguing for here right?

Shh. His answers are supposed to be taken compartmentalized, without looking at the results of those answers beyond the most obvious and direct situations. There are no externalities, there is no social contract, there are no price adjustments based on rates of bill collection, everything is its own neat little packet and you can feel good about it.


it's like every thread we have to get to that conclusion through a  series of post too. I ask all right wingers from now on to begin at the part where you want doctors and hospitals to refuse treatment and then we can move on from there, it would make these threads more efficient.
 
2013-11-05 11:58:05 AM

Mikey1969: Dancin_In_Anson: swaniefrmreddeer: Funny thing is, most of these people whose insurance has been canceled didn't have health insurance worth a flying f*ck to begin with.

Who the fark are you to determine what's best for someone you don't even farking know?

And then make them pay for it.

Because one of the great "examples" they used of someone who got cancelled had a plan as follows:

$54/month premium.

For that $54/month, she got:

$50 towards a doctor's visit. No, not a copay, no not a reduction to $50 on her part. No, not a negotiated price. They paid $50, which probably about covers a well visit. Nothing else. Anything more, she loses money.

$15 towards a prescription. No, not a $15 'script, just $15 towards what could easily be a $50 fill.

$50 towards a hospital visit, IF it was a visit related to "complications" from pregnancy.

Mammograms and a few cancer screenings.

IN other words, it doesn't matter "who you are", it's pretty easy to determine that any "insurance" that will leave you owing thousands while covering $50 and costing you $648/year isn't "insurance". You aren't insuring against ANYTHING, so it isn't insurance by definition.

Keep in mind, this was one of the "poster boy" cases the antis drug out.


So she didn't actually have a real health insurance plan so Obama was technically correct.

That's like equating a road side assistance plan for her car versus actual accident insurance.
 
2013-11-05 11:58:15 AM
Ah, yes.  The thread where people who brought us "death panels" and "government takeover of heathcare" and claim Fox News is "news" try to get the rest of us to be angry that Obama was untruthful about one point in his stump speeches in favor of the ACA.

This one's fun.  The high ground is somewhere below the floor of the Marianas Trench.
 
2013-11-05 11:58:19 AM

Tyee: Bait and switch, pure and simple.

The people who fought against Obamacare saw this coming, how could he have not?

What else?
We're not seeing the average family saving $2,500.00.  More like they are paying that much more, a $5K swing.
We're not being able to keep you plan that you like.
Many already know their Dr. will change and many more will find that out.

Obama has thrown away what little credibility he had left and if you're covering for him you have too.

Respect yourself enough to call him out rather than cover for him.

He also told us we won't see death panels....

$ paying more, getting less...Obamacare.


Derping more, thinking less - Tyee.

Seriously, that was just straight out lying, liar.

You are history's greatest coward.
 
2013-11-05 11:58:57 AM

Tyee: He also told us we won't see death panels....


Has the troll budget been affected by the sequester? No one is bringing their A game and shiat like this is dangerously close to tipping your hand as a self-aware joker and not a believer.
 
2013-11-05 11:59:32 AM

Skleenar: try to get the rest of us to be angry that Obama was untruthful about one point in his stump speeches in favor of the ACA.


when you concede this point to the lying right-wing propaganda machine, you've already lost

what he said was a substantially true statement
 
2013-11-05 11:59:45 AM

sprawl15: [i.imgur.com image 576x255]


img.fark.net

[LUTHER INGRAM]

♪ If laughing at this is wrong, I don't wanna be right ♫

[/LUTHER INGRAM]
 
2013-11-05 11:59:52 AM

Serious Black: Recission is a rule that even grandfathered plans have to adhere to.


Oh, I know. I'm just amazed that the left isn't beating that drum; it's pretty farking horrific what the insurance companies did. Shiat like this:
A 2007 investigation by the California Department of Managed Health Care bore this out. The agency randomly selected 90 instances in which Anthem Blue Cross of California dropped the insurance of policyholders after diagnoses with costly or life-threatening illnesses to determine how many were legally justified.

None were. "In all 90 files, there was no evidence (that Blue Cross), before rescinding coverage, investigated or established that the applicant's omission/misrepresentation was willful," the DMHC report said.
 
2013-11-05 12:00:03 PM
Does the ACA actually mandate that insurers may not offer non-qualifying plans, or is this just the insurers seeing that they don't have a sustainable market in non-qualifying plans and freemarketing away from what they anticipate becoming an unprofitable business activity?
 
2013-11-05 12:00:45 PM

MugzyBrown: Serious Black: Exactly.

Though I fault him more for thinking that the insurance companies would behave ethically and honestly rather than trying to rape their customers one last more time.  Also he couldn't have predicted the Supreme Court saying the states don't have to expand their Medicare.

Umm his administration wrote the regulations that are causing the policies to be cancelled

And what were those regulations again?

- May not significantly cut or reduce benefits (e.g. removing coverage for cystic fibrosis),
- May not raise co-insurance charges (any change at all),
- May not significantly increase co-payment charges ($5 or more beyond medical inflation),
- May not significantly raise deductibles (15% or more beyond medical inflation),
- May not significantly decrease the employer contribution (5% or more),
- May not tighten the annual limit of what the insurer will pay, and
- May not change insurance providers.

If the insurance plan you had with X in March 2010 went from a $1,000 deductible to a $3,000 in 2014, doubled your coinsurance from 15% to 30%, and dropped the annual limit from $500,000 to $250,000, is it really the same insurance plan you had back in 2010?

Many of the people affected by this are in the individual market because they may have changed carriers in the past 3 years but kept the same coverage structure.  But because of the rules, you don't get grandfathered status.

Now you have to pay for all of that "free" coverage you get in your plan too.

Ohh I get free Tobacco use screening and obesity counseling.  Awesome, but I've never smoked and I'm not fat... but I have to pay the premium for the 'free' services and for everybody elses too.


So? Maybe you are predisposed to have heart problems that will lead to congestive heart failure down the line. You'll need really pricey cardiology care to handle that. Should it be okay for me to not get cardiology covered on my insurance and avoid paying for your care?
 
2013-11-05 12:02:00 PM

Jackson Herring: Skleenar: try to get the rest of us to be angry that Obama was untruthful about one point in his stump speeches in favor of the ACA.

when you concede this point to the lying right-wing propaganda machine, you've already lost

what he said was a substantially true statement


It is apparently true in 95% of the cases. But for those 5% who were Potato-Americans and bought sh*t policies despite being the party of personal responsibility, thank you, THANK YOU, for making your pain the center of the national discourse for 2 weeks.

//Also, I meant, F*CK YOU.
 
2013-11-05 12:02:06 PM

coeyagi: Seriously, that was just straight out lying,


Obama?  correct.

Bait and Switch, Obamacare, its nothing like you thought is was.
 
2013-11-05 12:03:25 PM

MugzyBrown: Bloody William: So if you no longer have the health care plan you liked because it was  changed, you no longer have the health care plan you like?

Minor changes happen every year.  Cancellations do not.


true - it was entirely more likely you just hit a lifetime cap and went bankrupt- same result
 
2013-11-05 12:03:50 PM
We tried to tell you he was governing as a republican. Maybe now you'll believe us.
 
2013-11-05 12:04:00 PM
Obama promised they could keep their CURRENT plan.  Had their plans not actually substantively changed, they could keep them under the grandfather clause.  If they can't keep their plans, it's not really the same plan and it's disingenuous to call it the same plan.
 
2013-11-05 12:04:36 PM

Tyee: coeyagi: Seriously, that was just straight out lying,

Obama?  correct.

Bait and Switch, Obamacare, its nothing like you thought is was.


No, you Corky, YOU are the liar.

Death panels? Seriously?  That is some sad f*cking trolling, liar.
 
2013-11-05 12:04:47 PM

sprawl15: Serious Black: Recission is a rule that even grandfathered plans have to adhere to.

Oh, I know. I'm just amazed that the left isn't beating that drum; it's pretty farking horrific what the insurance companies did. Shiat like this:A 2007 investigation by the California Department of Managed Health Care bore this out. The agency randomly selected 90 instances in which Anthem Blue Cross of California dropped the insurance of policyholders after diagnoses with costly or life-threatening illnesses to determine how many were legally justified.

None were. "In all 90 files, there was no evidence (that Blue Cross), before rescinding coverage, investigated or established that the applicant's omission/misrepresentation was willful," the DMHC report said.


Oh, I was told that the proper way to handle recission cases like these was through the courts as a failure of the insurance company to perform on the contract. Never mind that state and federal courts are wildly underfunded and undermanned today or that the typical health insurance beneficiary can't afford a high-priced lawyer like the company surely can.
 
2013-11-05 12:06:06 PM

Bloody William: Dancin_In_Anson: djkutch: Who the fark are you to not hold individuals to a basic level of personal responsibility?

Like letting them make their own decisions and living with the consequences?



And yet Republicans got all offended when this logic was explored as policy.


Even after they have that "freedom to die" line a standing ovation at the republican primary debate.
 
2013-11-05 12:07:16 PM

davideggy: Obama promised they could keep their CURRENT plan.  Had their plans not actually substantively changed, they could keep them under the grandfather clause.  If they can't keep their plans, it's not really the same plan and it's disingenuous to call it the same plan.


Thank you.

Let me diagram it in steps for mongoloids:

1) If you had a plan before March 2010, you can keep it.
2) Unless, your insurer changes the plan.
3) If you had a plan after March 2010, and it doesn't comply with ACA, then your insurer deceived you and should have told you that it wasn't compliant with ACA.

In any eventuality, if the insurer was playing by the rules, you could keep your insurance.
 
2013-11-05 12:07:21 PM

ManateeGag: so, you're saying, if a woman is going to die of she doesn't abort a fetus (that she would absolutely keep if it wasn't going to kill her), fark her, she made her bed and should lay in it.


If she wants to have an abortion that's her decision to make. Not mine or yours. Nor is it you place or my place to pay for it.

swaniefrmreddeer: Do you have no social conscience?


Why yes I do. And let's see how much of one you have. In my profile I have a number of items in my "wish list". let's see how many you can pick. Thanks!

swaniefrmreddeer: You have a, "I've got mine mentality", f*ck paying for those who through mental illness, disability, or being dealt a sh*tty hand hand in life cannot afford even basic healthcare.


No, I have a I'm going to worry about me and mine FIRST  and then if and when I can, I will help others. If that makes me a

swaniefrmreddeer: self centered douche bag.

Then so be it.  And thanks again for checking my wish list and showing me what a great humanitarian you are!

(FWIW I know you won't do shiat but thanks for looking just the same.)
 
2013-11-05 12:07:46 PM
Is it dividing by zero yet when the liars who are trying to make the claim that Obama is a liar have to resort to lying to make their argument?
 
2013-11-05 12:07:48 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: sprawl15: so is this you on record saying you want uninsured/underinsured people to just go off somewhere and die

Nope. Try again, slugger.

ManateeGag: since you put it that way, who are you to tell a woman that she needs to have a medical procedure before having a different medical procedure?

I don't have any say in what kind of procedure anyone should have done and I think the laws to which you refer that have been put into place are complete and total bullshiat.

ManateeGag: you mean like when it comes to abortion and birth control?

Yep. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

Aldon: If the taxpayer is going to pay for healtcare anyway,

Well, there's your problem.


So what are you suggesting should happen someone defaults on a hospital bill?

There's no practical way to prevent that cost from being socialized.
 
2013-11-05 12:08:00 PM
Bloody William:

Maybe the death panel is over the top,.. so far.

The rest is accurate, it was a total bait and switch sales job.
If you aren't able to admit you were sold a bunch of shiat that Obamacare won't deliver you're incapable of objective thought and sight.
 
2013-11-05 12:08:54 PM
Screw you you theiving right wing farkbags.

The only insurance that you aren't allowed to keep is insurance that is so bad I'M SUBSIDISING YOU WITH MY INSURANCE.

I highly doubt that you have the moral character to die in the street instead taking treatment that isn't covered and you can't afford, jacking up prices and making me pay for your care.

Buy proper insurance shiatheads. I'm done paying for you.
 
2013-11-05 12:11:38 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: I have a number of items in my "wish list". let's see how many you can pick


is it a common ritual in the anson family to purchase and present a dildo before airing grievance
 
2013-11-05 12:11:45 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: If she wants to have an abortion that's her decision to make. Not mine or yours. Nor is it you place or my place to pay for it.


It's a good thing that isn't happening.
 
2013-11-05 12:12:25 PM

sprawl15: the fascinating point here is how upset people are that a promise that the government won't take your health insurance plan away from you doesn't extend to insurance companies choosing of their own volition to discontinue people's plans


To a teabagger, insurance companies are just benevolent tooth-fairy-like entities that shower payments upon you, and only deny coverage once Obama was elected.

The facts are really not important.
 
2013-11-05 12:13:51 PM
Are conservatives seriously still upset about this? Didn't they get new marching orders a week ago?
 
2013-11-05 12:14:04 PM

Fart_Machine: Dancin_In_Anson: If she wants to have an abortion that's her decision to make. Not mine or yours. Nor is it you place or my place to pay for it.

It's a good thing that isn't happening.


It's a bad deal that DIA gets to be a citizen, while so many people who want to be a part of America don't have a path to citizenship.
 
2013-11-05 12:14:12 PM

sprawl15: Dancin_In_Anson: I have a number of items in my "wish list". let's see how many you can pick

is it a common ritual in the anson family to purchase and present a dildo before airing grievance


must be a regional spin on the festivus celebration...
 
2013-11-05 12:14:31 PM

Tyee: Bloody William:

Maybe the death panel is over the top,.. so far.

The rest is accurate, it was a total bait and switch sales job.
If you aren't able to admit you were sold a bunch of shiat that Obamacare won't deliver you're incapable of objective thought and sight.


Hmmmn, I was able to keep my previous policy but will probably go with the Silver Kaiser plan offered under the exchange because it's cheaper after the subsidies and offers slightly better benefits.  Still waiting on those death panels though.  You sound very concerned.
 
2013-11-05 12:15:14 PM

Fart_Machine: Dancin_In_Anson: If she wants to have an abortion that's her decision to make. Not mine or yours. Nor is it you place or my place to pay for it.

It's a good thing that isn't happening.


Awesome, so to make their point, the usual liars are doing the old "Death Panels" and "Abortions" dance.

F*CK ALL OF YOU CLOWNS.

You have nothing, you've resorted to easily-debunked lies.

If you want to help keep costs down in ACA, I suggest seppuku.
 
2013-11-05 12:15:21 PM

ferretman: Jackson Herring: Seriously, just for a second escape your echo chamber and ask yourself how you'd react if the insurance companies had made these promises directly to consumers, and then revealed that they knew that for 5-10% of people, it was simply untrue.

and here is the big lie again

in reality, if you had a plan prior to 2010 that you liked, it was and still is grandfathered in even if it doesn't meet the standards of the ACA

the government has no control over whether your shiatty insurance company changed your farking plan so that it could no longer be grandfathered in

But due to the ACA, the insurance companies had no choice but to change their plans...leading to people being dropped from insurance.

This is all due to the implementation of Obamacare.


Yeah, this is just flatly, objectively untrue.

The ACA contained specific provisions allowing these plans to stay I'm place. What changed is that it was now harder to rescind insurance If a customer ever actually needed coverage. By discontinuing these plans, the insurance companies were basically admitting that they were nit actually set up to provide any actual coverage.
 
2013-11-05 12:16:29 PM

Tyee: Bloody William:

Maybe the death panel is over the top,.. so far.

The rest is accurate, it was a total bait and switch sales job.
If you aren't able to admit you were sold a bunch of shiat that Obamacare won't deliver you're incapable of objective thought and sight.


You're right. After all, I can be denied insurance for having a preexisting condition... wait, no. Well, if I buy insurance, I might end up reaching a lifetime cap and paying for anything after that out of pocket... wait, no. Well, I know I'm being forced into going to government-approved doctors under a government-run plan... wait, no. Well, I'm positive that I MUST buy health insurance or else... well, no. But if I buy catastrophic coverage or a bronze plan from any of a variety of providers assuming I'm not eligible for an exemption and get coverage despite any preexisting condition and will not have a lifetime cap on treatment... what were we talking about again?

Look, I'm glad you found a lie to pick apart. It just isn't a lie that has much to do with 97% of the ACA at all.
 
2013-11-05 12:17:06 PM

Tyee: Bloody William:

Maybe the death panel is over the top,.. so far.

The rest is accurate, it was a total bait and switch sales job.
If you aren't able to admit you were sold a bunch of shiat that Obamacare won't deliver you're incapable of objective thought and sight.


Exactly what, pray tell, is the bait-and-switch. Pre-exisitng conditions covered? Yep. Prices going down? Yep. "insurance policies" that don't actually insure, gone? Yep. Increases in medical care costs slowing? Yep.


Sounds about right. Not that you care about being accurate.
 
2013-11-05 12:19:40 PM
The Republicans had a chance to make "their" plan better, but instead they choose to obstruct and destroy.
So actually they contribute less than nothing. As usual.
 
2013-11-05 12:19:42 PM

Tigger: Screw you you theiving right wing farkbags.

The only insurance that you aren't allowed to keep is insurance that is so bad I'M SUBSIDISING YOU WITH MY INSURANCE.

I highly doubt that you have the moral character to die in the street instead taking treatment that isn't covered and you can't afford, jacking up prices and making me pay for your care.

Buy proper insurance shiatheads. I'm done paying for you.


Wow, a left winger whining about paying for others? Well I'll be.

I suppose you are equally outraged about the medicare subsidies being paid for with an additional tax on "the rich", right?
 
2013-11-05 12:19:58 PM

Tyee: Bait and switch, pure and simple.

The people who fought against Obamacare saw this coming, how could he have not?

What else?
We're not seeing the average family saving $2,500.00.  More like they are paying that much more, a $5K swing.
We're not being able to keep you plan that you like.
Many already know their Dr. will change and many more will find that out.

Obama has thrown away what little credibility he had left and if you're covering for him you have too.

Respect yourself enough to call him out rather than cover for him.

He also told us we won't see death panels....

$ paying more, getting less...Obamacare.


Serious question: do you really, honestly believe that the sick will be brought before a panel of bureaucrats who will decide who lives and who dies?
 
2013-11-05 12:20:00 PM

Elegy: CPennypacker: Elegy: CPennypacker: Elegy: bartink: Elegy: Ah, I see.

You're mad because republicans played by the rules.

The rules Obama himself established in his signature piece of legislation that his administration put forward, got passed, and signed into law.

"Play by the rules" now means farking over your constituents to score political points.

Got it.

That doesn't even make sense

By simple logic, republican representatives were elected by the proportion of people that (largely) do not want to see the ACA enacted.

Opposing the implementation of the ACA would therefore be doing exactly what your constituents elected you to do.

They told their stupid constituents that its what they wanted. It has nothing to do with whats actually best for them.

So you know what's better for the self-interest of the 50% of Americans that vote republican than those people do themselves?

That's not paternalistic and condescending at ALL.

I'm sorry, did I stutter when I called them idiots?

(Shrug) Ok then.

I suppose I'm ok with ignoring the wishes of the white conservatives in the suburb, as long we can mutually agree to keep poor inner city blacks out of politics.

After all, if the middle class conservatives - with their private schools and 2 parent homes - are so stupid they don't even know what is in their own self-interest, how much stupider must the people raised in poverty in the inner city be?

It's for their own good, after all.


This is dumb for lots of reasons, including that wealth doesn't equal intleligence and neither does race, but you must realize that the right would lose out bigtime if this agreement was struck
 
2013-11-05 12:21:47 PM

crab66: The reality is that the only people who are losing their coverage don't have real insurance. They have absolute bare-bones disaster coverage that does basically nothing unless you are close to death.


But I liked it! It came with a fancy brochure and they just take payments of 59.99 a mknth out of my bank account. I don't even have to think about it!
 
2013-11-05 12:24:09 PM

udhq: Tyee: Bait and switch, pure and simple.

The people who fought against Obamacare saw this coming, how could he have not?

What else?
We're not seeing the average family saving $2,500.00.  More like they are paying that much more, a $5K swing.
We're not being able to keep you plan that you like.
Many already know their Dr. will change and many more will find that out.

Obama has thrown away what little credibility he had left and if you're covering for him you have too.

Respect yourself enough to call him out rather than cover for him.

He also told us we won't see death panels....

$ paying more, getting less...Obamacare.

Serious question: do you really, honestly believe that the sick will be brought before a panel of bureaucrats who will decide who lives and who dies?


They already were prior to the enactment of ObamaCare. We just happen to call those panels of bureaucrats by names like insurance company precertification boards and hospital transplant committees.
 
2013-11-05 12:24:23 PM
Just as I expected, not a single one of you even bothered to look much less click on a link.

Maybe you self righteous pricks can come up with someone else to make your donation for you.
 
2013-11-05 12:25:57 PM

CPennypacker: Elegy: CPennypacker: Elegy: CPennypacker: Elegy: bartink: Elegy: Ah, I see.

You're mad because republicans played by the rules.

The rules Obama himself established in his signature piece of legislation that his administration put forward, got passed, and signed into law.

"Play by the rules" now means farking over your constituents to score political points.

Got it.

That doesn't even make sense

By simple logic, republican representatives were elected by the proportion of people that (largely) do not want to see the ACA enacted.

Opposing the implementation of the ACA would therefore be doing exactly what your constituents elected you to do.

They told their stupid constituents that its what they wanted. It has nothing to do with whats actually best for them.

So you know what's better for the self-interest of the 50% of Americans that vote republican than those people do themselves?

That's not paternalistic and condescending at ALL.

I'm sorry, did I stutter when I called them idiots?

(Shrug) Ok then.

I suppose I'm ok with ignoring the wishes of the white conservatives in the suburb, as long we can mutually agree to keep poor inner city blacks out of politics.

After all, if the middle class conservatives - with their private schools and 2 parent homes - are so stupid they don't even know what is in their own self-interest, how much stupider must the people raised in poverty in the inner city be?

It's for their own good, after all.

This is dumb for lots of reasons, including that wealth doesn't equal intleligence and neither does race, but you must realize that the right would lose out bigtime if this agreement was struck


It was more a satirical commentary on where the mindset of paternalism takes us, politically.

The fact that it went entirely over your head and you took it at face value is just icing on the funny cake.
 
2013-11-05 12:26:56 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Just as I expected, not a single one of you even bothered to look much less click on a link.

Maybe you self righteous pricks can come up with someone else to make your donation for you.


DEY TUK ERR MANNEH
 
2013-11-05 12:27:02 PM

coeyagi: Fart_Machine: Dancin_In_Anson: If she wants to have an abortion that's her decision to make. Not mine or yours. Nor is it you place or my place to pay for it.

It's a good thing that isn't happening.

Awesome, so to make their point, the usual liars are doing the old "Death Panels" and "Abortions" dance.

F*CK ALL OF YOU CLOWNS.

You have nothing, you've resorted to easily-debunked lies.

If you want to help keep costs down in ACA, I suggest seppuku.


'But Officer! I only went through seven red lights and hit 3 people at 95MPH because I was trying to catch this guy who may or may not went through a yellow which turned red while going the speed limit!'
 
2013-11-05 12:27:48 PM

Repo Man: Mikey1969: skullkrusher: Mikey1969: sprawl15: the fascinating point here is how upset people are that a promise that the government won't take your health insurance plan away from you doesn't extend to insurance companies choosing of their own volition to discontinue people's plans

Yep, this is a farking case study in goddam semantics.

Not really

Yes, really. He didn't quite phrase the shiat in a way that makes the mentally inferior happy. He didn't "lie", he didn't "twist the truth", he just phrased it in a way that lets people cream in their piss-stained panties. It's a semantic argument.

He never took anyone's insurance away.
Most of the policies canceled weren't actually "insurance" in any way.
The insurance companies have had 2 years to plan for this and change their plans accordingly.

This whole argument is being backed by a bunch of desperate morons without 2 brain cells to rub together, and it's one of the weakest arguments anyone has come up with yet.



It reminds me very much of the flap over "You didn't build that."


It shouldn't because that was a clear and obvious dishonest removal of context. This is nothing like that
 
2013-11-05 12:27:54 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Serious Black: The alternative would be if somebody shows up to the hospital suffering from a heart attack, the doctors should do a wallet biopsy and figure out if his insurance covers emergency cardiology care before they pump him full of anticoagulants.

I'll ask you again: Dancin_In_Anson: Who the fark are you to determine what's best for someone you don't even farking know?

And then make them pay for it.


The majority of the people in the society we live in have decided that.

Its the same people who say that people who ride motorcycles have to wear helmets, and people in cars have to wear seat belts.

We have made a societal judgment that the loss of freedom to go beltless/helmetless is greatly outweighed by the cost to society for the lifetime of care required if that stupidity isn't lethal.
 
2013-11-05 12:28:27 PM

Elegy: CPennypacker: Elegy: CPennypacker: Elegy: CPennypacker: Elegy: bartink: Elegy: Ah, I see.

You're mad because republicans played by the rules.

The rules Obama himself established in his signature piece of legislation that his administration put forward, got passed, and signed into law.

"Play by the rules" now means farking over your constituents to score political points.

Got it.

That doesn't even make sense

By simple logic, republican representatives were elected by the proportion of people that (largely) do not want to see the ACA enacted.

Opposing the implementation of the ACA would therefore be doing exactly what your constituents elected you to do.

They told their stupid constituents that its what they wanted. It has nothing to do with whats actually best for them.

So you know what's better for the self-interest of the 50% of Americans that vote republican than those people do themselves?

That's not paternalistic and condescending at ALL.

I'm sorry, did I stutter when I called them idiots?

(Shrug) Ok then.

I suppose I'm ok with ignoring the wishes of the white conservatives in the suburb, as long we can mutually agree to keep poor inner city blacks out of politics.

After all, if the middle class conservatives - with their private schools and 2 parent homes - are so stupid they don't even know what is in their own self-interest, how much stupider must the people raised in poverty in the inner city be?

It's for their own good, after all.

This is dumb for lots of reasons, including that wealth doesn't equal intleligence and neither does race, but you must realize that the right would lose out bigtime if this agreement was struck

It was more a satirical commentary on where the mindset of paternalism takes us, politically.

The fact that it went entirely over your head and you took it at face value is just icing on the funny cake.


Poe's Law. Also I'm so sorry that you think you're funny. That's just tragic.
 
2013-11-05 12:28:31 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Just as I expected, not a single one of you even bothered to look much less click on a link.

Maybe you self righteous pricks can come up with someone else to make your donation for you.


Charity's great, and it's good that you support it. However, it's foolish to assume that charity will cover all of a society's needs, or that cracks won't form. Moreover, the social safety net and efforts to share responsibility and resources for certain parts of society do not preclude the existence or usefulness of charity.
 
2013-11-05 12:29:22 PM

Tyee: Bloody William:

Maybe the death panel is over the top,.. so far.

The rest is accurate, it was a total bait and switch sales job.
If you aren't able to admit you were sold a bunch of shiat that Obamacare won't deliver you're incapable of objective thought and sight.


Nope, the ACA is exactly what I believed it would be: a mild form of health insurance regulation.

"If you like your existing plan, you can keep it" is an accurate statement in terms of what the ACA requires insurers and the insured to do.  Nothing in the ACA forces insurers to cancel policies, they make that decision all on their own.  But instead of being mad at insurers who have been screwing them for years, people are instead mad at Obama.
 
2013-11-05 12:30:49 PM

mrshowrules: Mikey1969: Dancin_In_Anson: swaniefrmreddeer: Funny thing is, most of these people whose insurance has been canceled didn't have health insurance worth a flying f*ck to begin with.

Who the fark are you to determine what's best for someone you don't even farking know?

And then make them pay for it.

Because one of the great "examples" they used of someone who got cancelled had a plan as follows:

$54/month premium.

For that $54/month, she got:

$50 towards a doctor's visit. No, not a copay, no not a reduction to $50 on her part. No, not a negotiated price. They paid $50, which probably about covers a well visit. Nothing else. Anything more, she loses money.

$15 towards a prescription. No, not a $15 'script, just $15 towards what could easily be a $50 fill.

$50 towards a hospital visit, IF it was a visit related to "complications" from pregnancy.

Mammograms and a few cancer screenings.

IN other words, it doesn't matter "who you are", it's pretty easy to determine that any "insurance" that will leave you owing thousands while covering $50 and costing you $648/year isn't "insurance". You aren't insuring against ANYTHING, so it isn't insurance by definition.

Keep in mind, this was one of the "poster boy" cases the antis drug out.

So she didn't actually have a real health insurance plan so Obama was technically correct.

That's like equating a road side assistance plan for her car versus actual accident insurance.


Yeah, how dare he protect us from scammers? The con is a time honored American tradition, and he should respect that.

Worst part about that whole "insurance plan"? It was a farming Blue Cross plan, not Fast Freddie's Cut Rate Insurance.
 
2013-11-05 12:31:28 PM
Personal responsibility and liberty is a great blanket policy until you realize that it will be shared by many, many people who aren't you but share the space in which you live. That's where you have to recognize that both expecting total responsibility and offering full liberty doesn't work on a large scale.
 
2013-11-05 12:32:22 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Just as I expected, not a single one of you even bothered to look much less click on a link.

Maybe you self righteous pricks can come up with someone else to make your donation for you.


I'd rather give my money to people in privation. I also recognize that my charity and the charity of the entire planet could never keep all the indigent from suffering. It's a classic collective action problem.
 
2013-11-05 12:33:35 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Just as I expected, not a single one of you even bothered to look much less click on a link.

Maybe you self righteous pricks can come up with someone else to make your donation for you.


Once again, you angry little troll, what is your plan for when someone defaults on a hospital bill?

How exactly do you propose we prevent that cost from being socialized?
 
2013-11-05 12:34:05 PM

incendi: Does the ACA actually mandate that insurers may not offer non-qualifying plans, or is this just the insurers seeing that they don't have a sustainable market in non-qualifying plans and freemarketing away from what they anticipate becoming an unprofitable business activity?


I think they are still allowed to offer them. They just cannot be listed on an exchange and therefore do not qualify for subsidies nor do they count towards fulfilling the mandate so if you were to retain such a plan, you'd still need to get another one
 
m00
2013-11-05 12:36:55 PM

Skleenar: Ah, yes.  The thread where people who brought us "death panels" and "government takeover of heathcare" and claim Fox News is "news" try to get the rest of us to be angry that Obama was untruthful about one point in his stump speeches in favor of the ACA.

This one's fun.  The high ground is somewhere below the floor of the Marianas Trench.


Republicans have no credibility on this issue, which is lamentable, because Obama actually was untruthful but there's nobody really with the standing to call him out on it.
 
2013-11-05 12:37:14 PM

CPennypacker: Elegy: CPennypacker: Elegy: CPennypacker: Elegy: CPennypacker: Elegy: bartink: Elegy: Ah, I see.

You're mad because republicans played by the rules.

The rules Obama himself established in his signature piece of legislation that his administration put forward, got passed, and signed into law.

"Play by the rules" now means farking over your constituents to score political points.

Got it.

That doesn't even make sense

By simple logic, republican representatives were elected by the proportion of people that (largely) do not want to see the ACA enacted.

Opposing the implementation of the ACA would therefore be doing exactly what your constituents elected you to do.

They told their stupid constituents that its what they wanted. It has nothing to do with whats actually best for them.

So you know what's better for the self-interest of the 50% of Americans that vote republican than those people do themselves?

That's not paternalistic and condescending at ALL.

I'm sorry, did I stutter when I called them idiots?

(Shrug) Ok then.

I suppose I'm ok with ignoring the wishes of the white conservatives in the suburb, as long we can mutually agree to keep poor inner city blacks out of politics.

After all, if the middle class conservatives - with their private schools and 2 parent homes - are so stupid they don't even know what is in their own self-interest, how much stupider must the people raised in poverty in the inner city be?

It's for their own good, after all.

This is dumb for lots of reasons, including that wealth doesn't equal intleligence and neither does race, but you must realize that the right would lose out bigtime if this agreement was struck

It was more a satirical commentary on where the mindset of paternalism takes us, politically.

The fact that it went entirely over your head and you took it at face value is just icing on the funny cake.

Poe's Law. Also I'm so sorry that you think you're funny. That's just tragic.


I'm required to amuse no one but myself.

And the tragedy of my own sense of humor is nothing compared to the paternalistic idea that you know what is better for millions of people than they do themselves.
 
2013-11-05 12:37:30 PM
News flash - the poor losers who had their shiatty little non-insurance plans canceled are not important to either party. The Democrats don't care about their stupid whining and the GOP will parade them through all the echo chamber talk shows to destroy the ACA and then leave them to die in the street just like before the ACA.
 
2013-11-05 12:39:14 PM

Elegy: I'm required to amuse no one but myself.

And the tragedy of my own sense of humor is nothing compared to the paternalistic idea that you know what is better for millions of people than they do themselves.


Either you have no concept of just how stupid the average person is, or you're one of them.
 
2013-11-05 12:40:59 PM

udhq: Serious question: do you really, honestly believe that the sick will be brought before a panel of bureaucrats who will decide who lives and who dies?


NO.

Do you really believe that the majority of families will be saving $2,500.00 a year?
Do you really believe this promise/statment is being true?; "if you like your health-care plan, you will be able to keep your health-care plan, period."
No moving the goalposts, because that is where bait and switch come in.
 
2013-11-05 12:41:04 PM
Wow the trolls really came out to play this morning didn't they?
 
2013-11-05 12:42:38 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Just as I expected, not a single one of you even bothered to look much less click on a link.

Maybe you self righteous pricks can come up with someone else to make your donation for you.


uh
fwiw
i clicked on your profile - and noted some of your "wish list" items
we donate blood regularly in our family (one of us is considered rather valuable) -
it seems self-defeating to call potential donors self-righteous pricks by assuming they didn't click your links and, thus, obviously, don't donate

climb down off the "holier than thou" soapbox
 
2013-11-05 12:43:19 PM

Jackson Herring: Skleenar: try to get the rest of us to be angry that Obama was untruthful about one point in his stump speeches in favor of the ACA.

when you concede this point to the lying right-wing propaganda machine, you've already lost

what he said was a substantially true statement


I don't really give a shiat if I concede a point or not.  They have no standing in the outrage-olympics they are trying to gin up here.  They are liars, plain and simple.  Pardon me if I don't get into hyperventilating hysterics over them making an accusation that somebody else is lying.

I'm tired of the pretense that their outrage matters.

/sorry if that sounded a little bitter--the bitterness isn't directed at you.
 
2013-11-05 12:44:15 PM

Flab: bdub77: Here's what it comes down to. Did Obama lie? Yes. Should he admit he lied? Yes.

BUT. The vast majority of Americans do get to keep their health insurance through their employer. Another good percentage of those that buy their own health insurance also get to keep their health insurance. And the ones who don't get to keep their health insurance have better coverage because the other plans didn't meet basic requirements.

But what if they liked paying an insurance company to get no coverage?


Switch to paying a Dom to use a riding crop on them? They've got real health insurance now, they can afford it!
 
2013-11-05 12:44:47 PM

CPennypacker: Elegy: I'm required to amuse no one but myself.

And the tragedy of my own sense of humor is nothing compared to the paternalistic idea that you know what is better for millions of people than they do themselves.

Either you have no concept of just how stupid the average person is, or you're one of them.


The idea that the people, collectively, are smart enough to govern themselves is one of the central tenants of democracy.

Through thousands of years of human history, aristocrats managed the affairs of the poor, because the poor couldn't be trusted with a say and the various arostocrats and monarchs supposedly knew what was better for the people than the people themselves.

Why do you hate democracy so much?
 
2013-11-05 12:46:35 PM

Elegy: CPennypacker: Elegy: I'm required to amuse no one but myself.

And the tragedy of my own sense of humor is nothing compared to the paternalistic idea that you know what is better for millions of people than they do themselves.

Either you have no concept of just how stupid the average person is, or you're one of them.

The idea that the people, collectively, are smart enough to govern themselves is one of the central tenants of democracy.

Through thousands of years of human history, aristocrats managed the affairs of the poor, because the poor couldn't be trusted with a say and the various arostocrats and monarchs supposedly knew what was better for the people than the people themselves.

Why do you hate democracy so much?


So you're one of them, then? Got it. Say no more.
 
2013-11-05 12:48:05 PM

parasol: Dancin_In_Anson: Just as I expected, not a single one of you even bothered to look much less click on a link.

Maybe you self righteous pricks can come up with someone else to make your donation for you.

uh
fwiw
i clicked on your profile - and noted some of your "wish list" items
we donate blood regularly in our family (one of us is considered rather valuable) -
it seems self-defeating to call potential donors self-righteous pricks by assuming they didn't click your links and, thus, obviously, don't donate

climb down off the "holier than thou" soapbox


I should try to donate blood again. The last few times I've tried, I've gotten panic attacks.

I'm trying to get permission to set up a Toys for Tots box at work, and I have a bunch of stuff to give away for it.
 
2013-11-05 12:51:20 PM
Yes, let's call Obama the liar in chief because the health insurance companies decided to no longer offer those plans.

/ that being said, he's a politician, of course he lies
 
2013-11-05 12:53:08 PM

Tyee: udhq: Serious question: do you really, honestly believe that the sick will be brought before a panel of bureaucrats who will decide who lives and who dies?

NO.

Do you really believe that the majority of families will be saving $2,500.00 a year?


Compared to what we would be paying without the enactment of ObamaCare? It's hard to say. What I can tell you is my health insurance plans has increased in price by basically the same rate prior to ObamaCare as after, and if I could take my employer contribution with me, I could get a better health insurance plan on the exchanges while saving myself about $1,200-1,600 a year in the process.

Do you really believe this promise/statment is being true?; "if you like your health-care plan, you will be able to keep your health-care plan, period."

It isn't true because you are not now nor ever in complete control over your health insurance. You can only purchase a plan that a company is willing to offer you. If your insurance company wanted to massively change the terms of your insurance going into next year (e.g. doubling the deductible or ending oncology care benefits) and tell you deal or no deal, you wouldn't have the option of sticking with your old plan even if you liked it. You'd have the option of the new plan or no plan at all.
 
2013-11-05 12:53:10 PM

Flappyhead: Wow the trolls really came out to play this morning didn't they?


Anytime Obama or his policies are criticized in the headline it gets them all riled up.
 
2013-11-05 12:55:31 PM

davideggy: Obama promised they could keep their CURRENT plan.  Had their plans not actually substantively changed, they could keep them under the grandfather clause.  If they can't keep their plans, it's not really the same plan and it's disingenuous to call it the same plan.


Except that they aren't insurance plans, really. See upthread for the Right's poster child and whet her $54/month actually got her. It didn't insure against anything, except to insure that she would pay everything but $50, no matter what she did on her "plan". As Fox News' own investigation pointed out, IT ISN'T REALLY INSURANCE.
 
2013-11-05 12:55:56 PM

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Exactly what, pray tell, is the bait-and-switch.


When you are told one thing and commit to the product only to find that what you committed to, is not what you were told and what you end up with is much a less desirable product.  A product you never would have committed to.

There is no way you can make me believe that everyone who was in favor of ACA or who voted for ACA is getting what they thought they were getting.  In fact I believe most would agree that they are getting something far different than what they were told they would get.
 
2013-11-05 12:56:47 PM

starsrift: Yes, let's call Obama the liar in chief because the health insurance companies decided to no longer offer those plans.

/ that being said, he's a politician, of course he lies


Yeah. Insurance companies could still offer plans that don't satisfy the mandate for those people who can't decide what to do with all their money and want to spend it on redundant coverage. They could call it the Brewster's Millions Plan
 
2013-11-05 12:57:23 PM

Bloody William: parasol: Dancin_In_Anson: Just as I expected, not a single one of you even bothered to look much less click on a link.

Maybe you self righteous pricks can come up with someone else to make your donation for you.

uh
fwiw
i clicked on your profile - and noted some of your "wish list" items
we donate blood regularly in our family (one of us is considered rather valuable) -
it seems self-defeating to call potential donors self-righteous pricks by assuming they didn't click your links and, thus, obviously, don't donate

climb down off the "holier than thou" soapbox

I should try to donate blood again. The last few times I've tried, I've gotten panic attacks.

I'm trying to get permission to set up a Toys for Tots box at work, and I have a bunch of stuff to give away for it.


my spouse says its easier for him if there is cleavage to focus on -
the local ER has called when they needed me

do it - toys for tots is a lot of fun, too  - if you can't? most pediatric units will be happy to talk to you any time of year
 
2013-11-05 12:58:38 PM

starsrift: Yes, let's call Obama the liar in chief because the health insurance companies decided to no longer offer those plans.

/ that being said, he's a politician, of course he lies


That doesn't make it ok. Unless it's you're guy, right?
 
2013-11-05 12:59:05 PM

Tyee: Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: Exactly what, pray tell, is the bait-and-switch.

When you are told one thing and commit to the product only to find that what you committed to, is not what you were told and what you end up with is much a less desirable product.  A product you never would have committed to.

There is no way you can make me believe that everyone who was in favor of ACA or who voted for ACA is getting what they thought they were getting.  In fact I believe most would agree that they are getting something far different than what they were told they would get.


You mean like how insurance companies would say "we're offering you this gold-plated health insurance plan" and it turns out that you'd have to pay more than your annual income to get them to kick in even a single dime? Or that they would convene a precertification board and decide you don't really need that heart transplant? Or that they would hire a brigade of nurses to pore over your application and find any reason whatsoever to rescind your coverage?
 
2013-11-05 01:00:22 PM

Tyee: When you are told one thing and commit to the product only to find that what you committed to, is not what you were told and what you end up with is much a less desirable product.  A product you never would have committed to.


Like a health insurance plan that seems really cheap and, until you get sick or injured, seems like good coverage? Like a health insurance plan that denies your claims for arbitrary reasons despite your treatment being covered in the contract? Like a health insurance plan that balloons in premiums and deductibles every year but doesn't actually offer more coverage?
 
2013-11-05 01:00:38 PM

Tigger: Screw you you theiving right wing farkbags.

The only insurance that you aren't allowed to keep is insurance that is so bad I'M SUBSIDISING YOU WITH MY INSURANCE.

I highly doubt that you have the moral character to die in the street instead taking treatment that isn't covered and you can't afford, jacking up prices and making me pay for your care.

Buy proper insurance shiatheads. I'm done paying for you.


But I'd pay to see it, wouldn't you? Could be the next sporting event. Dying Retards.
 
2013-11-05 01:01:56 PM

Tyee: udhq: Serious question: do you really, honestly believe that the sick will be brought before a panel of bureaucrats who will decide who lives and who dies?

NO.

Do you really believe that the majority of families will be saving $2,500.00 a year?


No, they won't.  This promise was made before Obama's concept of health insurance reform went though the sausage making machine.  If we had stuck to a national exchange with a robust public option and done a better job of decoupling insurance from employment, then I have no doubt we would see greater savings.  Given that the law proved to be much more modest, it's no surprise that the savings are much more modest.  The result is that people on the individual market will tend to see the greatest savings while the rest of us tend to see smaller increases than we saw in the past.

Do you really believe this promise/statment is being true?; "if you like your health-care plan, you will be able to keep your health-care plan, period."

Not in such absolute terms no, but as an overall principle it is absolutely true.  Nothing in the ACA forces your insurance company to drop your plan, provided that they're continuing to offer the same plan that you originally signed up for.  If they choose to make signficant alterations which disqualify the plan from grandfathering, then that is on them, not on the ACA.
 
2013-11-05 01:02:24 PM

crab66: The reality is that the only people who are losing their coverage don't have real insurance. They have absolute bare-bones disaster coverage that does basically nothing unless you are close to death.


Um, one of the policies listed on the 'Obama took my isurance!' news wasn't even that good. Paid $50 towards hospitalization and nothing more, and that was only if it was a "complication of pregnancy" Holy Fark!
 
2013-11-05 01:04:38 PM

Serious Black: Dancin_In_Anson: Just as I expected, not a single one of you even bothered to look much less click on a link.

Maybe you self righteous pricks can come up with someone else to make your donation for you.

I'd rather give my money to people in privation. I also recognize that my charity and the charity of the entire planet could never keep all the indigent from suffering. It's a classic collective action problem.


Not to mention we tried this before.  Old people were in poverty and had very little access to health care.  Charity was not keeping up with the need.  And that is just talking about the white people that the charities would have helped.  Very few cared about helping minorities or those outside of their worldview.  So we started Social Security. That helped some, but it didn't cover medical costs, so in the 60s, we got Medicare.  It has been expanded since to cover other areas.

Hell, we would not need the ACA if charities were covering the medical bills that are bankrupting families.  If charity can do it all on its own, why the fark has it not done so in the last 100 years?  (I know the "answers"... tax cuts, government in the way, godless unchristian liberals...)
 
2013-11-05 01:05:29 PM

Mikey1969: Tigger: Screw you you theiving right wing farkbags.

The only insurance that you aren't allowed to keep is insurance that is so bad I'M SUBSIDISING YOU WITH MY INSURANCE.

I highly doubt that you have the moral character to die in the street instead taking treatment that isn't covered and you can't afford, jacking up prices and making me pay for your care.

Buy proper insurance shiatheads. I'm done paying for you.

But I'd pay to see it, wouldn't you? Could be the next sporting event. Dying Retards.


You'd pay to watch mentally challenged people die? The New Left, ladies and gentlemen! Now with sociopathy!
 
2013-11-05 01:06:48 PM

Mikey1969: crab66: The reality is that the only people who are losing their coverage don't have real insurance. They have absolute bare-bones disaster coverage that does basically nothing unless you are close to death.

Um, one of the policies listed on the 'Obama took my isurance!' news wasn't even that good. Paid $50 towards hospitalization and nothing more, and that was only if it was a "complication of pregnancy" Holy Fark!


but I WANT to live in a house with no roof, where the floor might give way any second, infested in rats and roaches.  why can't I live in a condemned house?
 
2013-11-05 01:07:05 PM

HeartBurnKid: The Liar in Chief

And that's where I stopped reading.


better get used to it.  he lied over and over, and yesterday, he told a whopper.
 
2013-11-05 01:07:50 PM

colon_pow: HeartBurnKid: The Liar in Chief

And that's where I stopped reading.

better get used to it.  he lied over and over, and yesterday, he told a whopper.


but enough about Tucker Carlson
 
2013-11-05 01:08:45 PM
Stile4aly: Do you really believe this promise/statment is being true?; "if you like your health-care plan, you will be able to keep your health-care plan, period."

Not in such absolute terms no, but as an overall principle it is absolutely true.  Nothing in the ACA forces your insurance company to drop your plan, provided that they're continuing to offer the same plan that you originally signed up for.  If they choose to make signficant alterations which disqualify the plan from grandfathering, then that is on them, not on the ACA


Holy shiat this so farking much soooooo farking much THIS
 
2013-11-05 01:09:08 PM

CPennypacker: Got it.


You keep saying this. I do not think it means what you think it means.
 
2013-11-05 01:09:24 PM

Tyee: udhq: Serious question: do you really, honestly believe that the sick will be brought before a panel of bureaucrats who will decide who lives and who dies?

NO.

Do you really believe that the majority of families will be saving $2,500.00 a year?
Do you really believe this promise/statment is being true?; "if you like your health-care plan, you will be able to keep your health-care plan, period."
No moving the goalposts, because that is where bait and switch come in.


$2500 a year? I don't know exact numbers, but on average the ACA will save a lot if you consider people like me who are self employed and previously couldn't get insurance. A single serious injury or illness could save me literally millions.

As for keeping your plan, the canceling of the plans in question by the insurance companies proves that they could not economically survive the new restrictions in rescission, which shows they were never intended to provide any coverage in the first place.
 
2013-11-05 01:10:12 PM
He also lied about taping your calls. And your emails. And closing Gitmo.
 
2013-11-05 01:12:11 PM

Elegy: CPennypacker: Got it.

You keep saying this. I do not think it means what you think it means.


Points for strangest use of this I have seen in a long time
 
2013-11-05 01:12:24 PM
You folks are incredibly adept at rationalizing away what we all now know was false.

Best of luck to you.
 
2013-11-05 01:12:35 PM

skullkrusher: Mikey1969: Tigger: Screw you you theiving right wing farkbags.

The only insurance that you aren't allowed to keep is insurance that is so bad I'M SUBSIDISING YOU WITH MY INSURANCE.

I highly doubt that you have the moral character to die in the street instead taking treatment that isn't covered and you can't afford, jacking up prices and making me pay for your care.

Buy proper insurance shiatheads. I'm done paying for you.

But I'd pay to see it, wouldn't you? Could be the next sporting event. Dying Retards.

You'd pay to watch mentally challenged people die? The New Left, ladies and gentlemen! Now with sociopathy!


That's all you've got today? Semantic bullshiat? Someone didn't eat their Wheaties.
 
2013-11-05 01:13:43 PM
Maybe if the American public spent some time actually learning about public policy, politicians wouldn't need to dumb down everything like they were talking to a 7 year old in political campaigns.

Nevermind -  the endless cycle of politicians lying during campaigns, then the respective opposing parties getting "outraged" because of said lies, is much better.
 
2013-11-05 01:14:56 PM

Mikey1969: skullkrusher: Mikey1969: Tigger: Screw you you theiving right wing farkbags.

The only insurance that you aren't allowed to keep is insurance that is so bad I'M SUBSIDISING YOU WITH MY INSURANCE.

I highly doubt that you have the moral character to die in the street instead taking treatment that isn't covered and you can't afford, jacking up prices and making me pay for your care.

Buy proper insurance shiatheads. I'm done paying for you.

But I'd pay to see it, wouldn't you? Could be the next sporting event. Dying Retards.

You'd pay to watch mentally challenged people die? The New Left, ladies and gentlemen! Now with sociopathy!

That's all you've got today? Semantic bullshiat? Someone didn't eat their Wheaties.


You should look that word up
 
2013-11-05 01:15:05 PM

Mikey1969: skullkrusher: Mikey1969: Tigger: Screw you you theiving right wing farkbags.

The only insurance that you aren't allowed to keep is insurance that is so bad I'M SUBSIDISING YOU WITH MY INSURANCE.

I highly doubt that you have the moral character to die in the street instead taking treatment that isn't covered and you can't afford, jacking up prices and making me pay for your care.

Buy proper insurance shiatheads. I'm done paying for you.

But I'd pay to see it, wouldn't you? Could be the next sporting event. Dying Retards.

You'd pay to watch mentally challenged people die? The New Left, ladies and gentlemen! Now with sociopathy!

That's all you've got today? Semantic bullshiat? Someone didn't eat their Wheaties.


You new? Thats what SK does. Welcome to Fark, etc
 
2013-11-05 01:15:22 PM

Tyee: You folks are incredibly adept at rationalizing away what we all now know was false.

Best of luck to you.


Don't let the thread hit you in the ass on the way out.
 
2013-11-05 01:16:53 PM

steverockson: The problem here isn't the ACA, it's insurance companies that have been gouging people for decades, selling people shiat plans.


You forgot to add:  Who now are throwing out false information about the ACA because it hurts them.
 
2013-11-05 01:16:59 PM

Jackson Herring: Skleenar: try to get the rest of us to be angry that Obama was untruthful about one point in his stump speeches in favor of the ACA.

when you concede this point to the lying right-wing propaganda machine, you've already lost

what he said was a substantially true statement


he said this, over and over;

"If you like your healthcare plan, you'll be able to keep your healthcare plan, period."

and then yesterday, he replaced the period with a great big IF, and claims he said this;

"Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn't changed since the law passed,"

was yesterday's declaration a substantially true statement?

huh?
 
2013-11-05 01:18:14 PM

Elegy: CPennypacker: Elegy: CPennypacker: Elegy: CPennypacker: Elegy: CPennypacker: Elegy: bartink: Elegy: Ah, I see.

You're mad because republicans played by the rules.

The rules Obama himself established in his signature piece of legislation that his administration put forward, got passed, and signed into law.

"Play by the rules" now means farking over your constituents to score political points.

Got it.

That doesn't even make sense

By simple logic, republican representatives were elected by the proportion of people that (largely) do not want to see the ACA enacted.

Opposing the implementation of the ACA would therefore be doing exactly what your constituents elected you to do.

They told their stupid constituents that its what they wanted. It has nothing to do with whats actually best for them.

So you know what's better for the self-interest of the 50% of Americans that vote republican than those people do themselves?

That's not paternalistic and condescending at ALL.

I'm sorry, did I stutter when I called them idiots?

(Shrug) Ok then.

I suppose I'm ok with ignoring the wishes of the white conservatives in the suburb, as long we can mutually agree to keep poor inner city blacks out of politics.

After all, if the middle class conservatives - with their private schools and 2 parent homes - are so stupid they don't even know what is in their own self-interest, how much stupider must the people raised in poverty in the inner city be?

It's for their own good, after all.

This is dumb for lots of reasons, including that wealth doesn't equal intleligence and neither does race, but you must realize that the right would lose out bigtime if this agreement was struck

It was more a satirical commentary on where the mindset of paternalism takes us, politically.

The fact that it went entirely over your head and you took it at face value is just icing on the funny cake.

Poe's Law. Also I'm so sorry that you think you're funny. That's just tragic.

I'm required to amus ...


A) People are very stupid.  30% of the GOP thinks Obama is a Muslim (NTTAWWT).  That equates to millions of peolpe.  Also many think Obama is responsible for Katrina.
B) Your stupidity is socialized anyway.  Who the f*ck do you think pays for your uninsured trip to the ER prior to ACA?  Me, god damnit.
 
2013-11-05 01:18:58 PM

Tyee: You folks are incredibly adept at rationalizing away what we all now know was false.

Best of luck to you.


It helps that this is basically a big spat over minutae.
 
2013-11-05 01:19:00 PM

Heliovdrake: Tyee: You folks are incredibly adept at rationalizing away what we all now know was false.

Best of luck to you.

Don't let the thread hit you in the ass on the way out.


if it did, would the resulting injury be covered?
 
2013-11-05 01:19:17 PM

Tyee: You folks are incredibly adept at rationalizing away what we all now know was false.

Best of luck to you.


It isn't false.  I already explained why.  If you don't like living in a world where your reality and actual reality differ, you're the problem and I suggest you remove yourself from actual reality if it's so painful.
 
2013-11-05 01:20:21 PM

Hugh2d2: He also lied about taping your calls. And your emails. And closing Gitmo.


Did you really watch someone campaign for office and include the intent to close Gitmo and think "huh - all he has to do is requisition the key from the pentagon and VIOLA!"?
Did you really miss the past decade (yes, before he was elected) and the various a**-hattery that ensued from the policies set in place by Vice-President-no-it-isn't-torture-Cheney?
Have you missed the entire part where we are in uncharted legal waters that include "not in my back yard" years-long debate about where to even have a trial? or why we can't just let them go, either? or how we can't really hold them forever w/o a charge (although that seems to be what has happened until very recently)?

do not blame obama for his inability to close gitmo with a wave of a pen - it is complex and - with so many things - I see no speedy solutions
 
2013-11-05 01:20:27 PM
Hey guys they just greenlit another thread about this, so everyone go back to their starting positions
 
2013-11-05 01:20:36 PM
I think the important thing to do here is remind ourselves tha the most powerful, influential man in US politics, Sen. RAND PAUL, lifted some of his speech from Wikipedia. Because of this, we shouldn't be holding democratic politicians to their words.
 
2013-11-05 01:20:56 PM

Hugh2d2: He also lied about taping your calls. And your emails. And closing Gitmo.


I'm gonna have to call BS on that last one.  And I'm not really sure about the first two, either.

But at least in the first two, he has the putative authority to make the changes necessary.  On Gitmo he was cock-blocked by Congress.
 
2013-11-05 01:22:31 PM

colon_pow: Jackson Herring: Skleenar: try to get the rest of us to be angry that Obama was untruthful about one point in his stump speeches in favor of the ACA.

when you concede this point to the lying right-wing propaganda machine, you've already lost

what he said was a substantially true statement

he said this, over and over;

"If you like your healthcare plan, you'll be able to keep your healthcare plan, period."

and then yesterday, he replaced the period with a great big IF, and claims he said this;

"Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn't changed since the law passed,"

was yesterday's declaration a substantially true statement?

huh?


If he wasn't such a lying lier, he would have pointed out that he doesn't control the insurance companies and can't control whether or not they continue the same insurance plans. We all know that if you don't point out the obvious to the staggeringly stupid people, you are lying.
 
2013-11-05 01:22:43 PM

s2s2s2: [lame deflection]


thank you for your contribution
 
2013-11-05 01:23:31 PM

Heliovdrake: Stile4aly: Do you really believe this promise/statment is being true?; "if you like your health-care plan, you will be able to keep your health-care plan, period."

Not in such absolute terms no, but as an overall principle it is absolutely true.  Nothing in the ACA forces your insurance company to drop your plan, provided that they're continuing to offer the same plan that you originally signed up for.  If they choose to make signficant alterations which disqualify the plan from grandfathering, then that is on them, not on the ACA

Holy shiat this so farking much soooooo farking much THIS


Except Obama knew it would work out that way, before he said it wouldn't.
 
2013-11-05 01:24:03 PM

BunkoSquad: Hey guys they just greenlit another thread about this, so everyone go back to their starting positions


i'd rather have root canal - at least that includes pain killers and headphones
 
2013-11-05 01:24:51 PM

ManateeGag: Heliovdrake: Tyee: You folks are incredibly adept at rationalizing away what we all now know was false.

Best of luck to you.

Don't let the thread hit you in the ass on the way out.

if it did, would the resulting injury be covered?


I don't know, but if its not we can hold a bake sale to help cover the cost of the operation to remove the stick from his ass.
 
2013-11-05 01:25:48 PM

s2s2s2: Except Obama knew it would work out that way, before he said it wouldn't.


so, is Obama a all seeing mastermind this week or is he an empty suit no nothing puppet?
 
2013-11-05 01:29:38 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: swaniefrmreddeer: Funny thing is, most of these people whose insurance has been canceled didn't have health insurance worth a flying f*ck to begin with.

Who the fark are you to determine what's best for someone you don't even farking know?

And then make them pay for it.


Funny, I don't recall the American people being asked 10 years ago if it was ok to use trillions of our tax dollars to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Oh, the hypocrisy..it burns!
 
2013-11-05 01:32:05 PM

coeyagi: It isn't false.


No, it really is.  And if you had cut W this much slack you and the fricken republicans would have put him on Rushmore by now.
 
2013-11-05 01:35:23 PM

ManateeGag: s2s2s2: Except Obama knew it would work out that way, before he said it wouldn't.

so, is Obama a all seeing mastermind this week or is he an empty suit no nothing puppet?


Whatever he needs to be to suit the talking point at hand:

Killing of OBL - Empty suit that ordered ST6 to stand down but the military did it anyway
Benghazi - Empty suit that sat by idly doing nothing and/or ordered a stand down
Libya - Vicious war monger that took out a peaceable leader and nation
Maersk Alabama - Vicious killer that ordered the assassination of Muslim youths
IRS - Powerful leader than oversees every aspect of every agency, ordering the audits
BP Oil Spill - Empty suit during the response
West, Texas Fertilizer Plant - Micromanager, ordering regulations not be enforced
 
2013-11-05 01:37:40 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: swaniefrmreddeer: Funny thing is, most of these people whose insurance has been canceled didn't have health insurance worth a flying f*ck to begin with.

Who the fark are you to determine what's best for someone you don't even farking know?

And then make them pay for it.


*wendydavis.jpg*

Oh hai, DIA. What were you saying about determining what's best for other people?
 
2013-11-05 01:45:05 PM

GameSprocket: colon_pow: Jackson Herring: Skleenar: try to get the rest of us to be angry that Obama was untruthful about one point in his stump speeches in favor of the ACA.

when you concede this point to the lying right-wing propaganda machine, you've already lost

what he said was a substantially true statement

he said this, over and over;

"If you like your healthcare plan, you'll be able to keep your healthcare plan, period."

and then yesterday, he replaced the period with a great big IF, and claims he said this;

"Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn't changed since the law passed,"

was yesterday's declaration a substantially true statement?

huh?

If he wasn't such a lying lier, he would have pointed out that he doesn't control the insurance companies and can't control whether or not they continue the same insurance plans. We all know that if you don't point out the obvious to the staggeringly stupid people, you are lying.


if he would have pointed out the obvious, as you call it, the ACA would never have passed congress.  The ACA passed because of a very deliberate deception.  classic bait and switch.  but of course, the ends justify the means.  right?
 
2013-11-05 01:45:45 PM
coeyagi:
A) People are very stupid.

Yes. I never disagreed with that. I disagree with the proposition that, because they are stupid about something, that automatically invalidates everything they might ever have to say.

Flip it around. One of the media darlings of the 2008 election was a woman who said that since Obama was elected, she wouldn't have to worry about putting gas in her car or paying her mortgage.

Does this mean we shouldn't listen to her concerns about poverty, just because she's an idiot?


30% of the GOP thinks Obama is a Muslim (NTTAWWT).

As do 10% of democrats and 18% of independents. This is not an exclusively republican phenomenon. As you pointed out, stupid people are everywhere. Why do you assume they are of only one political stripe?

That equates to millions of peolpe.

That also means that millions of democrats believe the same silly things republicans do.
Also many think Obama is responsible for Katrina.
1/3 of LOUISIANA republicans. I have yet to see a national poll, but would love a source if you have one.

B) Your stupidity is socialized anyway. Who the f*ck do you think pays for your uninsured trip to the ER prior to ACA? Me, god damnit.
I support the ACA. I also support the right of people to criticize the hell out of it.
 
2013-11-05 01:46:54 PM
Get as much bad press as you can out now.

None of it will matter once the machine starts churning out success stories - by the millions.
 
2013-11-05 01:47:15 PM

colon_pow: if he would have pointed out the obvious, as you call it, the ACA would never have passed congress.  The ACA passed because of a very deliberate deception.  classic bait and switch.  but of course, the ends justify the means.  right?


I thought the ACA passed because the Dem's rammed it down the throat of Repubs, using political back doors and trickery and such?
 
2013-11-05 01:48:03 PM

colon_pow: if he would have pointed out the obvious, as you call it, the ACA would never have passed congress.


Wait, what?

You are suggesting that Congress was depending on the President's characterization of their bill to determine whether or not it was worthy of passage?

That's some pretty potato logic right there.
 
2013-11-05 01:48:42 PM

colon_pow: if he would have pointed out the obvious, as you call it, the ACA would never have passed congress.  The ACA passed because of a very deliberate deception.  classic bait and switch.  but of course, the ends justify the means.  right?


No doubt that is squeaked through.  Of course the lies about it from the right were on a much grander scale so let's call it even.

If there are no death panels and the economy doesn't collapse, let's just concede the Right were much more full of shiat.
 
2013-11-05 01:53:55 PM

colon_pow: GameSprocket: colon_pow: Jackson Herring: Skleenar: try to get the rest of us to be angry that Obama was untruthful about one point in his stump speeches in favor of the ACA.

when you concede this point to the lying right-wing propaganda machine, you've already lost

what he said was a substantially true statement

he said this, over and over;

"If you like your healthcare plan, you'll be able to keep your healthcare plan, period."

and then yesterday, he replaced the period with a great big IF, and claims he said this;

"Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn't changed since the law passed,"

was yesterday's declaration a substantially true statement?

huh?

If he wasn't such a lying lier, he would have pointed out that he doesn't control the insurance companies and can't control whether or not they continue the same insurance plans. We all know that if you don't point out the obvious to the staggeringly stupid people, you are lying.

if he would have pointed out the obvious, as you call it, the ACA would never have passed congress.  The ACA passed because of a very deliberate deception.  classic bait and switch.  but of course, the ends justify the means.  right?


You mean we have to trick really stupid people in order to progress as a society? Then, yes, the ends justify the means. I am tired of dragging idiots into the modern age. If you don't want to be part of the solution then fark you, we will improve the world around you.
 
2013-11-05 01:54:07 PM

skullkrusher: Mikey1969: skullkrusher: Mikey1969: Tigger: Screw you you theiving right wing farkbags.

The only insurance that you aren't allowed to keep is insurance that is so bad I'M SUBSIDISING YOU WITH MY INSURANCE.

I highly doubt that you have the moral character to die in the street instead taking treatment that isn't covered and you can't afford, jacking up prices and making me pay for your care.

Buy proper insurance shiatheads. I'm done paying for you.

But I'd pay to see it, wouldn't you? Could be the next sporting event. Dying Retards.

You'd pay to watch mentally challenged people die? The New Left, ladies and gentlemen! Now with sociopathy!

That's all you've got today? Semantic bullshiat? Someone didn't eat their Wheaties.

You should look that word up


I have. It means playing around with word definitions, deciding to interpret literally, even though you know that's not at all what was actually said. It works well when you want to attack the other side and have nothing left.

Have a nice day now.
 
2013-11-05 01:54:23 PM

grumpfuff: colon_pow: if he would have pointed out the obvious, as you call it, the ACA would never have passed congress.  The ACA passed because of a very deliberate deception.  classic bait and switch.  but of course, the ends justify the means.  right?

I thought the ACA passed because the Dem's rammed it down the throat of Repubs, using political back doors and trickery and such?


Look, it was only debated for nearly a year. That's not nearly long enough for Repbulicans to learn something about a Heritage Foundation plan that was largely supported many on the right until 2008 and there was a working model in Massachusetts of the plan
 
2013-11-05 01:55:22 PM

sprawl15: the fascinating point here is how upset people are that a promise that the government won't take your health insurance plan away from you doesn't extend to insurance companies choosing of their own volition to discontinue people's plans


Except that many of them were discontinued because they didn't meet the minimum requirements of the ACA.  More than likely they were low premium, high copay, high deductible plans, and not the most desirable plans.  But still they were probably paying $50 for those plans and now they have to pay $200-500 for a plan that is compliant with the law and they're going to feel lied to.  The insurance companies never promised they could keep their plans, Obama did.
 
2013-11-05 01:55:31 PM

Peter von Nostrand: grumpfuff: colon_pow: if he would have pointed out the obvious, as you call it, the ACA would never have passed congress.  The ACA passed because of a very deliberate deception.  classic bait and switch.  but of course, the ends justify the means.  right?

I thought the ACA passed because the Dem's rammed it down the throat of Repubs, using political back doors and trickery and such?

Look, it was only debated for nearly a year. That's not nearly long enough for Repbulicans to learn something about a Heritage Foundation plan that was largely supported many on the right until 2008 and there was a working model in Massachusetts of the plan


*Republicans, too
 
2013-11-05 01:55:53 PM

colon_pow: GameSprocket: colon_pow: Jackson Herring: Skleenar: try to get the rest of us to be angry that Obama was untruthful about one point in his stump speeches in favor of the ACA.

when you concede this point to the lying right-wing propaganda machine, you've already lost

what he said was a substantially true statement

he said this, over and over;

"If you like your healthcare plan, you'll be able to keep your healthcare plan, period."

and then yesterday, he replaced the period with a great big IF, and claims he said this;

"Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn't changed since the law passed,"

was yesterday's declaration a substantially true statement?

huh?

If he wasn't such a lying lier, he would have pointed out that he doesn't control the insurance companies and can't control whether or not they continue the same insurance plans. We all know that if you don't point out the obvious to the staggeringly stupid people, you are lying.

if he would have pointed out the obvious, as you call it, the ACA would never have passed congress.  The ACA passed because of a very deliberate deception.  classic bait and switch.  but of course, the ends justify the means.  right?


oh - I see - if Obama had pointed out that profitable insurance companies would have to meet an industry standard they'd opt to hurt consumers, the ACA would not have passed.

yeah - you go with that new and improved talking point - it is SURE to win favor.
 
2013-11-05 01:56:50 PM

Mikey1969: skullkrusher: Mikey1969: skullkrusher: Mikey1969: Tigger: Screw you you theiving right wing farkbags.

The only insurance that you aren't allowed to keep is insurance that is so bad I'M SUBSIDISING YOU WITH MY INSURANCE.

I highly doubt that you have the moral character to die in the street instead taking treatment that isn't covered and you can't afford, jacking up prices and making me pay for your care.

Buy proper insurance shiatheads. I'm done paying for you.

But I'd pay to see it, wouldn't you? Could be the next sporting event. Dying Retards.

You'd pay to watch mentally challenged people die? The New Left, ladies and gentlemen! Now with sociopathy!

That's all you've got today? Semantic bullshiat? Someone didn't eat their Wheaties.

You should look that word up

I have. It means playing around with word definitions, deciding to interpret literally, even though you know that's not at all what was actually said. It works well when you want to attack the other side and have nothing left.

Have a nice day now.


So what was the figurative meaning of your Pay Per View idea? That the suffering of people is entertainment if its the result of poor decisions? How very Randian
 
2013-11-05 01:57:16 PM

Elegy: As do 10% of democrats and 18% of independents. This is not an exclusively republican phenomenon. As you pointed out, stupid people are everywhere. Why do you assume they are of only one political stripe?


Sure, so what you're saying is that most of them are Republican?
 
2013-11-05 01:59:47 PM

Peter von Nostrand: grumpfuff: colon_pow: if he would have pointed out the obvious, as you call it, the ACA would never have passed congress.  The ACA passed because of a very deliberate deception.  classic bait and switch.  but of course, the ends justify the means.  right?

I thought the ACA passed because the Dem's rammed it down the throat of Repubs, using political back doors and trickery and such?

Look, it was only debated for nearly a year. That's not nearly long enough for Repbulicans to learn something about a Heritage Foundation plan that was largely supported many on the right until 2008 and there was a working model in Massachusetts of the plan


Objection. Assumes Republicans bother to find out what a bill put forth by a Democrat says before they proclaim how terrible it is.
 
2013-11-05 02:09:39 PM

cc_rider: Dancin_In_Anson: swaniefrmreddeer: Funny thing is, most of these people whose insurance has been canceled didn't have health insurance worth a flying f*ck to begin with.

Who the fark are you to determine what's best for someone you don't even farking know?

And then make them pay for it.

Funny, I don't recall the American people being asked 10 years ago if it was ok to use trillions of our tax dollars to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Oh, the hypocrisy..it burns!


Well, they did vote for Republicans in 2002 and reelected the "decider" in 2004. So either voters as a whole were pleased with us using trillions of tax dollars to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people, or you are full of shiat.
 
2013-11-05 02:14:54 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: and reelected the "decider" in 2004.


Nah, they reelected George W. Bush. He didn't become the decider until his proclamation in 2006.
 
2013-11-05 02:19:34 PM

Peter von Nostrand: ManateeGag: s2s2s2: Except Obama knew it would work out that way, before he said it wouldn't.

so, is Obama a all seeing mastermind this week or is he an empty suit no nothing puppet?

Whatever he needs to be to suit the talking point at hand:

Killing of OBL - Empty suit that ordered ST6 to stand down but the military did it anyway
Benghazi - Empty suit that sat by idly doing nothing and/or ordered a stand down
Libya - Vicious war monger that took out a peaceable leader and nation
Maersk Alabama - Vicious killer that ordered the assassination of Muslim youths
IRS - Powerful leader than oversees every aspect of every agency, ordering the audits
BP Oil Spill - Empty suit during the response
West, Texas Fertilizer Plant - Micromanager, ordering regulations not be enforced


We really need some sort of Wheel'O'Obama image/gif for these threads.
 
2013-11-05 02:20:22 PM

coeyagi: Tyee: You folks are incredibly adept at rationalizing away what we all now know was false.

Best of luck to you.

It isn't false.  I already explained why.  If you don't like living in a world where your reality and actual reality differ, you're the problem and I suggest you remove yourself from actual reality if it's so painful.


Speak for yourself. It was obviously false.
 
2013-11-05 02:22:33 PM
*** ATTENTION.  YOUR ATTENTION, PLEASE ***

The latest edition of the Newspeak Dictionary states that all anteObamaCare health plans shall be referred to as "Junk," or "Doubleplusjunk."

Referring to anteObamaCare plans as "better" or "desirable" in any way is doubleplusungood.

All Miniplenty Healthcare is bellyfeel good.

All statements regarding buying other healthcarewise plans is ungood ownlife behavior, and is thoughtcrime.

Sincerely yours,
Miniluv
 
2013-11-05 02:24:54 PM

dehehn: Except that many of them were discontinued because they didn't meet the minimum requirements of the ACA.


this is incorrect

if you had a plan before march 2010 it is grandfathered in even if it doesn't meet the ACA requirements, unless your insurance company makes substantial changes to it
 
2013-11-05 02:25:12 PM

Phinn: *** ATTENTION.  YOUR ATTENTION, PLEASE ***

The latest edition of the Newspeak Dictionary states that all anteObamaCare health plans shall be referred to as "Junk," or "Doubleplusjunk."

Referring to anteObamaCare plans as "better" or "desirable" in any way is doubleplusungood.

All Miniplenty Healthcare is bellyfeel good.

All statements regarding buying other healthcarewise plans is ungood ownlife behavior, and is thoughtcrime.

Sincerely yours,
Miniluv


Posting this multiple times in every ACA thread does not make it true.

If there's any side that's a master of "Call it the opposite of what it does," that would be conservatives.

Sorta like how "No Child Left Behind" actually left a lot of children behind.
 
2013-11-05 02:30:12 PM
grumpfuff:

Posting this multiple times in every ACA thread does not make it true.

If there's any side that's a master of "Call it the opposite of what it does," that would be conservatives.

Sorta like how "No Child Left Behind" actually left a lot of children behind.


also "star wars defense"
        "healthy skies"
        "balanced budget"
        "living wage"
        "industry regulation"
 
2013-11-05 02:30:23 PM

incendi: Debeo Summa Credo: and reelected the "decider" in 2004.

Nah, they reelected George W. Bush. He didn't become the decider until his proclamation in 2006.


Ah, my mistake.
 
2013-11-05 02:31:18 PM

grumpfuff: If there's any side that's a master of "Call it the opposite of what it does," that would be conservatives.

Sorta like how "No Child Left Behind" actually left a lot of children behind.


You DO know that Ted Kennedy was behind that, right?
 
2013-11-05 02:32:57 PM
What we said was you could keep it if it hasn't changed since the law was passed., yeah, that's what we said. over and over, remember?  you remember that, don't you?  we said that all the time,

What we said was you could keep it if it hasn't changed since the law was passed. period. end of story.  guaranteed. that's what we said.
 
2013-11-05 02:35:46 PM

BojanglesPaladin: You DO know that Ted Kennedy was behind that, right?



And the HMO legislation that permanently screwed up the US medical insurance industry.  What a peach!
 
2013-11-05 02:36:11 PM

Jackson Herring: dehehn: Except that many of them were discontinued because they didn't meet the minimum requirements of the ACA.

this is incorrect

if you had a plan before march 2010 it is grandfathered in even if it doesn't meet the ACA requirements, unless your insurance company makes substantial changes to it


He probably should've stopped saying it after March 2010 then
 
2013-11-05 02:39:43 PM

Phinn: And the HMO legislation that permanently screwed up the US medical insurance industry. What a peach!


Really? I did not know Ted Kennedy was behind that bill. You mean I've been erroneously blaming Nixon this whole time?
 
2013-11-05 02:43:02 PM

bdub77: Here's what it comes down to. Did Obama lie? Yes. Should he admit he lied? Yes.


He will not, though....because it's never his fault.
 
2013-11-05 02:45:07 PM

BojanglesPaladin: grumpfuff: If there's any side that's a master of "Call it the opposite of what it does," that would be conservatives.

Sorta like how "No Child Left Behind" actually left a lot of children behind.

You DO know that Ted Kennedy was behind that, right?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act

"Proposed by George W. Bush, co-authored by John Boehner, George Miller, Edward Kennedy, and Judd Greg"

Yup. All Ted Kennedy.
 
2013-11-05 02:48:51 PM

bdub77: Here's what it comes down to. Did Obama lie? Yes. Should he admit he lied? Yes.

BUT. The vast majority of Americans do get to keep their health insurance through their employer. Another good percentage of those that buy their own health insurance also get to keep their health insurance. And the ones who don't get to keep their health insurance have better coverage because the other plans didn't meet basic requirements.


I'm not even sure this counts as  lying. Is it lying to say you're gonna kick someone's ass if they don't stop annoying you? It's just phrasework. What Obama said was a great talking point, but not exactly a lie, because a reasonable person  would assume some plans violate the law and are shiat. Misleading, certainly, and he needs to own up to it, but I wouldn't class it as a lie.

Also, people are seriously whining that they're being forced to buy real insurance instead of pay for the privilege of nothing. That's kind of spectacular in and of itself.
 
2013-11-05 02:52:49 PM

PsiChick: bdub77: Here's what it comes down to. Did Obama lie? Yes. Should he admit he lied? Yes.

BUT. The vast majority of Americans do get to keep their health insurance through their employer. Another good percentage of those that buy their own health insurance also get to keep their health insurance. And the ones who don't get to keep their health insurance have better coverage because the other plans didn't meet basic requirements.

I'm not even sure this counts as  lying. Is it lying to say you're gonna kick someone's ass if they don't stop annoying you? It's just phrasework. What Obama said was a great talking point, but not exactly a lie, because a reasonable person  would assume some plans violate the law and are shiat. Misleading, certainly, and he needs to own up to it, but I wouldn't class it as a lie.

Also, people are seriously whining that they're being forced to buy real insurance instead of pay for the privilege of nothing. That's kind of spectacular in and of itself.


It was a great talking point because it WAS a lie. "If you have insurance today you will probably be able to keep it" is a shiatty sounding talking point. Hence, the lie
 
2013-11-05 03:00:53 PM

Skleenar: colon_pow: if he would have pointed out the obvious, as you call it, the ACA would never have passed congress.

Wait, what?

You are suggesting that Congress was depending on the President's characterization of their bill to determine whether or not it was worthy of passage?

That's some pretty potato logic right there.


heritageaction.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com

'You've got to pass it to see what's in it."
 
2013-11-05 03:02:30 PM

skullkrusher: PsiChick: bdub77: Here's what it comes down to. Did Obama lie? Yes. Should he admit he lied? Yes.

BUT. The vast majority of Americans do get to keep their health insurance through their employer. Another good percentage of those that buy their own health insurance also get to keep their health insurance. And the ones who don't get to keep their health insurance have better coverage because the other plans didn't meet basic requirements.

I'm not even sure this counts as  lying. Is it lying to say you're gonna kick someone's ass if they don't stop annoying you? It's just phrasework. What Obama said was a great talking point, but not exactly a lie, because a reasonable person  would assume some plans violate the law and are shiat. Misleading, certainly, and he needs to own up to it, but I wouldn't class it as a lie.

Also, people are seriously whining that they're being forced to buy real insurance instead of pay for the privilege of nothing. That's kind of spectacular in and of itself.

It was a great talking point because it WAS a lie. "If you have insurance today you will probably be able to keep it" is a shiatty sounding talking point. Hence, the lie


But, as has been pointed out, he was a) assuming people  didn't like shiatty plans and b) assuming insurance companies wouldn't change plans, which is outside of his control. So that's not exactly lying--in point b he can't even control what happened.
 
2013-11-05 03:02:56 PM

ferretman: Skleenar: colon_pow: if he would have pointed out the obvious, as you call it, the ACA would never have passed congress.

Wait, what?

You are suggesting that Congress was depending on the President's characterization of their bill to determine whether or not it was worthy of passage?

That's some pretty potato logic right there.



'You've got to pass it to see what's in it."


It also applies to stool.

/when did I have corn?
 
2013-11-05 03:04:46 PM

PsiChick: But, as has been pointed out, he was a) assuming people  didn't like shiatty plans


this is not even true, you could keep your shiatty pre 3/2010 plan as long as it hasn't been substantially changed
 
2013-11-05 03:10:31 PM
 
2013-11-05 03:11:59 PM

Jackson Herring: PsiChick: But, as has been pointed out, he was a) assuming people  didn't like shiatty plans

this is not even true, you could keep your shiatty pre 3/2010 plan as long as it hasn't been substantially changed


Well, that was point b. But I think he also assumed that people didn't like shiatty plans, because, y'know...who'd have thunk?
 
2013-11-05 03:22:38 PM

grumpfuff: Yup. All Ted Kennedy.


I did not say "All", did I?

But in case you missed it because you were too young at the time and only read about it later or something, here's the rest of that story as told by Time magazine in a piece titled Ted Kennedy's Top Legislative Battles:

"One of this generation's most sweeping education reform laws may not have been passed without Sen. Kennedy's strong support. Kennedy worked closely with President George W. Bush to advance the No Child Left Behind Act, one of Bush's earliest accomplishments and, critics say, his last meaningful attempt at bipartisanship. Their unlikely alliance on the measure led Bush to jokingly reference "my friend Ted Kennedy" in his 2002 State of the Union speech, delivered weeks after the law was passed."

You might also note that Bill Clinton called it a "trainwreck" and blamed Ted Kennedy for its flaws.

Here's a nice article from a newspaper in Bush's home state a few years ago: "There's probably not a better example of Ted Kennedy's skills as a legislator than his work on No Child Left Behind, the law that Sen. Kennedy, Democratic Rep. George Miller, Republican Sen. Judd Gregg and GOP Rep. John Boehner worked on with the Bush administration in 2001."

Bottom line is that this bill was VERY bipartisan. Perhaps the last time we saw anything so bi-partisan, except the Iraq war resolution and the Patriot Act. (think about that).

On Jan. 8, 2002, President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110) into law with overwhelming bipartisan support. The final votes were 87-10 in the Senate and 381-41 in the House. Senators Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Congressmen George Miller (D-CA) and John Boehner (R-OH) were its chief sponsors in the Senate and the House.

So here's the thing: If you are looking to sling mud about ONE party doing something, you should make sure you are educated on the subject and maybe pick an example that is NOT so extremely bipartisan.
 
2013-11-05 03:31:02 PM

Garet Garrett: You know what it's called when you get something by lying in order to deliberately manipulate someone else into giving it to you?


GWB's second term.
 
2013-11-05 03:46:30 PM

BojanglesPaladin: So here's the thing: If you are looking to sling mud about ONE party doing something, you should make sure you are educated on the subject and maybe pick an example that is NOT so extremely bipartisan.


My apologies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Skies_Act_of_2003

No, it didn't get passed. But, admittedly, is a much better example.

Or perhaps "Party of personal responsibility" *

*except when they lose or do something wrong, then it's everyone else's fault.

Really, I can go on, I just don't care.
 
2013-11-05 03:47:56 PM

El Pachuco: Garet Garrett: You know what it's called when you get something by lying in order to deliberately manipulate someone else into giving it to you?

GWB's second term.


House budget "negotiations"?
 
2013-11-05 04:01:24 PM

Skleenar: ferretman: 'You've got to pass it to see what's in it."

Nancy Pelosi: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
On March 9, the Speaker of the House spoke to the National Association of Counties about the health care bill that was days away from final passage. This was the phrase that launched a thousand campaign ads. Nine months later, this is remembered as Pelosi admitting what Tea Partiers had feared: that Democrats were ramming through bad bills without reading them. That wasn't actually what she was saying. The full quote:
You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention-it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.
Pelosi was trying to say that the press was only reporting he-said-she-saids about the bill, and that its benefits would become clear, and popular, once it passed. They did become clear, though they have yet to become popular.


Yeeeaaahh...Slate' a notorious liberal rag attempts to cover-up Nancy Pelosi's original statement by stating 'THEY' know what Nancy rrreeeaaaalllllyy meant.
 
2013-11-05 04:18:53 PM

Skleenar: ferretman: 'You've got to pass it to see what's in it."

Nancy Pelosi: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."
On March 9, the Speaker of the House spoke to the National Association of Counties about the health care bill that was days away from final passage. This was the phrase that launched a thousand campaign ads. Nine months later, this is remembered as Pelosi admitting what Tea Partiers had feared: that Democrats were ramming through bad bills without reading them. That wasn't actually what she was saying. The full quote:
You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention-it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.
Pelosi was trying to say that the press was only reporting he-said-she-saids about the bill, and that its benefits would become clear, and popular, once it passed. They did become clear, though they have yet to become popular.


her phrasing was still poor, regardless of context.
 
2013-11-05 04:29:12 PM

Phinn: *** ATTENTION.  YOUR ATTENTION, PLEASE ***

The latest edition of the Newspeak Dictionary states that all anteObamaCare health plans shall be referred to as "Junk," or "Doubleplusjunk."

Referring to anteObamaCare plans as "better" or "desirable" in any way is doubleplusungood.

All Miniplenty Healthcare is bellyfeel good.

All statements regarding buying other healthcarewise plans is ungood ownlife behavior, and is thoughtcrime.

Sincerely yours,
Miniluv


Snark aside, technically calling these plans illegitimate and non-compliant under the ACA is perfectly accurate.

On a more fundamental level, calling something health insurance which doesn't properly look after you when you get sick is the bigger bullshiat at play here than what they are trying to pin on Obama.
 
2013-11-05 04:38:43 PM

ferretman: Yeeeaaahh...Slate' a notorious liberal rag attempts to cover-up Nancy Pelosi's original statement by stating 'THEY' know what Nancy rrreeeaaaalllllyy meant.


You might have missed the point that she wasn't talking to her fellow congressmen, but to a group of constituents.

You brought this quote up in response to me saying that it was stupid to think that the Congress was relying on Obama's word as to what was in the bill.  The reasonable assumption is that you must have thought that Pelosi was telling her caucus this or somehow admitting that she didn't know what was in it.

Either way, it was a pretty potato point.
 
2013-11-05 05:02:12 PM

grumpfuff: Really, I can go on, I just don't care


Sure you could. And you just did. But why? Why continue to view the government in terms of a completely fictitious binary politico dichotomy. You aren't on the team.

Once you have started down the "White people One team be like this and black people Other Team be like that" path, you've already lost ground on a rational analysis, because you have begun from an emotional, often irrational set of preconceptions prejudices and conclusions that can only cloud the issue.

This sort of thing is just a typed out version of playground "your mamma so fat" burn rings. Shall we point out that the democrats called theirs the AFFORDABLE Care act? uh-oh! Buurn! Who gets the cookie? What's prize?

The prize is won by the extremes who rely on highly motivated, and uncritical supporters to hand them power with no expectation of specific performance. No one is questioning whether something is a GOOD policy because they have trained anyone under the age of 30 to concern themselves with "winning" a game that doesn't exist.

/now get off my lawn
 
2013-11-05 05:03:49 PM

mrshowrules: Phinn: *** ATTENTION.  YOUR ATTENTION, PLEASE ***

The latest edition of the Newspeak Dictionary states that all anteObamaCare health plans shall be referred to as "Junk," or "Doubleplusjunk."

Referring to anteObamaCare plans as "better" or "desirable" in any way is doubleplusungood.

All Miniplenty Healthcare is bellyfeel good.

All statements regarding buying other healthcarewise plans is ungood ownlife behavior, and is thoughtcrime.

Sincerely yours,
Miniluv

Snark aside, technically calling these plans illegitimate and non-compliant under the ACA is perfectly accurate.

On a more fundamental level, calling something health insurance which doesn't properly look after you when you get sick is the bigger bullshiat at play here than what they are trying to pin on Obama.


Is that anything like calling a mandatory payment "insurance" when it's actually a tax?
 
2013-11-05 05:16:41 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Sure you could. And you just did. But why? Why continue to view the government in terms of a completely fictitious binary politico dichotomy. You aren't on the team.

Once you have started down the "White people One team be like this and black people Other Team be like that" path, you've already lost ground on a rational analysis, because you have begun from an emotional, often irrational set of preconceptions prejudices and conclusions that can only cloud the issue.

This sort of thing is just a typed out version of playground "your mamma so fat" burn rings. Shall we point out that the democrats called theirs the AFFORDABLE Care act? uh-oh! Buurn! Who gets the cookie? What's prize?

The prize is won by the extremes who rely on highly motivated, and uncritical supporters to hand them power with no expectation of specific performance. No one is questioning whether something is a GOOD policy because they have trained anyone under the age of 30 to concern themselves with "winning" a game that doesn't exist.


So vote Republican..
 
2013-11-05 05:29:25 PM

bdub77: Here's what it comes down to. Did Obama lie? Yes. Should he admit he lied? Yes.

BUT. The vast majority of Americans do get to keep their health insurance through their employer. Another good percentage of those that buy their own health insurance also get to keep their health insurance. And the ones who don't get to keep their health insurance have better coverage because the other plans didn't meet basic requirements.


I think there's a difference between lying and being wrong. Did Obama know that insurance companies would cancel these policies? If he did, he's a liar. If he did not, he was merely wrong in thinking that, because the law allowed the policies to continue, the policies wouldn't end some other way.
 
2013-11-05 05:35:24 PM

Skleenar: So vote Republican..


Why? Are you are a party loyalist?

I don't.

Vote CANDIDATE. Vote POLICY.
 
2013-11-05 05:38:25 PM

Phinn: Is that anything like calling a mandatory payment "insurance" when it's actually a tax?


services have all kind of "mandatory" payments, it doesn't make them a tax.

if you want to live somewhere, you have a mandatory payment called "rent" or "mortgage" (granted, mortgages to come with a property tax)

if you get caught speeding or parking illegally, you have to pay a "find"

if you go to the doctor, typically, you have to pay their "fee" or possibly later a "bill"
 
2013-11-05 05:39:00 PM

ManateeGag: "find"


*fine* - f'n fat finger.
 
2013-11-05 05:40:19 PM

DeaH: I think there's a difference between lying and being wrong. Did Obama know that insurance companies would cancel these policies? If he did, he's a liar. If he did not, he was merely wrong in thinking that


I agree.

If you knew that he knew in June of 2010 that not only individual insured, but 66% of small businesses and 45% of large businesses were expected to see their plans canceled and replaced with something else, what would you conclude?
 
2013-11-05 06:23:08 PM

ManateeGag: Phinn: Is that anything like calling a mandatory payment "insurance" when it's actually a tax?

services have all kind of "mandatory" payments, it doesn't make them a tax.

if you want to live somewhere, you have a mandatory payment called "rent" or "mortgage" (granted, mortgages to come with a property tax)

if you get caught speeding or parking illegally, you have to pay a "find"

if you go to the doctor, typically, you have to pay their "fee" or possibly later a "bill"



If you can't choose not to buy it, it's a tax.

You didn't read the Supreme Court opinion, did you?
 
2013-11-05 06:26:06 PM

BojanglesPaladin: DeaH: I think there's a difference between lying and being wrong. Did Obama know that insurance companies would cancel these policies? If he did, he's a liar. If he did not, he was merely wrong in thinking that

I agree.

If you knew that he knew in June of 2010 that not only individual insured, but 66% of small businesses and 45% of large businesses were expected to see their plans canceled and replaced with something else, what would you conclude?


If I saw the record in question and it said that, I would think Obama was a liar.
 
2013-11-05 06:48:08 PM

sprawl15: the fascinating point here is how upset people are that a promise that the government won't take your health insurance plan away from you doesn't extend to insurance companies choosing of their own volition to discontinue people's plans


What I find equally irritating are those relying on a political speech for the purpose of forecasting the insurance market. Seriously. Could you not have made a little effort toward getting your sh*t , folks?
 
2013-11-05 08:45:56 PM

ManateeGag: s2s2s2: Except Obama knew it would work out that way, before he said it wouldn't.

so, is Obama a all seeing mastermind this week or is he an empty suit no nothing puppet?


Sorry for the late response. I believe the term for someone that has repeatedly and intentionally told falsehoods is "liar".

Whatever else you imagined you were responding to has nothing to do with me, and in no way reduces this lie, told by our president.

I want single payer, so I want obamneycare to fail.
 
2013-11-05 08:50:23 PM

Peter von Nostrand: ManateeGag: s2s2s2: Except Obama knew it would work out that way, before he said it wouldn't.

so, is Obama a all seeing mastermind this week or is he an empty suit no nothing puppet?

Whatever he needs to be to suit the talking point at hand:

Killing of OBL - Empty suit that ordered ST6 to stand down but the military did it anyway
Benghazi - Empty suit that sat by idly doing nothing and/or ordered a stand down
Libya - Vicious war monger that took out a peaceable leader and nation
Maersk Alabama - Vicious killer that ordered the assassination of Muslim youths
IRS - Powerful leader than oversees every aspect of every agency, ordering the audits
BP Oil Spill - Empty suit during the response
West, Texas Fertilizer Plant - Micromanager, ordering regulations not be enforced


Nah, I don't use those. But I've gotten a kick out of all the "Whatev's, a politician lying, boo-hoo!" And, "Naw, it's the insurance companies' fault!" Horseshiat some folks have been running with.
 
2013-11-05 10:27:24 PM

DeaH: BojanglesPaladin: DeaH: I think there's a difference between lying and being wrong. Did Obama know that insurance companies would cancel these policies? If he did, he's a liar. If he did not, he was merely wrong in thinking that

I agree.

If you knew that he knew in June of 2010 that not only individual insured, but 66% of small businesses and 45% of large businesses were expected to see their plans canceled and replaced with something else, what would you conclude?

If I saw the record in question and it said that, I would think Obama was a liar.


The article he's citing itself cites a review of interim insurance regulation published in the Federal Register. It makes for some really dry reading, but here's the direct quote.

Federal Register (p34551):

In total, approximately 66 percent of small employers and 48 percent of large employers made a change in either cost sharing or premium contribution during 2009 that would require them to relinquish grandfather status if the same change were made in 2011.

That being said, this is a bizarre thing to biatch about. The employer mandate was delayed by a year, so we won't actually see how that market is affected for quite a while.

Put another way, we get to do this all again next year, but at a louder volume.
 
2013-11-05 10:38:43 PM

Elegy: Put another way, we get to do this all again next year, but at a louder volume.


Do you feel sometimes that there is a parallel between the roll-out of ACA and the way you cook a lobster?
 
2013-11-06 09:57:17 AM

BojanglesPaladin: Once you have started down the "White people One team be like this and black people Other Team be like that" path, you've already lost ground on a rational analysis, because you have begun from an emotional, often irrational set of preconceptions prejudices and conclusions that can only cloud the issue.


When the Republicans go back to putting country above party, I'll go back to taking them seriously.

Both sides may be bad. But one side is clearly worse.
 
2013-11-06 10:52:27 AM

grumpfuff: When the Republicans go back to putting country above party, I'll go back to taking them seriously. Both sides may be bad. But one side is clearly worse.


Thank you for demonstrating exactly what I'm talking about.
 
2013-11-06 11:08:48 AM

BojanglesPaladin: grumpfuff: When the Republicans go back to putting country above party, I'll go back to taking them seriously. Both sides may be bad. But one side is clearly worse.

Thank you for demonstrating exactly what I'm talking about.


No problem.

/registered Independent
 
Displayed 386 of 386 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report