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  
•       •       •

999 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Nov 2013 at 10:59 AM (41 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 386 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report