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.

(Some ACA Wonk)   Despite its many flaws, at least ObamaCare protects people against medical bankruptcy...(reads fine print)... OH COME ON   (nakedcapitalism.com) divider line 265
    More: Asinine, obamacare, Families USA, America's Health Insurance Plans, HMO, anesthesiologists, HAMP  
•       •       •

2414 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Nov 2013 at 1:20 PM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-19 12:46:54 PM
While the issue in TFA is a problem, it has absolutely nothing to do with Obamacare. It's just a general problem with the medical industry. Should we fix it? Sure. But "Obamacare failed to fix this pre-existing issue which was already broken" isn't much of an argument; Obamacare isn't a panacea.
 
2013-11-19 12:52:31 PM

DamnYankees: While the issue in TFA is a problem, it has absolutely nothing to do with Obamacare. It's just a general problem with the medical industry. Should we fix it? Sure. But "Obamacare failed to fix this pre-existing issue which was already broken" isn't much of an argument; Obamacare isn't a panacea.


Not a "panacea?"  Uh, then what were you so excited about when it passed?  It seems like a lot of people who cheered on the law because they are partisan before they are anything else, are now backpeddling on the law.

You guys said it was good.

It's not.

Move on.
 
2013-11-19 12:54:53 PM
When we've described some of the problems with Obamacare, some readers have piped up and insisted, "Oh, but you forget, those costly plans are still really valuable! The most you can pay in 2014 is $6,350 if you are an individual and $12,700 for a family of two or larger."

That is just not true. Those limits apply ONLY to in-network services.


Why wouldn't they only apply to only in-network services?

I don't get it.
 
2013-11-19 12:56:52 PM
bradkanus: It seems like a lot of people who cheered on the law because they are partisan before they are anything else, are now backpeddling on the law.

Today, in "Morons Seeing What They Want To See Theater"....
 
2013-11-19 01:08:09 PM
Isn't this the same as that private fire department that showed up, and we all agreed you can't charge for a service that wasn't requested? If you go to an in-network hospital that should be the end of it.
 
2013-11-19 01:09:09 PM
How many Obamacare links is this for today?
 
2013-11-19 01:10:36 PM

BKITU: bradkanus: It seems like a lot of people who cheered on the law because they are partisan before they are anything else, are now backpeddling on the law.

Today, in "Morons Seeing What They Want To See Theater"....


Feel a little guilty, don't you?  It's okay - you didn't read the bill.  You took their word for it. You were told by the people you voted for it was one thing. It turned out to be another.

Hey, that whole "weapons of mass destruction" thing really killed me. I believed it because the guys I voted for told me it was so. They were wrong.  I learned a lesson.  Will you learn yours?
 
2013-11-19 01:11:08 PM

ManateeGag: How many Obamacare links is this for today?


Not enough. I'm about to submit another dozen or so ...
 
2013-11-19 01:11:27 PM

DamnYankees: But "Obamacare failed to fix this pre-existing issue which was already broken" isn't much of an argument; Obamacare isn't a panacea.


Translation: "Hey Guys! Stop expecting this huge bill to actually fix the things it's supposed to fix OK? That's just not FAIR! Just because Obama promised people wouldn't go bankrupt from medical bills anymore is no reason to expect the ACA to protect people from going broke from medical bills!!!"
 
2013-11-19 01:12:30 PM

ManateeGag: How many Obamacare links is this for today?


Yeah. It's weird that it is a popular topic. I'm sure many people would prefer that it not be discussed so much now that people are getting a look at it.
 
2013-11-19 01:13:24 PM

bradkanus: BKITU: bradkanus: It seems like a lot of people who cheered on the law because they are partisan before they are anything else, are now backpeddling on the law.

Today, in "Morons Seeing What They Want To See Theater"....

Feel a little guilty, don't you?  It's okay - you didn't read the bill.  You took their word for it. You were told by the people you voted for it was one thing. It turned out to be another.

Hey, that whole "weapons of mass destruction" thing really killed me. I believed it because the guys I voted for told me it was so. They were wrong.  I learned a lesson.  Will you learn yours?


I think most rational people were happy that it passed because it's a step in the right direction.  Most people knew it wasn't perfect, and in general wasn't really great in any sense of the word.  What it is, is a pivot point towards a single payer system, and serious reform of the current billing/coverage rules.

Do you really look at issues that simplistically?  derp derp derp?
 
2013-11-19 01:15:26 PM

bradkanus: BKITU: bradkanus: It seems like a lot of people who cheered on the law because they are partisan before they are anything else, are now backpeddling on the law.

Today, in "Morons Seeing What They Want To See Theater"....

Feel a little guilty, don't you?  It's okay - you didn't read the bill.  You took their word for it. You were told by the people you voted for it was one thing. It turned out to be another.

Hey, that whole "weapons of mass destruction" thing really killed me. I believed it because the guys I voted for told me it was so. They were wrong.  I learned a lesson.  Will you learn yours?

blog.jinni.com

"God, I admire you."
 
2013-11-19 01:21:47 PM

queezyweezel: bradkanus: BKITU: bradkanus: It seems like a lot of people who cheered on the law because they are partisan before they are anything else, are now backpeddling on the law.

Today, in "Morons Seeing What They Want To See Theater"....

Feel a little guilty, don't you?  It's okay - you didn't read the bill.  You took their word for it. You were told by the people you voted for it was one thing. It turned out to be another.

Hey, that whole "weapons of mass destruction" thing really killed me. I believed it because the guys I voted for told me it was so. They were wrong.  I learned a lesson.  Will you learn yours?

I think most rational people were happy that it passed because it's a step in the right direction.  Most people knew it wasn't perfect, and in general wasn't really great in any sense of the word.  What it is, is a pivot point towards a single payer system, and serious reform of the current billing/coverage rules.

Do you really look at issues that simplistically?  derp derp derp?


And here's where you are 100 percent wrong.  It was a step away from single payer in every since of the ideal.  It put more Americans into a private system and took them out of the public system. If you think that's a step toward single payer, you're not familiar with how single payer works.

Also, the problems with the government handling the IT portion of the health exchanges has been the evidence to liberals in power that they are not ready to take on the kind of task a single payer system would be.  This system was supposed to handle 35 millino people and literally work as a pass through to insurance companies.  It was a hallway, so to speak.  They failed at that.  They now know that single payer is not an option because they can't create the infrastructure to make it succesful.
 
2013-11-19 01:22:08 PM

BojanglesPaladin: DamnYankees: But "Obamacare failed to fix this pre-existing issue which was already broken" isn't much of an argument; Obamacare isn't a panacea.

Translation: "Hey Guys! Stop expecting this huge bill to actually fix the things it's supposed to fix OK? That's just not FAIR! Just because Obama promised people wouldn't go bankrupt from medical bills anymore is no reason to expect the ACA to protect people from going broke from medical bills!!!"


So you'll support passing a law to amend Obamacare to fix this problem? I agree with you, its an issue. I hope you'll join me in supporting a bill to fix it.
 
2013-11-19 01:23:21 PM
Mandate every health care provider charge the same price to every patient regardless of their method of payment.

You're welcome.
 
2013-11-19 01:23:55 PM
They passed Obamacare and people are still getting cancer? What was it all for then!??!!?
 
2013-11-19 01:24:23 PM
So does this mean we're going to scrap the ACA in its entirety, throw all the democrats into PMITA prison and go Back To The Way Things Were?
 
2013-11-19 01:25:28 PM
"Obamacare is a good first step towards truly universal single-payer coverage."

"Derp, fart... fix old, no new... drill baby drill... where's my free insurance from healthcare.gov"
 
2013-11-19 01:25:37 PM

Serious Black: Mandate every health care provider charge the same price to every patient regardless of their method of payment.

You're welcome.


The docs and the hospitals cut a deal early on that this wouldn't be touched.  Sorry, they're protected.
 
2013-11-19 01:26:44 PM

bradkanus: BKITU: bradkanus: It seems like a lot of people who cheered on the law because they are partisan before they are anything else, are now backpeddling on the law.

Today, in "Morons Seeing What They Want To See Theater"....

Feel a little guilty, don't you?


Evasion noted.
 
2013-11-19 01:28:46 PM

DamnYankees: BojanglesPaladin: DamnYankees: But "Obamacare failed to fix this pre-existing issue which was already broken" isn't much of an argument; Obamacare isn't a panacea.

Translation: "Hey Guys! Stop expecting this huge bill to actually fix the things it's supposed to fix OK? That's just not FAIR! Just because Obama promised people wouldn't go bankrupt from medical bills anymore is no reason to expect the ACA to protect people from going broke from medical bills!!!"

So you'll support passing a law to amend Obamacare to fix this problem? I agree with you, its an issue. I hope you'll join me in supporting a bill to fix it.




Assuming it can be fixed, or even deal with the problems in health care instead of the health insurance industry.

It's sort if like demanding your friend help you fix up that rusty old ford pinto you bought after he warned you that it was a bad idea.
He could just say "no, get rid of the damn thing".
 
2013-11-19 01:30:01 PM
If that is unacceptable, you are welcome to demand single payer healthcare.
 
2013-11-19 01:30:15 PM

DamnYankees: So you'll support passing a law to amend Obamacare to fix this problem? I hope you'll join me in supporting a bill to fix it.


I suppose that would depend greatly on what was in the bill, don't you? There IS no such bill, and it seems unlikely that there will be one.

I doubt you intend to support any bills coming from the House Republicans to fix what is wrong with ACA, and I have no idea what bills you anticipate coming from the Senate Democrats, given that the last effort to tweak it did nothing to fix this flaw when they passed The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. Perhaps they need multiple tries? Or perhaps they aren't actually interested in any substantive changes.

So would I support a hypothetical non-existent bill to fix just one of the myriad and pervasive failure points of a deeply flawed and ineffective garbage pile of bad legislation? Perhaps.

But something tells me you wouldn't, if it meant actually changing ACA.
 
2013-11-19 01:30:17 PM

bradkanus: Move on.


Man, fark off. Seriously. fark off into heavy traffic.
 
2013-11-19 01:30:52 PM
The question I have from this article.

Are hospitals purposefully duping people into thinking all of their care will be in network for some extra cash or do they just not want to anger patients or have patients go elsewhere when no other option is available?
 
2013-11-19 01:31:40 PM

sigdiamond2000: When we've described some of the problems with Obamacare, some readers have piped up and insisted, "Oh, but you forget, those costly plans are still really valuable! The most you can pay in 2014 is $6,350 if you are an individual and $12,700 for a family of two or larger."

That is just not true. Those limits apply ONLY to in-network services.

Why wouldn't they only apply to only in-network services?

I don't get it.


The law specifies the most you can pay in co-pays is $6,350. This isn't an issue of copays. This is an issue of..

Joe sees medical professional XYZ who isn't in your network and overcharges for its services, lets say $10,000. Joe's insurance attempts to settle with XYZ and pays a reasonable amount, say $2,000. XYZ sees this and says, "On no, $2,000 isn't enough," and sends a bill to Joe for $12,000
 
2013-11-19 01:32:10 PM

bradkanus: queezyweezel: bradkanus: BKITU: bradkanus: It seems like a lot of people who cheered on the law because they are partisan before they are anything else, are now backpeddling on the law.

Today, in "Morons Seeing What They Want To See Theater"....

Feel a little guilty, don't you?  It's okay - you didn't read the bill.  You took their word for it. You were told by the people you voted for it was one thing. It turned out to be another.

Hey, that whole "weapons of mass destruction" thing really killed me. I believed it because the guys I voted for told me it was so. They were wrong.  I learned a lesson.  Will you learn yours?

I think most rational people were happy that it passed because it's a step in the right direction.  Most people knew it wasn't perfect, and in general wasn't really great in any sense of the word.  What it is, is a pivot point towards a single payer system, and serious reform of the current billing/coverage rules.

Do you really look at issues that simplistically?  derp derp derp?

And here's where you are 100 percent wrong.  It was a step away from single payer in every since of the ideal.  It put more Americans into a private system and took them out of the public system. If you think that's a step toward single payer, you're not familiar with how single payer works.

Also, the problems with the government handling the IT portion of the health exchanges has been the evidence to liberals in power that they are not ready to take on the kind of task a single payer system would be.  This system was supposed to handle 35 millino people and literally work as a pass through to insurance companies.  It was a hallway, so to speak.  They failed at that.  They now know that single payer is not an option because they can't create the infrastructure to make it succesful.


Wait what? Which "public system" did it take them out of?
 
2013-11-19 01:32:28 PM
I was excited for a panacea. I am disappoint
 
2013-11-19 01:33:16 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Just because Obama promised people wouldn't go bankrupt from medical bills anymore is no reason to expect the ACA to protect people from going broke from medical bills!!!


Did he promise that?
 
2013-11-19 01:33:35 PM

bradkanus: DamnYankees: While the issue in TFA is a problem, it has absolutely nothing to do with Obamacare. It's just a general problem with the medical industry. Should we fix it? Sure. But "Obamacare failed to fix this pre-existing issue which was already broken" isn't much of an argument; Obamacare isn't a panacea.

Not a "panacea?"  Uh, then what were you so excited about when it passed?  It seems like a lot of people who cheered on the law because they are partisan before they are anything else, are now backpeddling on the law.

You guys said it was good.

It's not.

Move on.


So you're either an obnoxious blogger or a hot redhead...choose wisely.
 
2013-11-19 01:33:39 PM

bradkanus: BKITU: bradkanus: It seems like a lot of people who cheered on the law because they are partisan before they are anything else, are now backpeddling on the law.

Today, in "Morons Seeing What They Want To See Theater"....

Feel a little guilty, don't you?


Once again, in "Morons Seeing What They Want To See Theater"....

Here's a hot tip: You do not live in other peoples' heads, and therefore have no idea what other people are thinking. Stop pretending like you do. It's warping your perception of reality.
 
2013-11-19 01:34:12 PM
what he meant was
 
2013-11-19 01:34:15 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: bradkanus: Move on.

Man, fark off. Seriously. fark off into heavy traffic.


I love how the left can't deal with their failure.  It just goes straight into wishes for the death of the people that warned them they were screwing up.  Good times.

You guys own it, you deal with it.
 
2013-11-19 01:34:42 PM

Fart_Machine: bradkanus: queezyweezel: bradkanus: BKITU: bradkanus: It seems like a lot of people who cheered on the law because they are partisan before they are anything else, are now backpeddling on the law.

Today, in "Morons Seeing What They Want To See Theater"....

Feel a little guilty, don't you?  It's okay - you didn't read the bill.  You took their word for it. You were told by the people you voted for it was one thing. It turned out to be another.

Hey, that whole "weapons of mass destruction" thing really killed me. I believed it because the guys I voted for told me it was so. They were wrong.  I learned a lesson.  Will you learn yours?

I think most rational people were happy that it passed because it's a step in the right direction.  Most people knew it wasn't perfect, and in general wasn't really great in any sense of the word.  What it is, is a pivot point towards a single payer system, and serious reform of the current billing/coverage rules.

Do you really look at issues that simplistically?  derp derp derp?

And here's where you are 100 percent wrong.  It was a step away from single payer in every since of the ideal.  It put more Americans into a private system and took them out of the public system. If you think that's a step toward single payer, you're not familiar with how single payer works.

Also, the problems with the government handling the IT portion of the health exchanges has been the evidence to liberals in power that they are not ready to take on the kind of task a single payer system would be.  This system was supposed to handle 35 millino people and literally work as a pass through to insurance companies.  It was a hallway, so to speak.  They failed at that.  They now know that single payer is not an option because they can't create the infrastructure to make it succesful.

Wait what? Which "public system" did it take them out of?


Medicaid.  You assistance is now applied to your insurance premium! yeah!

Please tell me you know how Medicare and Medicaid work... please.  They are two insurance companies with clever names, FYI.
 
2013-11-19 01:35:13 PM

bradkanus: BKITU: bradkanus: It seems like a lot of people who cheered on the law because they are partisan before they are anything else, are now backpeddling on the law.

Today, in "Morons Seeing What They Want To See Theater"....

Feel a little guilty, don't you?  It's okay - you didn't read the bill.  You took their word for it. You were told by the people you voted for it was one thing. It turned out to be another.

Hey, that whole "weapons of mass destruction" thing really killed me. I believed it because the guys I voted for told me it was so. They were wrong.  I learned a lesson.  Will you learn yours?


I have. There is no way I'm voting for Obama in 2016.
 
2013-11-19 01:36:22 PM

Tricky Chicken: The My Little Pony Killer: bradkanus: Move on.

Man, fark off. Seriously. fark off into heavy traffic.

I love how the left can't deal with their failure.  It just goes straight into wishes for the death of the people that warned them they were screwing up.  Good times.

You guys own it, you deal with it.


Can you please point me to the last law that was perfect upon implementation?

I'll wait.
 
2013-11-19 01:36:32 PM
Okay, maybe I'm missing something, but it looks like Obamacare, while not directly addressing the issue, does make it much less of an issue. Balance billing is where hospitals try to make up the slack in reimbursements or non-payers by heavily overcharging others, the article says Obamacare has the following provision:

"Your plan must pay the emergency providers the greatest of these three amounts:

1. The amount it pays in-network providers;
2. A payment based on the same methods the plan uses to pay for other out-of-network
services (for example, a percentage of usual and customary fees charged by other
providers in your area); or
3. The amount Medicare would pay for that service."

So it helps on two fronts, 1) your insurance can't say they don't cover emergency care in a non-network ER and stick you with the bill, they have to pay at least what they would have paid an in-network hospital, so you pay less, and 2) by paying out to ER visits more, and more often, the hospital will have fewer unpaid bills, so they won't have to balance bill as often, or at such exorbitant levels.

To sum up:
1. Problem existed before ACA.
2. ACA doesn't solve problem, but helps alleviate the problem.
3. ???
4. Clearly, this calls for outrage.
 
2013-11-19 01:37:21 PM
Why the fark do we even have "networks" in the first place? To me, that seems to be the retarded part of our whole system.
 
2013-11-19 01:37:31 PM
A whole lot of troll gray in this thread....
 
2013-11-19 01:37:39 PM
How cute.  People supported politicians who threw endless roadblocks in the legislative process to derail the ACA, and now they're upset that it doesn't actually provide anything useful to the average person.
 
2013-11-19 01:37:43 PM
Your blog sucks.
 
2013-11-19 01:38:18 PM

MindStalker: sigdiamond2000: When we've described some of the problems with Obamacare, some readers have piped up and insisted, "Oh, but you forget, those costly plans are still really valuable! The most you can pay in 2014 is $6,350 if you are an individual and $12,700 for a family of two or larger."

That is just not true. Those limits apply ONLY to in-network services.

Why wouldn't they only apply to only in-network services?

I don't get it.

The law specifies the most you can pay in co-pays is $6,350. This isn't an issue of copays. This is an issue of..

Joe sees medical professional XYZ who isn't in your network and overcharges for its services, lets say $10,000. Joe's insurance attempts to settle with XYZ and pays a reasonable amount, say $2,000. XYZ sees this and says, "On no, $2,000 isn't enough," and sends a bill to Joe for $12,000


Oh. Then rape him with a stick.
 
2013-11-19 01:38:40 PM

BKITU: bradkanus: BKITU: bradkanus: It seems like a lot of people who cheered on the law because they are partisan before they are anything else, are now backpeddling on the law.

Today, in "Morons Seeing What They Want To See Theater"....

Feel a little guilty, don't you?

Once again, in "Morons Seeing What They Want To See Theater"....

Here's a hot tip: You do not live in other peoples' heads, and therefore have no idea what other people are thinking. Stop pretending like you do. It's warping your perception of reality.


So you are going to tell me that liberals were wary of this bill when it passed and made public statements saying that it would not likely work in the sense it would kick millions of americans off of their current plan and fail to entice those who didn't have insurance to get insurance.  Is that what you are claiming the left was saying in 2009-2010?  I need to know because I heard something completely different.

If you werent' partisan, you would have read the law. You would have understood what it aimed to do.  Instead, you did what you were told because you knew republicans didn't like it.  Well, when you do things out of spite...well you know what happens - ACA happens.
 
2013-11-19 01:38:54 PM

12349876: Are hospitals purposefully duping people into thinking all of their care will be in network for some extra cash or do they just not want to anger patients or have patients go elsewhere when no other option is available?


MANY specialists (like anesthesiologists, some surgeons, etc.) simply don't participate in insurance networks. Meaning they don't agree ahead of time to do work for patients of certain insurance companies at a significantly reduced rate. They bill the hospital, the hospital bills you or the insurance company. Then they all fight about it, and at some point, YOU have to pay the difference. The challenge is that for scheduled surgery you sign a piece of paperwork that acknowledges this, and that you accept responsibility for all the bills, but no one actually reads it. And if you are in an accident, or unconscious, you don't have any real say in it.

If you ever get service from someone who hasn't already negotiated a reduced rate with your insurance company, then you have to manually submit that bill to the insurance company, and they get to refuse to pay it and you can all fight for a while, and YOU have to get directly involved, and you will probably end up paying a ton more.

THAT's what "in-network" is about and why it matters when people complain that the ACA networks are smaller. Last I saw, about 40% of providers polled hadn't even decided whether they would be signing on to ACA networks because it wasn't clear yet what the compensation rates would be. And we are a month and a half out.
 
2013-11-19 01:39:32 PM

bradkanus: DamnYankees: While the issue in TFA is a problem, it has absolutely nothing to do with Obamacare. It's just a general problem with the medical industry. Should we fix it? Sure. But "Obamacare failed to fix this pre-existing issue which was already broken" isn't much of an argument; Obamacare isn't a panacea.

Not a "panacea?"  Uh, then what were you so excited about when it passed?  It seems like a lot of people who cheered on the law because they are partisan before they are anything else, are now backpeddling on the law.

You guys said it was good.

It's not.

Move on.


No, what we said is that it's better than what we had. The general consensus among liberals once the ACA took shape was "Eh, it'll do.".

/What we want is single payer. This is a step towards that.
 
2013-11-19 01:40:10 PM

bradkanus: queezyweezel: bradkanus: BKITU: bradkanus: It seems like a lot of people who cheered on the law because they are partisan before they are anything else, are now backpeddling on the law.

Today, in "Morons Seeing What They Want To See Theater"....

Feel a little guilty, don't you?  It's okay - you didn't read the bill.  You took their word for it. You were told by the people you voted for it was one thing. It turned out to be another.

Hey, that whole "weapons of mass destruction" thing really killed me. I believed it because the guys I voted for told me it was so. They were wrong.  I learned a lesson.  Will you learn yours?

I think most rational people were happy that it passed because it's a step in the right direction.  Most people knew it wasn't perfect, and in general wasn't really great in any sense of the word.  What it is, is a pivot point towards a single payer system, and serious reform of the current billing/coverage rules.

Do you really look at issues that simplistically?  derp derp derp?

And here's where you are 100 percent wrong.  It was a step away from single payer in every since of the ideal.  It put more Americans into a private system and took them out of the public system. If you think that's a step toward single payer, you're not familiar with how single payer works.

Also, the problems with the government handling the IT portion of the health exchanges has been the evidence to liberals in power that they are not ready to take on the kind of task a single payer system would be.  This system was supposed to handle 35 millino people and literally work as a pass through to insurance companies.  It was a hallway, so to speak.  They failed at that.  They now know that single payer is not an option because they can't create the infrastructure to make it succesful.


And as we all know, if anyone ever fails at something once, they will always continue to fail at anything and everything that remotely resembles it.  That's why schools expel students the first time they fail a test or get an F on an assignment, all businesses fire employees the first time they fark something up, and our justice system executes anyone who's convicted of anything.

Though I suppose you could just be an idiot, but I'm thinking my other scenario is way more likely.
 
2013-11-19 01:40:10 PM

JerseyTim: They passed Obamacare and people are still getting cancer? What was it all for then!??!!?


That's not all. They Passed Obamacare and I still have to put gas in my car every week. Clearly the law is broken.
 
2013-11-19 01:40:16 PM

Ardilla: A whole lot of troll gray in this thread....


Once BJP appears in a thread, it has become a troll thread.  A sure sign to move on.
 
2013-11-19 01:40:30 PM

BojanglesPaladin: I doubt you intend to support any bills coming from the House Republicans to fix what is wrong with ACA,


No, Democrats probably won't support "fixes" that will inevitably fall somewhere between "won't actually fix anything" and "deliberate sabotage".
 
2013-11-19 01:42:05 PM

Great_Milenko: How cute.  People supported politicians who threw endless roadblocks in the legislative process to derail the ACA, and now they're upset that it doesn't actually provide anything useful to the average person.


Actually, they are upset that the bill led to the non-renewal of policies they liked and replaced them with more costly policies.  It did have an effect on people whether they liked the bill or not.
 
Displayed 50 of 265 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report