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 New Yorker)   While the press circle jerks about who can first report on the death of liberalism and the glorious coming thousand year reign of conservatism, people are getting insured   (newyorker.com) divider line 73
    More: Obvious, obamacare, Americans, Medi-Cal, insurance agents  
•       •       •

2335 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Nov 2013 at 10:15 AM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

2013-11-20 10:31:20 AM
3 votes:

SlothB77: Liberalism won't die.  But Obamacare will.


So Republicans are going to run on stripping away privately purchased insurance from hundreds of thousands of Americas, re-implementing pre-existing condition clauses, and putting lifetime coverage caps on children with cancer?
2013-11-20 11:51:44 AM
2 votes:

FarkedOver: InmanRoshi: FarkedOver: Liberalism is nothing but feel good politics.

 Yes, I'm sure it does "feels good" when you get Civil Rights.

Riiiighhhhttt that was all liberals.... Keep believing that.


Actually it was. Liberal Republicans and Liberal Democratic members of Congress united and overcame opposition from Conservative Republicans and Conservative Democrats. The deciding factor was geography, not party affiliation. At that time you still had a species later known as "Rockafeller Republicans". Today they are all but dead.
2013-11-20 11:25:30 AM
2 votes:

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: You think conservatives support change?

LOL

No.  I think the real people that have effected change in this country have been radicals.

Please see the CP, IWW, Black Panthers etc.

I don't sit here and pretend a liberal fought for any persons rights.  They paid lip service.  Real change was won by real leftists.


The tea party are also radicals, though. Liberal and conservative kind of helps point to which end of the spectrum they're on.

At the very least, conservatives were the ones that *Actively opposed* Civil Rights. Because it sure as fark wasn't the LIBERALS screeching "RACE MIXING IS COOOMUUUNISSSSM". Though, in actuality, I suppose those folks might have *Also* been radicals....
2013-11-20 11:16:27 AM
2 votes:
As I've pointed out many, many times before, the mass media are not on the side of the People. They would very much prefer having a right wing republican government (the more viciously Teabaggy the better), simply because republicans do outrageous things that the media can write articles about. The clusterfark known as the Iraq war gave these ghouls plenty of stuff to jibber about on MSNBC between weekends full of prison documentaries.


No media pundit wants to write articles about boring Democratic stuff like "Baby gets well fed" or "Elderly person went to the doctor and got better".
2013-11-20 11:04:58 AM
2 votes:

Tricky Chicken: Dog Welder: Wait, do you mean to tell me that states that actively tried to work with the law and expand the Medicare coverage are seeing massive enrollments, and states where the governors and state legislatures are actively trying to sabotage the law the people are having issues?  Color me shocked.

/"shocked" as a color is very similar to chartreuse.

Yes, the republican governors were particularly brilliant weren't they?  Expand medicare and run your own exchange and shoulder some of the expense, or just let the federal government handle their own law themselves and not risk taking on any of the expense.  Tough choice.

The smart ones are letting the Feds take all the risk.  As the costs skyrocket, their budgets won't take a hit.  Been nice knowing ya California!


Funny how those GOP states are the states screaming the most about "STATES RIGHTS!" and instead invited that dagburned fedral gubmint in to run things for them.
2013-11-20 10:47:47 AM
2 votes:

qorkfiend: Garet Garrett: While the press circle jerks about who can first report on the death of liberalism and the glorious coming thousand year reign of conservatism, people are getting insured they're forgetting there's a looming death spiral, too

FTFY, smitty.

Can you expound on that?


Um, sure.  So far the anecdotal evidence that's been put out about enrollments (and that's all that's been made available, a subject I'll address shortly), those that have managed to enroll in private plans (not the expanded Medicaid) have been among the "neediest" people - people with cancer, chronic illnesses, etc.  Heavy users of the system.  In order to maintain some sort of financial balance, for each of them, O'care needs about 20 people whose premiums exceed their medical expenses - basically, young healthy men (sorry ladies, you're expensive at any age, NTTAWWT).

Those guys are harder to track down than a will-o-the-wisp.  They need to be healthy, employed, make enough money to pay for the health insurance but not get it from their employer, not have a plan that O's latest promise will "let them keep," etc.  Oh, and be willing to pay more in premiums than they're likely to spend in healthcare plus the paltry tax penalty for not carrying insurance.

Now, if the exchanges were seeing the kind of ratios between net contributors and net takers from the system, Jay Carney would lead with that at every frigging news conference.  But they're not, so the anecdotes ("gammy finally can afford the rehab that will get her walking!") appear to be, by and large, representative (i.e., just what we'd expect - the people signing up are the people with a perceived acute need for insurance).  Which means the plans being offered are going to go upside down very, very quickly, and the insurers will be raising premiums dramatically to try to make the plans work financially.  Which will drive more and more non-heavy users out of the system, which will, in turn, drive greater premium increases.  I.e., a death spiral.

Of course, the cynical folks will suspect that the Obamas and Sebelius's of the world are hoping that the system fails into single payer.  But that's just speculation, right?
2013-11-20 10:19:26 AM
2 votes:
Hopefully liberalism does die and liberals can finally move further to left.
2013-11-20 10:11:35 AM
2 votes:

mrshowrules: SlothB77: Liberalism won't die.  But Obamacare will.

Wanna bet?


I, too, will take that bet.
2013-11-20 09:35:45 AM
2 votes:

cman: I want to know when Sarah Palin says something stupid and ignore everything else in the speech she said.


Unpossible.   Everything she says is stupid.
2013-11-20 02:32:01 PM
1 votes:

Evil High Priest: Egoy3k: I'm about as socially liberal as it's possible to be but you communists are insane....

Most "socially liberal" people are pro-union. Maybe you meant to use some other words?


I think those words were:  "I like to get high"
2013-11-20 01:26:00 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: I'm a farking Marxist you dolt.  I don't support any form of conservatism.  JEEEESUS


Oh, sorry couldn't tell the two dead ideologies apart
2013-11-20 01:25:06 PM
1 votes:

thurstonxhowell: Rwa2play: So OWS was "anarchist" but the TP's "patriotic"? Is that what you're insinuating here?

You might want to read the thread. FarkedOver deviates from the script you're following.


Nah, I'm just enjoying his feeble attempts to try and sugarcoat one side of the argument while demonizing the other.
2013-11-20 01:19:02 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: Rhino_man: ... so what the fark IS your "thing?"

I'm a Marxist.

cameroncrazy1984: So you don't vote and you don't protest. What is this "real action" you are taking?

I do protest.  I just think Occupy was more of an anarchist movement,


So OWS was "anarchist" but the TP's "patriotic"?  Is that what you're insinuating here?

FarkedOver: Rwa2play: Spoken by someone who thinks waving the flag and saying "GOD BLESS AMERICA~!" will fix all of our nation's problems.

Here's a guy that didn't read the thread.


Evasion and projection noted.
2013-11-20 01:16:37 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: Rhino_man: ... so what the fark IS your "thing?"

I'm a Marxist.

cameroncrazy1984: So you don't vote and you don't protest. What is this "real action" you are taking?

I do protest.  I just think Occupy was more of an anarchist movement, I don't want to get into that right now because there are certain anarchists here that will say it was RUINED because of socialists and communists (not true, it's just their go to excuse).  I believe in protests and I believe in agitation at the work place and militant unionization.  I believe in running anti-capitalist candidates.


FWIW, I highly recommend Rudolf Rocker's Nationalism and Culture. In the first chapter he demolishes the quasi-religious Marxist belief in economics as the sole driver of history. A quick tour of history shows just how easy falsifiable that axiom is. I recommend giving it a read if you insist on calling yourself a Marxist in the 21st century.
2013-11-20 01:13:00 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: This also brings me back to my point of liberalism being feel good politics.  You vote on something that is right and just, great. In actuality you really didn't do all that farking much other than say you want change.


You mean other than codifying into law and thus, making it a violation of said law if not followed?

Maybe you need to look at this before you answer first, k? Hey, I'm just a bill.
2013-11-20 01:08:12 PM
1 votes:

jltthorson: UberDave: I wonder what 1000 year reign of teabag-like conservatism would look like...


[s24.postimg.org image 850x353]

You mean like Democrat Detroit now.


It always makes me lol that conservatives have exactly two examples of poor liberal management: Detroit, and Chicago. They conveniently leave off every single other major city in the US, almost all of which are run by Democrats, and most of which are doing fine, and certainly better than most conservative areas.
2013-11-20 12:39:32 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: More recently in Seattle a Socialist won a seat on city council. She has advocated Boeing workers to seize the factory and equipment if Boeing moves out of washington..... I like this lady!


I'm sorry, do you *live* in Seattle? Your fark profile implies you don't.

Did you donate money to her campaign?

And really, what the fark is she going to do? She'll just be 'codifying laws into action', which, as we know, isn't REAL change. So you've told us.

/I am also glad she won, however.
2013-11-20 12:38:37 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: There's a reason that Wildcat strikes don't happen anymore.

Because it's bad for business and the state will send in their goons to break it up.  Kind of like FDR did.


Because it's illegal, and there are legal ways and methods to effect change. How is it that you're not getting it yet?
2013-11-20 12:36:59 PM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: There's a reason that Wildcat strikes don't happen anymore.


Because it's bad for business and the state will send in their goons to break it up.  Kind of like FDR did.
2013-11-20 12:35:34 PM
1 votes:

Kangaroo_Ralph: If The New Yorker wanted to know something about circle-jerks, they should ask Farkers. There aren't enough mops to clean what's been piling up on the Politics tab the past few years.


Awww, did someone accidentally leave their fox-news-am-radio echo chamber and find out that Farkers like actual facts, not Republican facts you make up to make yourself feel better?

Poor little guy.
2013-11-20 12:32:13 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: RangerTaylor: cameroncrazy1984, I love you like a brother, seeing as you are another long-suffering Buffalo fan, but come on man, stop feeding the troll.

How am I trolling?  My position isn't ridiculous or far fetched.  Liberals think voting is the end all and be all.  Real leftists know that real change comes from action.

Liberals will just codify into law what leftists fought for.  It's not an insane position or a troll position just because it is contrary to your opinion.


"Codify into laws" is not an action? How much good do those "changes" do, and how long will they last, if they're not codified in some fashion? What were the leftists fighting for, if not to get their changes codified into law?
2013-11-20 12:31:16 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: Rhino_man: ... so what the fark IS your "thing?"

I'm a Marxist.

cameroncrazy1984: So you don't vote and you don't protest. What is this "real action" you are taking?

I do protest.  I just think Occupy was more of an anarchist movement, I don't want to get into that right now because there are certain anarchists here that will say it was RUINED because of socialists and communists (not true, it's just their go to excuse).  I believe in protests and I believe in agitation at the work place and militant unionization.  I believe in running anti-capitalist candidates.


Occupy was ruined by a coordinated and unconstitutional crackdown by the Feds. But thank you for playing.
2013-11-20 12:27:57 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: I do protest.  I just think Occupy was more of an anarchist movement, I don't want to get into that right now because there are certain anarchists here that will say it was RUINED because of socialists and communists (not true, it's just their go to excuse).  I believe in protests and I believe in agitation at the work place and militant unionization.  I believe in running anti-capitalist candidates.

And what has changed so far with all of this "real action" that you're doing, while the rest of us were voting for liberals who are actually codifying and enacting it?

Well historically speaking? weekends, the 40 hour workweek, paid sick days and holidays.... pretty much any benefit you enjoy at work, thank anticapitalist agitators like communists socialists and anarchists labor unions and their liberal backers in government.

More recently in Seattle a Socialist won a seat on city council.  She has advocated Boeing workers to seize the factory and equipment if Boeing moves out of washington..... I like this lady!


Fixed that for you.
2013-11-20 12:26:52 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: Who votes for the lesser of two evils? Not me, certainly. I vote for people who support a majority of my views. And they write things like the ACA and the Credit CARD act. You know, actual change.

I didn't know the Heritage Foundation was running for anything this year.


What a load of bullshiat. HF has forsaken that bill for the sake of opposing Obama. Attributing the healthcare law to them is only useful for pointing out just how reactionary and stupid modern Republicans have become. Acting like Obama and Democrats don't get any credit for passing that bill into law just because "they didn't think of it first!" is childish.
2013-11-20 12:25:28 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: Rhino_man: He's the one who pushed for a Bill of Rights in the first place. The Civil Rights movement of the 50s and 60s wanted that Bill of Rights extended to cover everyone regardless of color, but that doesn't mean that Jefferson wasn't deeply involved in its creation.

He pushed for a bill of rights for rich white men.  Great, what a visionary and a real big departure from the Magna Carta.  You want someone that really wanted change? Check out this mofo:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babeuf.


And how many women were in his Society of Equals?
Answer:  zero.  So much for your big, bad social revolutionary.
2013-11-20 12:24:50 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: I do protest.  I just think Occupy was more of an anarchist movement, I don't want to get into that right now because there are certain anarchists here that will say it was RUINED because of socialists and communists (not true, it's just their go to excuse).  I believe in protests and I believe in agitation at the work place and militant unionization.  I believe in running anti-capitalist candidates.


And what has changed so far with all of this "real action" that you're doing, while the rest of us were voting for liberals who are actually codifying and enacting it?
2013-11-20 12:20:08 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: Serious Black: I'm sure all the people who are getting droned to death in Pakistan are really changing because of our actions.

That's what happens when all you have to choose from are two corporate parties.  People die in the name of profits.  Are we surprised by this?

Certainly if you just occupy wall street more and don't vote, it'll stop!

That's more of an anarchist tactic and not my thing.  I support it though.


So you don't vote and you don't protest. What is this "real action" you are taking?
2013-11-20 12:19:33 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: Who votes for the lesser of two evils? Not me, certainly. I vote for people who support a majority of my views. And they write things like the ACA and the Credit CARD act. You know, actual change.

I didn't know the Heritage Foundation was running for anything this year.


The individual mandate was the Heritage Foundation's idea. Most of the rest of it was not. Are you really expecting me to concede to you a point you have not earned?
2013-11-20 12:17:31 PM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: Who votes for the lesser of two evils? Not me, certainly. I vote for people who support a majority of my views. And they write things like the ACA and the Credit CARD act. You know, actual change.


I didn't know the Heritage Foundation was running for anything this year.
2013-11-20 12:16:48 PM
1 votes:

Serious Black: I'm sure all the people who are getting droned to death in Pakistan are really changing because of our actions.


That's what happens when all you have to choose from are two corporate parties.  People die in the name of profits.  Are we surprised by this?
2013-11-20 12:14:04 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: RangerTaylor: cameroncrazy1984, I love you like a brother, seeing as you are another long-suffering Buffalo fan, but come on man, stop feeding the troll.

How am I trolling?  My position isn't ridiculous or far fetched.  Liberals think voting is the end all and be all.  Real leftists know that real change comes from action.

Liberals will just codify into law what leftists fought for.  It's not an insane position or a troll position just because it is contrary to your opinion.


Thank you!

/packs up briefcase
2013-11-20 12:13:30 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: Liberals think voting is the end all and be all.  Real leftists know that real change comes from action.


What's funny is that you don't consider "voting" to be the greatest action you can take. You get to foment a revolution every 4 years. What could be a better action than that?

Or did you think that all you had to do was get arrested a few times and people would magically see it your way?
2013-11-20 12:12:55 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: Fart_Machine: FarkedOver: Fart_Machine: Radicals tend to alienate the public. I'm more inclined to listen to you if you engage a dialogue rather than smashing up a storefront or setting things on fire.

Radicals of 60s civil rights movement alienated people because most people were still racist assholes.  In the face of police brutality and stereotyping black men legally armed themselves, as is the case with the black panthers.  That was radical.  Was it wrong? HELL NO.  But a liberal would have told them "just wait.... we'll get there in small steps!"

A liberal did. You might have heard of MLK.

Read up on his views of capitalism.  They're not that mainstream.  He had rather radical views.  Liberals typically don't like glorify MLK's anti-capitalist stance.

Plus I think Malcolm X was ten times more the speaker and advocate for change than MLK ever could be.  MLK is a nice alternative to white people who scare easy.


Um I think you're confused here. Liberals have always acknowledged King's views on social justice and the Vietnam War. It's only been recently that conservative pundits started claiming he was one of their own based on the Dream speech.

But I'm sure moderate white voters would have rallied behind Civil Rights legislation fronted by a man who referred to them as devils.
2013-11-20 12:11:08 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: If you were born free, why do we need a Constitution guaranteeing certain rights?

It sad that you think that all that stands between you and bondage is a piece of parchment.

Isn't it?

No.


So what you're saying is that a Constitution is not necessary, at all. And nor are laws? Is that what you're saying? Because you're going against some pretty smart people when you say things like that.
2013-11-20 12:04:47 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: Read up on his views of capitalism.  They're not that mainstream.  He had rather radical views.  Liberals typically don't like glorify MLK's anti-capitalist stance.

Plus I think Malcolm X was ten times more the speaker and advocate for change than MLK ever could be.  MLK is a nice alternative to white people who scare easy.

Apparently, according to you, Malcolm X was a liberal, because all he did was give speeches and "pay lip service" to it.

Yeah he was never arrested or anything like that.  Silly me.


How does being arrested pass the civil rights act?
2013-11-20 12:03:59 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: Rhino_man: That's great, but you asked for liberals who bestowed rights upon you. Unless you're a French citizen, I'm going to go with "no" on that one.

/Babeuf was an awesome muhfugga, though.

I think Jefferson would be the first say he didn't bestow shiat on anyone and that I was born free (offer not applicable to people of color).


Seriously?  You go into semantics rather than acknowledging that somebody you don't like had a hand in implementing a law that guarantees your rights?
2013-11-20 12:03:30 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: Serious Black: FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: Everyone who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Voting is what made civil rights possible and was greater than the people that effected change without a vote? I'm sure Malcolm X was absolutely thrilled a bunch of white people decided it was ok for him to have civil rights in 1964.  I'm sure that vote solved all of the race issues in America.

Did anybody say it was supposed to?

So liberals really didn't do anything other than vote for their approval of civil rights.  Great.  Glad we cleared that up.


That is not at all what I said, dingus. Just because a new statute doesn't do everything does not automatically exclude that it does nothing. Legal gains are tremendously important. Just look at what has happened since SCOTUS voided the preclearance formula to the Voting Rights Act.
2013-11-20 12:03:00 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: Read up on his views of capitalism.  They're not that mainstream.  He had rather radical views.  Liberals typically don't like glorify MLK's anti-capitalist stance.

Plus I think Malcolm X was ten times more the speaker and advocate for change than MLK ever could be.  MLK is a nice alternative to white people who scare easy.


Apparently, according to you, Malcolm X was a liberal, because all he did was give speeches and "pay lip service" to it.
2013-11-20 12:01:09 PM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: Somacandra: I notice you don't have any actual evidence to support this mere conjecture.

Ask one of the many anarchists here if they participate in capitalist elections.  The CPUSA does actively endorse and support democrats (to their detriment), but most Marxist organization will not vote for anyone but a socialist and even that is iffy because of all the sectarianism among socialist.  I'm just assuming the Black Panther Party didn't actively participate in elections as they were a revolutionary Maoist organization.


And yet you still posit that they had more to do with civil rights than liberals in government. Because you are lazy and hold beliefs that will not change despite all available evidence.
2013-11-20 11:56:24 AM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: Serious Black: FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: Everyone who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Voting is what made civil rights possible and was greater than the people that effected change without a vote? I'm sure Malcolm X was absolutely thrilled a bunch of white people decided it was ok for him to have civil rights in 1964.  I'm sure that vote solved all of the race issues in America.

Did anybody say it was supposed to?

So liberals really didn't do anything other than vote for their approval of civil rights.  Great.  Glad we cleared that up.


Which stands in stark contrast to conservatives, who actively opposed civil rights, often to the point of state-sanctioned violence.
2013-11-20 11:56:19 AM
1 votes:

llortcM_yllort: Felgraf: llortcM_yllort: InmanRoshi: FarkedOver: Liberalism is nothing but feel good politics.

 Yes, I'm sure it does "feels good" when you get Civil Rights.

Let's talk about accomplishments in my lifetime.  Also, make sure that they are things that the Democrats actively supported instead of jumping on the bandwagon after the grassroots groups did all the legwork like gay rights.

Your username is not nearly as clever as you think it is, Alucard.

I'm too lazy to make a new user.  Do you disagree with what I said?  Why or why not?


Whether I agree or disagree is immaterial. Your username basically says "I am a troll", so why should I waste my breath actually discussing with you? Why should I believe you'll bother to respond in good faith?

Also, wait. Why do you specify 'democrats' in the second paragraph? I thought you were asking for accomplishments made by *LIBERALS* (which th epeople pushing for gay rights most *Certainly* are), not by *DEMOCRATS*.
2013-11-20 11:56:06 AM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: Communists would vote if there was a communist or socialist running.  The black panther party probably didn't vote but did guard polling places to ensure people of color could vote.


I notice you don't have any actual evidence to support this mere conjecture.
2013-11-20 11:54:51 AM
1 votes:

tbeatty: So 99.8% of the people of California don't have Obamacare.


The ACA isn't something you "have." Most people in CA as well as nationwide already get insurance from their employers as part of their benefits package. Since the requirement is to have coverage, most people fulfill the requirements without doing anything. But you knew that already, I'm sure.
2013-11-20 11:54:06 AM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: Voting is what made civil rights possible

Do you think that anarchists vote? How about communists? Who do they vote for? Were there any communists in congress in 1964? How about anarchists? How about Black Panthers?

Anarchists do not typically vote in capitalist elections.  Communists would vote if there was a communist or socialist running.  The black panther party probably didn't vote but did guard polling places to ensure people of color could vote.  It's this kind of action that is paramount to any vote some representative made or did not make regarding civil rights.


So what you're saying is that no, anarchists, communists and socialists did not have anything to do with civil rights.
2013-11-20 11:44:54 AM
1 votes:

Tricky Chicken: Dog Welder: Wait, do you mean to tell me that states that actively tried to work with the law and expand the Medicare coverage are seeing massive enrollments, and states where the governors and state legislatures are actively trying to sabotage the law the people are having issues?  Color me shocked.

/"shocked" as a color is very similar to chartreuse.

Yes, the republican governors were particularly brilliant weren't they?  Expand medicare and run your own exchange and shoulder some of the expense, or just let the federal government handle their own law themselves and not risk taking on any of the expense.  Tough choice.

The smart ones are letting the Feds take all the risk.  As the costs skyrocket, their budgets won't take a hit.  Been nice knowing ya California!


I guess I see that and translate it to "Yay, people are going to suffer and die. I have mine and my team is going to win!"
2013-11-20 11:39:23 AM
1 votes:

Fart_Machine: Radicals tend to alienate the public. I'm more inclined to listen to you if you engage a dialogue rather than smashing up a storefront or setting things on fire.


Radicals of 60s civil rights movement alienated people because most people were still racist assholes.  In the face of police brutality and stereotyping black men legally armed themselves, as is the case with the black panthers.  That was radical.  Was it wrong? HELL NO.  But a liberal would have told them "just wait.... we'll get there in small steps!"
2013-11-20 11:36:55 AM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: cameroncrazy1984: You think that communists, socialists and anarchists are who gave us civil rights in 1964.

Go home, you're drunk.

Which liberal should I thank for these rights that he/she has bestowed upon me in their infinite wisdom?


Everyone who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
2013-11-20 11:36:02 AM
1 votes:

mrshowrules: cameroncrazy1984: I think  FarkedOver may be conflating "liberal" with "centrist democrat"

If a Conservative was ever confronted with an actual Liberal, they might shiat their pants and go into a grand-mal seizure


But I was told that a Liberal is anyone who is not a Tea Party Republican.
2013-11-20 11:31:43 AM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: You think that communists, socialists and anarchists are who gave us civil rights in 1964.

Go home, you're drunk.


Which liberal should I thank for these rights that he/she has bestowed upon me in their infinite wisdom?
2013-11-20 11:28:50 AM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: Liberalism is nothing but feel good politics.


"Conservatism" is nothing but be pissed off at made-up shiat politics.
2013-11-20 11:22:16 AM
1 votes:

FarkedOver: No.  I think the real people that have effected change in this country have been radicals.

Please see the CP, IWW, Black Panthers etc.

I don't sit here and pretend a liberal fought for any persons rights.  They paid lip service.  Real change was won by real leftists.


Whom are, by and large...liberal. Right?
2013-11-20 11:20:03 AM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: FarkedOver: InmanRoshi: FarkedOver: Liberalism is nothing but feel good politics.

 Yes, I'm sure it does "feels good" when you get Civil Rights.

Riiiighhhhttt that was all liberals.... Keep believing that.

You think conservatives support change?

LOL


This is a problem in this country.  You can only be seen as a conservative or a liberal.  Fark that shiat.
2013-11-20 11:19:24 AM
1 votes:

cameroncrazy1984: You think conservatives support change?

LOL


No.  I think the real people that have effected change in this country have been radicals.

Please see the CP, IWW, Black Panthers etc.

I don't sit here and pretend a liberal fought for any persons rights.  They paid lip service.  Real change was won by real leftists.
2013-11-20 11:13:14 AM
1 votes:
FarkedOver: Liberalism is nothing but feel good politics.

 Yes, I'm sure it does "feels good" when you get Civil Rights.
2013-11-20 11:05:28 AM
1 votes:

Dusk-You-n-Me: Serious Black: Yes, the initial numbers do not necessarily reflect strong pickup by younger folks.

Let's not forget the 6.6M young folks who stayed on or joined their parents plans.

An Estimated 6.6 Million Young Adults Stayed on or Joined Their Parents' Health Plans in 2011 Who Would Not Have Been Eligible Prior to Passage of the Affordable Care Act


This is true. There are also numerous surveys that show younger Americans think it is important for them to have health insurance at rates about equal to the population at large and that they are the most likely people to purchase insurance through the exchanges. This makes sense because way more of them are currently uninsured than people above the age of 35. It's certainly possible young people will en masse go uninsured next year, but I just don't see any way you can predict it other than ignoring all of that evidence.
2013-11-20 11:04:17 AM
1 votes:

nunyadang: qorkfiend: nunyadang: Have any commenters read the article, or did you all just set phasers to derp and come out blasting?

You must be new here.

I have been here long enough to know that many farkers have strong opinions, but many also have poor reading comprehension, or just read a misleading headline and start commenting

Left Wing Derp, or Right Wing Derp is still Derp people.


Left wing derp is derp. Right wing derp is national policy.
2013-11-20 11:02:47 AM
1 votes:

Skleenar: Dog Welder: Wait, do you mean to tell me that states that actively tried to work with the law and expand the Medicare coverage are seeing massive enrollments, and states where the governors and state legislatures are actively trying to sabotage the law the people are having issues?  Color me shocked.

/"shocked" as a color is very similar to chartreuse.

Your premise is impossible because free market.  FREEE MARKET!!

[www1.sulekha.com image 413x479]


 sullydish.files.wordpress.com

It's pretty remarkable at how inherently awful the free market is when it comes to healthcare.
2013-11-20 10:57:11 AM
1 votes:

Garet Garrett: Serious Black: Garet Garrett: While the press circle jerks about who can first report on the death of liberalism and the glorious coming thousand year reign of conservatism, people are getting insured they're forgetting there's a looming death spiral, too

FTFY, smitty.

When was the last time you studied actuarial science?

See, I don't have to, because the Obama administration and their lackeys did it for me, even as they spin failure as an unlikely consequence (displaying a faith that would make Cubs fans uncomfortable).

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/everything-you-n ee d-to-know-about-obamacare-and-death-spirals/281315/


That article explicitly says about the slow uptake by younger people, and I quote: "How worried should we be? Not too much. At least not yet." And since when were Matthew O'Brien and The Atlantic's editors lackeys who can't stop themselves from sucking the venom out of Obama's black mamba?
2013-11-20 10:54:30 AM
1 votes:

Garet Garrett: qorkfiend: Garet Garrett: While the press circle jerks about who can first report on the death of liberalism and the glorious coming thousand year reign of conservatism, people are getting insured they're forgetting there's a looming death spiral, too

FTFY, smitty.

Can you expound on that?

Um, sure.  So far the anecdotal evidence that's been put out about enrollments (and that's all that's been made available, a subject I'll address shortly), those that have managed to enroll in private plans (not the expanded Medicaid) have been among the "neediest" people - people with cancer, chronic illnesses, etc.  Heavy users of the system.  In order to maintain some sort of financial balance, for each of them, O'care needs about 20 people whose premiums exceed their medical expenses - basically, young healthy men (sorry ladies, you're expensive at any age, NTTAWWT).

Those guys are harder to track down than a will-o-the-wisp.  They need to be healthy, employed, make enough money to pay for the health insurance but not get it from their employer, not have a plan that O's latest promise will "let them keep," etc.  Oh, and be willing to pay more in premiums than they're likely to spend in healthcare plus the paltry tax penalty for not carrying insurance.

Now, if the exchanges were seeing the kind of ratios between net contributors and net takers from the system, Jay Carney would lead with that at every frigging news conference.  But they're not, so the anecdotes ("gammy finally can afford the rehab that will get her walking!") appear to be, by and large, representative (i.e., just what we'd expect - the people signing up are the people with a perceived acute need for insurance).  Which means the plans being offered are going to go upside down very, very quickly, and the insurers will be raising premiums dramatically to try to make the plans work financially.  Which will drive more and more non-heavy users out of the system, which will, in turn, drive greater premium increase ...


Yes, the initial numbers do not necessarily reflect strong pickup by younger folks. But the initial numbers are nothing but a neat way to distract people. We all know that pickup is going to skyrocket around two dates: December 15th, and March 31st. The first will happen because that's the day people who want health insurance on January 1st must pay their first month's premium by. The second will happen because that's the day people who want to avoid the individual shared responsibility payment must pay their first month's premium by. Those are the two times the age distribution will actually matter, and the first isn't nearly as important as the second because insurers priced their plans knowing people would have until March 31st to sign up.
2013-11-20 10:53:46 AM
1 votes:

HotIgneous Intruder: States' Rights, every damned day, especially here in George "Macaca" Allen's Confederate Paradise.


Why, yes; I do always -without exception- include "Northern" whenever I tell anyone that I am from Virginia.
2013-11-20 10:46:04 AM
1 votes:

Kevin72: States' rights. States like Cal with their own website getting healthcare. States being obstinate azzholes being hellholes. Sucks to be them. But at least its getting tougher to get an abortion, gotta love the vaginal ultrasound probe, that's the healthcare we need.


Thankfully, my state will soon be joining the caucus of the civilized.
www.lifesitenews.com

/McAuliffe might not be the greatest, but he promised to expand Medicaid and take over Virginia's exchange.
2013-11-20 10:45:32 AM
1 votes:

SlothB77: Liberalism won't die.  But Obamacare will.


Good, another conservative on board with single payer. You guys shouldn't have fought against it 3 years ago
2013-11-20 10:39:56 AM
1 votes:
Wait, do you mean to tell me that states that actively tried to work with the law and expand the Medicare coverage are seeing massive enrollments, and states where the governors and state legislatures are actively trying to sabotage the law the people are having issues?  Color me shocked.

/"shocked" as a color is very similar to chartreuse.
2013-11-20 10:31:01 AM
1 votes:

Tricky Chicken: oooohhh

Liberals crying about the press?

Liberal tears are soooo sweet.


Yes, because you've lied to yourself about a "liberal media" for 30 years now means the rest of us are as stupid as you.
2013-11-20 10:29:33 AM
1 votes:

Lionel Mandrake: Pretty soon the "liberal media" will find some other thing to obsess on, and we can get an idea how well the ACA is actually working.


They've been itching for a controversy to fill their "Lame duck second term" cycle since the "Did Obama order the IRS to specificallly target only Tea Party groups?" story turned out to be complete trumped up horseshiat and Benghazi .turned out to be a complete dud outside of the Derposphere.
2013-11-20 10:27:38 AM
1 votes:

mediablitz: SlothB77: Liberalism won't die.  But Obamacare will.

Nothing like being blind to the truth. Half a million already signed up through medicare/"obamacare". There will be millions by January.

The boat sailed. You're standing on the dock, screaming at everyone "it's coming back! Just wait here!"


They declared Obama care a failure in March 2010.  Should be no surprise that they will call it a failure 2 weeks into it, 2 months into it, 6 months into it....

I stand by my original prediction, even the GOP won't campaign on an outright repeal of Obamacare by 2016.  They will campaign on fixing it or replacing it.
2013-11-20 10:23:30 AM
1 votes:
Why won't the biggest change to healthcare delivery in the United States since Medicare happen faster?
2013-11-20 10:21:36 AM
1 votes:

SlothB77: Liberalism won't die.  But Obamacare will.


Nothing like being blind to the truth. Half a million already signed up through medicare/"obamacare". There will be millions by January.

The boat sailed. You're standing on the dock, screaming at everyone "it's coming back! Just wait here!"
2013-11-20 10:19:06 AM
1 votes:
When the "liberal democrat" president governs to the right of Richard Nixon, you know your country has slid right.
2013-11-20 10:10:20 AM
1 votes:

UberDave: I wonder what 1000 year reign of teabag-like conservatism would look like...


[s24.postimg.org image 850x353]


that's a bit optimistic for 1000 years of teabagger reign.
2013-11-20 10:09:40 AM
1 votes:

SlothB77: Liberalism won't die.  But Obamacare will.


Wanna bet?
2013-11-20 09:29:25 AM
1 votes:
I wonder what 1000 year reign of teabag-like conservatism would look like...


s24.postimg.org
2013-11-20 08:24:11 AM
1 votes:
You mean in the world of Twitter and 24 hour news, facts and logic get overshadowed by teabagger and libtard rants?
 
Displayed 73 of 73 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report