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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Pick your spin: 58% of Americans oppose Obamacare. 54% either approve or think it needs to go further   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 232
    More: Interesting, obamacare, Americans, ORC International  
•       •       •

1239 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Nov 2013 at 4:11 PM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



232 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-27 04:13:34 PM
I don't think there is near the disdain for the ACA that the conservatives would have you believe there is.
And, once people actually start using it, it will become more palatable and political suicide for the right to continue to attempt to repeal it.
 
2013-11-27 04:13:46 PM
1% RON PAUL
 
2013-11-27 04:14:52 PM
Like other Teabaggers, I HATE Obamacare, but I LOVE the ACA.
 
2013-11-27 04:15:20 PM
Americans are idiots who don't know what they're talking about.
 
2013-11-27 04:16:02 PM

Farkin_Crazy:

I don't think there is near the disdain for the ACA that the conservatives would have you believe there is.
And, once people actually start using it, it will become more palatable and political suicide for the right to continue to attempt to repeal it.
Nice Fark handle.
 
2013-11-27 04:16:07 PM
I think a lot of people are ignorant as to what, exactly, it entails. We've got a media which does not inform, and a populous that conflates freedom and ignorance. I am not surprised in the least.
 
2013-11-27 04:18:52 PM
The only thing we should be paying attention to--and condemning--is the social conservative right-wing derp surrounding this.

Anyone who complains about the Web site, how "everything is going to get more expensive" or that ACA isn't actual reform need to get farked. Your arguments are stupid, and you are being an annoying ass perpetrating them.
 
2013-11-27 04:19:40 PM
4 posts, all of which say "people are morons who don't know anything".

They are, and they don't, but it's still "elitist"
 
2013-11-27 04:19:47 PM
Like most other ignorant, white trash voters, I HATE Obama, but I secretly love his policy even though it is financial disaster for me.

Because one day soon Imma gonna' WIN that Powa' Ball and need me some doctorin' while I'm waiting!
 
2013-11-27 04:19:49 PM
there is a quote in the west wing about the NEA where Toby cites there is a certain % who want to defund it and a certain % who support it, where between the two there is an overlap of 8% who support it but want it defunded at the same time..Toby concludes there is a % of the population that cannot make up its mind....I cannot find the quote though, my google-fu fails (unless it is about something else and not the NEA)
 
2013-11-27 04:21:06 PM
Considering the bad press (some of which is justified), I'm not surprised.

But it's a program that is still in its infancy so judging it a month out seems a little pre-mature. If we're still having this problems a year from now, then we can start to wonder what reforms need to take place.
 
2013-11-27 04:21:25 PM

LasersHurt: I think a lot of people are ignorant as to what, exactly, it entails. We've got a media which does not inform, and a populous that conflates freedom and ignorance. I am not surprised in the least.


DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS AREN'T TAKING THE EXCHANGES AND FURTHERMORE COMMA
 
2013-11-27 04:21:47 PM
meh another obamacare thread, i'm going to use this post to tell you all I just ate 5 chocolate chip gluten free cannabis cookies, u jelly?
 
2013-11-27 04:21:52 PM
And a solid 30-40% of those who absolutely hate it, believe it's insurance created by the government and given to poor people for free. Period.

I have a cousin who refuses to shop for her Blue Cross insurance on the federal exchange, in spite of the fact that it's like 20-30% cheaper (before subsidies) than the comparable Blue Cross insurance that BC/BS is trying to push on her directly.

There are none so farked in the ass without lube than those who will not see.
 
2013-11-27 04:22:46 PM

ikanreed: 4 posts, all of which say "people are morons who don't know anything".

They are, and they don't, but it's still "elitist"


"Truth" and "reality" and "statistics" and "mathematics" are creations of the Ivy League East Coast snobby commie libs.
 
2013-11-27 04:24:52 PM

technicolor-misfit: And a solid 30-40% of those who absolutely hate it, believe it's insurance created by the government and given to poor people for free. Period.

I have a cousin who refuses to shop for her Blue Cross insurance on the federal exchange, in spite of the fact that it's like 20-30% cheaper (before subsidies) than the comparable Blue Cross insurance that BC/BS is trying to push on her directly.

There are none so farked in the ass without lube than those who will not see.


And yet, I will bet she supports Walmart for their $0.99 tube socks because cheap. Paying more for tube socks is COMMUNISM

PS - You need some ass lube?
 
2013-11-27 04:25:33 PM

Headso: meh another obamacare thread, i'm going to use this post to tell you all I just ate 5 chocolate chip gluten free cannabis cookies, u jelly?


Very.

/this will be a more productive discussion than what normally goes on in these threads.
 
2013-11-27 04:31:18 PM

Jackson Herring: LasersHurt: I think a lot of people are ignorant as to what, exactly, it entails. We've got a media which does not inform, and a populous that conflates freedom and ignorance. I am not surprised in the least.

DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS AREN'T TAKING THE EXCHANGES AND FURTHERMORE COMMA


That was one of the most amusing things I've ever seen. It was like a beautiful landscape of ignorance demanding that you see it.
 
2013-11-27 04:32:01 PM
This thread is hilarious.  You guys really wan't to believe anyone opposed to this law are ignorant rednecks that don't know whats good for them.  Of course you know whats good for them, of course you do.
 
2013-11-27 04:33:31 PM

Brostorm: This thread is hilarious.  You guys really wan't to believe anyone opposed to this law are ignorant rednecks that don't know whats good for them.  Of course you know whats good for them, of course you do.


That's a good point.  The other kinds of people who are opposed to the law work for Republican think tanks and lobbying firms.
 
2013-11-27 04:34:31 PM

technicolor-misfit: And a solid 30-40% of those who absolutely hate it, believe it's insurance created by the government and given to poor people for free. Period.

I have a cousin who refuses to shop for her Blue Cross insurance on the federal exchange, in spite of the fact that it's like 20-30% cheaper (before subsidies) than the comparable Blue Cross insurance that BC/BS is trying to push on her directly.

There are none so farked in the ass without lube than those who will not see.


Same here.  I got a friend that does not have insurance now but does not want Obamacare because she will have to pay the $4,000 deductable.  She has cancer and treatments can be $98K apiece but she listens to the Limbaugh and Levin the radio and thinks she is better off with out insurance.
 
2013-11-27 04:34:45 PM
What bothers me is that 20% of premiums that insurance companies get to keep. Ideally there's a competition for low prices to attract consumers, but there's also a desire to profit by keeping a larger 20%. So there's a risk that the whole system will find new ways to piss away money on vastly overpriced services so everyone has to raise their premiums. Like changing standards of what "high blood pressure" or "cholesterol reduction" means, and curing things with pills instead of lifestyle.
 
2013-11-27 04:35:04 PM
Jesus, it's a polling version of a Choose Your Own Adventure story...
 
2013-11-27 04:36:44 PM

Brostorm: This thread is hilarious.  You guys really wan't to believe anyone opposed to this law are ignorant rednecks that don't know whats good for them.  Of course you know whats good for them, of course you do.


No, we understand that people who oppose the law but support all its parts are completely ignorant of what's in it, they just hate it because OBAMA SCARY AND FREEDOMS AND FURTHERMORE AND SUCH AS RUSSIA WHICH I CAN SEE FROM MY HOUSE.
 
2013-11-27 04:36:46 PM
 58% of Americans oppose Obamacare.

^ this is spin, subby

54% either approve or think it needs to go further

^ this is repeating a fact, subby

Hope this helps.
 
2013-11-27 04:37:15 PM
"She has cancer and treatments can be $98K apiece but she listens to the Limbaugh and Levin the radio and thinks she is better off with out insurance."

Proofread....proofread

Should be "She has cancer and treatments can be $98K apiece but she listens to Limbaugh and Levin on the radio and thinks she is better off with out insurance."
 
2013-11-27 04:37:28 PM

Mikey1969: Jesus, it's a polling version of a Choose Your Own Adventure story...


Choose Your Own Adventure doesn't let you make self-contradicting choices.
 
2013-11-27 04:38:16 PM

Brostorm: This thread is hilarious.  You guys really wan't to believe anyone opposed to this law are ignorant rednecks that don't know whats good for them.  Of course you know whats good for them, of course you do.


Given the level of derp, that's exactly what they are. And shutting up would be "what's good for them."
 
2013-11-27 04:38:28 PM

Brostorm: You guys really wan't to believe anyone opposed to this law are ignorant rednecks that don't know whats good for them


Oh, no, not at all. Some of the people opposed to the ACA are Republican politicians who cynically lie about it because they haven't got anything else to run on.
 
2013-11-27 04:45:13 PM

Wooly Bully: Brostorm: You guys really wan't to believe anyone opposed to this law are ignorant rednecks that don't know whats good for them

Oh, no, not at all. Some of the people opposed to the ACA are Republican politicians who cynically lie about it because they haven't got anything else to run on.


The Figurine of Wondrous Power is right.
 
2013-11-27 04:46:39 PM

Wooly Bully: Brostorm: You guys really wan't to believe anyone opposed to this law are ignorant rednecks that don't know whats good for them

Oh, no, not at all. Some of the people opposed to the ACA are Republican politicians who cynically lie about it because they haven't got anything else to run on.


And yet more are stubborn assholes who just don't want Obama to be right about anything.

And yet more have bound themselves to a particular philosophy of government, and even if something works, if it doesn't fit their narrow view of the way it should work, it's evil.

And then there's the garden variety "got mine, fark you" sorts.
 
2013-11-27 04:48:21 PM
So who do you think this threads shillout will be?

Ayn Rand's Slowmammal77

BJKnight

thin-noggin

General Whargarble

nopattern-jockstraparoma
 
2013-11-27 04:48:44 PM

Farkin_Crazy: I don't think there is near the disdain for the ACA that the conservatives would have you believe there is.
And, once people actually start using it, it will become more palatable and political suicide for the right to continue to attempt to repeal it.


Hahahahaha..uhhahahahaha.
Keep trying

This law is a disaster. A friends company just announ that they will no longer offer coverage to spouses because Obamacare. His wife is panicking. Thanks to the mismanagement by the govt, the middle class is getting screwed.

I am fortunate to have good insurance.The problem with Obamacare is that its a clusterfark.
Its really that simple.
 
2013-11-27 04:49:26 PM

wildcardjack: What bothers me is that 20% of premiums that insurance companies get to keep. Ideally there's a competition for low prices to attract consumers, but there's also a desire to profit by keeping a larger 20%. So there's a risk that the whole system will find new ways to piss away money on vastly overpriced services so everyone has to raise their premiums. Like changing standards of what "high blood pressure" or "cholesterol reduction" means, and curing things with pills instead of lifestyle.


Especially since they still get to set up tiny monopolies and IRS illegal to not buy their product.

Its a blindingly obvious outcome if you just ask yourself "what would a money obsessed sociopath do?" But I guess America just can't bring itself to question the Free Market™.
 
2013-11-27 04:50:04 PM

Headso: meh another obamacare thread, i'm going to use this post to tell you all I just ate 5 chocolate chip gluten free cannabis cookies, u jelly?


Only until I get home in about 2 hours and break in my new pipe a little more...

http://journey2.com
 
2013-11-27 04:51:37 PM

technicolor-misfit: There are none so farked in the ass without lube than those who will not see.


♫ ♪ ♫ Don't it make your brown eye blue? ♫ ♪ ♫
 
2013-11-27 04:52:15 PM
I'm with the 53 percent who say it's too soon to say if it's a success or a failure.

Both sides are wrong.

Majority rules!
 
2013-11-27 04:55:06 PM

Animatronik: This law is a disaster. A friends company just announ that they will no longer offer coverage to spouses because Obamacare.


What part of Obamacare prohibits this?
 
2013-11-27 04:55:14 PM

Animatronik: Farkin_Crazy: I don't think there is near the disdain for the ACA that the conservatives would have you believe there is.
And, once people actually start using it, it will become more palatable and political suicide for the right to continue to attempt to repeal it.

Hahahahaha..uhhahahahaha.
Keep trying

This law is a disaster. A friends company just announ that they will no longer offer coverage to spouses because Obamacare. His wife is panicking. Thanks to the mismanagement by the govt, the middle class is getting screwed.

I am fortunate to have good insurance.The problem with Obamacare is that its a clusterfark.
Its really that simple.


Ahhh yes, the one where there was no problem at all before Obamacare came along and farked everything up.

Because if we can pretend there was no problem with healthcare and the insurance industry, then we can ignore the fact that Republicans are more than welcome to offer up their own perfectly flawless, no trade-offs, all upsides plan for solving them.

No, it's much better to do nothing at all and stand back with your arms crossed shouting at those who actually ARE trying to solve problems, and shout "it doesn't fix everything perfectly right from the get-go at absolutely no cost and with no trade-offs or unintended consequences!!! It's an abyssmal failure!!!"
 
2013-11-27 04:55:22 PM
Fark!myspacebarjustdied
 
2013-11-27 04:55:34 PM

BMFPitt: Americans are idiots who don't know what they're talking about.


We have a winnar!
 
2013-11-27 04:55:37 PM

technicolor-misfit: I have a cousin who refuses to shop for her Blue Cross insurance on the federal exchange, in spite of the fact that it's like 20-30% cheaper (before subsidies) than the comparable Blue Cross insurance that BC/BS is trying to push on her directly.


Brostorm: This thread is hilarious.  You guys really wan't to believe anyone opposed to this law are ignorant rednecks morans that don't know whats good for them.  Of course you know whats good for them, of course you do.


I'd say technicolor-misfit's cousin is in fact a moran who doesn't know what's good for her.

/Redneck?  Maybe, I dunno.
//Morans are forever.  Ignorance can be fixed.
 
2013-11-27 04:59:12 PM

Mrtraveler01: Animatronik: This law is a disaster. A friends company just announ that they will no longer offer coverage to spouses because Obamacare.

What part of Obamacare prohibits this?


I think it's the Sekrit Muslin Clause written in lemon juice. You hold a match up to it to reveal how much you're being pwned.
 
2013-11-27 04:59:25 PM

gimmegimme: Like other Teabaggers, I HATE Obamacare, but I LOVE the ACA.


Just like that dumbass Youtuber who hates religion, but loves Jesus?
 
2013-11-27 04:59:50 PM

Mrtraveler01: What part of Obamacare prohibits this?


My guess is that, where in the past health ins. co.'s would just raise rates (and sometimes companies would then cancel benefits) now they just blame everything on Obamacare, whether the ACA actually had anything to do with it or not.
 
2013-11-27 05:00:23 PM
As to the numbers: I keep saying a good chunk of those who oppose Obamacare do so because it doesn't go far enough. So I suspect a bit of overlap between these two groups.
 
2013-11-27 05:00:29 PM

Lee Jackson Beauregard: technicolor-misfit: I have a cousin who refuses to shop for her Blue Cross insurance on the federal exchange, in spite of the fact that it's like 20-30% cheaper (before subsidies) than the comparable Blue Cross insurance that BC/BS is trying to push on her directly.

Brostorm: This thread is hilarious.  You guys really wan't to believe anyone opposed to this law are ignorant rednecks morans that don't know whats good for them.  Of course you know whats good for them, of course you do.

I'd say technicolor-misfit's cousin is in fact a moran who doesn't know what's good for her.

/Redneck?  Maybe, I dunno.
//Morans are forever.  Ignorance can be fixed.



Not quite "redneck," but definitely "country." And not a "moran" at all but definitely and self-admittedly ignorant on this issue.

In fact, I finally just print-screened her plan options from healthcare.gov and emailed them to her... and while she initially balked and tried to wave it off, I think she's starting to come around. She messaged me a few days later to ask me some more questions and to inquire about how the subsidies work.
 
2013-11-27 05:01:44 PM

Animatronik: Farkin_Crazy: I don't think there is near the disdain for the ACA that the conservatives would have you believe there is.
And, once people actually start using it, it will become more palatable and political suicide for the right to continue to attempt to repeal it.

Hahahahaha..uhhahahahaha.
Keep trying

This law is a disaster. A friends company just announ that they will no longer offer coverage to spouses because Obamacare. His wife is panicking. Thanks to the mismanagement by the govt, the middle class is getting screwed.

I am fortunate to have good insurance.The problem with Obamacare is that its a clusterfark.
Its really that simple.


This has been something companies have started doing a few years ago, just now they get to blame it on the ACA because they know gullible folks who WANT to believe that anyway will fall for it.

My own company has been mulling it over for a few years now, and might do it next year. However your friend might want to check the details... Typically when companies do this they will no longer cover spouses who are eligible for health care through their own jobs, not just decline coverage for all spouses at all. It's purely a cost saving measure, the ACA is just a convenient scapegoat.
 
2013-11-27 05:01:46 PM

Mrtraveler01: Animatronik: This law is a disaster. A friends company just announ that they will no longer offer coverage to spouses because Obamacare.

What part of Obamacare prohibits this?


All of it! Study it out, Liblardo.
 
2013-11-27 05:02:44 PM

Brostorm: This thread is hilarious.  You guys really wan't to believe anyone opposed to this law are ignorant rednecks that don't know whats good for them.  Of course you know whats good for them, of course you do.


Fair point.  I'd love to be enlightened by your alternative plan.  Please, continue.
 
2013-11-27 05:04:35 PM

technicolor-misfit: Not quite "redneck," but definitely "country." And not a "moran" at all but definitely and self-admittedly ignorant on this issue.

In fact, I finally just print-screened her plan options from healthcare.gov and emailed them to her... and while she initially balked and tried to wave it off, I think she's starting to come around. She messaged me a few days later to ask me some more questions and to inquire about how the subsidies work.


Damn...  if more shiat like this happens the GOP isn't going to have a chance next year.  I realize that the authoritarian follower's brain will be able to compartmentalize "ACA = Good for me" but it's sure to make a few borderline authoritarian followers have a good long double think about their belief system and perhaps even come to the conclusion that they're on the wrong side of reality.
 
2013-11-27 05:08:08 PM
So, 46% oppose it because it goes too far, 42% approve of it and 12% oppose it because it doesn't go far enough.  Totalling 100%.

There is no contradiction here.
 
2013-11-27 05:10:46 PM

Cletus C.: I'm with the 53 percent who say it's too soon to say if it's a success or a failure.

Both sides are wrong.

Majority rules!


If the majority rules, how did Republicans get so much minority power when they were completely outvoted in 2012?
 
2013-11-27 05:10:49 PM

The Jami Turman Fan Club: So, 46% oppose it because it goes too far, 42% approve of it and 12% oppose it because it doesn't go far enough.  Totalling 100%.

There is no contradiction here.


You would make a shiatty GOP spokesman.  Fox News wouldn't even let you through the door with that attitude.
 
2013-11-27 05:13:03 PM

Mrtraveler01: Animatronik: This law is a disaster. A friends company just announ that they will no longer offer coverage to spouses because Obamacare.

What part of Obamacare prohibits this?


Absolutely none... but the vogue thing to do is to do something totally dickish to your employees, then tag it with the finish "because Obamacare."
 
2013-11-27 05:13:55 PM

Brostorm: This thread is hilarious.  You guys really wan't to believe anyone opposed to this law are ignorant rednecks that don't know whats good for them.  Of course you know whats good for them, of course you do.


You're not exactly helping you're case out here.

Unless that's deliberate, in which case good job.
 
2013-11-27 05:15:10 PM

Triple Oak: Cletus C.: I'm with the 53 percent who say it's too soon to say if it's a success or a failure.

Both sides are wrong.

Majority rules!

If the majority rules, how did Republicans get so much minority power when they were completely outvoted in 2012?


Do I really need to explain to you how electing Congresspeople works? You know, districts, voters and stuff like that?
 
2013-11-27 05:22:00 PM

Headso: meh another obamacare thread, i'm going to use this post to tell you all I just ate 5 chocolate chip gluten free cannabis cookies, u jelly?


It's been about an hour since you posted this. U jelly?
 
2013-11-27 05:24:52 PM

Headso: meh another obamacare thread, i'm going to use this post to tell you all I just ate 5 chocolate chip gluten free cannabis cookies, u jelly?


Jealous of glutin free crap? No.
 
2013-11-27 05:27:58 PM

fatassbastard: Mrtraveler01: What part of Obamacare prohibits this?

My guess is that, where in the past health ins. co.'s would just raise rates (and sometimes companies would then cancel benefits) now they just blame everything on Obamacare, whether the ACA actually had anything to do with it or not.


It really has been the greatest gift the insurance companies ever had (because now they have a convenient scapegoat they can use for their dickery).

My company's plan still allows me to cover spouses and children so I don't think Obamacare had anything to do with that.
 
2013-11-27 05:27:59 PM

Brostorm: This thread is hilarious.  You guys really wan't to believe anyone opposed to this law are ignorant rednecks that don't know whats good for them.  Of course you know whats good for them, of course you do.


 I don't think *anyone* opposed to this law is an "ignorant redneck." But the sheer torrent of misinformation regarding ACA has given rise to a very large number of people who believe that it's "socialism," or worse. Take a look at your typical right-wing outlet (Fox being the most influential) and judge for yourself the veracity of their content, especially in relation to Obamacare. If you're one of the people who recite that bullsh*t on forums or at the water cooler, yeah, you're ignorant. It doesn't mean that I "know what's good for you." But it does mean I can call you a low-information voter who would likely cut off his nose to spite his face.
 
2013-11-27 05:32:42 PM

GeneralJim: Farkin_Crazy: I don't think there is near the disdain for the ACA that the conservatives would have you believe there is.
And, once people actually start using it, it will become more palatable and political suicide for the right to continue to attempt to repeal it.Nice Fark handle.


Hello my name is Mr. GreenText.
 
2013-11-27 05:32:53 PM

technicolor-misfit: And a solid 30-40% of those who absolutely hate it, believe it's insurance created by the government and given to poor people for free. Period.

I have a cousin who refuses to shop for her Blue Cross insurance on the federal exchange, in spite of the fact that it's like 20-30% cheaper (before subsidies) than the comparable Blue Cross insurance that BC/BS is trying to push on her directly.

There are none so farked in the ass without lube than those who will not see.


Don't forget the 25% of the population that thinks that if you have an "Obamacare" plan then you have to use only special Obamacare Clinics and Obamacare Doctors, and you can be Death Paneled if it's too expensive to treat you.

Yes, I have seen the people who refuse, adamantly, to buy insurance on the exchanges because that would be surrendering to socialism, or something.

At work, I saw someone without insurance complaining about Obamacare.  She is a temp, no health insurance provided from her job, and was griping about "Obamacare" being so evil that it was making people who can't afford insurance buy it anyway.  We talked, I asked some questions about insurance and finances, and I did some math.  She was clearly eligible for Medicaid under the ACA expansion.  I told her that she could now get Medicaid through the ACA and not have to pay anything.  Her response?  To be offended at the idea of getting Medicaid, saying that she's not poor and she'd be damned before she accepted "socialized medicine" because "I'm no moocher, I earn what I get".  Never mind she can't afford insurance, she won't take it if it's given to her for free either.
 
2013-11-27 05:34:26 PM

Smackledorfer: Headso: meh another obamacare thread, i'm going to use this post to tell you all I just ate 5 chocolate chip gluten free cannabis cookies, u jelly?

Jealous of glutin free crap? No.


I don't understand the whole Gulden Free movement. It's just mustard. But I guess Obama got in trouble for that, too, so never mind.
 
2013-11-27 05:35:10 PM

whidbey: Smackledorfer: Headso: meh another obamacare thread, i'm going to use this post to tell you all I just ate 5 chocolate chip gluten free cannabis cookies, u jelly?

Jealous of glutin free crap? No.

I don't understand the whole Gulden Free movement. It's just mustard. But I guess Obama got in trouble for that, too, so never mind.


It's actually the Snowden Free movement.
 
2013-11-27 05:38:32 PM
Ah the ethereal 12%, always splitting on every issue.
 
2013-11-27 05:38:42 PM

Almost Everybody Poops: whidbey: Smackledorfer: Headso: meh another obamacare thread, i'm going to use this post to tell you all I just ate 5 chocolate chip gluten free cannabis cookies, u jelly?

Jealous of glutin free crap? No.

I don't understand the whole Gulden Free movement. It's just mustard. But I guess Obama got in trouble for that, too, so never mind.

It's actually the Snowden Free movement.


Well granted, that does make you constipated for several days.
 
2013-11-27 05:39:58 PM

Silverstaff: technicolor-misfit: And a solid 30-40% of those who absolutely hate it, believe it's insurance created by the government and given to poor people for free. Period.

I have a cousin who refuses to shop for her Blue Cross insurance on the federal exchange, in spite of the fact that it's like 20-30% cheaper (before subsidies) than the comparable Blue Cross insurance that BC/BS is trying to push on her directly.

There are none so farked in the ass without lube than those who will not see.

Don't forget the 25% of the population that thinks that if you have an "Obamacare" plan then you have to use only special Obamacare Clinics and Obamacare Doctors, and you can be Death Paneled if it's too expensive to treat you.

Yes, I have seen the people who refuse, adamantly, to buy insurance on the exchanges because that would be surrendering to socialism, or something.

At work, I saw someone without insurance complaining about Obamacare.  She is a temp, no health insurance provided from her job, and was griping about "Obamacare" being so evil that it was making people who can't afford insurance buy it anyway.  We talked, I asked some questions about insurance and finances, and I did some math.  She was clearly eligible for Medicaid under the ACA expansion.  I told her that she could now get Medicaid through the ACA and not have to pay anything.  Her response?  To be offended at the idea of getting Medicaid, saying that she's not poor and she'd be damned before she accepted "socialized medicine" because "I'm no moocher, I earn what I get".  Never mind she can't afford insurance, she won't take it if it's given to her for free either.


Foolish pride comes to mind here.
 
2013-11-27 05:54:31 PM

Jaguar Paw:

Should be "She has cancer and treatments can be $98K apiece but she listens to Limbaugh and Levin on the radio and thinks she is better off with out insurance."
Not really.  "Without" is one word.
 
2013-11-27 05:56:13 PM
hurr
 
2013-11-27 05:58:06 PM
Obamacare is a complete disaster, as was predicted. If politicians are truly serious about improving access to healthcare, then they will implement a system similar to the one implemented in Kentucky. kynect has proven to be an effective means to bring affordable healthcare to all Kentuckians.
 
2013-11-27 06:11:12 PM
You know how everyone dreads that one obnoxious relative at Thanksgiving who'll have a couple of drinks and start blathering about the complete disaster of Obamacare?

Well, I truly have something to be thankful for. There'll be 14 of us there tomorrow, and that isn't going to happen. They're all sensible, nice people. It's heartwarming, I tell ya!
 
2013-11-27 06:13:34 PM

Dimensio: Obamacare is a complete disaster, as was predicted. If politicians are truly serious about improving access to healthcare, then they will implement a system similar to the one implemented in Kentucky. kynect has proven to be an effective means to bring affordable healthcare to all Kentuckians.


. . .not sure if serious.

/Poe's Law detector trying to figure that one out.
 
2013-11-27 06:23:00 PM
No contradiction in the numbers, because about half of the people that are not happy with the ACA want it to go further. The GOP counts this group as against the ACA. About 25% are flat out against Obamacare, but are in favor of the majority of the provisions. That group will be screaming "Keep your government hands off my ACA", in a year or two."
 
2013-11-27 06:31:39 PM

Mikey1969: Jesus, it's a polling version of a Choose Your Own Adventure story...


Joke is on all you libtards. I have my finger on the page of the last choice. I can always do backsies and pick the right choice after 10 minutes.
 
2013-11-27 06:45:35 PM

technicolor-misfit: And a solid 30-40% of those who absolutely hate it, believe it's insurance created by the government and given to poor people for free. Period.

I have a cousin who refuses to shop for her Blue Cross insurance on the federal exchange, in spite of the fact that it's like 20-30% cheaper (before subsidies) than the comparable Blue Cross insurance that BC/BS is trying to push on her directly.

There are none so farked in the ass without lube than those who will not see.


They also tend to be the same people who believe in religion.
 
2013-11-27 06:51:13 PM

LasersHurt: I think a lot of people are ignorant as to what, exactly, it entails. We've got a media which does not inform, and a populous that conflates freedom and ignorance. I am not surprised in the least.



Lets not forget : we had to pass it to find out what is in it..    What it is, is an avenue to single payer.. also a continuation of redistribution of wealth.. to work, the milleniums have to join.. which they won't..  financially unfeasible to do so.... it's designed to fail... Obama,s flagship achievement is actually the single payer system, which he can't announce until ACA crashes and burns..  and by that time, they have most everyone,s information in their system, including bank info.... y'all are so screwed...
 
2013-11-27 06:55:47 PM

Animatronik:

Farkin_Crazy: I don't think there is near the disdain for the ACA that the conservatives would have you believe there is.
And, once people actually start using it, it will become more palatable and political suicide for the right to continue to attempt to repeal it.

Hahahahaha..uhhahahahaha.
Keep trying

This law is a disaster. A friends company just announ that they will no longer offer coverage to spouses because Obamacare. His wife is panicking. Thanks to the mismanagement by the govt, the middle class is getting screwed.

I am fortunate to have good insurance.The problem with Obamacare is that its a clusterfark.
Its really that simple.
Yes, it is that simple.  I REALLY find it hard to believe that even Fark leftists are supporting this turd of legislation, written by insurance company lobbyists.  Trying to shift blame onto the ZERO Republicans who voted for it, I would understand.  Blaming those who wrote it, saying they tricked the poor Democrats, I would understand.   But trying to find the "good points" about being rammed up the arse with a red-hot poker?  Seriously?

Some facts -- Over half of the people insured at the end of 2012 will lose their policies, due to Obamacare, before the 2014 elections.  I would note that people with insurance were 85% pleased with the insurance they had.  "Replacement policies" will, in the vast majority of cases, cost significantly more, AND have significantly higher deductibles, and this is not something that "talking points" will fix; the vast majority will be taking a MAJOR hit in insurance, either by increased premiums, or by losing coverage altogether.  Many people are also losing their jobs -- at least full-time jobs -- so employers can avoid the nastiness that is Obamacare.

Even Democrats are bailing on this immense cluster-fark -- they know that you can't pick up a turd by the "clean end," and that if they are associated with Obamacare in the elections, they're friggin' toast.  As always, 100% of the seats in the House of Representatives are up for election.  In the 2014 election, as it stands now, of the Senate seats up for election in 2014, currently, there are 21 held by Democrats and 14 held by Republicans.  If Senate elections go 50/50, the Republicans take the Senate.  And with the new Senate rules, if the Republicans take the Senate, Democrats are screwed.  So, the immense scrambling for Democratic congresscritters to distance themselves from the President is only just beginning.   The Demorats are deserting the sinking shiat.

And amid the dawning horror amongst Democrats that they have voted for and supported legislation that is going to scare the dog shiat out of the majority of Americans, in a place where fear reigns, partly because of Democratic propaganda over the years, about the horrors of being uninsured, or at LEAST the horror of having to come up with much more money for health insurance, AND face larger deductibles...  amidst that scramble AWAY from Obamacare, or the ACA as Democrats now like to call it, we have the Fark libs, not making excuses for this cluster-fark, but extolling its virtues. Oh, yes, hooray that gay couples will now be covered for maternity care, and that Granny can get free condoms and dental dams for those big block parties.

Paid Internet trolls are funded, from all appearances and evidence, ENTIRELY by the government.  The fact that "Fark Socialists" are all backing Obamacare all the way, when even Democrats are dissing it, is the best possible evidence that all the bullshiat derp being put out by those Fark socialists is paid for by the Obama administration.  Right about now, the ONLY people supporting Obamacare are those being paid to do so.  So, it looks like y'all have outed yourselves.

 
2013-11-27 06:58:10 PM

ikanreed: 4 posts, all of which say "people are morons who don't know anything".

They are, and they don't, but it's still "elitist"


What's wrong with being elitist?
 
2013-11-27 06:59:19 PM

Silverstaff: I told her that she could now get Medicaid through the ACA and not have to pay anything.  Her response?  To be offended at the idea of getting Medicaid, saying that she's not poor and she'd be damned before she accepted "socialized medicine" because "I'm no moocher, I earn what I get".  Never mind she can't afford insurance, she won't take it if it's given to her for free either.


It's not free, it's paid for by the government, which receives revenue via taxes which comes from people working. In short, if you're too poor to afford insurance, the government is willing to step in and help you out. Think of it as the government investing in you. Not necessarily investing in you for future profit, since that may not be the case, but investing in you as a person to help you stay happy and healthy, which also avoids costs of emergency room visits, diseases, or deaths that could have been avoided.
Try convincing her from a perspective of the government willing to invest in her, and later, when she gets a better job, she can count how much she is paying off her "debt" via taxes. Frame it as a loan to her.
 
2013-11-27 06:59:21 PM

GeneralJim: Animatronik: Farkin_Crazy: I don't think there is near the disdain for the ACA that the conservatives would have you believe there is.
And, once people actually start using it, it will become more palatable and political suicide for the right to continue to attempt to repeal it.

Hahahahaha..uhhahahahaha.
Keep trying

This law is a disaster. A friends company just announ that they will no longer offer coverage to spouses because Obamacare. His wife is panicking. Thanks to the mismanagement by the govt, the middle class is getting screwed.

I am fortunate to have good insurance.The problem with Obamacare is that its a clusterfark.
Its really that simple.Yes, it is that simple.  I REALLY find it hard to believe that even Fark leftists are supporting this turd of legislation, written by insurance company lobbyists.  Trying to shift blame onto the ZERO Republicans who voted for it, I would understand.  Blaming those who wrote it, saying they tricked the poor Democrats, I would understand.   But trying to find the "good points" about being rammed up the arse with a red-hot poker?  Seriously?
Some facts -- Over half of the people insured at the end of 2012 will lose their policies, due to Obamacare, before the 2014 elections.  I would note that people with insurance were 85% pleased with the insurance they had.  "Replacement policies" will, in the vast majority of cases, cost significantly more, AND have significantly higher deductibles, and this is not something that "talking points" will fix; the vast majority will be taking a MAJOR hit in insurance, either by increased premiums, or by losing coverage altogether.  Many people are also losing their jobs -- at least full-time jobs -- so employers can avoid the nastiness that is Obamacare.Even Democrats are bailing on this immense cluster-fark -- they know that you can't pick up a turd by the "clean end," and that if they are associated with Obamacare in the elections, they're friggin' toast.  As always, 100% of the seats ...


So says the paid Internet shill.
 
2013-11-27 07:00:19 PM

Ned Stark:

Especially since they still get to set up tiny monopolies and IRS illegal to not buy their product.

Its a blindingly obvious outcome if you just ask yourself "what would a money obsessed sociopath do?" But I guess America just can't bring itself to question the Free Market™.

Oh, FFS...  YOU, yourself, call it "tiny monopolies" for a product "illegal not to buy."  This has close to NOTHING to do with "free markets."  In a free market, you can say "fark you, I don't want your product."

 
2013-11-27 07:00:20 PM

GeneralJim: Paid Internet trolls are funded, from all appearances and evidence, ENTIRELY by the government.  The fact that "Fark Socialists" are all backing Obamacare all the way, when even Democrats are dissing it, is the best possible evidence that all the bullshiat derp being put out by those Fark socialists is paid for by the Obama administration.  Right about now, the ONLY people supporting Obamacare are those being paid to do so.  So, it looks like y'all have outed yourselves.


We're through the looking glass here people.
 
2013-11-27 07:09:31 PM

GeneralJim: Paid Internet trolls are funded, from all appearances and evidence, ENTIRELY by the government.  The fact that "Fark Socialists" are all backing Obamacare all the way, when even Democrats are dissing it, is the best possible evidence that all the bullshiat derp being put out by those Fark socialists is paid for by the Obama administration.  Right about now, the ONLY people supporting Obamacare are those being paid to do so.  So, it looks like y'all have outed yourselves.


I don't know if this is serious derp, or a parody of derp.
 
2013-11-27 07:10:09 PM

Silverstaff: GeneralJim: Paid Internet trolls are funded, from all appearances and evidence, ENTIRELY by the government.  The fact that "Fark Socialists" are all backing Obamacare all the way, when even Democrats are dissing it, is the best possible evidence that all the bullshiat derp being put out by those Fark socialists is paid for by the Obama administration.  Right about now, the ONLY people supporting Obamacare are those being paid to do so.  So, it looks like y'all have outed yourselves.

I don't know if this is serious derp, or a parody of derp.


Classic Poe's Law.
 
2013-11-27 07:15:07 PM

LasersHurt: Silverstaff: GeneralJim: Paid Internet trolls are funded, from all appearances and evidence, ENTIRELY by the government.  The fact that "Fark Socialists" are all backing Obamacare all the way, when even Democrats are dissing it, is the best possible evidence that all the bullshiat derp being put out by those Fark socialists is paid for by the Obama administration.  Right about now, the ONLY people supporting Obamacare are those being paid to do so.  So, it looks like y'all have outed yourselves.

I don't know if this is serious derp, or a parody of derp.

Classic Poe's Law.


No, it's GeneralDerp, we can be pretty sure it's serious derp.
 
2013-11-27 07:15:53 PM

Heliovdrake: So who do you think this threads shillout will be?

Ayn Rand's Slowmammal77

BJKnight

thin-noggin

General Whargarble

nopattern-jockstraparoma


You forgot:

Thick milk stuffing

The OG Plato
 
2013-11-27 07:16:39 PM
GeneralJim:  In the 2014 election, as it stands now, of the Senate seats up for election in 2014, currently, there are 21 held by Democrats and 14 held by Republicans.  If Senate elections go 50/50, the Republicans take the Senate.

Soo... 35 seats are up for grabs, 14 currently held by Republicans.  Can't divide 35 exactly in half, so we'll round up in the GOP's favor, which means they would take 18 of 35 contested seats, if we go "50/50". This means that the GOP would pick up 4 seats. Since they currently have 45, that would leave them with 49.

Jesus, dude... is this some kind of double secret Trolling where you post something that is just flat out mathematically wrong?
 
2013-11-27 07:17:37 PM
Seriously, what "spin?" I see a bunch of social conservatives expressing "concerns," lol
 
2013-11-27 07:20:06 PM
Every one of these surveys should start out:
1. Overall, do you support or not support Obamacare?
2. Overall, do you support or not support the  Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?
3. Did you know that Obamacare is the same thing as thePatient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Any survey with a NO for #3 or differing answers for #1 and #2 is thrown out.
With out this qualifying step, every survey is bullshiat.
 
2013-11-27 07:22:24 PM

Silverstaff: technicolor-misfit: And a solid 30-40% of those who absolutely hate it, believe it's insurance created by the government and given to poor people for free. Period.

I have a cousin who refuses to shop for her Blue Cross insurance on the federal exchange, in spite of the fact that it's like 20-30% cheaper (before subsidies) than the comparable Blue Cross insurance that BC/BS is trying to push on her directly.

There are none so farked in the ass without lube than those who will not see.

Don't forget the 25% of the population that thinks that if you have an "Obamacare" plan then you have to use only special Obamacare Clinics and Obamacare Doctors, and you can be Death Paneled if it's too expensive to treat you.

Yes, I have seen the people who refuse, adamantly, to buy insurance on the exchanges because that would be surrendering to socialism, or something.

At work, I saw someone without insurance complaining about Obamacare.  She is a temp, no health insurance provided from her job, and was griping about "Obamacare" being so evil that it was making people who can't afford insurance buy it anyway.  We talked, I asked some questions about insurance and finances, and I did some math.  She was clearly eligible for Medicaid under the ACA expansion.  I told her that she could now get Medicaid through the ACA and not have to pay anything.  Her response?  To be offended at the idea of getting Medicaid, saying that she's not poor and she'd be damned before she accepted "socialized medicine" because "I'm no moocher, I earn what I get".  Never mind she can't afford insurance, she won't take it if it's given to her for free either.


Since your taxes help pay for medicaid, tell her she can give you a nickel a month to cover the amount you are funding to cover her.
 
2013-11-27 07:24:26 PM

GeneralJim: I am fortunate to have good insurance.The problem with Obamacare is that its a clusterfark.
Its really that simple.Yes, it is that simple.  I REALLY find it hard to believe that even Fark leftists are supporting this turd of legislation, written by insurance company lobbyists.  Trying to shift blame onto the ZERO Republicans who voted for it, I would understand.  Blaming those who wrote it, saying they tricked the poor Democrats, I would understand.   But trying to find the "good points" about being rammed up the arse with a red-hot poker?  Seriously?


So maybe you can tell me which part of Obamacare didn't allow insurance to cover spouses (even though my plan still does)?

I mean there are legitimate criticisms of it but using anecdotes that can be easily debunked doesn't help.

GeneralJim: Some facts -- Over half of the people insured at the end of 2012 will lose their policies, due to Obamacare, before the 2014 elections.  I would note that people with insurance were 85% pleased with the insurance they had.  "Replacement policies" will, in the vast majority of cases, cost significantly more, AND have significantly higher deductibles, and this is not something that "talking points" will fix; the vast majority will be taking a MAJOR hit in insurance, either by increased premiums, or by losing coverage altogether.  Many people are also losing their jobs -- at least full-time jobs -- so employers can avoid the nastiness that is Obamacare.


My "Replacement policy" at work moved me from a regular insurance plan to something more like an HSA, they did drop the plan I had before. But I'm also going to pay less for the HSA than I do for my insurance plan (it does help that my company offers a discount for non-smokers).
 
2013-11-27 07:26:41 PM

firefly212: Mrtraveler01: Animatronik: This law is a disaster. A friends company just announ that they will no longer offer coverage to spouses because Obamacare.

What part of Obamacare prohibits this?

Absolutely none... but the vogue thing to do is to do something totally dickish to your employees, then tag it with the finish "because Obamacare."


To be fair, this has been in vogue for a long time. The last thing a company is going to do is tell its customers "we're raising our prices to increase our profit margins". Before they blamed it on the ACA they blamed on regulations, the economy, increasing competition, whatever. Each year they made records profits in spite of these terrible problems.
 
2013-11-27 07:33:42 PM
You want to stop any Repeal Obamacare discussion? Just use a little Socratic Irony and ask the simple questions like these...........:
1) Do you think people should have access to affordable health care?
2) What is your solution to that problem that would be better than the ACA?


Now watch them flail for an answer. Most of what you will get will be blathering similar (in terms of how well they can articulate an answer) to what was recorded last year at the Romney Ohio Rally . (yes, these are all 2012 election vids, but the result is the same) The opponents of the ACA will throw out all sorts of aphorisms they heard on the news the night before with little understanding of what they are talking about. When broken down - even on a cursory level - it is just a blubbering of bluster designed to denigrate the entire law and administration without actually saying anything.

It will likely be a string of sound bites they heard on Fox. Sure, there are some people with cogent arguments about the ACA, but they are few and far between. And well more often than not, they also will likely descend into embellishments and half-truths (if not outright lies) laced with sentimental, Hollywood BS about American exceptionalism that justifies some perverted, modern day version of Manifest Destiny. Because, there is no better way to skirt about discussing an issue that playing the war-pig, jingo angle whether it has anything to do with the topic that started the discussion. It is just a really good way to re-direct discussions.

Yes, Socratic Irony is a rather obnoxious way to discuss an issue (it actually is an oft used neo-con tactic), but given that most people who oppose the ACA, do it because some bobble-head told them enough lies that they think it is the truth. Given they are so immersed in the lies told to them, the only way to shake their minds is to challenge them to actually think. If it takes a little shaming to even get them to admit they have no idea what they think, at least that is a start. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and belief, but please make sure it is your belief. Not some sound bite written by a cable news pundit of millionaire politician.

Of course too, there will always be the Study It Out Fallback Defense Push Back. But that is easily defeated as well. Pressed for even a single bit if clarity on just about any point, The S.I.O. proponents will be hard pressed to produce much more than a chorus of crickets or an out of context quote from some famous person that supports their view only because it was cherry picked to do so.

The upshot is that any discussion of ACA for/against is almost a waste of time at this point. Better to write your legislators and hope your comments are considered. Trying to persuade any other average person, after all the rhetoric from so many different angles, is likely a pointless and fruitless endeavor.

For my part, I am done arguing it. Occasionally I engage in the debate, but almost always it is a waste of time. It's here. I want it to stay. It has its problems but they will get fixed. What I cannot fix are the people who refuse to even attempt to understand the law.

You can't fix stupid. Maybe someday they will open their eyes and read something. Probably not, but one can hope.
 
2013-11-27 07:33:50 PM

Jaguar Paw: "She has cancer and treatments can be $98K apiece but she listens to the Limbaugh and Levin the radio and thinks she is better off with out insurance."

Proofread....proofread

Should be "She has cancer and treatments can be $98K apiece but she listens to Limbaugh and Levin on the radio and thinks she is better off with out insurance."


She has insurance that pays if someone (her kids?) publicly announce their homosexuality?

/hey, if you are going to proofread, might as well fix all the mistakes
 
2013-11-27 07:59:56 PM

GeneralJim: Ned Stark: Especially since they still get to set up tiny monopolies and IRS illegal to not buy their product.
Its a blindingly obvious outcome if you just ask yourself "what would a money obsessed sociopath do?" But I guess America just can't bring itself to question the Free Market™.Oh, FFS...  YOU, yourself, call it "tiny monopolies" for a product "illegal not to buy."  This has close to NOTHING to do with "free markets."  In a free market, you can say "fark you, I don't want your product."


Remember when someone told you to knock it off with the green text and you said it was because some old Fark client used green text to quote people? Yeah that was bullshiat.
 
2013-11-27 08:02:40 PM

unyon: Brostorm: This thread is hilarious.  You guys really wan't to believe anyone opposed to this law are ignorant rednecks that don't know whats good for them.  Of course you know whats good for them, of course you do.

Fair point.  I'd love to be enlightened by your alternative plan.  Please, continue.

I call bullshiat.  One does NOT need to have a better plan to know that Obamacare, which is not only screwing up insurance across the board, but has encouraged businesses to fire full-time workers and replace them with part-time workers, sucks.  Practically ANYTHING would be better.  In fact, it looks to me as if Obamacare was DESIGNED to be so outrageously bad that people would be willing to accept single-payer, just to get out of Obamacare.


But, since it's so EASY, here's a better plan than Obamacare:


1. It's illegal to tie health insurance to jobs -- ALL policies must be individual policies; with conversion of employer policies to individual.

2. It's illegal to alter policies and premiums for pre-existing conditions, if the person has been insured in the last 24 months.

3. If someone has not been insured in the last 24 months, and has a pre-existing condition, 50% surcharge is the maximum.

4. Insurance premiums are tax-deductible, and co-pays and deductibles are tax credits

5. Tax-free Individual or family "Medical Savings Accounts."

6. Deal better with "social aspects" of medicine -- homelessness, bad nutrition, lack of transportation, etc.

7. Government provides "low end" insurance and "preventables service" for any.

8. All insurance companies can operate in all 50 states, and all territories.

 
2013-11-27 08:04:58 PM
www.vpython.org
 
2013-11-27 08:12:08 PM
Derp. Derp derp derp.

Derp?

Derp.

Derp-derp a herpa derpa doo.
 
2013-11-27 08:14:50 PM

GeneralJim: 8. All insurance companies can operate in all 50 states, and all territories.


I never understood what this one was supposed to accomplish.

Didn't we try this same stuff with the credit card companies, only to see them move to DE where the regulations favored them the most?
 
2013-11-27 08:16:18 PM
 
2013-11-27 08:17:19 PM
It's almost like watching someone break down after being given a post-hypnotic suggestion.
 
2013-11-27 08:18:48 PM

fatassbastard: GeneralJim:  In the 2014 election, as it stands now, of the Senate seats up for election in 2014, currently, there are 21 held by Democrats and 14 held by Republicans.  If Senate elections go 50/50, the Republicans take the Senate.

Soo... 35 seats are up for grabs, 14 currently held by Republicans.  Can't divide 35 exactly in half, so we'll round up in the GOP's favor, which means they would take 18 of 35 contested seats, if we go "50/50". This means that the GOP would pick up 4 seats. Since they currently have 45, that would leave them with 49.

Jesus, dude... is this some kind of double secret Trolling where you post something that is just flat out mathematically wrong?


You forgot to carry the potato.
 
2013-11-27 08:21:32 PM
And uh-oh Tweedle Derp just showed up. It's going to be a long night.

media.jrn.com
 
2013-11-27 08:22:03 PM

Mrtraveler01: GeneralJim: 8. All insurance companies can operate in all 50 states, and all territories.

I never understood what this one was supposed to accomplish.

Didn't we try this same stuff with the credit card companies, only to see them move to DE where the regulations favored them the most?


And credit cards have never been cheaper, more available, or offered more rewards?
 
2013-11-27 08:23:05 PM

Mrtraveler01:

GeneralJim: I am fortunate to have good insurance.The problem with Obamacare is that its a clusterfark.
Its really that simple.

Yes, it is that simple.  I REALLY find it hard to believe that even Fark leftists are supporting this turd of legislation, written by insurance company lobbyists.  Trying to shift blame onto the ZERO Republicans who voted for it, I would understand.  Blaming those who wrote it, saying they tricked the poor Democrats, I would understand.   But trying to find the "good points" about being rammed up the arse with a red-hot poker?  Seriously?

So maybe you can tell me which part of Obamacare didn't allow insurance to cover spouses (even though my plan still does)?

I mean there are legitimate criticisms of it but using anecdotes that can be easily debunked doesn't help.

WTF?   Where in the HELL did I even mention spouses?  So, what is it? Are you just reading random talking points? Do they even pay you for that?

 
2013-11-27 08:27:00 PM

homelessdude:

2) What is your solution to that problem that would be better than the ACA?
Normally, this would make sense.  However, in THIS cluster-fark, having done NOTHING would have been vastly superior.
 
2013-11-27 08:27:55 PM
Polls about whether people plan to vote for John Doe or Joe Doakes next Tuesday have some informational value.
Attempts to poll people on complex issues usually don't, and are usually exercises in ideological push-polling, like every poll on "Obamacare" ever.
This poll is junk data. Use it to make yourself feel better, if it does - but that's it's only potential use.
 
2013-11-27 08:30:06 PM

dangelder:

GeneralJim: Ned Stark: Especially since they still get to set up tiny monopolies and IRS illegal to not buy their product.
Its a blindingly obvious outcome if you just ask yourself "what would a money obsessed sociopath do?" But I guess America just can't bring itself to question the Free Market™.

Oh, FFS...  YOU, yourself, call it "tiny monopolies" for a product "illegal not to buy."  This has close to NOTHING to do with "free markets."  In a free market, you can say "fark you, I don't want your product."

Remember when someone told you to knock it off with the green text and you said it was because some old Fark client used green text to quote people? Yeah that was bullshiat.
No, I don't, because I never said that.  How about you STFU with all your bullshiat?
 
2013-11-27 08:30:10 PM
The newest Quinnipiac poll out today shows Obama with only a 34% approval rating.

In addition, 57% said he is dishonest and untrustworthy.

Obama's doing great and this will hardly fark over his party in the midterms at all.
 
2013-11-27 08:31:09 PM

GeneralJim: Mrtraveler01: GeneralJim: I am fortunate to have good insurance.The problem with Obamacare is that its a clusterfark.
Its really that simple.

Yes, it is that simple.  I REALLY find it hard to believe that even Fark leftists are supporting this turd of legislation, written by insurance company lobbyists.  Trying to shift blame onto the ZERO Republicans who voted for it, I would understand.  Blaming those who wrote it, saying they tricked the poor Democrats, I would understand.   But trying to find the "good points" about being rammed up the arse with a red-hot poker?  Seriously?

So maybe you can tell me which part of Obamacare didn't allow insurance to cover spouses (even though my plan still does)?

I mean there are legitimate criticisms of it but using anecdotes that can be easily debunked doesn't help.WTF?   Where in the HELL did I even mention spouses?  So, what is it? Are you just reading random talking points? Do they even pay you for that?


Did you even read the post you first responded to?

GeneralJim: Animatronik: Farkin_Crazy: I don't think there is near the disdain for the ACA that the conservatives would have you believe there is.
And, once people actually start using it, it will become more palatable and political suicide for the right to continue to attempt to repeal it.

Hahahahaha..uhhahahahaha.
Keep trying

This law is a disaster. A friends company just announ that they will no longer offer coverage to spouses because Obamacare. His wife is panicking. Thanks to the mismanagement by the govt, the middle class is getting screwed.

I am fortunate to have good insurance.The problem with Obamacare is that its a clusterfark.
Its really that simple.Yes, it is that simple.  I REALLY find it hard to believe that even Fark leftists are supporting this turd of legislation, written by insurance company lobbyists.  Trying to shift blame onto the ZERO Republicans who voted for it, I would understand.  Blaming those who wrote it, saying they tricked the poor Democrats, I would understand.   But trying to find the "good points" about being rammed up the arse with a red-hot poker?  Seriously?
Some facts -- Over half of the people insured at the end of 2012 will lose their policies, due to Obamacare, before the 2014 elections.  I would note that people with insurance were 85% pleased with the insurance they had.  "Replacement policies" will, in the vast majority of cases, cost significantly more, AND have significantly higher deductibles, and this is not something that "talking points" will fix; the vast majority will be taking a MAJOR hit in insurance, either by increased premiums, or by losing coverage altogether.  Many people are also losing their jobs -- at least full-time jobs -- so employers can avoid the nastiness that is Obamacare.Even Democrats are bailing on this immense cluster-fark -- they know that you can't pick up a turd by the "clean end," and that if they are associated with Obamacare in the elections, they're friggin' toast.  As always, 100% of the seats ...


So tell me which part of Obamacare is responsible for that guy's company not allowing his spouse to be covered under his insurance plan? Mind the fact that my insurance plan current and future will continue to allow me to cover spouses?
 
2013-11-27 08:32:26 PM

BullBearMS: The newest Quinnipiac poll out today shows Obama with only a 34% approval rating.

In addition, 57% said he is dishonest and untrustworthy.

Obama's doing great and this will hardly fark over his party in the midterms at all.


I'm sure the GOP will find another way to screw it up just like they did in 2010 and 2012.

You seem excited about the GOP winning for some reason.
 
2013-11-27 08:34:50 PM

Mrtraveler01:

GeneralJim: 8. All insurance companies can operate in all 50 states, and all territories.

I never understood what this one was supposed to accomplish.

Didn't we try this same stuff with the credit card companies, only to see them move to DE where the regulations favored them the most?
Being able to buy insurance from any vendor increases competition.   Take a class.
 
2013-11-27 08:35:38 PM

Mrtraveler01: You seem excited about the GOP winning for some reason.


That's his whole shtick basically: throw everything at the wall to make liberals guilty for voting Obama, all while showing "concern." Claims to be above "both sides," but any criticism of Republicans is scarce, if not disguised as more Democrat-bashing. Oh and the wall of blue hypertext. Almost forgot that hallmark.
 
2013-11-27 08:35:54 PM

BullBearMS: The newest Quinnipiac poll out today shows Obama with only a 34% approval rating.

In addition, 57% said he is dishonest and untrustworthy.

Obama's doing great and this will hardly fark over his party in the midterms at all.


It also shows a 3-1 disapproval of the Republican shutdown strategy, and 71% disapprove of the Republicans in Congress(as opposed to 60% for Democrats). In terms of the 2014 elections, the generic Democrat beats the generic Republican 43-34.

But hey, I'm sure your cherrypicked stat is what matters.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/na t ional/release-detail?ReleaseID=1958
 
2013-11-27 08:36:57 PM
 
2013-11-27 08:37:16 PM

grumpfuff: BullBearMS: The newest Quinnipiac poll out today shows Obama with only a 34% approval rating.

In addition, 57% said he is dishonest and untrustworthy.

Obama's doing great and this will hardly fark over his party in the midterms at all.

It also shows a 3-1 disapproval of the Republican shutdown strategy, and 71% disapprove of the Republicans in Congress(as opposed to 60% for Democrats). In terms of the 2014 elections, the generic Democrat beats the generic Republican 43-34.

But hey, I'm sure your cherrypicked stat is what matters.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/na t ional/release-detail?ReleaseID=1958


Ignore that, I pulled up the wrong one.
 
2013-11-27 08:37:30 PM

GeneralJim: Mrtraveler01: GeneralJim: 8. All insurance companies can operate in all 50 states, and all territories.

I never understood what this one was supposed to accomplish.

Didn't we try this same stuff with the credit card companies, only to see them move to DE where the regulations favored them the most?Being able to buy insurance from any vendor increases competition.   Take a class.


Because that really helped before the ACA. Oh, wait.
 
2013-11-27 08:37:44 PM

GeneralJim: Mrtraveler01: GeneralJim: 8. All insurance companies can operate in all 50 states, and all territories.

I never understood what this one was supposed to accomplish.

Didn't we try this same stuff with the credit card companies, only to see them move to DE where the regulations favored them the most?Being able to buy insurance from any vendor increases competition.   Take a class.


So I can buy from either Blue Cross of Michigan or Blue Cross of Wisconsin?

Won't this law basically just consolidate Blue Cross Blue Shield into one state? The only reason that they have operations in each state is because regulation requires them to be based in the state they want to sell to.
 
2013-11-27 08:38:57 PM

BullBearMS: Holy farking shiat...

As more bad poll numbers continue to pour in for President Barack Obama, a new survey finds that if the 2012 election matchup were held this month, Mitt Romney would hold the edge with the voters.

Romney topped Obama 49 percent to 45 percent among registered voters in the Washington Post-ABC News poll released Tuesday. Among all Americans, the 2012 rivals would be tied, at 47 percent.

When the majority of registered voters wish they had voted for Romney instead?

You have totally and completely failed.


So vote Republican.
 
2013-11-27 08:39:10 PM

whidbey: Mrtraveler01: You seem excited about the GOP winning for some reason.

That's his whole shtick basically: throw everything at the wall to make liberals guilty for voting Obama, all while showing "concern." Claims to be above "both sides," but any criticism of Republicans is scarce, if not disguised as more Democrat-bashing. Oh and the wall of blue hypertext. Almost forgot that hallmark.


dl.dropboxusercontent.com

Why won't you lie for him???!
 
2013-11-27 08:40:23 PM

Zeppelininthesky: GeneralJim: Mrtraveler01: GeneralJim: 8. All insurance companies can operate in all 50 states, and all territories.

I never understood what this one was supposed to accomplish.

Didn't we try this same stuff with the credit card companies, only to see them move to DE where the regulations favored them the most?Being able to buy insurance from any vendor increases competition.   Take a class.

Because that really helped before the ACA. Oh, wait.


Well they were going to get around to doing it, but the liberals kept badgering Bush and Obama distracted us by jacking up the deficits and hiding from birth certificate disclosure requests, so we're a little behind schedule. Maybe by 2016 when we get a Republican in office again can we right this finally.
 
2013-11-27 08:40:47 PM

Mrtraveler01: BullBearMS: Holy farking shiat...

As more bad poll numbers continue to pour in for President Barack Obama, a new survey finds that if the 2012 election matchup were held this month, Mitt Romney would hold the edge with the voters.

Romney topped Obama 49 percent to 45 percent among registered voters in the Washington Post-ABC News poll released Tuesday. Among all Americans, the 2012 rivals would be tied, at 47 percent.

When the majority of registered voters wish they had voted for Romney instead?

You have totally and completely failed.

So vote Republican.


They wish they did.

Epic Obama fail.

However, perhaps you and the other derp squad member will tell us how stupid people are some more. I'm sure that will help.
 
2013-11-27 08:41:34 PM

BullBearMS: whidbey: Mrtraveler01: You seem excited about the GOP winning for some reason.

That's his whole shtick basically: throw everything at the wall to make liberals guilty for voting Obama, all while showing "concern." Claims to be above "both sides," but any criticism of Republicans is scarce, if not disguised as more Democrat-bashing. Oh and the wall of blue hypertext. Almost forgot that hallmark.

[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 160x120]

Why won't you lie for him???!


He does raise a point though. How come you never hold Republicans to the same high standard that you hold Obama?

For a "Progressive", you sure like to give the Republicans a pass for everything.

Is Obama perfect? No, of course not. Is he better than the alternative? You damn right he is.
 
2013-11-27 08:42:33 PM
grumpfuff:

Ignore that, I pulled up the wrong one.

So looking at the newest one, Democrats lost their lead on the 2014 elections, but the Republican/Democrat in Congress approval ratings are about the same.

Of course, if you look at who would vote for what, moderates still prefer a Democrat to a Republican 44-28, so take that for what you will.
 
2013-11-27 08:43:26 PM

BullBearMS: Mrtraveler01: BullBearMS: Holy farking shiat...

As more bad poll numbers continue to pour in for President Barack Obama, a new survey finds that if the 2012 election matchup were held this month, Mitt Romney would hold the edge with the voters.

Romney topped Obama 49 percent to 45 percent among registered voters in the Washington Post-ABC News poll released Tuesday. Among all Americans, the 2012 rivals would be tied, at 47 percent.

When the majority of registered voters wish they had voted for Romney instead?

You have totally and completely failed.

So vote Republican.

They wish they did.

Epic Obama fail.

However, perhaps you and the other derp squad member will tell us how stupid people are some more. I'm sure that will help.


I would've voted for Romney if I actually knew what his plan was.

The reason he's doing better than Obama in those polls is because the guy is out of the spotlight. Same reason why Bush and Clinton's numbers both went up after they left office.
 
2013-11-27 08:44:26 PM

grumpfuff: grumpfuff:

Ignore that, I pulled up the wrong one.

So looking at the newest one, Democrats lost their lead on the 2014 elections, but the Republican/Democrat in Congress approval ratings are about the same.

Of course, if you look at who would vote for what, moderates still prefer a Democrat to a Republican 44-28, so take that for what you will.


Missouri doesn't have a Senator up for election in 2014 and I'm in a district that is solidly Republican. Not sure I can make much of a difference here.
 
2013-11-27 08:44:26 PM

grumpfuff: Of course, if you look at who would vote for what, moderates still prefer a Democrat to a Republican 44-28, so take that for what you will.


He doesn't believe in climate change, either.
 
2013-11-27 08:45:52 PM

whidbey: grumpfuff: Of course, if you look at who would vote for what, moderates still prefer a Democrat to a Republican 44-28, so take that for what you will.

He doesn't believe in climate change, either.


Oh I know. His farky is a link to another Farker epicly destroying his every argument. This way I have it saved for reference if need be.
 
2013-11-27 08:47:05 PM

Mrtraveler01: He does raise a point though. How come you never hold Republicans to the same high standard that you hold Obama?


When did the Republicans say they were going to end the wars, restore civil liberties, restore the rule of law, prosecute the banks, keep lobbyists from running the government, etc, etc, etc???

dl.dropboxusercontent.com
 
2013-11-27 08:47:27 PM

GeneralJim: Animatronik: Farkin_Crazy: I don't think there is near the disdain for the ACA that the conservatives would have you believe there is.
And, once people actually start using it, it will become more palatable and political suicide for the right to continue to attempt to repeal it.

Hahahahaha..uhhahahahaha.
Keep trying

This law is a disaster. A friends company just announ that they will no longer offer coverage to spouses because Obamacare. His wife is panicking. Thanks to the mismanagement by the govt, the middle class is getting screwed.

I am fortunate to have good insurance.The problem with Obamacare is that its a clusterfark.
Its really that simple.Yes, it is that simple.  I REALLY find it hard to believe that even Fark leftists are supporting this turd of legislation, written by insurance company lobbyists.  Trying to shift blame onto the ZERO Republicans who voted for it, I would understand.


Those same Republicans who tried to repeal the law 30+ times, threw lawsuit after lawsuit at the law trying to declare it unconstitutional, let states not expand Medicaid and set up proper state exchanges, took away spending that would have been used for the healthcare.gov website, and spread so many outright lies about the ACA that it is really tough to figure out what is real and what is made up bullshiat. Yeah, I am blaming Republicans directly for trying to make the law as bad as possible. The responsible thing to do would be to try to fix the law and not make it worse.
 
2013-11-27 08:50:00 PM
ITT:

2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-11-27 08:51:30 PM
When your only tactics are to rage, and to call anyone who disagrees with you a troll or a paid shill, you might want to re-evaluate your choices in life.
 
2013-11-27 08:56:13 PM

BullBearMS: Mrtraveler01: He does raise a point though. How come you never hold Republicans to the same high standard that you hold Obama?

When did the Republicans say they were going to end the wars, restore civil liberties, restore the rule of law, prosecute the banks, keep lobbyists from running the government, etc, etc, etc???

[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 640x469]


Let me ask you this, is there anything that the Democrats have done right? Is there anything the Republicans have done wrong?
 
2013-11-27 08:59:36 PM
We should definitely 'deal better with' stuff. Bold. Profound. Brave.
 
2013-11-27 09:01:11 PM

Mrtraveler01: Animatronik: This law is a disaster. A friends company just announ that they will no longer offer coverage to spouses because Obamacare.

What part of Obamacare prohibits this?


Probably using the ACA as an excuse, but  there are companies that are cutting back on insurance offerings include offering employee only policy coverage.
 
2013-11-27 09:05:45 PM

Mrtraveler01:

Won't this law basically just consolidate Blue Cross Blue Shield into one state? The only reason that they have operations in each state is because regulation requires them to be based in the state they want to sell to.
I'm not responsible to teach you basic economics.  In fact, it's probably better that you stay ignorant.   So, just forget I said anything.
 
2013-11-27 09:08:20 PM

Mrtraveler01: BullBearMS: Mrtraveler01: He does raise a point though. How come you never hold Republicans to the same high standard that you hold Obama?

When did the Republicans say they were going to end the wars, restore civil liberties, restore the rule of law, prosecute the banks, keep lobbyists from running the government, etc, etc, etc???

[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 640x469]

Let me ask you this, is there anything that the Democrats have done right? Is there anything the Republicans have done wrong?


dl.dropboxusercontent.com

This Obama shill mentality where you can't criticize him when he farks up is a never ending source of stupidity.

Attacking Obama for refusing to prosecute the banks, for example, is entirely a good thing.

Shame them into taking action.
 
2013-11-27 09:08:58 PM

GeneralJim: Mrtraveler01: Won't this law basically just consolidate Blue Cross Blue Shield into one state? The only reason that they have operations in each state is because regulation requires them to be based in the state they want to sell to.I'm not responsible to teach you basic economics.  In fact, it's probably better that you stay ignorant.   So, just forget I said anything.


So you think that BCBS of Michigan is going to compete with it's sister company BCBS of Massachusetts?

Do you really think that these won't all eventually consolidate in one state resulting in even LESS competition?

People who drone on with that talking point don't understand the complexity behind it.
 
2013-11-27 09:10:13 PM

BullBearMS: This Obama shill mentality where you can't criticize him when he farks up is a never ending source of stupidity.


I criticize him (he's far from perfect on many issues). But that doesn't mean I'm going to run into the cold embrace of the Republican Party,
 
2013-11-27 09:15:54 PM

Mrtraveler01: BullBearMS: This Obama shill mentality where you can't criticize him when he farks up is a never ending source of stupidity.

I criticize him (he's far from perfect on many issues). But that doesn't mean I'm going to run into the cold embrace of the Republican Party,


Why do you spend so much time attacking anyone who criticizes him?

Especially when the criticism is perfectly valid?
 
2013-11-27 09:18:20 PM

GeneralJim: However, in THIS cluster-fark, having done NOTHING would have been vastly superior.


Oh, bullshiat.

My girlfriend is ALIVE thanks to being able to stay on her parents' plan and the elimination of lifetime caps.

I'm actually now able to get insurance at a cost that doesn't exceed my gross income.

Thanks, Obamacare!
 
2013-11-27 09:18:40 PM

Ned Stark: wildcardjack: What bothers me is that 20% of premiums that insurance companies get to keep. Ideally there's a competition for low prices to attract consumers, but there's also a desire to profit by keeping a larger 20%. So there's a risk that the whole system will find new ways to piss away money on vastly overpriced services so everyone has to raise their premiums. Like changing standards of what "high blood pressure" or "cholesterol reduction" means, and curing things with pills instead of lifestyle.

Especially since they still get to set up tiny monopolies and IRS illegal to not buy their product.

Its a blindingly obvious outcome if you just ask yourself "what would a money obsessed sociopath do?" But I guess America just can't bring itself to question the Free Market™.


if only they had thought to regulate how much profit an insurance company can rake in off of premiums. Oh... wait. or we could just go single payer and take the profit problem out of the equation entirely. yeah, I know, that's the kind of socialism that makes republican, dinosaur riding baby Jesus cry.
 
2013-11-27 09:21:23 PM

Zeppelininthesky:

Those same Republicans who tried to repeal the law 30+ times, threw lawsuit after lawsuit at the law trying to declare it unconstitutional, let states not expand Medicaid and set up proper state exchanges, took away spending that would have been used for the healthcare.gov website, and spread so many outright lies about the ACA that it is really tough to figure out what is real and what is made up bullshiat. Yeah, I am blaming Republicans directly for trying to make the law as bad as possible. The responsible thing to do would be to try to fix the law and not make it worse.
See?   Trying to blame the Republicans for Obamacare is a better plan -- not a GOOD plan, but you have to work with what you have.  Are you saying that all of the desperate Republican efforts to spare the American people from the horrors of Obamacare won't be remembered?  You could well be right.
 
2013-11-27 09:25:56 PM

BullBearMS: When did the Republicans say they were going to end the wars, restore civil liberties, restore the rule of law, prosecute the banks, keep lobbyists from running the government, etc, etc, etc???


Well maybe Obama was naive in thinking that the republicans wouldn't make it their life mission to obstruct every single thing he tried to accomplish. And Obamacare wasn't the plan that he wanted but it was the plan the republicans let him pass. And now the republicans are trying to obstruct that too.

And Obama is ending the wars. And we're also not invading Syria and Iran, which is nice.
 
2013-11-27 09:28:28 PM

Mugato: BullBearMS: When did the Republicans say they were going to end the wars, restore civil liberties, restore the rule of law, prosecute the banks, keep lobbyists from running the government, etc, etc, etc???

Well maybe Obama was naive in thinking that the republicans wouldn't make it their life mission to obstruct every single thing he tried to accomplish. And Obamacare wasn't the plan that he wanted but it was the plan the republicans let him pass. And now the republicans are trying to obstruct that too.

And Obama is ending the wars. And we're also not invading Syria and Iran, which is nice.


But even considering all of that, he is still continuing Patriot Act-era policies, did not shut down Gitmo (mainly due to Republican obstruction), and other similar things I don't like.

That said, would I have voted for Romney over him? Hell no. We'd be even worse off if he was President.
 
2013-11-27 09:32:22 PM
imageshack.us
 
2013-11-27 09:35:02 PM

Mrtraveler01: But even considering all of that, he is still continuing Patriot Act-era policies, did not shut down Gitmo (mainly due to Republican obstruction), and other similar things I don't like.

That said, would I have voted for Romney over him? Hell no. We'd be even worse off if he was President.


I never expected him to end the Patriot Act. Once a government gets a power, they don't usually give it up. Congress denied funding to close Gitmo and we don't have anywhere to put the prisoners anyway. No he's not a perfect President but you're right, compared to Romney or McCain, he was easily the best choice.

McCain would be dead now anyway and Palin would be President and we'd all be speaking Klingon by now.
 
2013-11-27 09:37:41 PM
ZERO Republicans who voted for it

that alone is reason to believe it can't be all bad.
 
2013-11-27 09:39:50 PM

Mugato: Mrtraveler01: But even considering all of that, he is still continuing Patriot Act-era policies, did not shut down Gitmo (mainly due to Republican obstruction), and other similar things I don't like.

That said, would I have voted for Romney over him? Hell no. We'd be even worse off if he was President.

I never expected him to end the Patriot Act. Once a government gets a power, they don't usually give it up. Congress denied funding to close Gitmo and we don't have anywhere to put the prisoners anyway. No he's not a perfect President but you're right, compared to Romney or McCain, he was easily the best choice.

McCain would be dead now anyway and Palin would be President and we'd all be speaking Klingon by now.


Exactly, the only time the GOP and Democrats agreed on anything was the stuff involving the NSA. Even though that's the one thing I was really upset at Obama about, it's also the one thing both sides have agreed on.

At this point, I just give up.
 
2013-11-27 09:40:22 PM

Mugato: McCain would be dead now anyway and Palin would be President and we'd all be speaking Klingon by now.


While this GIS was a little disappointing, it was certainly interesting.
 
2013-11-27 09:53:01 PM

GeneralJim: Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, '40 to 67 percent' of customers will not be able to keep their policy.


In otherwords, nothing to do with the ACA.
 
2013-11-27 09:53:38 PM

Mrtraveler01:

So you think that BCBS of Michigan is going to compete with it's sister company BCBS of Massachusetts?

Do you really think that these won't all eventually consolidate in one state resulting in even LESS competition?

People who drone on with that talking point don't understand the complexity behind it.
I'm just going to let your demonstration of your ignorance stand on its own.  I rest my case.
 
2013-11-27 09:54:55 PM

GeneralJim: "Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, '40 to 67 percent' of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, 'the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.' "


You know that refers to just individual policies only and not the total number of insured right?

Key fact you left out.
 
2013-11-27 09:55:57 PM
It will be interesting to see some numbers come next spring or summer. You know, after the sky hasn't fallen.
 
2013-11-27 09:58:36 PM
Forty-one percent said they oppose the law because it's too liberal, while 14 percent said it isn't liberal enough. As CNN noted, this means that 54 percent either support the Affordable Care Act or believe it isn't liberal enough.

OhSnap.gif
 
2013-11-27 09:59:04 PM
This has been almost as much fun as watching a breakdown in the conspiracy section of that Other Website.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-11-27 10:00:05 PM

GeneralJim: Mrtraveler01: So you think that BCBS of Michigan is going to compete with it's sister company BCBS of Massachusetts?

Do you really think that these won't all eventually consolidate in one state resulting in even LESS competition?

People who drone on with that talking point don't understand the complexity behind it.I'm just going to let your demonstration of your ignorance stand on its own.  I rest my case.


So how does having insurance companies consolidate in one location create more competition?

Go on, humor me. Tell me how I'm ignorant in pointing out that the best case scenario is choosing between BCBS in State A vs. BCBS in State B? Tell me how much different the two options would be. Tell me how the worst case scenario to your plan results in only one Blue Cross Blue Shield and how that somehow creates competition.

Go on, humor me with your flawed plan.
 
2013-11-27 10:03:05 PM
Why are people posting in green? What did I miss?
 
2013-11-27 10:05:22 PM

Mugato: Why are people posting in green? What did I miss?


It's not easy beingposting in green.

/actually, it is quite easy
//posting in, that is, not being
///threes!
 
2013-11-27 10:08:37 PM
Oblamocare raped my cat and saw me masturbating after gym class. Thanks Obama.
 
2013-11-27 10:11:31 PM

HooskerDoo: Oblamocare raped my cat and saw me masturbating after gym class. Thanks Obama.


That cat was begging for it.
 
2013-11-27 10:13:21 PM

Mugato: HooskerDoo: Oblamocare raped my cat and saw me masturbating after gym class. Thanks Obama.

That cat was begging for it.


What's the excuse for masturbating after gym class (presumable after showering with all the other boys)?
 
2013-11-27 10:14:34 PM

theknuckler_33: What's the excuse for masturbating after gym class (presumable after showering with all the other boys)?


You're shooting Top Gun 2?
 
2013-11-27 10:20:22 PM

imageshack.us

Like spring in Kyoto

The green shoots pepper the field

Except here, they're derp

 
2013-11-27 10:21:10 PM

grumpfuff:

GeneralJim: Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, '40 to 67 percent' of customers will not be able to keep their policy.

In otherwords, nothing to do with the ACA.
Ooh, wrong again -- because, before Obamacare two thirds of people were cancelled each year...  At least you're consistent.
 
2013-11-27 10:22:37 PM

sillydragon: This has been almost as much fun as watching a breakdown in the conspiracy section of that Other Website.


[i.imgur.com image 320x240]


There's another website? Wow.
 
2013-11-27 10:22:42 PM

theknuckler_33: Mugato: HooskerDoo: Oblamocare raped my cat and saw me masturbating after gym class. Thanks Obama.

That cat was begging for it.

What's the excuse for masturbating after gym class (presumable after showering with all the other boys)?


I fell down and my penis got hard, Okay Mister judgmental pants?
 
2013-11-27 10:25:49 PM

Mrtraveler01:

GeneralJim: "Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, '40 to 67 percent' of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, 'the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.' "

You know that refers to just individual policies only and not the total number of insured right?

Key fact you left out.
Yeah, the cancellations for employer insurance go out NEXT year, which is good...  People will remember them come the election. Key fact YOU left out. Also, are you dumb enough to believe that there are 93 million individual market policies in the U.S.?
 
2013-11-27 10:25:50 PM

HooskerDoo: Okay Mister judgmental pants?


Mmmmm... Judgemental pants.

imageshack.us

I came.
 
2013-11-27 10:26:05 PM

GeneralJim: grumpfuff: GeneralJim: Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, '40 to 67 percent' of customers will not be able to keep their policy.

In otherwords, nothing to do with the ACA.Ooh, wrong again -- because, before Obamacare two thirds of people were cancelled each year...  At least you're consistent.



So before ACA - 66%
After ACA(as you claimed up thread)- 50%


BAD ACA! BAD BAD BAD BAD!

/sure you'll respond to this with nothing but facts, and no ad hominems
 
2013-11-27 10:29:06 PM

GeneralJim: Mrtraveler01: GeneralJim: "Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, '40 to 67 percent' of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, 'the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.' "

You know that refers to just individual policies only and not the total number of insured right?

Key fact you left out.Yeah, the cancellations for employer insurance go out NEXT year, which is good...  People will remember them come the election. Key fact YOU left out. Also, are you dumb enough to believe that there are 93 million individual market policies in the U.S.?


So you can't read and missed the part in the article that mentions that they're referring to only individual policies in those figures?

Wow, and you think we're the dumb ones?
 
2013-11-27 10:33:53 PM

BullBearMS: Mrtraveler01: BullBearMS: Mrtraveler01: He does raise a point though. How come you never hold Republicans to the same high standard that you hold Obama?

When did the Republicans say they were going to end the wars, restore civil liberties, restore the rule of law, prosecute the banks, keep lobbyists from running the government, etc, etc, etc???

[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 640x469]

Let me ask you this, is there anything that the Democrats have done right? Is there anything the Republicans have done wrong?

[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 160x120]

This Obama shill mentality where you can't criticize him when he farks up is a never ending source of stupidity.

Attacking Obama for refusing to prosecute the banks, for example, is entirely a good thing.

Shame them into taking action.


Yes, it is, but we are not talking about that right now. You are just making up shiat about the ACA and we are calling you out.
 
2013-11-27 10:37:34 PM

GeneralJim: Zeppelininthesky: Those same Republicans who tried to repeal the law 30+ times, threw lawsuit after lawsuit at the law trying to declare it unconstitutional, let states not expand Medicaid and set up proper state exchanges, took away spending that would have been used for the healthcare.gov website, and spread so many outright lies about the ACA that it is really tough to figure out what is real and what is made up bullshiat. Yeah, I am blaming Republicans directly for trying to make the law as bad as possible. The responsible thing to do would be to try to fix the law and not make it worse.See?   Trying to blame the Republicans for Obamacare is a better plan -- not a GOOD plan, but you have to work with what you have.  Are you saying that all of the desperate Republican efforts to spare the American people from the horrors of Obamacare won't be remembered?  You could well be right.


No. People will not remember the Republicans because the ACA will be popular and actually work and anyone who was against it will be far away from any public office.
 
2013-11-27 10:40:02 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Yes, it is, but we are not talking about that right now. You are just making up shiat about the ACA and we are calling you out.


Yeah, tell that to my cat, pal.
 
2013-11-27 10:41:19 PM

Mrtraveler01:

So how does having insurance companies consolidate in one location create more competition?

Go on, humor me. Tell me how I'm ignorant in pointing out that the best case scenario is choosing between BCBS in State A vs. BCBS in State B? Tell me how much different the two options would be. Tell me how the worst case scenario to your plan results in only one Blue Cross Blue Shield and how that somehow creates competition.

Go on, humor me with your flawed plan.
No, seriously, are you really this ignorant?  With 50 state access, do you think there will be a separate BCBS State A and a BCBS State B?   They will be the same, and will need less admin thereby.   Also,  little insurance companies that could not afford to set up a separate company for each state, can offer their products in 50 states.  More companies competing in each state.

So, you think it's a good thing that people keep jobs they don't like, when they could do better, because their health insurance is tied to their job?

 
2013-11-27 10:43:19 PM

GeneralJim: grumpfuff: GeneralJim: Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, '40 to 67 percent' of customers will not be able to keep their policy.

In otherwords, nothing to do with the ACA.Ooh, wrong again -- because, before Obamacare two thirds of people were cancelled each year...  At least you're consistent.


About that....

PART 2-OTHER PROVISIONS
SEC. 1251 ø42 U.S.C. 18011¿. PRESERVATION OF RIGHT TO MAINTAIN
EXISTING COVERAGE.
(a) NO CHANGES TO EXISTING COVERAGE.-
(1) IN GENERAL.-Nothing in this Act (or an amendment
made by this Act) shall be construed to require that an individual
terminate coverage under a group health plan or health
insurance coverage in which such individual was enrolled on
the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) CONTINUATION OF COVERAGE.-øAs revised by section
10103(d)(1)¿ Except as provided in paragraph (3), with respect
to a group health plan or health insurance coverage in which
an individual was enrolled on the date of enactment of this
Act, this subtitle and subtitle A (and the amendments made by
such subtitles) shall not apply to such plan or coverage, regardless
of whether the individual renews such coverage after such
date of enactment.
(3) APPLICATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS.-øAs added by
section 10103(d)(1)¿ The provisions of sections 2715 and 2718
of the Public Health Service Act (as added by subtitle A) shall
apply to grandfathered health plans for plan years beginning
on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
(4) APPLICATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS.-øAs added by
section 2301(a) of HCERA¿

It is as if the ACA says that they could keep their plans, but the insurance companies cancelled them.
 
2013-11-27 10:43:33 PM

GeneralJim: No, seriously, are you really this ignorant?  With 50 state access, do you think there will be a separate BCBS State A and a BCBS State B?


No of course not.

GeneralJim: They will be the same, and will need less admin thereby.


So I was right when I said that it would result in one BCBS.

GeneralJim: Also,  little insurance companies that could not afford to set up a separate company for each state, can offer their products in 50 states.  More companies competing in each state.


How many health insurance companies do you think actually exist?

GeneralJim: So, you think it's a good thing that people keep jobs they don't like, when they could do better, because their health insurance is tied to their job?


No, where do you get that idea?
 
2013-11-27 10:45:43 PM

GeneralJim: Mrtraveler01: So how does having insurance companies consolidate in one location create more competition?

Go on, humor me. Tell me how I'm ignorant in pointing out that the best case scenario is choosing between BCBS in State A vs. BCBS in State B? Tell me how much different the two options would be. Tell me how the worst case scenario to your plan results in only one Blue Cross Blue Shield and how that somehow creates competition.

Go on, humor me with your flawed plan.No, seriously, are you really this ignorant?  With 50 state access, do you think there will be a separate BCBS State A and a BCBS State B?   They will be the same, and will need less admin thereby.   Also,  little insurance companies that could not afford to set up a separate company for each state, can offer their products in 50 states.  More companies competing in each state.
So, you think it's a good thing that people keep jobs they don't like, when they could do better, because their health insurance is tied to their job?


That is not how insurance works.
 
2013-11-27 10:49:54 PM

Mrtraveler01: How many health insurance companies do you think actually exist?


imageshack.us
 
2013-11-27 11:00:46 PM

Mrtraveler01:

So once again, if you didn't want to talk about his friend's story, why did you decide to quote his story then?
Done with this crap; fark off.
 
2013-11-27 11:28:17 PM

grumpfuff:

GeneralJim: grumpfuff: GeneralJim: Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, '40 to 67 percent' of customers will not be able to keep their policy.

In otherwords, nothing to do with the ACA.

Ooh, wrong again -- because, before Obamacare two thirds of people were cancelled each year...  At least you're consistent.


So before ACA - 66%
After ACA(as you claimed up thread)- 50%


BAD ACA! BAD BAD BAD BAD!

/sure you'll respond to this with nothing but facts, and no ad hominems
So, you missed the sarcasm, and actually believe that before Obamacare it was normal for 2/3 of people to lose their health coverage each year. I assumed ANY idiot would know that 2/3 of people did NOT lose their health insurance each year. My bad. I apologize for lumping you in with the other idiots, when you're obviously so SPECIAL.

Typical liberal trick -- say something OUTRAGEOUSLY stupid, and then challenge responders not to comment.   No, your numbers are wrong.  The "66% before" means that 66% of policies would NORMALLY violate the conditions Obamacare set for grandfathering.   That means they KNEW that 2/3 of people would have policies that do not grandfather in.  Which means that Obama KNEW he was lying when he said, dozens of times, that if you like your current policy you can keep it.  He KNEW most everyone could NOT keep their policy.

This shiat is WAY too obvious to be acting stupid about it -- assuming you're acting.  The lying assholes in the Obama administration KNEW that most people would lose the policies they had...  That's how this WORKS -- you have to rape the healthy people, who have no problems getting insurance, to pay for the sickies and old people.  The economics are those of immediate collapse without that.  To be fair, the economics are those of collapse anyway, but over a much longer time -- a couple years, at least, and another trillion or two of national debt...

/... and, of course, you STILL don't understand "ad hominem."

 
2013-11-27 11:30:48 PM

GeneralJim: /... and, of course, you STILL don't understand "ad hominem."


Explain it then. Make sure to include how this

GeneralJim: Typical liberal trick -- say something OUTRAGEOUSLY stupid, and then challenge responders not to comment.


and this

GeneralJim: This shiat is WAY too obvious to be acting stupid about it -- assuming you're acting.


and this

GeneralJim: The lying assholes in the Obama administration



are not ad hominems.
 
2013-11-27 11:35:08 PM
How the hell does 14% equal 54%????
 
2013-11-27 11:35:15 PM

GeneralJim: grumpfuff: GeneralJim: grumpfuff: GeneralJim: Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, '40 to 67 percent' of customers will not be able to keep their policy.

In otherwords, nothing to do with the ACA.

Ooh, wrong again -- because, before Obamacare two thirds of people were cancelled each year...  At least you're consistent.


So before ACA - 66%
After ACA(as you claimed up thread)- 50%


BAD ACA! BAD BAD BAD BAD!

/sure you'll respond to this with nothing but facts, and no ad hominemsSo, you missed the sarcasm, and actually believe that before Obamacare it was normal for 2/3 of people to lose their health coverage each year. I assumed ANY idiot would know that 2/3 of people did NOT lose their health insurance each year. My bad. I apologize for lumping you in with the other idiots, when you're obviously so SPECIAL.

Typical liberal trick -- say something OUTRAGEOUSLY stupid, and then challenge responders not to comment.   No, your numbers are wrong.  The "66% before" means that 66% of policies would NORMALLY violate the conditions Obamacare set for grandfathering.   That means they KNEW that 2/3 of people would have policies that do not grandfather in.  Which means that Obama KNEW he was lying when he said, dozens of times, that if you like your current policy you can keep it.  He KNEW most everyone could NOT keep their policy.
This shiat is WAY too obvious to be acting stupid about it -- assuming you're acting.  The lying assholes in the Obama administration KNEW that most people would lose the policies they had...  That's how this WORKS -- you have to rape the healthy people, who have no problems getting insurance, to pay for the sickies and old people.  The economics are those of immediate collapse without that.  To be fair, the economics are those of collapse anyway, but over a much longer time -- a couple years, at least, and another trillion or two of national debt...

...


Sources for your numbers?
 
2013-11-27 11:35:18 PM

GeneralJim: So, you missed the sarcasm, and actually believe that before Obamacare it was normal for 2/3 of people to lose their health coverage each year. I assumed ANY idiot would know that 2/3 of people did NOT lose their health insurance each year. My bad. I apologize for lumping you in with the other idiots, when you're obviously so SPECIAL.

Typical liberal trick -- say something OUTRAGEOUSLY stupid, and then challenge responders not to comment.   No, your numbers are wrong.  The "66% before" means that 66% of policies would NORMALLY violate the conditions Obamacare set for grandfathering.   That means they KNEW that 2/3 of people would have policies that do not grandfather in.  Which means that Obama KNEW he was lying when he said, dozens of times, that if you like your current policy you can keep it.  He KNEW most everyone could NOT keep their policy.


How come you keep confusing individual insurance plans with total insurance plans in those figures?
 
2013-11-27 11:37:16 PM

Flappyhead: Brostorm: This thread is hilarious.  You guys really wan't to believe anyone opposed to this law are ignorant rednecks that don't know whats good for them.  Of course you know whats good for them, of course you do.

You're not exactly helping you're case out here.

Unless that's deliberate, in which case good job.


Rule #1 of pointing out grammatical errors in other people's posts is...?
 
2013-11-27 11:44:32 PM
Someone is going crazy deleting posts.
 
2013-11-27 11:46:09 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Someone is going crazy deleting posts.


'Tis the season.
 
2013-11-27 11:47:46 PM

Mrtraveler01: Zeppelininthesky: Someone is going crazy deleting posts.

'Tis the season.


Never mind, a troll got plunked.
 
2013-11-27 11:48:23 PM

Mrtraveler01: Zeppelininthesky: Someone is going crazy deleting posts.

'Tis the season.


I like how my comment that didn't reference any comment got deleted for referencing a deleted comment.
 
2013-11-27 11:48:26 PM

Zeppelininthesky: Someone is going crazy deleting posts.


What the h
 
2013-11-28 12:00:10 AM

HooskerDoo: Zeppelininthesky: Someone is going crazy deleting posts.

What the h


CARRIER LOST
 
m00
2013-11-28 12:15:43 AM

Rhino_man: No, we understand that people who oppose the law but support all its parts are completely ignorant of what's in it, they just hate it because OBAMA SCARY AND FREEDOMS AND FURTHERMORE AND SUCH AS RUSSIA WHICH I CAN SEE FROM MY HOUSE.


I'm actually conflicted. I like the pre-existing condition thing. Lord knows insurance companies do everything in their power to screw people. "Oh, you had acne treatment 40 years ago and now you want chemo for your all-over cancer? Sorry, you failed to report that pre-existing condition... coverage dropped."

I hate the fact it forces people to pay a private entity for service. The public option would have addressed this concern of mine, but that was dropped. Absent a public option, the ACA is a payout to corporations. It's corporate welfare.

So I get the feeling it's kind of a worst-of-both worlds. I would have much preferred socialized medicine, which is the proper Libertarian position ;)
 
2013-11-28 12:52:55 AM

Mugato: Why are people posting in green? What did I miss?


Obvious trolling.
 
2013-11-28 01:04:28 AM

Dimensio: Obamacare is a complete disaster, as was predicted. If politicians are truly serious about improving access to healthcare, then they will implement a system similar to the one implemented in Kentucky. https://kyenroll.ky.gov/  kynect has proven to be an effective means to bring affordable healthcare to all Kentuckians.


Bears repeating. This is one of my favorite posts ever. Deliberate or not.
 
2013-11-28 01:06:52 AM

m00: I hate the fact it forces people to pay a private entity for service. The public option would have addressed this concern of mine, but that was dropped. Absent a public option, the ACA is a payout to corporations.


Funny. All the Fark IndependentsTM I have favorited in Orange have been lamenting "If Only Obamacare had a public option we would have supported it" for the past few weeks.

Uh...that was what the liberals wanted back in 2009, man. And all the tea party conservatives ever so concerned about size of government shot the idea down because socialism.

You're farking shameless.
 
2013-11-28 01:08:02 AM

GeneralJim: So, you missed the sarcasm, and actually believe that before Obamacare it was normal for 2/3 of people to lose their health coverage each year. I assumed ANY idiot would know that 2/3 of people did NOT lose their health insurance each year. My bad. I apologize for lumping you in with the other idiots, when you're obviously so SPECIAL.


So are you saying that the plan cancellations (with options for modified plans) this year blamed on ACA are functionally different than the plan cancellations (with options for modified plans) offered every year? Could you explain exactly how these ones are different? How is getting a letter this year that says "Based on the ACA, we will not renew your old plan. This is the closest plan we now offer, and you can shop for more" effectively different than getting a letter almost every year that says "Your plan has been modified. Your open enrollment period begins, otherwise you will be shunted into this modified plan?"
 
2013-11-28 01:11:07 AM

m00: I would have much preferred socialized medicine, which is the proper Libertarian position ;)


Actually the "proper Libertarian position" is to pretend the private sector can effectively provide social services to people.
 
2013-11-28 01:30:47 AM

CorporatePerson: m00: I hate the fact it forces people to pay a private entity for service. The public option would have addressed this concern of mine, but that was dropped. Absent a public option, the ACA is a payout to corporations.

Funny. All the Fark IndependentsTM I have favorited in Orange have been lamenting "If Only Obamacare had a public option we would have supported it" for the past few weeks.

Uh...that was what the liberals wanted back in 2009, man. And all the tea party conservatives ever so concerned about size of government shot the idea down because socialism.

You're farking shameless.


Deliberately sabotaging our healthcare laws has been the only contribution from the right on this matter. The public option had no coherent argument against it. There was only:
 1) because socialism. - disregarding that socialism is part of every great thing we have ever done as a nation.
 2) we'll never vote for it. - idle threat, the GOP had decided not to vote for anything already.
 3) insurance companies could never compete with the government. - um, which side are they arguing for? Single payer?
 
2013-11-28 01:32:00 AM
Apparently you can say whatever you want and pat yourself on the back, as long as you can change the color of your font. Fascinating. Wonder how tuckered out the success-deniers will be after dumping all over this thread today.
 
2013-11-28 01:33:51 AM

Triple Oak: Apparently you can say whatever you want and pat yourself on the back, as long as you can change the color of your font. Fascinating. Wonder how tuckered out the success-deniers will be after dumping all over this thread today.


genius!
 
2013-11-28 01:38:47 AM

Rhino_man: Brostorm: This thread is hilarious.  You guys really wan't to believe anyone opposed to this law are ignorant rednecks that don't know whats good for them.  Of course you know whats good for them, of course you do.

No, we understand that people who oppose the law but support all its parts are completely ignorant of what's in it, they just hate it because OBAMA SCARY AND FREEDOMS AND FURTHERMORE AND SUCH AS RUSSIA WHICH I CAN SEE FROM MY HOUSE.


Ugh... you made me think of Sarah.  But seriously, the right allows that drooling idiotbiatch to keep opening her fictionbox on national TV.  If they would drum out the obvious liars and crooks, the message may not be so unpalatable.  How about an intelligent representation of capitalism/individual responsibility and not a constant repeat of 'everything Obama likes or wants or farts about, we think must be Hitler'.

/you can't fix dumb, but you can force it into a corner and make it shut up
 
2013-11-28 01:41:37 AM
Well this thread has been quite informative. It has certainly earned GeneralJim a nice bright Red 5 color. Insulting other posters, pretending everyone who disagrees with you is a paid shill, all while providing no citations for incredibly dubious claims.

As to the whole BCBS "across state lines" thing. Say your ideal situation happens, all the component state insurance companies group into one company with countrywide plans. Now every insurance company transfers its headquarters to whichever state can create the most favorable conditions for them. Essentially a race to the bottom in terms of coverage quality, all to find the lowest tax rates and highest profit margins for the company, while having the weakest coverage requirements.

Anyway, I don't know why I'm even bothering with engaging in this. I'm sure GeneralJim's smug dismissal of all points made will come along all too soon. It takes intellect to actually argue a position, but affecting an attitude of flippancy and acting as if the very notion of a statement is ludicrous is very easy, and seems to be his preferred method of addressing dissent.
 
2013-11-28 01:51:56 AM

Sensual Tyrannosaurus: As to the whole BCBS "across state lines" thing. Say your ideal situation happens, all the component state insurance companies group into one company with countrywide plans. Now every insurance company transfers its headquarters to whichever state can create the most favorable conditions for them. Essentially a race to the bottom in terms of coverage quality, all to find the lowest tax rates and highest profit margins for the company, while having the weakest coverage requirements.


So eventually we'll have only one insurance plan, which is affordable and covers everything. And since everyone's on it, it may as well be paid with taxes and everyone with a social security number is automatically enrolled...
 
m00
2013-11-28 01:57:16 AM

CorporatePerson: Funny. All the Fark IndependentsTM I have favorited in Orange have been lamenting "If Only Obamacare had a public option we would have supported it" for the past few weeks.


I've been saying that from the beginning. The public option is literally socialism, which I am saying that I support. Wow, I'm such a right-wing mouth piece.

Uh...that was what the liberals wanted back in 2009, man. And all the tea party conservatives ever so concerned about size of government shot the idea down because socialism.

You're farking shameless.


I'm not a "tea-party conservative." So I guess that makes you a stereotyper. That's pretty shameless.
 
m00
2013-11-28 01:59:29 AM

whidbey: Actually the "proper Libertarian position" is to pretend the private sector can effectively provide social services to people.


Not really. That's exactly like a conservative saying "actually, the proper liberal position is to blah blah blah." You don't get to pretend to speak for the side you're against.
 
2013-11-28 02:13:52 AM

grumpfuff: When your only tactics are to rage, and to call anyone who disagrees with you a troll or a paid shill, you might want to re-evaluate your choices in life.


Sometimes it feels good to vent some steam when someone's obviously lying.

Oh... you said *only* tactic.

Carry on.
 
2013-11-28 02:38:17 AM
How are those mutually exclusive? A majority of people:
1) Like the idea of the program
and 2) Think the current version doesn't do enough and needs serious improvement

Thus, they like the program, think it needs to go further, and disapprove of its present incarnation, putting them in both of those groups.
 
2013-11-28 02:45:30 AM
I'm able to get healthcare outside of my employer for $250/month, and that is for the more expensive packages, whereas the same coverage would cost nearly a grand before the ACA. What's wrong with this again? I just don't see why Republicans hate the fact that healthcare is, should I get it outside of my employer, is finally goddamn affordable to me.
 
2013-11-28 02:58:59 AM

Zeppelininthesky: Mrtraveler01: Zeppelininthesky: Someone is going crazy deleting posts.

'Tis the season.

Never mind, a troll got plunked.


Yeah, I'd complain but all this did was prove who the real shill is around here.
 
2013-11-28 03:11:39 AM

grumpfuff: Mrtraveler01: Zeppelininthesky: Someone is going crazy deleting posts.

'Tis the season.

I like how my comment that didn't reference any comment got deleted for referencing a deleted comment.


Happened to me once when a thread erupted into a giant multiprong flame fest. I figured I went too far somehow, and was let off easy. No complaint from me.
 
2013-11-28 04:23:43 AM

RoxtarRyan: I'm able to get healthcare outside of my employer for $250/month, and that is for the more expensive packages, whereas the same coverage would cost nearly a grand before the ACA. What's wrong with this again? I just don't see why Republicans hate the fact that healthcare is, should I get it outside of my employer, is finally goddamn affordable to me.


The guy explained it - his objection is that he feels that now the healthy and wealthy will be carrying the sick, old, and poor.
He actually finds the concept of "insurance" itself, as it works in Western culture, objectionable. He wants a sort of "Christmas Club" for health care like we have now - that allows companies to cherry-pick low-risk individuals to insure and kick sick people off their insurance, thus inflating their profits while providing little benefit to society.
That's why we pay more than any other country, but only get 65% of our people covered for that price - we are being robbed by an "insurance industry" that is hedging it's bets, and not really selling "insurance" at all.
The Ayn Randy types among us think that is great, and want to keep it that way - another American industry publicizing it's costs, and privatizing it's profits.
 And if you ignore their continual whining of "Obama lied" you realize that they know it too. They know they are defending a crooked industry from being regulated into an honest one, and their twisted, fiction-based morality actually supports that.
 
2013-11-28 05:24:35 AM

Mrtraveler01: Didn't we try this same stuff with the credit card companies, only to see them move to DE where the regulations favored them the most?


Simple enough, put the appropriate restrictions/controls on at the federal level, some stuff about them having to deal with people in their state of residence, under their state's rules.
 
2013-11-28 05:46:30 AM

jso2897: The Ayn Randy types among us think that is great, and want to keep it that way - another American industry publicizing it's costs, and privatizing it's profits.


I don't know about your strawman, but I consider myself a moderate libertarian and I'm incredibly dissatisfied with the current way healthcare 'insurance' is run.  I think the idea that you normally get your insurance through your work obscene.

My 'suggestion'.
1.  If your employer doesn't provide qualifying healthcare, they are required to deposit ~$1/hour(x2080 if you're salary and hours are not tracked) into a Healthcare Savings Plan for the individual.  The actual amount will be 1/2080 of the median annual healthcare cost for an individual
2.  You may, of course, deposit additional pretax money into the account, and/or deposit post-tax and claim it as a deduction.
3.  The money in the HSP can be used to pay for healthcare directly or purchase qualifying insurance plans.  There will be encouragements to buy at least a catastrophic plan
4.  Any healthcare expenses over a certain maximum(which I'd have to talk to the actuaries about) will qualify you for medicare.  I lean towards medicare over medicaid as if your bills are that high you're likely disabled.
5.  Under Medicaid if your income is low enough you can get assistance.
 
2013-11-28 06:05:40 AM
Just pissed off they messed up the implementation so bad and so visibly
 
2013-11-28 06:09:37 AM

Virulency: Just pissed off they messed up the implementation so bad and so visibly


No, they didn't.  One web site offered as a tool to help comparison shop for insurance that was a little overwhelmed isn't anything to get worked up about.
 
2013-11-28 06:13:03 AM

Firethorn: jso2897: The Ayn Randy types among us think that is great, and want to keep it that way - another American industry publicizing it's costs, and privatizing it's profits.

I don't know about your strawman, but I consider myself a moderate libertarian and I'm incredibly dissatisfied with the current way healthcare 'insurance' is run.  I think the idea that you normally get your insurance through your work obscene.

My 'suggestion'.
1.  If your employer doesn't provide qualifying healthcare, they are required to deposit ~$1/hour(x2080 if you're salary and hours are not tracked) into a Healthcare Savings Plan for the individual.  The actual amount will be 1/2080 of the median annual healthcare cost for an individual
2.  You may, of course, deposit additional pretax money into the account, and/or deposit post-tax and claim it as a deduction.
3.  The money in the HSP can be used to pay for healthcare directly or purchase qualifying insurance plans.  There will be encouragements to buy at least a catastrophic plan
4.  Any healthcare expenses over a certain maximum(which I'd have to talk to the actuaries about) will qualify you for medicare.  I lean towards medicare over medicaid as if your bills are that high you're likely disabled.
5.  Under Medicaid if your income is low enough you can get assistance.


That might be a very sound plan, but it's hardly one Ayn Rand would approve of, and what I originally said stands as correct.
You might want to try starting an argument with somebody who has a difference of opinion with you, and cares.
 
2013-11-28 06:40:54 AM

Mrtraveler01: GeneralJim: Mrtraveler01: So you think that BCBS of Michigan is going to compete with it's sister company BCBS of Massachusetts?

Do you really think that these won't all eventually consolidate in one state resulting in even LESS competition?

People who drone on with that talking point don't understand the complexity behind it.I'm just going to let your demonstration of your ignorance stand on its own.  I rest my case.

So how does having insurance companies consolidate in one location create more competition?

Go on, humor me. Tell me how I'm ignorant in pointing out that the best case scenario is choosing between BCBS in State A vs. BCBS in State B? Tell me how much different the two options would be. Tell me how the worst case scenario to your plan results in only one Blue Cross Blue Shield and how that somehow creates competition.

Go on, humor me with your flawed plan.


Well presumably a lot of states are small enough populations that not every insurer bothers to create a branch in every state, so for the largest states you might be right, but for the majority of states it would mean every insurer would be available to everyone.

/not that I necessarily think it is a good idea due to the race to the regulatory bottom effect that is bound to happen, but there should be at least some increase in competition over probably the majority of the population even if there are some states that already have every insurer in them and see no benefit
 
2013-11-28 07:10:48 AM

jso2897: That might be a very sound plan, but it's hardly one Ayn Rand would approve of, and what I originally said stands as correct.
You might want to try starting an argument with somebody who has a difference of opinion with you, and cares.



1.  Do you have some special insight into Ayn Rand that allows you to predict her approval/disapproval of something?
2.  You said 'Ayn Randy types', which in my experience tends to be strawmen much like people talking about 'tea partiers'.

There are plenty who disapprove of Obamacare that also disapprove of the state before it.  Varying from 'more free market' types like me* to those who want outright single payer 'socialized' medicine.  There are also plenty who 'approve' because, well, they have good coverage(or think they do) and thus don't care.

*My five points are hardly the whole plan, but I don't want to write a book.
 
2013-11-28 07:17:48 AM

Firethorn: jso2897: That might be a very sound plan, but it's hardly one Ayn Rand would approve of, and what I originally said stands as correct.
You might want to try starting an argument with somebody who has a difference of opinion with you, and cares.


1.  Do you have some special insight into Ayn Rand that allows you to predict her approval/disapproval of something?
2.  You said 'Ayn Randy types', which in my experience tends to be strawmen much like people talking about 'tea partiers'.

There are plenty who disapprove of Obamacare that also disapprove of the state before it.  Varying from 'more free market' types like me* to those who want outright single payer 'socialized' medicine.  There are also plenty who 'approve' because, well, they have good coverage(or think they do) and thus don't care.

*My five points are hardly the whole plan, but I don't want to write a book.


Good.
 
2013-11-28 07:23:48 AM
Damn.  General Jim is gone.  Those are the types of "discussions" I enjoy reading because the responses to his insanity from others gives much more detailed and factual answers than usual.  Thanks for the run, GJ.  You were hilarious while you lasted, even if you didn't know what in the hell an ad hominem is.

I shall miss the green...
 
2013-11-28 09:44:17 AM

Wake Up Sheeple: grumpfuff: Mrtraveler01: Zeppelininthesky: Someone is going crazy deleting posts.

'Tis the season.

I like how my comment that didn't reference any comment got deleted for referencing a deleted comment.

Happened to me once when a thread erupted into a giant multiprong flame fest. I figured I went too far somehow, and was let off easy. No complaint from me.


The deleted post simply noted the amount of posts that had been deleted so far. I know why it got deleted. They could have been honest about it, at least.
 
2013-11-28 10:14:52 AM

Zeppelininthesky: Mrtraveler01: Zeppelininthesky: Someone is going crazy deleting posts.

'Tis the season.

Never mind, a troll got plunked.


Ol' green may not be a troll.  There was a good psychological analysis of him done by a Farker some time back (I want to say it was Dr. Mojo PhD, but I'm not certain), suggesting that he isn't doing it out of pleasure of angering others (troll-like behavior), but rather because it was compulsive. I wish I had saved the link, but sadly I didn't and I cannot find it now.
 
2013-11-28 10:27:20 AM

mgshamster: Zeppelininthesky: Mrtraveler01: Zeppelininthesky: Someone is going crazy deleting posts.

'Tis the season.

Never mind, a troll got plunked.

Ol' green may not be a troll.  There was a good psychological analysis of him done by a Farker some time back (I want to say it was Dr. Mojo PhD, but I'm not certain), suggesting that he isn't doing it out of pleasure of angering others (troll-like behavior), but rather because it was compulsive. I wish I had saved the link, but sadly I didn't and I cannot find it now.


Ask and ye shall receive.

www.fark.com/comments/6995138/75580040#c75580040
 
2013-11-28 10:37:07 AM

grumpfuff: mgshamster: Zeppelininthesky: Mrtraveler01: Zeppelininthesky: Someone is going crazy deleting posts.

'Tis the season.

Never mind, a troll got plunked.

Ol' green may not be a troll.  There was a good psychological analysis of him done by a Farker some time back (I want to say it was Dr. Mojo PhD, but I'm not certain), suggesting that he isn't doing it out of pleasure of angering others (troll-like behavior), but rather because it was compulsive. I wish I had saved the link, but sadly I didn't and I cannot find it now.

Ask and ye shall receive.

www.fark.com/comments/6995138/75580040#c75580040


You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.
 
2013-11-28 11:33:30 AM

m00: whidbey: Actually the "proper Libertarian position" is to pretend the private sector can effectively provide social services to people.

Not really. That's exactly like a conservative saying "actually, the proper liberal position is to blah blah blah." You don't get to pretend to speak for the side you're against.


Ya really. And I wouldn't be admonishing others about "pretending" anything. Libertarians are afraid of government. Why would they/you be in favor of socialized medicine?
 
2013-11-28 12:01:52 PM

grumpfuff: Wake Up Sheeple: grumpfuff: Mrtraveler01: Zeppelininthesky: Someone is going crazy deleting posts.

'Tis the season.

I like how my comment that didn't reference any comment got deleted for referencing a deleted comment.

Happened to me once when a thread erupted into a giant multiprong flame fest. I figured I went too far somehow, and was let off easy. No complaint from me.

The deleted post simply noted the amount of posts that had been deleted so far. I know why it got deleted. They could have been honest about it, at least.


It's probably a drop-down list to pick from, and "referencing a deleted comment" is the catch-all that won't require an action against you -- or something to that effect.
 
m00
2013-11-28 03:00:25 PM

whidbey: m00: whidbey: Actually the "proper Libertarian position" is to pretend the private sector can effectively provide social services to people.

Not really. That's exactly like a conservative saying "actually, the proper liberal position is to blah blah blah." You don't get to pretend to speak for the side you're against.

Ya really. And I wouldn't be admonishing others about "pretending" anything. Libertarians are afraid of government. Why would they/you be in favor of socialized medicine?


Well, I hope you read these words with a clear and open mind.

Libertarians aren't anarchists. Libertarians believe in a functioning government that services the people. That's right -- the Constitution has the Federal Government doing things like providing a mail service. Minting currency. Making treaties. Declaring War. Regulating interstate commerce. Protecting citizens from state law which violates the Bill of Rights. So clearly, government exists to provide services, and in the general sense to secure liberty and freedom. Sometimes these necessitate programs which could only be defined as socialism in the strictest sense of the word. For example, in order to ensure fairness in the court system, government has to provide public defenders... and those public defenders have to be as good as publicly paid prosecutors. This is the only way to ensure fair trials. Absent this, only the rich get justice. This is a convenient thing for billionaires who want to shroud their greed and lust for inequality with the veneer of a political philosophy. But it's not Libertarianism.

So Libertarianism isn't about wanting no government. It's about wanting a focused government, that does a limited set of things that are clearly defined. This is a philosophy rooted in the practical, and indeed there are some things that it is simply more practical for the federal government to do.

Also the founders were very clear -- that the Bill of Rights does not enumerate all rights. It only enumerates some rights, and over time future Congresses will find it necessary to add more rights to the Constitution. And indeed we have, with equal protection. I have a right to my property (and common property such as air and water), and the only way to secure this right is regulate heavy industry that would seek to pollute my land. So the EPA (in concept) should exist -- note this is different than the discussion of whether the actual EPA we have today is a proper implementation.

So the question really becomes: is healthcare a function that government should be providing to secure a right? The same way in which government provides public defenders to secure a right to a fair trial. The same way in which we have an EPA to secure my personal property rights, and rights to common property -- air, water, etc.

So an honest Libertarian would be for socialized medicine if one or two things could be demonstrated:
1) Socialized medicine is an logical method of securing an accepted right
2) It is more practical for the federal government to provide medical care

I think 1) is be a debatable point. Some people believe that a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can only be secured if we have socialized medicine. Others do not. Discussions of "what is a right" are valid in a Republic. There are no easy answers.

2) is not debatable. Privatized healthcare does not work for most Americans. Insurance companies drop coverage for arbitrary reasons, use lawyers to screw people at their weakest, to cheat Americans out of a service they paid for. Privatized healthcare works for the rich, the same way in which high-paid lawyers work for the rich. We need the medical equivalent of public defenders. It doesn't have to be the absolute best service, but it has to get the job done. If someone wealthy wants to pay for a doctor at a boutique clinic, let them. Get a private nurse, private room with a TV, let them. But the rest of us need to be taken care of, and the free market solution isn't working.

Libertarian principles do not advocate using a free market when it doesn't work, or isn't appropriate. The free market will not ensure fair trials or property rights, or enforce contract law, or protect my freedoms. Libertarian principles merely say if government is to provide a service: define the service exactly, and set limits and keep it as focused as possible so that it is only as large as necessary.

Government should be a whitelist of things it does do, not a blacklist of things it does not do. Sadly, today we live in the latter. Again, Libertarians aren't anarchists.
 
2013-11-28 04:10:44 PM

m00: So Libertarianism isn't about wanting no government. It's about wanting a focused government, that does a limited set of things that are clearly defined. This is a philosophy rooted in the practical, and indeed there are some things that it is simply more practical for the federal government to do.


Well, obviously, there are things we would disagree on in terms of "practical." For example, it's "practical" to limit corporations in terms of what they donate to campaigns, initiatives and honestly anything where they have a stellar advantage over commoners trying to change things. It's practical to regulate business. It's practical to address climate change. It's practical to raise taxes to pay for social programs and other things.

Government should be a whitelist of things it does do, not a blacklist of things it does not do. Sadly, today we live in the latter. Again, Libertarians aren't anarchists.

I'm not seeing that. So far, the libertarian argument appears to be "leave me alone, government is too big/too evil/etc."

Libertarian principles do not advocate using a free market when it doesn't work, or isn't appropriate. The free market will not ensure fair trials or property rights, or enforce contract law, or protect my freedoms. Libertarian principles merely say if government is to provide a service: define the service exactly, and set limits and keep it as focused as possible so that it is only as large as necessary.

Then you should totally be in favor of regulating business, taxing them and for that matter pressing them to improve their human rights issues in terms of labor and other things. Again, I don't see libertarians championing any of these things.

The problem I have is that it doesn't go beyond ideology in actual practice. Any possible attempt at progress could be viewed as a Constitutional violation. And I honestly don't understand how you can be a socialist and a libertarian at the same time.

I think 1) is be a debatable point. Some people believe that a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness can only be secured if we have socialized medicine. Others do not. Discussions of "what is a right" are valid in a Republic. There are no easy answers.

This is no longer debatable. The private sector has failed tens of millions of people and it is honestly a public health issue. The government has to step in. Again, I don't see libertarians "forcing" big business to improve their game. It takes a representative democracy and strong laws.

Well, I hope you read these words with a clear and open mind..

I did. Very well said. I still have the same criticisms, that libertarians talk a good game at times, but I'll be damned if they know how to get off the drawing board.  Being "socially liberal" is more than just a philosophy.
 
m00
2013-11-28 05:28:11 PM

whidbey: I did.


Thank you for reading! It's nice to know that people still do that on Fark :)

What's really asinine is the Libertarian party is a mess, due to the influence of big money. I think being Libertarian is almost opposed to extreme wealth, because the 1% today subsist on corporate handouts. Unfortunately, access to an audience is only achieved with money. The libertarian argument you read about is put forth by corporatists with an audience who can't say "we're greedy and want to enslave people," so they spin it as some other ideology. Libertarians just aren't organized enough to fight back.

I'm starting a business right now, and it kills me how easy the big players in my industry have it. There's grant money specifically for people in my situation starting a business. Paid for by tax dollars. You know where this money goes? The big corporations who have the lawyers and staff to nail the application process, make contacts in government to expedite the process. I would actually be better off if the grant money intended for me didn't exist, because not only do I have to compete with the big guys... but I'm paying taxes to give them more money which I then have to compete with :/ That's really what's at the heart of Libertarianism for me.

The principle that any well-intentioned block of money earmarked for the poor, or needy, or start-up businesses... will get hijacked by the rich. And it happens all..the..time. Like the fact the US subsidizes sugar production, and that basically goes to two billionaire brothers living in Florida using that money to import slave labor and wreck the local economy. This is awful, right?

So here is my conundrum, and if you have any answers please tell me: Corporations do a lot of harm, but any attempt by the government to regulate them is instantly co-opted by the lobbying efforts of those same corporations to benefit them even more.

My Libertarian answer is limit government to a narrow focus where it's easier to hold them accountable, because we expect them to do less things. Please, regulate the hell out of anyone with a factory that's dumping garbage into streams. I don't really care if  the government regulates education standards of schools that are administered by state governments... because it's not something that's killing me or depriving me of freedom. Having contaminants in the water will.

The Federal Government should protect the hell out of our freedoms. I strongly believe in civil liberties. But look at all the alphabet agencies of security apparatuses that we have, spying on our communications. Secret courts. We're paying government with our tax dollars to spy on us, and throw us in jail and ruin our lives if we get caught with a joint (although thankfully that's changing).

As for socialism, well the fact is Government exists to provide a service. At a fundamental level. Tax people, and provide a service. If you do not believe this, you are an anarchist. The debate amongst intelligent people is what are those services, and what's the scope.

The Libertarian argument for socialist medicine is simply that it's clearly the only way the American people can get their money's worth. It's the only way to actually ensure your rights as a human being. The alternative is to heavily regulate the insurance industry, but as I said earlier... regulations are generally subverted by the same corporations they propose to regulate. And I think that's what we're seeing with the ACA.

So, not being an anarchist, I'm not arguing that socialism is good. Only that sometimes it's necessary (like my example with public defenders). And I think with healthcare, it's pretty clear that it is.
 
2013-11-29 02:32:28 AM

whidbey: Well, obviously, there are things we would disagree on in terms of "practical." For example, it's "practical" to limit corporations in terms of what they donate to campaigns, initiatives and honestly anything where they have a stellar advantage over commoners trying to change things. It's practical to regulate business. It's practical to address climate change. It's practical to raise taxes to pay for social programs and other things.


Keeping in mind that if you as a dozen libertarians for their positions that you'll get at least two dozen answers, and that I consider myself a 'moderate libertarian/practical minarchist':
1.  I disagree on the 'practicality' of limiting corporate donations.  All that happens is that the professionals hide the money transfer better and you get 'swiftboat' campaigns that cause chaos because they're not under the control of ANY politician running for office.  We can't do much more and still have free speech.  The rules actually inhibit those trying to break into politics outside of the established organizations(who know every loophole they put in).
2.  We can argue about regulating business all day, but as m00 says, while we might disagree with how government organizations like the EPA go about their business, in generall we're in support of them doing so.  Personally, I tend to be in favor of 'pollution taxes' where you set charges per ton of sulfer, lead, mercury, or whatever released, with the amount set on the basis of how toxic it is (1M tons released = $1B damage = $1k per ton).  Let's not play games with exemptions, allowable levels, fines that are cheaper than controls, etc...
3.  Like many libertarians, I really, really like the idea of a balanced budget.  The federal government is so large that even it's construction projects(equivalents to buying a house) are constants.  Now, I'm a bit more fiscally advanced than most and happen to agree with Keynesian economic theory, so I modify it to 'Balanced on average'.  IE they can run a deficit some years during economic depressions, but to counter that they need to run a surplus during boom years.

I'm not seeing that. So far, the libertarian argument appears to be "leave me alone, government is too big/too evil/etc."

I'll admit that there are some anarchists who are trying to whitewash themselves and call themselves libertarians.  Besides that, current libertarian thought is indeed that the government is too large and inefficient, and it gets complicated trying to boil it down to fit onto a billboard.

Then you should totally be in favor of regulating business, taxing them and for that matter pressing them to improve their human rights issues in terms of labor and other things. Again, I don't see libertarians championing any of these things.

Ever hear 'the cure is worse than the disease'?  In championing too many small issues you make things worse overall.  Some of my positions can be seen as very 'big government' on the surface, it's just that the idea is that by doing something like ensuring our prisons are effective at reform might increase their cost and intrusion in the short term, the idea is that by having fewer repeat criminals we actually save money in the long run, and need fewer prisons.

The problem I have is that it doesn't go beyond ideology in actual practice. Any possible attempt at progress could be viewed as a Constitutional violation. And I honestly don't understand how you can be a socialist and a libertarian at the same time.

Is being a socialist actually a good thing?  Does it have to be a bad thing?  I'm more of a neutral position; I'll at least listen to them, they might have something good to say.  Meanwhile they should look at me as the guy who breaks out the spreadsheets to determine if their 'pie in the sky' proposal actually has a chance of working.  As for the constitution, it has and can still be amended.  Sometimes that is the proper procedure, though that could be considered more of a constitutionalist viewpoint than a libertarian one.

m00: So, not being an anarchist, I'm not arguing that socialism is good. Only that sometimes it's necessary (like my example with public defenders). And I think with healthcare, it's pretty clear that it is.


Even my 'free market' proposal for private healthcare concentrates on getting the 'insurance' companies out of the process as much as possible.  Follow the money:

1. You work for your Employer
2. Your employer selects an insurance company/program and pays them.  Ergo the insurance company isn't interested in pleasing you, but your employer.
3. You go to a health care provider(doctor, clinic, lab, etc...)
4. They bill your insurance, which is paid for(and selected by) your employer

That's way too disassociated for my tastes - it's a lot easier for me to get a new car insurance company if I don't like the one I'm with, and health coverage is far more important.  I believe if the average transaction is a person paying their provider directly that you'd eliminate a lot of billing paperwork and confusion, and reduce expenses all around.
 
Displayed 232 of 232 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report