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.

(NBC News)   Obama when talking about the ACA "We're not repealing it as long as I'm president". GOP: Challenge accepted   (nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com) divider line 250
    More: Obvious, Affordable Care Act, ACA, Obama, challenge accepted  
•       •       •

5937 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Dec 2013 at 12:34 PM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-04 12:53:06 PM
It's almost like the Republicans are a bunch of hateful assholes or something ...
 
2013-12-04 12:53:59 PM

Bladel: And every month that goes by, another couple hundred thousand people enroll.  Which will force the GOP to campaign on canceling coverage for people, mostly middle class.

At that point, the attack ads basically write themselves.


But those people will all just be customers of private insurance companies. Since said companies never cancel people's policies without being forced to do so by the government, surely those policies will just continue indefinitely.
 
2013-12-04 12:54:16 PM

Smelly Pirate Hooker: It's almost like the Republicans are a bunch of hateful assholes or something ...


No more than the Emocrats calling everybody a racist terrorist hate filled bastard filled with bastard filling
 
2013-12-04 12:55:22 PM
The ACA was not meant to be permanent legislation in my opinion, but a transition to a single-payor system either under or very similar to HR 676.  The ACA is a nightmare for providers and patients, the "coverage" it gives to many people is more costly for sometimes fewer services and a lot of providers are now considering leaving the medical field or retiring early because of it.  The new laws that are coming into place on 01 January will make it hard to reverse the damage already done, if it is not repealed by 01 January 2015 I am not sure what could be done to prevent many millions more people from losing their coverage on that date.
 
2013-12-04 12:55:30 PM

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: On the day Obama was inaugurated, the Republicans had a meeting in which they decided they would oppose every one of Obama's initiatives, NO MATTER WHAT THEY WERE.


And he should've come out, fist thing, and proposed a big, anti baby-rape (rape OF babies, not rape BY babies) campaign.  "Why, oh why is the GOP in favor of raping babies?"
 
2013-12-04 12:55:44 PM
I'm so sick of this shiat.  It's settled law, upheld by the Supreme Court.  I not a fan of it and thought something could be done within the free market.  The lawmakers of the country went a different route and based on election results, that's what most people wanted.  OK.  At this point, for the good of the country, stop this stupid bullshiat and put some energy into fixing shiat that's broken.  After a year of the ACA in place, get an understanding of what's broken and/or its unintended consequences and fix that  shiat too.
 
2013-12-04 12:56:10 PM
Just to note, website aside, things the ACA has already done that people will not willingly let go of:

1. No more preexisting condition exclusion
2. Kids can stay on until age 26
3. Closed Medicare "donut hole"
4. 85-15 rule for insurance providers, some people have actually gotten checks from their insurer
5. No lifetime caps on insurance


For the "repeal" people, all of this will go away, and if they say they want to keep it, how do you pay for it without the individual mandate?
 
2013-12-04 12:57:29 PM

Bladel: And every month that goes by, another couple hundred thousand people enroll.


It'll be way more than that. Administration announced that in the first two days of the month alone, 29,000 signed up for plans, and that's only through the federal website. That's on pace for well over a million in the month if you count all exchanges.
 
2013-12-04 12:58:10 PM

blugenes: a lot of providers are now considering leaving the medical field or retiring early because of it


LOL sure
 
2013-12-04 12:58:42 PM

nmrsnr: Just to note, website aside, things the ACA has already done that people will not willingly let go of:

1. No more preexisting condition exclusion
2. Kids can stay on until age 26
3. Closed Medicare "donut hole"
4. 85-15 rule for insurance providers, some people have actually gotten checks from their insurer
5. No lifetime caps on insurance


For the "repeal" people, all of this will go away, and if they say they want to keep it, how do you pay for it without the individual mandate?


On the other hand, there is the Republican plan to reform healthcare:

perfumedletters.files.wordpress.com

Both require thoughtful consideration before you choose which one has more merit.
 
2013-12-04 12:59:56 PM

mjones73: meat0918: Yes, please proceed on running on the promise of taking away the guarantee of health insurance.

You mean health insurance you're forced to have or pay a fine over?


Like the car insurance I'm forced to have or lose my license over?

Like the homeowner's insurance I'm forced to pay or lose my house over?

Like the liability insurance my doctor's forced to pay or lose his practice over?

Well, I can see your point.  Having to buy insurance has ruined driving, housing, and pre-Obamacare medicine.  I'm convinced.
 
2013-12-04 01:00:31 PM
The GOP must have a mile long ammo belt feeding that gun they shoot themselves in the foot with. I bet they shoot their left foot with it to avoid any temptation.

This anti-ACA voting trend is just sad now, a pathetic pleading for attention. The pile-on around the website disaster is because it's their last chance to get the ACA repealed, and it's still a poor chance. Most strategists understand that once it's rolled out that you'll never get the genie back in the bottle, it'll just be too popular.
 
2013-12-04 01:01:15 PM
blugenes

"The ACA was not meant to be permanent legislation in my opinion, but a transition to a single-payor system either under or very similar to HR 676."

The Democrats have been very open about the ACA being a stepping stone to single payer. I suspect the goal is to screw up healthcare so badly that going to single payer will look like an improvement, albeit a short term improvement.
 
2013-12-04 01:01:48 PM

AsparagusFTW: Mighty Aswan: ACA Summary:
The Republicans will try to make sure it fails no matter how good it is.
The Democrats will try to make it succeeds no matter how bad it is.
No one will try to fix any problems it has to make it better.

Annnnnd were done here.


Not quite.

"False equivilancy."
"Both sides are bad, so vote Republican."

Now we're done.
 
2013-12-04 01:02:07 PM

Lord_Baull: Subby misspelled "Obamacare."


Why would you call it Obamacare? We have the Republicans to thank as much as the Democrats for the ACA. And the complaints we've heard thus far with the ACA are regarding provisions that were introduced (or at the very least influenced) by the Republicans in Congress.
 
2013-12-04 01:02:50 PM
It sucked as a theory. It sucked as a rollout. It sucks as a product.

I'm sure it'll work out fine.
 
2013-12-04 01:07:06 PM

Sudlow: The Democrats have been very open about the ACA being a stepping stone to single payer.


They have? Can you point to prominent Dems saying this?
 
2013-12-04 01:07:11 PM

Darth_Lukecash: [cdn.ucadia.net image 200x300]
Not conservative enough for the GOP


Too Catholic.
 
2013-12-04 01:07:23 PM

Casey Anthony: Lord_Baull: Subby misspelled "Obamacare."

Why would you call it Obamacare? We have the Republicans to thank as much as the Democrats for the ACA. And the complaints we've heard thus far with the ACA are regarding provisions that were introduced (or at the very least influenced) by the Republicans in Congress.


I'm only surprised the Republicans haven't claimed full credit for it yet.
They probably will during the 2014 campaign.
 
2013-12-04 01:07:40 PM

Trid_Kicker: mjones73: meat0918: Yes, please proceed on running on the promise of taking away the guarantee of health insurance.

You mean health insurance you're forced to have or pay a fine over?

Like the car insurance I'm forced to have or lose my license over?

Like the homeowner's insurance I'm forced to pay or lose my house over?

Like the liability insurance my doctor's forced to pay or lose his practice over?

Well, I can see your point.  Having to buy insurance has ruined driving, housing, and pre-Obamacare medicine.  I'm convinced.



Those forms of insurance exist to protect other people -- the other driver you hit, the bank that is insuring its loan more than your actual house, and the patient you injure.

People should be allowed to choose if they want to take the risk of insuring themselves, to protect themselves, and their own ability to receive care for themselves.  They may, for example, simply choose to expend the cost of living a very healthy lifestyle.  (Unlike the people who are the reason for two-thirds of all medical expenses in the USA, which are the result of self-inflicted, voluntary bad lifestyle choices -- obesity, inactivity, smoking, alcohol and drug abuse.

And before you say that Obamacare exists to solve the problem of all of the people who supposedly would go without insurance and run up big medical bills and fail to pay (thus burdening everyone else), that figure amounts to less than 2% of all medical costs.  Two percent of the cost of all medical services is involuntarily unpaid.  That's less than half of the cost of services that doctors and hospitals choose to provide for free voluntarily, out of charity.

The Myth of the Uninsured Deadbeat was a fantasy -- a bogeyman that Obama used to get people to justify their unethical support of a law mandating people buy things they do not want, supposedly for their own good.
 
2013-12-04 01:08:27 PM

Lord_Baull: Subby misspelled "Obamacare."

  "Islamascam."

Smeggy Smurf: No more than the Emocrats calling everybody a racist terrorist hate filled bastard filled with bastard filling


Ok, I larfed.
 
2013-12-04 01:09:44 PM

Phinn: People should be allowed to choose if they want to take the risk of insuring themselves, to protect themselves, and their own ability to receive care for themselves.


So you support the idea that if someone is, say, has a heart attack and doesn't have insurance or money, we should let them die in the street untreated? Isn't that what this statement means?

The idea that people without the means to pay for their own health care should simply not get health care was rejected a very long time ago. It's not coming back.
 
2013-12-04 01:09:54 PM
"The only 'fix' is full repeal followed by  step-by-step, patient-centered reforms that drive down costs and that Americans actually want."

Let me fix that:

"The only 'fix' is full repeal followed by direct handouts to my big business medical campaign contributors"
 
2013-12-04 01:10:12 PM

Trid_Kicker: mjones73: meat0918: Yes, please proceed on running on the promise of taking away the guarantee of health insurance.

You mean health insurance you're forced to have or pay a fine over?

Like the car insurance I'm forced to have or lose my license over?

Because you're a liability on the road

Like the homeowner's insurance I'm forced to pay or lose my house over? Because your mortgage company requires it

Like the liability insurance my doctor's forced to pay or lose his practice over? Because people are sue happy assholes

Well, I can see your point.  Having to buy insurance has ruined driving, housing, and pre-Obamacare medicine.  I'm convinced.

My well being is not going to impact anyone, nice try though.
 
2013-12-04 01:10:30 PM

Casey Anthony: Lord_Baull: Subby misspelled "Obamacare."

Why would you call it Obamacare? We have the Republicans to thank as much as the Democrats for the ACA. And the complaints we've heard thus far with the ACA are regarding provisions that were introduced (or at the very least influenced) by the Republicans in Congress.


quizzicaldog.jpg
You mean the original version decades ago, or the one that was passed recently with 0 republican support?
Also, re-calibrate your sarcast-o-meter. There's a thread below that says now that the ACA website is functioning better, GOP is calling it ACA instead of Obamacare.
 
2013-12-04 01:11:26 PM
nmrsnr: Just to note, website aside, things the ACA has already done that people will not willingly let go of:

1. No more preexisting condition exclusion
2. Kids can stay on until age 26
3. Closed Medicare "donut hole"
4. 85-15 rule for insurance providers, some people have actually gotten checks from their insurer
5. No lifetime caps on insurance

Things the GOP has already done that people need to be reminded of almost all the time next year:
They are racists.
They hate women and women's rights like the Pakistani talibanis do.
They want to send your children to ar to make them oil rich.
They want to take away your social security benefits.
They want to starve your kids. 
They want everyone to love Jesus.
They hate Gays.
In fact, unless you are an old white man with tons of money in the bank, if you vote for the GOP, you should be ridiculed into a quivering mass of pee stained insecurity.

And please, feel free to do this.
 
2013-12-04 01:11:40 PM

Phinn: Trid_Kicker: mjones73: meat0918: Yes, please proceed on running on the promise of taking away the guarantee of health insurance.

You mean health insurance you're forced to have or pay a fine over?

Like the car insurance I'm forced to have or lose my license over?

Like the homeowner's insurance I'm forced to pay or lose my house over?

Like the liability insurance my doctor's forced to pay or lose his practice over?

Well, I can see your point.  Having to buy insurance has ruined driving, housing, and pre-Obamacare medicine.  I'm convinced.

Those forms of insurance exist to protect other people -- the other driver you hit, the bank that is insuring its loan more than your actual house, and the patient you injure.

People should be allowed to choose if they want to take the risk of insuring themselves, to protect themselves, and their own ability to receive care for themselves.  They may, for example, simply choose to expend the cost of living a very healthy lifestyle.  (Unlike the people who are the reason for two-thirds of all medical expenses in the USA, which are the result of self-inflicted, voluntary bad lifestyle choices -- obesity, inactivity, smoking, alcohol and drug abuse.

And before you say that Obamacare exists to solve the problem of all of the people who supposedly would go without insurance and run up big medical bills and fail to pay (thus burdening everyone else), that figure amounts to less than 2% of all medical costs.  Two percent of the cost of all medical services is involuntarily unpaid.  That's less than half of the cost of services that doctors and hospitals choose to provide for free voluntarily, out of charity.

The Myth of the Uninsured Deadbeat was a fantasy -- a bogeyman that Obama used to get people to justify their unethical support of a law mandating people buy things they do not want, supposedly for their own good.


Thank you for detailing that out more then I did.
 
2013-12-04 01:12:39 PM

Dinjiin: Theaetetus: Why would the GOP want to repeal the ACA? It's free money for insurance companies, as well as providing a boogeyman to help them get the vote out.

No kidding.  Have you seen the 3 year charts for insurance company stock prices?  I'm kicking myself for not buying more when I did.  A federal law that requires people to purchase a company's product.

I'm just waiting until the GOP suddenly realizes what a great idea this is and passes a similar law that requires every citizen over the age of 18 to own a firearm.  The firearms manufacturing industry would be in heaven.


They could have saved GM this way too.
 
2013-12-04 01:13:10 PM
Keep farkin' that chicken there, Libtards. The ACA is going to end up nuking Obama and the Democrats.

- Do you really think the courts are going to let Obama get away from unilaterally altering what you so desparately call "settled law"?

- No law is "settled" All laws are subject to legislative change. ALL laws.

- The "you can keep your health insurance" lie continues to unravel daily

- Harry Reid is exempting "his people" from ACA, but us peons get stuck with it

- Just wait until the premium jumps hit everybody else. Meltdown city. People will vote for farkin' Nazi's if that what it takes to kill ACA

- you know, the law Nancy Pelosi said had to be passed so people could find out how good it is! Ha!

Once people realize what the Dems did to them, there hopefully won't be any more Affirmative Action Hires elected to the White House anytime soon....
 
2013-12-04 01:14:14 PM

nmrsnr: Just to note, website aside, things the ACA has already done that people will not willingly let go of:

1. No more preexisting condition exclusion
2. Kids can stay on until age 26
3. Closed Medicare "donut hole"
4. 85-15 rule for insurance providers, some people have actually gotten checks from their insurer
5. No lifetime caps on insurance


For the "repeal" people, all of this will go away, and if they say they want to keep it, how do you pay for it without the individual mandate?



In addition to 1-5, the ACA also increases patient care standards at hospitals.  Hospitals either get federal grants or penalties for the quality of service they offer.

Oh, and medical costs overall have increased at their lowest rate in decades.  Some might attribute this to the economy but it could just as easily be the ACA driving it.
 
2013-12-04 01:16:25 PM

Whatchoo Talkinbout: It sucked as a theory. It sucked as a rollout. It sucks as a product.

I'm sure it'll work out fine.


Your tiny fists such must be getting work out.
 
2013-12-04 01:17:18 PM

Heliovdrake: Whatchoo Talkinbout: It sucked as a theory. It sucked as a rollout. It sucks as a product.

I'm sure it'll work out fine.

Your tiny fists such sure must be getting workout.

 
2013-12-04 01:18:19 PM

Smeggy Smurf: Because some of them know about this little thing called the T-4 program.  In the hands of a despot socialized medicine is a terrible weapon.


Well, good thing the ACA isn't socialized medicine, then.

But then again, neither was T-4.

But thanks for letting us know just how tenuous your grip on reality is, and that your "contributions" here merit no further consideration.

Buh-bye!
 
2013-12-04 01:18:19 PM

DamnYankees: Phinn: People should be allowed to choose if they want to take the risk of insuring themselves, to protect themselves, and their own ability to receive care for themselves.

So you support the idea that if someone is, say, has a heart attack and doesn't have insurance or money, we should let them die in the street untreated? Isn't that what this statement means?

The idea that people without the means to pay for their own health care should simply not get health care was rejected a very long time ago. It's not coming back.



That's an issue of indigent care -- which was already covered by Medicaid.  Those services were already being paid for, which was therefore not a problem that Obamacare could solve or needed to solve.

The government sponsorship of employer-based medical insurance is what caused health care costs to rise and rise and rise, over the last 60 years or so, especially since the HMO Act of 1973.

What Obama should have done, and which a future government will need to do, is sever the connection between employment and insurance, which will in turn mostly eliminate insurance as the primary means of paying for ordinary, routine care, which only increases the cost.
 
2013-12-04 01:19:09 PM

Koodz: Bladel: And every month that goes by, another couple hundred thousand people enroll.  Which will force the GOP to campaign on canceling coverage for people, mostly middle class.

At that point, the attack ads basically write themselves.

But those people will all just be customers of private insurance companies. Since said companies never cancel people's policies without being forced to do so by the government, surely those policies will just continue indefinitely.


Many were also enrolled in the part of the ACA that expanded Medicaid....
 
2013-12-04 01:19:59 PM
Trolls on this thread. "We hate Obamacare... That's why we voted for the guy who implemented Romneycare."
 
2013-12-04 01:20:01 PM
"he'll spend the remainder of his presidency fighting to make it work if necessary"

If necessary? WTF!  Gee, hate to put you out like that to make it work.

Conveniently, its ACA and not Obamacare when it blew up in their faces. Oh no it sucks so quit referencing with his name.
 
2013-12-04 01:20:40 PM

mjones73: Trid_Kicker: mjones73: meat0918: Yes, please proceed on running on the promise of taking away the guarantee of health insurance.

You mean health insurance you're forced to have or pay a fine over?

Like the car insurance I'm forced to have or lose my license over? Because you're a liability on the road

Like the homeowner's insurance I'm forced to pay or lose my house over? Because your mortgage company requires it

Like the liability insurance my doctor's forced to pay or lose his practice over? Because people are sue happy assholes

Well, I can see your point.  Having to buy insurance has ruined driving, housing, and pre-Obamacare medicine.  I'm convinced.

My well being is not going to impact anyone, nice try though.


You must be sterile.
 
2013-12-04 01:22:12 PM

Phinn: That's an issue of indigent care -- which was already covered by Medicaid.


But your principle would lead to the abolition of Medicaid also. What's the principle by which society should pay for the health care of children, poor people and old people, but not other people? Take 4 different people, all of whom get cancer:

15 year old: Society should help
25 year old without a job and no income: Society should help
25 year old with a job, but health insurance is too expensive: Society should not help
65 year old: Society should help

Why, exactly, should person #3 get farked? What's the principle?
 
2013-12-04 01:22:51 PM

Phinn: And before you say that Obamacare exists to solve the problem of all of the people who supposedly would go without insurance and run up big medical bills and fail to pay (thus burdening everyone else), that figure amounts to less than 2% of all medical costs. Two percent of the cost of all medical services is involuntarily unpaid. That's less than half of the cost of services that doctors and hospitals choose to provide for free voluntarily, out of charity.

The Myth of the Uninsured Deadbeat was a fantasy -- a bogeyman that Obama used to get people to justify their unethical support of a law mandating people buy things they do not want, supposedly for their own good.


Will you provide citations for those assertions please?
 
2013-12-04 01:24:16 PM
FTFPresident: "If I've got to fight another three years to make sure this law works, then that's what I'll do."

How stupid and stubborn is that statement? No matter how much time, money, and resources it takes, Obama is going to cram this down your throats whether you like it or not.
 
2013-12-04 01:24:20 PM

Deucednuisance: Smeggy Smurf: Because some of them know about this little thing called the T-4 program.  In the hands of a despot socialized medicine is a terrible weapon.

Well, good thing the ACA isn't socialized medicine, then.

But then again, neither was T-4.

But thanks for letting us know just how tenuous your grip on reality is, and that your "contributions" here merit no further consideration.

Buh-bye!


Ignored by somebody willfully ignorant.  Damn I love this place
 
2013-12-04 01:24:36 PM

hugram: Trolls on this thread. "We hate Obamacare... That's why we voted for the guy who implemented Romneycare."


Romney had to do something drastic in Massachusetts because their insurance market was so farked up, it wasn't an answer for the whole country...
 
2013-12-04 01:25:50 PM

Whatchoo Talkinbout: It sucked as a theory. It sucked as a rollout. It sucks as a product.

I'm sure it'll work out fine.


First of all, it's not a product. Second of all, which of these benefits would you like to take away from the American people:

1. No more preexisting condition exclusion
2. Kids can stay on until age 26
3. Closed Medicare "donut hole"
4. 85-15 rule for insurance providers, some people have actually gotten checks from their insurer
5. No lifetime caps on insurance
 
2013-12-04 01:26:01 PM

Pinner: mjones73: Trid_Kicker: mjones73: meat0918: Yes, please proceed on running on the promise of taking away the guarantee of health insurance.

You mean health insurance you're forced to have or pay a fine over?

Like the car insurance I'm forced to have or lose my license over? Because you're a liability on the road

Like the homeowner's insurance I'm forced to pay or lose my house over? Because your mortgage company requires it

Like the liability insurance my doctor's forced to pay or lose his practice over? Because people are sue happy assholes

Well, I can see your point.  Having to buy insurance has ruined driving, housing, and pre-Obamacare medicine.  I'm convinced.

My well being is not going to impact anyone, nice try though.

You must be sterile.


So the fact I could get someone pregnant is your reasoning for forcing health care on me?
 
2013-12-04 01:26:44 PM

mjones73: hugram: Trolls on this thread. "We hate Obamacare... That's why we voted for the guy who implemented Romneycare."

Romney had to do something drastic in Massachusetts because their insurance market was so farked up, it wasn't an answer for the whole country...


Then why didn't he run on his record of implementing Romneycare?
 
2013-12-04 01:29:41 PM
"Sir, it was a valiant attempt, but it does not look like we have enough altitude to make it over the mountain."
"Throw out the parachutes and bolt the doors while I break off the throttle. We are riding this thing as far as it goes."
"Why not change course to go around the mountain? It might take longer be we will still get there."
"We have no choice. This is the only way. We have to crash this airplane before we can build a better one."
 
2013-12-04 01:29:55 PM

Kangaroo_Ralph: FTFPresident: "If I've got to fight another three years to make sure this law works, then that's what I'll do."

How stupid and stubborn is that statement? No matter how much time, money, and resources it takes, Obama is going to cram this down your throats whether you like it or not.


This very much depends on what you think Obama meant by "works" if, as you seem to suggest, "works" means "gets implemented, regardless of how bad it is, or how widely reviled it is" yes, the statement is not a particularly good one. If however, you take "works" to mean "provide every American affordable health coverage, regardless of what changes need to be made" then it seems exactly like what politicians should do, work ceaselessly to make our lives better.
 
2013-12-04 01:30:21 PM

hugram: mjones73: hugram: Trolls on this thread. "We hate Obamacare... That's why we voted for the guy who implemented Romneycare."

Romney had to do something drastic in Massachusetts because their insurance market was so farked up, it wasn't an answer for the whole country...

Then why didn't he run on his record of implementing Romneycare?


No idea, you'd have to ask him.
 
2013-12-04 01:30:28 PM
Well the anti-ACA advocates in this thread have made their case in full, and I'm now fully convinced we should go back to having lifetime caps on insurance, denying people with pre-existing conditions, allowing insurance companies to force people out of the hospital whether they're well enough or not, and forcing the poors to die slow and painful deaths because the only taxpayer-paid medical care they get is emergency room visits.
 
Displayed 50 of 250 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report