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.

(Independent Journal Review)   Let's ask some college students and see how many of them have actually signed up for Obamacare. Bonus quote of the day: "I thought Obamacare was supposed to be, like, free"   (ijreview.com) divider line 179
    More: Obvious, obamacare, PJTV  
•       •       •

2186 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Dec 2013 at 4:44 PM (33 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-07 08:34:03 PM

bizzwire: bigsteve3OOO: bizzwire: Gyrfalcon: bigsteve3OOO: The car example is stupid. You do not have to drive. It is a choice. Please stop using it. you are better than that.

You started it.

Actually, I think I did. It's only stupid because it points out BigSteve's cherry-picked outrage, but I'm willing to let it go in favor of a simple question: if someone chooses not to purchase life insurance and needs medical care, who pays?

Themselves or their family or they die.  Unless someone makes a system that is unfair.

I'm beginning to suspect that you are arguing in bad faith, or are a particularly nasty piece of work. Some have suggested that you are merely trying to get a rise out of people. Why anyone would do this is beyond my comprehension, but I understand that such creatures exist. Sad, really.


Why?  A fair system is you pay for yourself.  No other needs to support you, unless they choose to.  Family usually chooses to support people who do not support themselves.  Fools should pay for the bad choices they make.  Or do you believe that you should pay for my bad choices?  When the government forces me to pay for your stupidity how is that fair?  (it is stupid not to have heath insurance) If you are stupid you should pay for that stupidity.
 
2013-12-07 08:40:33 PM

Rincewind53: cman: Are you saying black people are dumb? White people can't be morons, too?

Listen, I know the point you were making. I understand it. But Jesus, dude, stop seeing boogeymen everywhere.

Really?

D.C. has  ten separate undergraduate universities, as well as more than a dozen post-graduate schools or other types of schools.  Howard is the only one of them other than UDC which has a majority black population.

When a segment producer wants to do a segment like this, they have to choose which school to go to. Howard is likely not the closest one, since I'd find it odd if PJTV has a studio over near it. GW or Georgetown were likely much closer, considering where most production studios in the city are (with the exception of BET which is in NE). Thus, they had to choose which of the 10 schools to go to.

I find it highly unlikely that they didn't choose Howard because it would falsely illustrate to their viewers how "Obama voters" (read: black people) are ignorant about the health care bill.


Everyone seems to believe that this subtle dog-whistle racism is confined to old farts, and thus will die off soon.

But these conservative "journalists" all seem to be white thirty-somethings.
 
2013-12-07 08:41:18 PM
Got news for you. Hospitals already make you pay for other people's stupidity in the form of a surcharge added to your bill to pay for the uninsured. Ever been to the ER? Congratulations! You've been forced to pay for someone else. And yet, making these people pay for themselves is bad?

/rhetorical question is rhetorical.
 
2013-12-07 08:43:29 PM
To trollmitter:
Technically, they're correct.  Obamacare IS free to everyone.  Just as the Civil Rights act is free to everyone.  See, you don't have to pay money to be protected/covered by each law.
 
2013-12-07 08:45:22 PM

Rincewind53: Wow.  Out of all the universities in DC that they went to try this stunt, they went to Howard, the historically black college.


What difference does that make?
 
2013-12-07 08:48:23 PM

Satanic_Hamster: To trollmitter:
Technically, they're correct.  Obamacare IS free to everyone.  Just as the Civil Rights act is free to everyone.  See, you don't have to pay money to be protected/covered by each law.


WOW!!!!  I thought I had skilz.  Folks this is textbook.  Get your notepads out and take notes.  This is 1st rate quality.
 
2013-12-07 08:51:19 PM

sendtodave: Everyone seems to believe that this subtle dog-whistle racism is confined to old farts, and thus will die off soon.

But these conservative "journalists" all seem to be white thirty-somethings.


There's still a lot of racist young people, especially in the south.  Give it time, as the old farkers die the younger ones will be less likely to show their crackerism when tthey become even more outnumbered.
 
2013-12-07 08:55:38 PM

Satanic_Hamster: sendtodave: Everyone seems to believe that this subtle dog-whistle racism is confined to old farts, and thus will die off soon.

But these conservative "journalists" all seem to be white thirty-somethings.

There's still a lot of racist young people, especially in the south.  Give it time, as the old farkers die the younger ones will be less likely to show their crackerism when tthey become even more outnumbered.


These media outlets will dry up?
 
2013-12-07 08:59:17 PM

andersoncouncil42: This site is just precious.
Other headlines on the sidebar:

Rabid, topless feminists attack group of praying men protecting cathedral from vandalism.

and

White House changes story: Obama DID live with illegal alien Kenyan uncle before going to Harvard.


You do know that both of those stories happened didn't you?
 
2013-12-07 08:59:52 PM

Mugato: sprgrss: Aren't college students by and large covered by their parents' insurance?

What he said. You're covered by your parents until age 25.


Only if your parents have insurance though. 

 Many do not.
 
2013-12-07 09:05:03 PM

bigsteve3OOO: bizzwire: bigsteve3OOO: NO! STUPID!! young healthy people who do not need health care at all and are least able to pay are the ones funding this stupidity.  Men must fund women's health.  Young fund the elderly.  welcome to what you idiots voted for.

OK. Let's say you buy a car. Of course, you buy the mandatory Insurance, in case you cause damage to someone else or their property. You make your first payment of, say, $400. Your first day, your driving when your cell phone rings and, distracted, you plow into a parked car, causing $2,000 of damage. Which your insurance covers.

Do you really think that the insurance company used your payments to cover the claim? Do you think they paid for it with their own money? OTHER PEOPLE PAID FOR IT. This is how insurance has worked for centuries. Everybody seems to understand this except for you.

Exactly.  The government has no right to make you purchase a fiduciary instrument from a private business.  You want the government to provide health care ....FINE....why did you make them provide insurance companies a boon?  Why not pass a constitutional amendment?  Here I'll write it.  The government shall provide all citizens quality health care at no cost.

What you fools did was take choice away from people and make insurance companies rich.  Nice one Libs. Idiots.


Actually you don't have to have insurance for a car. You have to show that you can pay for the damages you do to other people before we'll let you drive. One way is to pool with other people and get insurance. You can also post a bond (at least in the states i've been in) that would cover the possible damages. Since it's a really big bond no one does that.

You have car insurance to pay for what you might do to other people. You have health insurance to pay for what might happen to you.

These are totally different.
 
2013-12-07 09:14:55 PM

FloydA: bigsteve3OOO: FloydA: bigsteve3OOO: NO! STUPID!! young healthy people who do not need health care at all and are least able to pay are the ones funding this stupidity.  Men must fund women's health.  Young fund the elderly.  welcome to what you idiots voted for.


Nobody needs health insurance until they get sick or injured.  If we let people buy health insurance after they get sick or injured and then drop it after they get well, the insurance companies will lose money.

Do you hate the free market?  Do you think that insurance companies should not be allowed to make money?  Because it sounds to me like you're advocating for socialism.

Its not free if you are forced by law to participate.


Prior to the ACA, freeloaders who refused to buy insurance just went to the ER when they got sick or injured and then when they couldn't or wouldn't pay, taxpayers like me had to foot the bill for them, as well as for myself through my insurance premiums.

Now, under the ACA, freeloaders can't do that anymore, and I only have to pay for myself.

So, once again, do you hate the free market?  Do you prefer socialism?  Because that is exactly what you are advocating.


You only have to pay for yourself... 

 Dude, risk pools do *not* work that way. 

 You're paying for everyone, including yourself. This is either going to cost you money, or save you money depending on the amount of medical services you use.
 
2013-12-07 09:15:20 PM
Actually you don't have to have insurance for a car. You have to show that you can pay for the damages you do to other people before we'll let you drive. One way is to pool with other people and get insurance

Que?
 
2013-12-07 09:17:44 PM
Once they see the prices of the plans I doubt that they will want to enroll.
 
2013-12-07 09:20:03 PM
www.pjtv.com

Next Generation TV.  #1 Amongst War Criminals.
 
2013-12-07 09:20:40 PM

rewind2846: bigsteve3OOO: Its not free if you are forced by law to participate.

I have a question for those people like yourself who have issues with the ACA... what exactly is your opposition to it?

Is it the fact that this is a law that has all of us as citizens actually do something good for ourselves and our nation (i.e "forced"), like seat belt laws, laws against murder and rape, or the constitution itself?

or

Are you concerned that you'll have to actually pay what health care insurance really costs without the luxury of pushing the costs for your care onto other people who had the foresight to go and buy real insurance?

or

Do you not realize that a healthy country is a strong and prosperous country?

or

Do you just not give a rolling rat sh*t about anyone but yourself?

or

Do you have issue with that "n****r in the white house telling you what to do"?

The last one is the most interesting, in that I have known white people who have actually said this, people who had no trouble with the white presidents before nor their wives (Betty says "get your boobies checked" - yay, Nancy says "Just say NO to drugs" - yay, Rosalynn says "help the mentally ill" - yay, Barbra says "Learn something" - yay, Laura says "Just read books" - yay, Michelle says "Eat healthier and get off your ass" - WHO THE F*CK IS THIS biatch!?!?)


I have an issue with being forced to pay someone money just to keep breathing. 

I also have an issue with the cost of medical care (which wasn't addressed in the bill). It is way too high for what you get.

/have always purchased my own health insurance and have never not been covered by it.
 
2013-12-07 09:22:07 PM

bigsteve3OOO: Why?  A fair system is you pay for yourself.  No other needs to support you, unless they choose to.  Family usually chooses to support people who do not support themselves.  Fools should pay for the bad choices they make.   Or do you believe that you should pay for my bad choices?  When the government forces me to pay for your stupidity how is that fair?  (it is stupid not to have heath insurance) If you are stupid you should pay for that stupidity.


We do pay for your stupid choices. Every time you vote.
 
2013-12-07 09:28:19 PM
rewind2846:
Do you have issue with that "n****r in the white house telling you what to do"?

The last one is the most interesting


I don't think it's interesting at all for most people, and for you and your kind I would say it is more along the lines of an obsession rather than an interest.
 
2013-12-07 09:31:53 PM

unyon: Zeb Hesselgresser: Dog Welder: Hey, did anyone happen to mention that most college students are likely covered on their parents' insurance plans and wouldn't actually need to sign up for Obamacare?

What happens when the Employer Mandate causes many of their parents to lose that coverage?

Then they sign up with one of the new ACA employee plans they're offered.  In the event that their employer is too small or too petty to bother with such a plan, then they access their federal or state exchange and get new coverage.  Based on their situation, they likely get a significant rebate.
 In either scenario, they're likely to get better insurance at a bettere pace as they were occurring before because of ACA cost controls. Any other questions?


Not really up on current events, are you?
 
2013-12-07 09:32:55 PM

cuzsis: I have an issue with being forced to pay someone money just to keep breathing. 

That makes no sense.  You are forced to pay money, if you can and part of society.

I also have an issue with the cost of medical care (which wasn't addressed in the bill). It is way too high for what you get.

The bill was to expand coverage to the uninsured among other things.  If you want to bring medical care costs down, you need single-payer.
  
/have always purchased my own health insurance and have never not been covered by it.


That would make you pretty lucky now wouldn't it.
 
2013-12-07 09:38:43 PM

Mugato: sprgrss: Aren't college students by and large covered by their parents' insurance?

What he said. You're covered by your parents until age 25.


If their parents have insurance, yes.   Of course if their parents are among the millions who have lost their affordable insurance thanks to the "Affordable" Care Act  that is not an option

 Kind of a screwed up situation isn't?  For the system to work young people have to buy insurance, but many of   those young people can be carried on their parent's insurance. But to enable the parent's to get affordable insurance young people have to buy their own insurance.
 
2013-12-07 09:43:50 PM
Jick Jackson: and for you and your kind I would say it is more along the lines of an obsession rather than an interest.

If you mean by "my kind", "people who give a rat's ass abut how the morons of this country have made the race of this president a determining factor in whether the follow his suggestions/laws", then I'll be one of those "kinds".

This president has received more death threats than any other in modern history. He and his family have encountered more hate and vitriol than any in my memory (back over 40 years). And a fair portion of that bile has absolutely nothing to do with his policies, his proposals, his foreign policy, or his domestic policy.

As has been said time and again in this forum, it's because he is black.
So as me and my kind say... f*ck you. Obsess over that.
 
2013-12-07 09:52:39 PM

cuzsis: have always purchased my own health insurance and have never not been covered by it.


Never is a long, long time. I suggest you rethink that word, because you will need health care... it's just a matter of when. And if/when you get something that according to page 41, paragraph 4, sub-paragraph C, section 2 of your "policy" says that "you're f*cked" because you didn't buy the insurance you should have because you were too goddamn cheap to do so, I truly hope that there is someone willing to foot the bill for you the way you're too selfish to do for anyone else but yourself.

Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it won't. That's why the product is called INSURANCE. It's not for what you DO think might happen, it's for what you DON'T think might happen.
 
2013-12-07 10:03:03 PM

bigsteve3OOO: The car example is stupid. You do not have to drive. It is a choice.


Fantastic point. You don't have to drive, so you don't need to carry insurance against liabilities caused by driving at all times. Healthcare, on the other hand, especially since emergency rooms must stabilize you without regard for your ability to pay, can generate significant financial liability without your knowledge or consent. There is a way to opt out, though. Just remember, it's down the road, not across the street.
 
2013-12-07 10:07:27 PM

bigsteve3OOO: bizzwire: bigsteve3OOO: bizzwire: Gyrfalcon: bigsteve3OOO: The car example is stupid. You do not have to drive. It is a choice. Please stop using it. you are better than that.

You started it.

Actually, I think I did. It's only stupid because it points out BigSteve's cherry-picked outrage, but I'm willing to let it go in favor of a simple question: if someone chooses not to purchase life insurance and needs medical care, who pays?

Themselves or their family or they die.  Unless someone makes a system that is unfair.

I'm beginning to suspect that you are arguing in bad faith, or are a particularly nasty piece of work. Some have suggested that you are merely trying to get a rise out of people. Why anyone would do this is beyond my comprehension, but I understand that such creatures exist. Sad, really.

Why?  A fair system is you pay for yourself.  No other needs to support you, unless they choose to.  Family usually chooses to support people who do not support themselves.  Fools should pay for the bad choices they make.  Or do you believe that you should pay for my bad choices?  When the government forces me to pay for your stupidity how is that fair?  (it is stupid not to have heath insurance) If you are stupid you should pay for that stupidity.


I encourage you to convince your Republican friends to scream from the mountaintops "THE POOR AND DUMB AND SICK SHOULD DIE!  THE POOR AND DUMB AND SICK SHOULD DIE!"  And then call yourself pro-life.
 
2013-12-07 10:50:56 PM

rewind2846: ... f*ck you. Obsess over that.


fick? feck?  Hmm, I'm stumped.

You sound pretty tough though!

Where are you getting your data on presidential death threats over the last 40 years? Did you know that in modern history one of the presidents was actually killed? He was also the only Catholic president; by your standards does this not prove that he was killed because he was Catholic?  I found evidence (some suspect) of 10 death threats acknowledged by the White House or Secret Service against President Obama, and not a one of the offenders claimed that their motivation was race.  Yet you know that all of them actually were because of race.  How do you know this?

As has been said time and again in this forum, it's because he is black

Good one.  If it's on Fark, it has to be true.

Also, although I'm not particularly afraid of nor offended by your threat, I am not white; therefore: YOU BIG RACIST.
 
2013-12-07 11:03:03 PM
rewind2846:

If you mean by "my kind", "people who give a rat's ass abut how the morons of this country have made the race of this president a determining factor in whether the follow his suggestions/laws", then I'll be one of those "kinds".


Also:  The president does not "have" any laws, at least not yet, so that's pretty much a moot point.  What "suggestions" are you talking about that are being disregarded en masse by all of the racists?  You know, the ones who don't disagree with him but just hate him because he's black.
 
2013-12-07 11:09:38 PM

rewind2846: If you mean by "my kind", "people who give a rat's ass abut how the morons of this country have made the race of this president a determining factor in whether the follow his suggestions/laws", then I'll be one of those "kinds".

This president has received more death threats than any other in modern history. He and his family have encountered more hate and vitriol than any in my memory (back over 40 years). And a fair portion of that bile has absolutely nothing to do with his policies, his proposals, his foreign policy, or his domestic policy.

As has been said time and again in this forum, it's because he is black.
So as me and my kind say... f*ck you. Obsess over that.


False.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/secret-service-threats-against-obama-no- hi gher-than-normal/
http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2013/mar/18/julian-bond /n o-concrete-evidence-support-claim/
 
2013-12-07 11:11:12 PM

Jick Jackson: Also, although I'm not particularly afraid of nor offended by your threat, I am not white; therefore: YOU BIG RACIST.


I wouldn't expect that from "your kind". Such emotions would require thought and reason, and enough working brain cells to form an answer to the question "what happens next?"


Good one.  If it's on Fark, it has to be true.

here
here
here
here
here
and here

One minute. Google. Try not to be stupid.


Where are you getting your data on presidential death threats over the last 40 years?

"Since Mr Obama took office, the rate of threats against the president has increased 400 per cent from the 3,000 a year or so under President George W. Bush, according to Ronald Kessler, author of In the President's Secret Service."
 
m00
2013-12-07 11:15:58 PM
Every time I read an Obamacare thread, makes me wish that much harder that Obama wasn't a corporate shill so we could have socialized medicine.

/cue someone blaming Republicans
 
m00
2013-12-07 11:17:06 PM

FloydA: Because it sounds to me like you're advocating for socialism.


What's wrong with socialism?
 
2013-12-07 11:21:46 PM

Talondel: False.


True.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/5967942/Barack -O bama-faces-30-death-threats-a-day-stretching-US-Secret-Service.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/25/1164628/--President-Barack- Ob ama-Is-the-Most-Threatened-President-In-History

http://pubrecord.org/multimedia/4273/during-sermon-arizona-pastor-te ll s/

http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/president-obama-faces-increase- 40 0-deat

And as for anything from the Secret Service itself, you can rest assured that any "official" increase in threats will be downplayed until this president leaves office, for security reasons and the national interest. The people who want to kill this president do not need to know that they are overworking the Secret Service, and misinformation is the key to that end. Just like corporations bury and mislead the public with false information about their activities to keep their stock price up, so do government agencies tasked with the security of our nation's assets mislead those who wish to harm them.
 
2013-12-07 11:26:55 PM

rewind2846: One minute. Google. Try not to be stupid.


You just cited as factual support the opinions of various blogs and tabloids, a Politico article that doesn't actually support you, and an article that from 2009 that was already debunked in this thread.  Good work.
 
2013-12-07 11:34:54 PM

rewind2846: Jick Jackson: Also, although I'm not particularly afraid of nor offended by your threat, I am not white; therefore: YOU BIG RACIST.

I wouldn't expect that from "your kind".


Mixed race people? What's to expect? I don't follow.

here
here
here
here
here
and here

One minute. Google. Try not to be stupid.



Ha ha, OK.
 
2013-12-07 11:37:24 PM

rewind2846: as for anything from the Secret Service itself, you can rest assured that any "official" increase in threats will be downplayed until this president leaves office, for security reasons and the national interest


I cite CBS News and Politifact, who debunk the 2009 story with actual reporting.  They note that all claims to that effect can be traced back to the 2009 claim by Ronald Kessler, who was trying to sell a book at the time.  At that his claim in contradicted by people within Secret Service (former employees, who would not be subject to any orders to disseminate misinformation, in case your given to conspiracy theories).

In return, you cite various blogs and tabloids that regurgitate Kessler's 2009 story and its "400%" claim without any support.  But according to you we shouldn't worry about the lack of support for that claim because the truth is being suppressed by the Secret Service.
 
2013-12-07 11:55:27 PM

Talondel: At that his claim in contradicted by people within Secret Service (former employees, who would not be subject to any orders to disseminate misinformation, in case your given to conspiracy theories).


Things you do not do:
- Don't tell people where your nuclear subs are.
- Don't tell people where your aircraft carrier groups are going to be.
- Don't tell people how many guards are at the gates of your military bases.
- Don't tell people how much gold is in the vaults of Fort Knox.
- Don't give away any information relating to the security for the sitting president of the United States.

Think that last one over very carefully.

BTW, does the fact that a person wrote a book "horrors!" negate the truthfulness of his statements?
 
2013-12-08 12:04:12 AM

rewind2846: Think that last one over very carefully.


Just so we're clear here: My evidence in support of the fact that there has not been an increase in threats is unreliable, because reliable sources would not discuss this.  But your sources that say there has been an increase are reliable, because. . . why exactly?

Neither of us is going to get a quote from the current director of the Secret Service, but in general I think it's safe to say that the sources I've cited, and the sources those articles quote (reputable news organizations and former Soc. Sec. agents), are more reliable than yours (blogs and one guy who wrote a book on the secret service in 2009 and cites no data to support his claim).  You're also the one making the extraordinary claim and who has the burden of proof, which I'm pretty sure you just admitted you can't meet.

Your entire argument is "People hate Obama because they're racist, and you can tell because he has more threats than any president in modern history, but I can't actually prove that because so one would ever confirm that, but please believe me even though I just admitted that there's no evidence to support my claim."
 
2013-12-08 12:05:49 AM
rewind2846:

How can a black conservative can survive a day in the world?
 
2013-12-08 12:07:09 AM

Jick Jackson: rewind2846:

How can a black conservative can survive a day in the world?


Oops didn't preview obviously.
 
2013-12-08 12:17:19 AM

grumpfuff: bigsteve3OOO: Men must fund women's health.

And women must fund men's. That's how risk pools work.

Funny that. Of all the people complaining, it's always "I have to pay for a woman's BC!"

It's never "A woman has to pay for my prostate exams!"


Well. Its like what? One time when you are fifty then every five years? Verses every day from twelve to forty five? I get the point dont have a problem but lets be real. Its not the same.
 
m00
2013-12-08 12:25:30 AM

bizzwire: Got news for you. Hospitals already make you pay for other people's stupidity in the form of a surcharge added to your bill to pay for the uninsured. Ever been to the ER? Congratulations! You've been forced to pay for someone else. And yet, making these people pay for themselves is bad?


So taxing poor people is now a liberal plank? I guess conservatives have won.
 
x23
2013-12-08 12:29:33 AM

DrPainMD: [farm6.staticflickr.com image 500x351]


sooo... like how insurance works in general?

i guess i fail to see your purportedly "clever" point.
 
2013-12-08 12:40:10 AM

bizzwire: bigsteve3OOO: bizzwire: Gyrfalcon: bigsteve3OOO: The car example is stupid. You do not have to drive. It is a choice. Please stop using it. you are better than that.

You started it.

Actually, I think I did. It's only stupid because it points out BigSteve's cherry-picked outrage, but I'm willing to let it go in favor of a simple question: if someone chooses not to purchase life insurance and needs medical care, who pays?

Themselves or their family or they die.  Unless someone makes a system that is unfair.

I'm beginning to suspect that you are arguing in bad faith, or are a particularly nasty piece of work. Some have suggested that you are merely trying to get a rise out of people. Why anyone would do this is beyond my comprehension, but I understand that such creatures exist. Sad, really.


He's a complete idiot. In the real world, the government pays for people who can't pay, of course; because we as an enlightened and compassionate civilization don't let people die in the street anymore just because they can't afford medical care. That means, of course, that all of us pay, because government funds come out of taxes. Some of it also comes out of your insurance premiums, since hospitals jack their rates to cover non-insured patients; unless you thought that a $8 bottle of Tylenol really costs a hospital $50.

The "Libertarians" would like it better if people either paid for themselves or died (preferably swiftly and silently and then buried themselves in an inconspicuous ditch), but thankfully we don't live in Rapture; we live in a country that is actually wealthy enough to pay for everyone, or would be if people would stop being so goddamn selfish all the time.
 
m00
2013-12-08 12:47:23 AM

Gyrfalcon: The "Libertarians" would like it better if people either paid for themselves or died (preferably swiftly and silently and then buried themselves in an inconspicuous ditch)

...

Is your source for this other non-Libertarians who happen to dislike Libertarians? I don't mean to pick on you, but I get annoyed when Conservatives say "Liberals would like it if X" and when Liberals say "Conservatives would like it if X" when X is some completely outrageous thing that happens to bolster the ad hominem the poster is currently making.
 
2013-12-08 01:10:54 AM
I used to think college students were smart until I met some.
 
2013-12-08 01:12:24 AM

Di Atribe: You don't sign up for Obamacare. You shop for affordable health care under the new PPACA law that says the insurance companies can't be dicks to you any more.


Unless your income is within 138% of the poverty line (and Howard is pretty aggressive about giving scholarships the people who might not be able to afford college). In that case, Obamacare expands Medicaid, and it is free. They do need to enroll (sign up). And this is a very good thing - if you're too poor to afford healthcare, you should still have healthcare. It's in all our best interests to stop making people wait until they are so sick that the emergency room becomes their first medical intervention.
 
2013-12-08 01:33:11 AM

m00: Gyrfalcon: The "Libertarians" would like it better if people either paid for themselves or died (preferably swiftly and silently and then buried themselves in an inconspicuous ditch)...

Is your source for this other non-Libertarians who happen to dislike Libertarians? I don't mean to pick on you, but I get annoyed when Conservatives say "Liberals would like it if X" and when Liberals say "Conservatives would like it if X" when X is some completely outrageous thing that happens to bolster the ad hominem the poster is currently making.


People do die from lack of healthcare, and libertarians are fundamentally opposed to changing that, so yes Gyrfalcon is correct.
 
m00
2013-12-08 01:56:02 AM

evil saltine: People do die from lack of healthcare, and libertarians are fundamentally opposed to changing that, so yes Gyrfalcon is correct.


"People die from a lack of self-defense, and liberals are fundamentally opposed to self-defense, so therefore 'liberals' would like it better if people died"

See how that works?
 
2013-12-08 02:16:52 AM

evil saltine: m00: Gyrfalcon: The "Libertarians" would like it better if people either paid for themselves or died (preferably swiftly and silently and then buried themselves in an inconspicuous ditch)...

Is your source for this other non-Libertarians who happen to dislike Libertarians? I don't mean to pick on you, but I get annoyed when Conservatives say "Liberals would like it if X" and when Liberals say "Conservatives would like it if X" when X is some completely outrageous thing that happens to bolster the ad hominem the poster is currently making.

People do die from lack of healthcare, and libertarians are fundamentally opposed to changing that, so yes Gyrfalcon is correct.


That statement is about as accurate as accusations that Democrats favor death panels (i.e. It isn't).  But it is certainly easier to create and attack a straw man than to engage in any actual research or discourse.

If you want to know what libertarians think, you could try asking an actual libertarian.  Or you could use google for a bit.  Most plans I've seen from libertarians involve decoupling insurance from employment, replacing the employer tax breaks with tax breaks for individuals, expanding the role of HSAs, providing universal (or near universal) major medical coverage with a high deductible (aka catastophic insurance) through a system of tax incentives, tax penalties, and subsidies, (similar to the ACA, but only for major medical care), allowing plans to be sold across state lines, ensuring individual ownership of plans, and creating some form of guaranteed renewal (as opposed to the guaranteed issue of the ACA).

Here is one broad outline from CATO that is similar to what I have described, but there are others:

The most effective plan for most people to cover health care costs probably would include the following elements:
(A) A major medical insurance policy for catastrophic expenses
(B) A high deductible to minimize insurance premiums
(C) A tax-advantaged health savings account built up with regular contributions to cover medical expenses below the deductible
(D) A guaranteed-renewable (sometimes referred to as non-cancellable) feature that means the insurer will continue covering a policyholder regardless of medical conditions, as long as premiums are paid on time
(E) A health-status feature to protect against the risk that future premiums might rise significantly if a policyholder develops medical conditions involving higher medical expenses
Health-status insurance is a relatively new idea, and the best explanation of it is by John H. Cochrane, a finance professor at the University of Chicago's Booth School of Business, a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
(F) All insurance policies should be owned by the insured, not their employers or anyone else. This means wherever one might move, the insurance policies will follow. Similarly, divorce won't result in the loss of health insurance.
(G) Each health insurance owner should receive a standard deduction for health insurance premiums on his or her federal income tax return.


Why only a mandate/incentive for major medical and emergency care? Because that's the biggest area covered by health insurance that fits the economic definition of a "public good" insofar as it's non-excludable (modern society will not tolerate people dying outside a hospital simply because they cannot pay) and non-rival (the U.S. at least has the ability to provide as much major medical care as is needed).  The rest of the system (preventative care, routine doctor visits, etc) aren't public goods and there's no reason to think that market forces won't work there.
 
2013-12-08 02:20:58 AM

sammyk: Wouldn't the typical college student be on their parents plan until they are 26 or get their own damn job? If that's not the case because your parents are dead, strung out on meth or whatever you are probably going to get the subsidies that make it free.

Now that the website issues are getting resolved the right is getting really desperate for talking points. I don't think this is going to be the midterm election issue they were hoping for. In fact any political capitol they may have gained in the last month or 2 is going to get thrown away next month when they shut the government down again.

Please proceed teatards


There were actually students that mentioned this in the video (and bad subby for linking to a site with an autoplay video), which is actually part of the Affordable Care Act.  I think it used to be generally 19 if you did not go to college or 23 if you were a college student unless you were considered disabled to the point that you couldn't take care of yourself.
 
Displayed 50 of 179 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report