Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(MSNBC)   Democrats offer several suggestions to improve the 'Sue Obama' bill in the House. All were voted down   (msnbc.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

2308 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Jul 2014 at 11:13 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2014-07-25 04:56:07 AM  
Wow.  I don't understand how republicans can be so transparently hypocritical and voters not calling them out on it.
 
2014-07-25 07:32:09 AM  
They really don't like Obama for a wide variety of reasons. That's their secret.
 
2014-07-25 08:32:34 AM  
You're wrong, subby. None of the amendments mentioned in the article would improve the bill. In fact, they all would make the lawsuit less likely to tar President Obama as a lawless tyrant and more likely to paint Congress as going through their terrible twos; that's the opposite of the desired outcome of the suit! Why do you want Obama to keep being a lawless tyrant, subby?!
 
2014-07-25 09:56:11 AM  
House passes it, Senate doesn't even consider it.  Just like almost every bill in the last 6 years.
 
2014-07-25 10:11:21 AM  

James!: House passes it, Senate doesn't even consider it.  Just like almost every bill in the last 6 years.


It's not a bill, it's a resolution. The House is doing this all on their own.
 
2014-07-25 10:16:02 AM  

Destructor: James!: House passes it, Senate doesn't even consider it.  Just like almost every bill in the last 6 years.

It's not a bill, it's a resolution. The House is doing this all on their own.


what's the end game?  make House Republicans look like vindictive douchbags?
 
2014-07-25 10:18:27 AM  

ManateeGag: Destructor: James!: House passes it, Senate doesn't even consider it.  Just like almost every bill in the last 6 years.

It's not a bill, it's a resolution. The House is doing this all on their own.

what's the end game?  make House Republicans look like vindictive douchbags?


No one knows, but we know it'll cost an indeterminate amount of money for an indeterminate goal besides making Obama look bad, and that we'll be paying for this grandstanding with our tax dollars and have no right to see who's cashing the checks.
 
2014-07-25 10:19:44 AM  

ManateeGag: Destructor: James!: House passes it, Senate doesn't even consider it.  Just like almost every bill in the last 6 years.

It's not a bill, it's a resolution. The House is doing this all on their own.

what's the end game?  make House Republicans look like vindictive douchbags?


To appease the Tea Baggers so that they don't try to impeach Obama right before the election.
 
2014-07-25 10:22:27 AM  

Destructor: James!: House passes it, Senate doesn't even consider it.  Just like almost every bill in the last 6 years.

It's not a bill, it's a resolution. The House is doing this all on their own.


So even less chance of meaning anything than I thought.
 
2014-07-25 10:54:41 AM  
That's some excellent trolling from the Dems.

Hopefully there's some excellent soundbites from the Republicans that we'll be seeing this election season.
 
2014-07-25 10:56:01 AM  

James!: Destructor: James!: House passes it, Senate doesn't even consider it.  Just like almost every bill in the last 6 years.

It's not a bill, it's a resolution. The House is doing this all on their own.

So even less chance of meaning anything than I thought.


if they're going full autist and trying to justify it through powers of impeachment, then it makes sense to not go to the senate. house impeaches, senate tries the impeachment. and by going through the courts instead of the senate (and suing instead of impeaching) they avoid the obvious slapdown

but i really have no farking idea how they expect to be able to sue the president
 
2014-07-25 11:05:38 AM  

sprawl15: James!: Destructor: James!: House passes it, Senate doesn't even consider it.  Just like almost every bill in the last 6 years.

It's not a bill, it's a resolution. The House is doing this all on their own.

So even less chance of meaning anything than I thought.

if they're going full autist and trying to justify it through powers of impeachment, then it makes sense to not go to the senate. house impeaches, senate tries the impeachment. and by going through the courts instead of the senate (and suing instead of impeaching) they avoid the obvious slapdown

but i really have no farking idea how they expect to be able to sue the president


Gumption, bootstraps and jesus.
 
2014-07-25 11:17:35 AM  

Mentat: ManateeGag: Destructor: James!: House passes it, Senate doesn't even consider it.  Just like almost every bill in the last 6 years.
It's not a bill, it's a resolution. The House is doing this all on their own.
what's the end game?  make House Republicans look like vindictive douchbags?

To appease the Tea Baggers so that they don't try to impeach Obama right before the election.


Right. The articles of impeachment will get filed when the new session starts in January.
 
2014-07-25 11:17:55 AM  

Ambivalence: Wow.  I don't understand how republicans can be so transparently hypocritical and voters not calling them out on it.


why do the Clubs still play baseball and have fans, because it is their team and that is all that matters.
 
2014-07-25 11:18:55 AM  
The ACA is the worst law evar, and if B. Hussein Osama cuts you any slack with regard to it, he's a tyrant.
 
2014-07-25 11:19:23 AM  

Ambivalence: Wow.  I don't understand how republicans can be so transparently hypocritical and voters not calling them out on it.


abortion
commies
brown people
liberals
socialists
guns guns guns guns
dont want to pay taxes for nothin
I built everything myself.
dems gave up running viable candidates
gerrymandering

/do you need more?
 
2014-07-25 11:19:40 AM  

Serious Black: You're wrong, subby. None of the amendments mentioned in the article would improve the bill. In fact, they all would make the lawsuit less likely to tar President Obama as a lawless tyrant and more likely to paint Congress as going through their terrible twos; that's the opposite of the desired outcome of the suit! Why do you want Obama to keep being a lawless tyrant, subby?!


3/10.  -2 points for spelling Obama's name correctly, -2 for referring to him correctly as the President.
 
2014-07-25 11:20:06 AM  

Serious Black: You're wrong, subby. None of the amendments mentioned in the article would improve the bill. In fact, they all would make the lawsuit less likely to tar President Obama as a lawless tyrant and more likely to paint Congress as going through their terrible twos; that's the opposite of the desired outcome of the suit! Why do you want Obama to keep being a lawless tyrant, subby?!


Okay, what planet would you have to be living on to believe that this lawsuit will be anything but an abject disaster for the republican party?
 
2014-07-25 11:20:22 AM  

Bloody William: ManateeGag: Destructor: James!: House passes it, Senate doesn't even consider it.  Just like almost every bill in the last 6 years.

It's not a bill, it's a resolution. The House is doing this all on their own.

what's the end game?  make House Republicans look like vindictive douchbags?

No one knows, but we know it'll cost an indeterminate amount of money for an indeterminate goal besides making Obama look bad, and that we'll be paying for this grandstanding with our tax dollars and have no right to see who's cashing the checks.


AND it's totally ok to use taxpayer money to hire outside legal counsel who may or may not have lobbied you in the past.
 
2014-07-25 11:20:56 AM  

Bloody William: ManateeGag: Destructor: James!: House passes it, Senate doesn't even consider it.  Just like almost every bill in the last 6 years.

It's not a bill, it's a resolution. The House is doing this all on their own.

what's the end game?  make House Republicans look like vindictive douchbags?

No one knows, but we know it'll cost an indeterminate amount of money for an indeterminate goal besides making Obama look bad, and that we'll be paying for this grandstanding with our tax dollars and have no right to see who's cashing the checks.


So pretty much like the two wars and everything else that the GOP does?
To make money for their friends and donors?
 
2014-07-25 11:21:17 AM  

Ambivalence: Wow.  I don't understand how republicans can be so transparently hypocritical and voters not calling them out on it.


Generally speaking, doing what the house republicans ask for should be criminal.
 
2014-07-25 11:22:06 AM  

sprawl15: James!: Destructor: James!: House passes it, Senate doesn't even consider it.  Just like almost every bill in the last 6 years.

It's not a bill, it's a resolution. The House is doing this all on their own.

So even less chance of meaning anything than I thought.

if they're going full autist and trying to justify it through powers of impeachment, then it makes sense to not go to the senate. house impeaches, senate tries the impeachment. and by going through the courts instead of the senate (and suing instead of impeaching) they avoid the obvious slapdown

but i really have no farking idea how they expect to be able to sue the president


5-4
 
2014-07-25 11:23:52 AM  

Bloody William: ManateeGag: Destructor: James!: House passes it, Senate doesn't even consider it.  Just like almost every bill in the last 6 years.

It's not a bill, it's a resolution. The House is doing this all on their own.

what's the end game?  make House Republicans look like vindictive douchbags?

No one knows, but we know it'll cost an indeterminate amount of money for an indeterminate goal besides making Obama look bad, and that we'll be paying for this grandstanding with our tax dollars and have no right to see who's cashing the checks.


into only will tax payer dollars will go to pay for this horsehokey, these same fiscal conservatives will use ion ads to hit up tax players for more campaign contributions, so people will be double billed for one service.
 
2014-07-25 11:23:52 AM  
I just had a caller say it's Obama's fault the economy is so bad. He also threw in Pelosi and Reid as factors.

He also needed money "to get through the next two weeks".

People don't understand why they're doing so bad other than OBAMA BAD and Republicans today wouldn't have it any other way.
 
2014-07-25 11:25:20 AM  
The Democratic emails about the lawsuit are all about 'Sign this!'  or 'Donate now!' to stop this pointless lawsuit.  My question is, why?  It's not doing diddly squat.  You don't need my help with this self-defeating garbage.

The suggested amendments just seem to show how Republicans can't agree with Democrats on anything, and would shoot down an amendment about puppies being cute.

/Subby here, glad to break my greenlight dry spell.
 
2014-07-25 11:27:56 AM  

wooden_badger: sprawl15: James!: Destructor: James!: House passes it, Senate doesn't even consider it.  Just like almost every bill in the last 6 years.

It's not a bill, it's a resolution. The House is doing this all on their own.

So even less chance of meaning anything than I thought.

if they're going full autist and trying to justify it through powers of impeachment, then it makes sense to not go to the senate. house impeaches, senate tries the impeachment. and by going through the courts instead of the senate (and suing instead of impeaching) they avoid the obvious slapdown

but i really have no farking idea how they expect to be able to sue the president

5-4


i mean more what method, standing, claims, whatever

just a regular person suing because they don't like obama would get thrown out on its face, the actual legislative body with power to pass laws to prevent obama from doing what they don't like him doing has even less grounds than some random cletus
 
2014-07-25 11:28:23 AM  

Alphax: The Democratic emails about the lawsuit are all about 'Sign this!'  or 'Donate now!' to stop this pointless lawsuit.  My question is, why?  It's not doing diddly squat.  You don't need my help with this self-defeating garbage.

The suggested amendments just seem to show how Republicans can't agree with Democrats on anything, and would shoot down an amendment about puppies being cute.

/Subby here, glad to break my greenlight dry spell.


they are asking for money because both side are morally bankrupt at this point and citizen's united and their advisors tell them they need money, money, money and only more money if they want to win an election. Ignore that Eric Cantor lost because he took his constituents for granted, really he just needed more money.
 
2014-07-25 11:29:29 AM  

Ambivalence: Wow.  I don't understand how republicans can be so transparently hypocritical and voters not calling them out on it.


Sadly,

warosu.org

Had their chance in 2010 and many Democrats couldn't be arsed to do so, then complained when the Tea Party did their vile things.

The chances of that trend repeating in 2014 are high, sadly.
 
2014-07-25 11:30:08 AM  

wooden_badger: sprawl15: James!: Destructor: James!: House passes it, Senate doesn't even consider it.  Just like almost every bill in the last 6 years.

It's not a bill, it's a resolution. The House is doing this all on their own.

So even less chance of meaning anything than I thought.

if they're going full autist and trying to justify it through powers of impeachment, then it makes sense to not go to the senate. house impeaches, senate tries the impeachment. and by going through the courts instead of the senate (and suing instead of impeaching) they avoid the obvious slapdown

but i really have no farking idea how they expect to be able to sue the president

5-4


Nah, SCOTUS wouldn't rule in favor of the GOP here.  Unlike the GOP in congress, SCOTUS's conservatives are capable of thinking ahead.  What the House republicans are suing over would massively limit the power of the executive branch---for ALL future presidents, regardless of part affiliation.  The SCOTUS won't take away the executive branch's flexibility in implementing laws.

Alphax: The suggested amendments just seem to show how Republicans can't agree with Democrats on anything, and would shoot down an amendment about puppies being cute


If Obama said puppies were cute, some teabagger in Texas would literally shoot a puppy in public within a week.
 
2014-07-25 11:32:18 AM  
Republicans: I've got an idea.  Let's do absolutely nothing and hide under the covers because we are afraid of everything.

Stupider Republicans: I've got a better idea.  Let's do absolutely nothing and complain bitterly about how nothing is getting done.

Teabaggers: We're with you, but let's chop off our arms and legs, because that's what our imagined founders would do.
 
2014-07-25 11:34:22 AM  

HMS_Blinkin: wooden_badger: sprawl15: James!: Destructor: James!: House passes it, Senate doesn't even consider it.  Just like almost every bill in the last 6 years.

It's not a bill, it's a resolution. The House is doing this all on their own.

So even less chance of meaning anything than I thought.

if they're going full autist and trying to justify it through powers of impeachment, then it makes sense to not go to the senate. house impeaches, senate tries the impeachment. and by going through the courts instead of the senate (and suing instead of impeaching) they avoid the obvious slapdown

but i really have no farking idea how they expect to be able to sue the president

5-4

Nah, SCOTUS wouldn't rule in favor of the GOP here.  Unlike the GOP in congress, SCOTUS's conservatives are capable of thinking ahead.  What the House republicans are suing over would massively limit the power of the executive branch---for ALL future presidents, regardless of part affiliation.  The SCOTUS won't take away the executive branch's flexibility in implementing laws.

Alphax: The suggested amendments just seem to show how Republicans can't agree with Democrats on anything, and would shoot down an amendment about puppies being cute

If Obama said puppies were cute, some teabagger in Texas would literally shoot a puppy in public within a week.


I don't know, a lot of the rulings seemed to be really short sighted and based on at longest their lifetimes.
 
2014-07-25 11:36:24 AM  
Fox News: Democrats Attempt to derail Obama Lawsuit
 
2014-07-25 11:42:13 AM  
Remember the day before yesterday, when the DC Circuit "gutted" the law by deciding that "state" meant "state," so that every state that didn't set up an exchange didn't get subsidies?

Remember how all of the FarkProgs were saying how Obamacare was intended to pay subsidies to everyone, that limiting the subsidies only to state-exchanges was a typo, a scrivener's error?

Remember how everyone, including the Obama Administration, was saying how silly, absurd and ridiculous it was to even argue that the plain text of the law disallows subsidies to states that don't have exchanges of their own?

Well, Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economist who helped WRITE Obamacare legislation, particularly the part about the individual mandate, openly argued that withholding subsidies from citizens in states that don't have exchanges was a feature not a bug.

Of course, he said that in 2012.

Thus directly contradicting the amicus brief he later filed in federal court, claiming the exact opposite.

I'd like to extend a big middle finger to all the Farkers who appeared in that thread to defend the Obama Administration and its lies.
 
2014-07-25 11:42:33 AM  

James!: House passes it, Senate doesn't even consider it.  Just like almost every bill in the last 6 years.


Don't worry, when the Republicans take the Senate in November this won't be a problem anymore.
 
2014-07-25 11:43:44 AM  

Triple Oak: I just had a caller say it's Obama's fault the economy is so bad. He also threw in Pelosi and Reid Pelosiandreid as factors.


I'm convinced at this point that Repubs think of the two of them as a single entity.
 
2014-07-25 11:45:24 AM  

MBrady: Ambivalence: Wow.  I don't understand how republicans can be so transparently hypocritical and voters not calling them out on it.

was it 13 or 14 times that the republicans asked pelosi to add the entire executive branch, legislative branch, and the judicial branch of government to the aca?

and you know how many times pelosi and the democrats said no?

/because you know that if it's good enough for the American people, it must be good enough for everyone else, amirite?


You realize that the ACA puts the first preference on employers providing insurance? And the exchanges are only intended for those without employers or whose employers don't provide coverage? And even penalizes many companies if they don't provide coverage.

Without any special exemption, all members of the legislative and executive branches would not go through the exchanges because the government would be mandated by law to provide them with insurance.
 
2014-07-25 11:47:12 AM  

Phinn: Remember the day before yesterday, when the DC Circuit "gutted" the law by deciding that "state" meant "state," so that every state that didn't set up an exchange didn't get subsidies?

Remember how all of the FarkProgs were saying how Obamacare was intended to pay subsidies to everyone, that limiting the subsidies only to state-exchanges was a typo, a scrivener's error?

Remember how everyone, including the Obama Administration, was saying how silly, absurd and ridiculous it was to even argue that the plain text of the law disallows subsidies to states that don't have exchanges of their own?

Well, Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economist who helped WRITE Obamacare legislation, particularly the part about the individual mandate, openly argued that withholding subsidies from citizens in states that don't have exchanges was a feature not a bug.

Of course, he said that in 2012.

Thus directly contradicting the amicus brief he later filed in federal court, claiming the exact opposite.

I'd like to extend a big middle finger to all the Farkers who appeared in that thread to defend the Obama Administration and its lies.


Yeah, I don't have time to watch an almost hour long video just so I can point out that you're misrepresenting or misinterpreting what he said. Can you give us a time range of when he says that in the video to make it a little easier on us?
 
2014-07-25 11:47:28 AM  
So, so stupid.  Pick one of those amendments, like the one that the law firm can't lobby Congress, and vote for that.

Then Republicans can sort of claim that the resolution is bipartisan.  When no Democrats vote for it, the Republicans can claim that the Democrats are hypocrites.  "We adopted their amendment and they STILL voted against it."

/Yes, would still be complete bullspit, but at this point, the Republicans have had no ability to portray this as anything other than completely partisan.
 
2014-07-25 11:49:17 AM  

keldaria: Fox News: Democrats Attempt to derail Obama Lawsuit


By tring to make it a more transparent and legitimate.
 
2014-07-25 11:50:43 AM  

MBrady: was it 13 or 14 times that the republicans asked pelosi to add the entire executive branch, legislative branch, and the judicial branch of government to the aca?


You mean like how the Congress doesn't get the health insurance offered to other Federal employees -- they have to use the exchanges?
 
2014-07-25 11:50:55 AM  

ReaverZ: keldaria: Fox News: Democrats Attempt to derail Obama Lawsuit

By tring to make it a more transparent and legitimate.


Hey whoa, what's with all the details? This is Fox News, we're in OBAMA BAD territory and we don't need facts!
 
2014-07-25 11:51:27 AM  

glmorrs1: Phinn: Remember the day before yesterday, when the DC Circuit "gutted" the law by deciding that "state" meant "state," so that every state that didn't set up an exchange didn't get subsidies?

Remember how all of the FarkProgs were saying how Obamacare was intended to pay subsidies to everyone, that limiting the subsidies only to state-exchanges was a typo, a scrivener's error?

Remember how everyone, including the Obama Administration, was saying how silly, absurd and ridiculous it was to even argue that the plain text of the law disallows subsidies to states that don't have exchanges of their own?

Well, Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economist who helped WRITE Obamacare legislation, particularly the part about the individual mandate, openly argued that withholding subsidies from citizens in states that don't have exchanges was a feature not a bug.

Of course, he said that in 2012.

Thus directly contradicting the amicus brief he later filed in federal court, claiming the exact opposite.

I'd like to extend a big middle finger to all the Farkers who appeared in that thread to defend the Obama Administration and its lies.

Yeah, I don't have time to watch an almost hour long video just so I can point out that you're misrepresenting or misinterpreting what he said. Can you give us a time range of when he says that in the video to make it a little easier on us?


The link jumps straight to 31:25, where he gets a question about how the subsidies are paid, what the federal exchange does, and then says:

"What's important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits, but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you're essentially saying [to] your citizens you're going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this."

That's the exact opposite of what the Obama administration claimed was the intent, in federal court.

Excluding subsidies to the people who use the federal exchange was DESIGNED to be "ugly politics."

Not absurd.  Not unintended.  Not a typo.

Ugly.  On purpose.
 
2014-07-25 12:01:33 PM  

Phinn: glmorrs1: Phinn: Remember the day before yesterday, when the DC Circuit "gutted" the law by deciding that "state" meant "state," so that every state that didn't set up an exchange didn't get subsidies?

Remember how all of the FarkProgs were saying how Obamacare was intended to pay subsidies to everyone, that limiting the subsidies only to state-exchanges was a typo, a scrivener's error?

Remember how everyone, including the Obama Administration, was saying how silly, absurd and ridiculous it was to even argue that the plain text of the law disallows subsidies to states that don't have exchanges of their own?

Well, Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economist who helped WRITE Obamacare legislation, particularly the part about the individual mandate, openly argued that withholding subsidies from citizens in states that don't have exchanges was a feature not a bug.

Of course, he said that in 2012.

Thus directly contradicting the amicus brief he later filed in federal court, claiming the exact opposite.

I'd like to extend a big middle finger to all the Farkers who appeared in that thread to defend the Obama Administration and its lies.

Yeah, I don't have time to watch an almost hour long video just so I can point out that you're misrepresenting or misinterpreting what he said. Can you give us a time range of when he says that in the video to make it a little easier on us?

The link jumps straight to 31:25, where he gets a question about how the subsidies are paid, what the federal exchange does, and then says:

"What's important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don't set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits, but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you're essentially saying [to] your citizens you're going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are bill ...


STRANGELY ENOUGH!!
One federal exchange is probably Cheaper and more efficient than 50 state exchanges.
That 
http://obamacarefacts.com/state-health-insurance-exchange.php
WTF, so it is mostly red states that are using the federal exchange?
FARK EMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

sigh
You have to assume that central exchange is better than 50 local.
At what point does insurance become regional and national? Rather than the insane patchwork that we have today?

You have to love that the same people who COMPLAINED about the federal exchange, were in states whose governors refused to create state exchanges because OBAMACARE IS THE DEVIL
 
2014-07-25 12:04:53 PM  

MBrady: Ambivalence: Wow.  I don't understand how republicans can be so transparently hypocritical and voters not calling them out on it.

was it 13 or 14 times that the republicans asked pelosi to add the entire executive branch, legislative branch, and the judicial branch of government to the aca?

and you know how many times pelosi and the democrats said no?

/because you know that if it's good enough for the American people, it must be good enough for everyone else, amirite?


They would have already been under the ACA as citizens. As people who already had insurance through their employer it would have meant squat.
 
2014-07-25 12:05:31 PM  

Phinn: Remember the day before yesterday, when the DC Circuit "gutted" the law by deciding that "state" meant "state," so that every state that didn't set up an exchange didn't get subsidies?

Remember how all of the FarkProgs were saying how Obamacare was intended to pay subsidies to everyone, that limiting the subsidies only to state-exchanges was a typo, a scrivener's error?

Remember how everyone, including the Obama Administration, was saying how silly, absurd and ridiculous it was to even argue that the plain text of the law disallows subsidies to states that don't have exchanges of their own?

Well, Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economist who helped WRITE Obamacare legislation, particularly the part about the individual mandate, openly argued that withholding subsidies from citizens in states that don't have exchanges was a feature not a bug.

Of course, he said that in 2012.

Thus directly contradicting the amicus brief he later filed in federal court, claiming the exact opposite.

I'd like to extend a big middle finger to all the Farkers who appeared in that thread to defend the Obama Administration and its lies.


Let's suppose Jon Gruber is right and that Congress really did want to withhold premium and cost-sharing tax credits from individuals who reside in states that did not establish their own exchanges. Even if a state were to refuse to set up an exchange in this system, insurance companies in those states would not be exempt from new rules about how insurance companies must behave. In particular, they would have to accept all people as beneficiaries and charge all people of the same age the same price for an insurance plan regardless of their health status. We know exactly what happens when a state does this. Their insurance market completely collapses.

For one example (out of eight states that tried virtually identical reforms), Washington passed a law in 1993 mandating that insurers accept all comers and charge all comers the same amount of money, but they did not provide any sort of tax deductions, credits, or what-not to help people buy insurance. As a result, only the sickest people bought insurance. Premiums skyrocketed as insurers tried to keep pace with rampantly increasing costs. Over the following six years, insurance companies fled the state; only 8 of the 39 counties in Washington had any access to individual insurance whatsoever. Those remaining companies threatened to pack up their shiat and go home unless the state repealed those provisions.

In short, if Jon Gruber is right, Congress offered states a choice: either establish an exchange and sell health insurance on our terms, or we will burn your health insurance market to the ground. That is ridiculously coercive, arguably moreso than the Medicaid provision that SCOTUS struck in 2012. How could the courts agree that this is an acceptable choice to offer?
 
2014-07-25 12:05:33 PM  

Ambivalence: Wow.  I don't understand how republicans can be so transparently hypocritical and voters not calling them out on it.


We don't have a media system that makes their transparently hypocritical actions apparent to the voters.
 
2014-07-25 12:06:20 PM  

namatad: STRANGELY ENOUGH!!
One federal exchange is probably Cheaper and more efficient than 50 state exchanges.
That
http://obamacarefacts.com/state-health-insurance-exchange.php
WTF, so it is mostly red states that are using the federal exchange?
FARK EMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

sigh
You have to assume that central exchange is better than 50 local.
At what point does insurance become regional and national? Rather than the insane patchwork that we have today?

You have to love that the same people who COMPLAINED about the federal exchange, were in states whose governors refused to create state exchanges because OBAMACARE IS THE DEVIL


None of that makes the Obama administration's arguments to the federal courts (about how the text of the law was INTENDED to exclude federal exchange customers from getting subsidies) any less of a lie.
 
2014-07-25 12:09:15 PM  
I'm just looking forward to the political ads in September and October, with the Democrats saying, "Look, your Republican representatives in Congress have done everything in their power to strip you of your health insurance. Do you really want to send these guys back to Congress? Because if you do, the attempts to take away your health care will continue."
 
2014-07-25 12:09:25 PM  

Serious Black: Let's suppose Jon Gruber is right


Right about how he wrote the law to do exactly what it says?  Right about the reason he wrote it that way ON PURPOSE was to pressure states, using "ugly" politics, to establish exchanges?

We have to "suppose" that an MIT economist is right about his own explicit intentions?
 
2014-07-25 12:10:21 PM  

clambam: I'm just looking forward to the political ads in September and October, with the Democrats saying, "Look, your Republican representatives in Congress have done everything in their power to strip you of your health insurance. Do you really want to send these guys back to Congress? Because if you do, the attempts to take away your health care will continue."


Oh, I'd go with the "Your Republican representatives in Congress are forcing you to go through a massive, retroactive tax hike in order to strip you of your health insurance" angle instead.
 
Displayed 50 of 169 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report