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.

(CNN)   The Cruz amendment to the healthcare bill is actually smart policy. Here's why   ( cnn.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Cruz plan, Consumer Freedom Option, health plan, Health insurance, health care, Senate health plan, people, health care thanks  
•       •       •

3582 clicks; posted to Politics » on 16 Jul 2017 at 5:49 PM (13 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


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

 
2017-07-16 03:30:31 PM  
Stephen Moore is an economic adviser to Freedom Works and a CNN economic analyst. He served as a senior economic adviser to the Trump campaign. The views expressed are his own.

F*ck off.
 
2017-07-16 03:33:01 PM  
Republicans are finally getting smart on Obamacare. It took one of the savviest Republican senators -- Ted Cruz

[stoppedreadingthere.jpg]
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2017-07-16 03:40:51 PM  

Shostie: Republicans are finally getting smart on Obamacare. It took one of the savviest Republican senators -- Ted Cruz

[stoppedreadingthere.jpg]


Same here.
 
2017-07-16 03:49:54 PM  
Does it ensure more people and cost less? No? Then STFU.
 
2017-07-16 03:55:59 PM  
Does it also allow hospitals to turn away people that get the 'lite' coverage and them them die or go untreated for injury due to insufficient coverage?
Or will the people who are covered simply subsidize that charity with forced higher premiums?
 
2017-07-16 03:56:13 PM  
Oh my god, where to even begin with this bullshiat?  There are so many holes in this boat, it won't ever float, much less sail.
 
2017-07-16 04:00:56 PM  
static4.fjcdn.com
 
2017-07-16 04:14:25 PM  
If it is truly compliant with the requirements, then I guess the question is HOW is it less expensive?

The key to the ACA is that you have coverage. To a minimum degree. If the plan IS 100% compliant, then folks ALREADY have the option under the ACA, which means that this isn't smart, it's redundant. Unless of course, there is a subsection that this amendment references which allows those "less expensive plans" to bypass compliance, which thus allows them to be less expensive.

It's smart, in that it is attempt to gull consumers into taking less coverage, and thus allow insurers to fob off plans onto the market that will cost them less in the long run.
 
2017-07-16 04:49:46 PM  
It took one of the savviest Republican senators -- Ted Cruz of Texas, with an assist from Mike Lee of Utah -- to get the GOP to figure out how to replace Obamacare, reduce premiums, and save money for the government. And all without alienating millions of voters.

img.fark.net
 
2017-07-16 04:57:28 PM  

hubiestubert: If it is truly compliant with the requirements, then I guess the question is HOW is it less expensive?

The key to the ACA is that you have coverage. To a minimum degree. If the plan IS 100% compliant, then folks ALREADY have the option under the ACA, which means that this isn't smart, it's redundant. Unless of course, there is a subsection that this amendment references which allows those "less expensive plans" to bypass compliance, which thus allows them to be less expensive.

It's smart, in that it is attempt to gull consumers into taking less coverage, and thus allow insurers to fob off plans onto the market that will cost them less in the long run.


The plans listed under the "Cruz Amendment" are not ACA compliant, which is why they are cheaper.
 
2017-07-16 05:09:33 PM  
According to the article the genius policy change is to allow folks to buy insurance with reduced coverage. This negates the left's talking point of millions losing their healthcare while staying true to the right's "personal responsibility" and "no free ride" beliefs. This is how we get laws that somehow manage to combine the worst elements of both sides. As I understand it, people still need to buy insurance but they would be able to buy potentially useless insurance. When that ends up being inadequate the tax payers (everyone) ends up holding the bag.

Stepping back a bit, we have four options.

One is nobody gets anything that they can't pay for. We all mostly seem to agree we're not going with this option insofar as anyone can walk into an ER and they have to treat you. They'll get you patched up and back out the door as quickly as possible, but it's something.

The other three options are a matter of who pays for health care in general.

The first is our current messy combination of individuals, insurance companies, hospitals, and the government. This barely works. Glossing over the details, eventually we all end up paying for this through higher costs and taxes.

Secondly the government could pay for health care instead of insurance and individuals (I'm not talking about the government running its own hospitals as it's reportedly terrible at that). Once again we all end up paying for this but it would streamline the whole mess and make it possible to get everyone covered.

Lastly, we could put limits on what the health care industry can charge for goods and services. Instead of the whole nation funneling increasingly vast sums of money to Big Pharma and others, we could impose some limits. They should certainly continue to make loads of money for life saving innovations, products and services. The current limitless growth of health care costs is not sustainable no matter who pays for it.

Once the cost issue is fixed the conversation about which mechanism to use to pay for it (taxes or insurance) gets a little easier to have.
 
2017-07-16 05:10:15 PM  

Ethertap: hubiestubert: If it is truly compliant with the requirements, then I guess the question is HOW is it less expensive?

The key to the ACA is that you have coverage. To a minimum degree. If the plan IS 100% compliant, then folks ALREADY have the option under the ACA, which means that this isn't smart, it's redundant. Unless of course, there is a subsection that this amendment references which allows those "less expensive plans" to bypass compliance, which thus allows them to be less expensive.

It's smart, in that it is attempt to gull consumers into taking less coverage, and thus allow insurers to fob off plans onto the market that will cost them less in the long run.

The plans listed under the "Cruz Amendment" are not ACA compliant, which is why they are cheaper.


So people who need more health care will have to pay for the ACA compliant plans which will now cost more.  The people who don't think they need health care will pay less until they are f$cked over when they need.  Amendment simultaneous contravenes the concept of insurance while f$cking over both groups of subscribers.
 
2017-07-16 05:14:39 PM  
FreedomWorks is a conservative and libertarian advocacy group based in Washington D.C.United States. FreedomWorks trains volunteers, assists in campaigns, and encourages them to mobilize, interacting with both fellow citizens and their political representatives. It is widely associated with the Tea Party movement.
 
2017-07-16 05:26:46 PM  

mrshowrules: Ethertap: hubiestubert: If it is truly compliant with the requirements, then I guess the question is HOW is it less expensive?

The key to the ACA is that you have coverage. To a minimum degree. If the plan IS 100% compliant, then folks ALREADY have the option under the ACA, which means that this isn't smart, it's redundant. Unless of course, there is a subsection that this amendment references which allows those "less expensive plans" to bypass compliance, which thus allows them to be less expensive.

It's smart, in that it is attempt to gull consumers into taking less coverage, and thus allow insurers to fob off plans onto the market that will cost them less in the long run.

The plans listed under the "Cruz Amendment" are not ACA compliant, which is why they are cheaper.

So people who need more health care will have to pay for the ACA compliant plans which will now cost more.  The people who don't think they need health care will pay less until they are f$cked over when they need.  Amendment simultaneous contravenes the concept of insurance while f$cking over both groups of subscribers.


This is a feature and not a bug. And Cruz and those who wrote it for him well know this. And our Beamish Boy who wrote this ball of wet and tepid tripe knows full well too...

I mentioned the 100% compliant portion of the show, because our Dear Author wants to assure us that these cheaper plans will be 100% compliant and somehow magically cheaper. Because adults apparently need more magic in their lives.

I suggest that instead of this mess, they just go about moving garden gnomes around folks' property...

img.fark.net
 
2017-07-16 05:47:44 PM  
the left's grand vision of a single-payer government-run health insurance dystopia

Indeed England, Canada, Germany, France and the rest of the advanced world are all smoking hellscapes unsuitable for human habitation.

And you know who else has universal healthcare? Russia. You guys love Russia, right?
 
2017-07-16 05:48:13 PM  
When was the last time that Stephen Moore was right about anything having to do with economics?  Remember when he was a cheerleader for Reaganomics, claiming that cutting federal spending on benefits programs and creating tax cuts would result in "a rising tide that lifts all boats?" That tide was supposed to let Reagan dramatically increase defense spending, reduce the federal debt, while creating more jobs and income for the middle class.  The rich did get their tax cuts and the Pentagon got to cross off quite a few things from their wish list, but unemployment rose, wages stayed stagnant and the federal debt grew rapidly instead of shrinking.

When Bush the Lesser was POTUS, Moore was a cheerleader for them too.  He made the same prediction for those tax cuts- increased revenue and economic that growth would make tax cuts "pay for themselves." According to Moore very economist who predicted a drop in revenues was either too ignorant, or too blinded by partisan bias, to see that Moore's beloved Laffer curve voodoo was right this time!  What actually happened? Moore was wrong again. Revenues didn't grow, the economy didn't boom and the debt didn't shrink.  But the rich did get an even bigger share of the pie and wages stayed stagnant, again. https://www.cbpp.org/research/revenue-collections-in-2005

No need to worry though, Moore had another patent medicine to prescribe for the economy's health up his sleeve: the flat tax.  Even after the Reagan tax cuts and the Bush tax cuts, Moore's patrons were still paying too much in taxes.  Fairness to Moore meant taking 17% of the income that for the poor and working classes spend on necessities is equal to taking 17% out of the income the wealthiest Americans spend on luxuries... because reasons. Moore prescribed abolishing capital gains taxes and the federal estate tax to increase investment by businesses that would create that promised boom in the economy whose benefits would trickle down to the middle class and the poor, too. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/09/06/tax-code

Republicans in Congress effectively eliminated the federal estate tax, and drastically reduced it for several years prior.  Revenues dropped, and wages stayed stagnant when adjusted for inflation.  It sure takes a long time for that money to trickle down to the middle class and poor. I guess it must have taken a wrong turn at Albuquerque

So here we are in 2017, and Stephen Moore is still predicting yuuuuuge economic growth from tax cuts for the rich and shifting costs onto the middle class and poor as part of Trump's plan to Make America Great Again and it would be very helpful if you poors would just shut up and buy shiatty faux insurance plans and accept Granny losing the Medicaid that pays for her nursing home care now that she's spent all of your inheritance paying for it up until recently.

So remember whenever you see this your screen
img.fark.net

you should think this
img.fark.net
 
2017-07-16 05:50:18 PM  
FTFA: Why contaminate a functioning insurance market for 300 million people, to give coverage to 1.5 million?

They bought their Type-1 diabetes, they knew what they were getting into!  I say let 'em die!
 
2017-07-16 05:50:54 PM  
People will have the ability to pay more for lesser coverage.  Or the ability to pay not as much but still more for essentially zero coverage.

Until they need coverage and they won't be able to switch plans, even if they could afford it.

It's not smart, and it barely meets the definition of policy.
 
2017-07-16 05:52:48 PM  

swaniefrmreddeer: Stephen Moore is an economic adviser to Freedom Works and a CNN economic analyst. He served as a senior economic adviser to the Trump campaign. The views expressed are his own.

F*ck off.


He's also affiliated with FreedomWorks, which helped foster the Tea Party movement amongst other things.


So, double F*CK OFF! to him.
 
2017-07-16 05:53:35 PM  
Man, there's a lot of bullshiat in that article.  Let's examine:

FTFA: They want slimmed-down coverage that protects them from major medical expenses -- a bad injury like breaking a leg, or a serious disease with costly ongoing treatments. These families may voluntarily choose to pay for more routine medical expenses, like a checkup or a visit to the dentist's office, out of pocket. One benefit is that since more people will pay directly for medical services, they are likely to shop around for the best price, and this competition will lower prices for everyone.

Assuming these 'slimmed down' plans are going to mostly take the form of the old 'HDHP or high deductible health plans' where the first $10,000 or more comes right out of the policy holder's pocket, he's really over-selling the benefits here.  How much does it cost to cast a broken leg?  How much is the cost of medicine for many serious diseases?  Even if you have a condition that requires, let's say $1,000/month in medication, this isn't going to help you until November if you start treatment in January.  If you break a bone there's a chance you'll be paying entirely out of pocket.  An unplanned $5,000 medical bill would be absolutely devastating to many people, including the low-income families and younger workers who cheaper plans would purportedly help.

Going beyond that, my questions about how much various treatments cost are salient because it's damn near impossible to actually comparison shop for medical care.  The vast majority of medical service providers don't provide clear price lists for services, the actual negotiated cost (before insurance steps in) of those services can vary wildly based on which health insurer you have, and many medical treatments involve a variety of services each with their own cost - it's not like you get a bill for 'Repair broken leg - $5,240' you get a pile of bills from the emergency room, the greater hospital, each individual doctor who may have seen you, one for any medicines they gave you, another for the cast, ones for each test, x-ray, lab, etc, that they run, and another when you go in to have it taken off plus for more tests.

So, to effectively comparison shop you'd need to find a way to call a number of medical providers and talk them into talking prices, which most aren't going to do before they see you and start charging you, find out what tests/imaging services they're going to run, which they may not be able to tell you before they see you, find out how much each individual medical professional you see is going to charge you, which they may not know until they see you and see who's available, and then assuming you could actually get all of that information you'd have to add in all of the various costs from all of the places you called and do a detailed comparison, none of which you're going to farking do while you're writing in pain with a damn broken leg!

Ahem...

FTFA:  In other words, the Cruz amendment is pro-choice -- which I thought was one of the anthems of liberalism. Cruz told me that he believes that based on the preliminary numbers that this approach could save tens of millions of Americans as much as 30% on their health costs. That's thousands of dollars of savings per family.

I sort of want to slap him for that snide 'pro-choice' comment, but moving on...  How is this going to save on health costs exactly?  I suppose it could save money in the event you never actually use your health insurance, but that's a problem, because as someone who's been stuck with an HDHP in the past (because it was all a previous employer (Pre-ACA) offered) I know that I always avoided going to the doctor because I knew everything was coming out of pocket.  Because of that I'd suffer miserably for a week with bronchitis and pneumonia before finally breaking down and going in when I just couldn't effectively work or sleep any more.  Even taking the cost of my lost productivity during those times out of the equation (which wasn't insignificant) it costs more to treat medical problems if you wait for them to get worse hoping they'll just get better on their own, and that's the behavior that these plans encourage.

FTFA: My advice for the Republicans is to start running national TV and radio ads right now with a Geico-type message. A mother is smiling as she pays the bills at the kitchen table and declares: "Hey, I just saved $5,000 on my health care thanks to Senator Cruz."

You really are a twat.

FTFA: To the left, the Cruz plan is like a cross in front of a vampire. They complain that this will destabilize the market "and [turn] the marketplaces into high-risk pools," as Larry Levitt, senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, has put it. Insurance companies are claimingthat the sick and those with pre-existing conditions will have to pay more.

That's partly true, but it's not the whole story. Cruz provides billions of dollars of subsidies for people who have pre-existing conditions and high medical costs.


Would that be the same pool of money that's recently been discovered as having been ear-marked for a variety of different purposes?  What happens when that pool of money, which is supposed to help lower premiums, help lower deductibles, help lower costs for those with pre-existing conditions, help ease the pain of those being kicked off of Medicaid, etc, runs out?

FTFA: The left prefers a system where people who want Cadillac coverage for contraceptives, dental care, substance abuse problems, etc., should be subsidized through higher premiums paid for by people who don't want that coverage. How is that fair?

How are any of those things 'Cadillac Care'?  Does this asshat not realize that offering low or no cost contraception and substance abuse treatment actually saves a ton of money vs the societal (and later medical) costs of not doing so?

FTFA: Another virtue of the Cruz plan is that if people can save money on their medical insurance by living healthier lifestyles -- by exercising, stopping smoking or doing drugs, getting enough sleep, taking vitamins, watching their weight, having the right diet with less sugar -- they will be rewarded with plans that offer lower premiums. This will incentivize wellness behavior, which will dramatically lower health care costs over time.

How does it do this exactly?  Are there defined discounts for certain behaviors?  How would those things be verified?  Am I going to have to wear a sleep tracker, go for random piss tests, allow my insurance company to see copies of my grocery receipts?  Yay freedom!

FTFA: The left wants everyone in the same insurance boat. No choice. No competition in plans.

What the left wants is everyone to be covered at an affordable cost for all medical needs.  The ACA may not do that as effectively as it could, but the solution isn't the creation of even crappier plans, it's doing away with the for-profit model of health insurance altogether and moving to a universal single payer system where the government can reduce costs of treatment by dictating costs directly to providers.
 
2017-07-16 05:55:09 PM  
p.fod4.com
 
2017-07-16 05:57:18 PM  
...as foreseen.
Ted Cruz Saves America by ColoringBook.com Ted Cruz to the Future
Youtube zY-kHFX6KWM
 
2017-07-16 05:57:25 PM  
Steven Moore has been selling shiat for, like, 3 or 4 decades. He's never been right. Ever
He's a Farking Moran
 
2017-07-16 05:58:59 PM  

DrD'isInfotainment: Steven Moore has been selling shiat for, like, 3 or 4 decades. He's never been right. Ever
He's a Farking Moran


How shiatty do you have to be to be the #1 go-to punching bag on Bill Maher's show?
 
2017-07-16 05:59:04 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2017-07-16 05:59:45 PM  
subtard sounds like a strong rugged bootstrappy individualist.

/JK
 
2017-07-16 06:02:42 PM  
CNN:
Stop trying to broaden your appeal by employing these right wing cocksuckers.  Right wingers are never going to start watching you; they hate you more and more every year and they're eventually going to start murdering your corespondents while the President cheers it on.
 
2017-07-16 06:04:52 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Man, there's a lot of bullshiat in that article.  Let's examine:

FTFA: They want slimmed-down coverage that protects them from major medical expenses -- a bad injury like breaking a leg, or a serious disease with costly ongoing treatments. These families may voluntarily choose to pay for more routine medical expenses, like a checkup or a visit to the dentist's office, out of pocket. One benefit is that since more people will pay directly for medical services, they are likely to shop around for the best price, and this competition will lower prices for everyone.

Assuming these 'slimmed down' plans are going to mostly take the form of the old 'HDHP or high deductible health plans' where the first $10,000 or more comes right out of the policy holder's pocket, he's really over-selling the benefits here.  How much does it cost to cast a broken leg?  How much is the cost of medicine for many serious diseases?  Even if you have a condition that requires, let's say $1,000/month in medication, this isn't going to help you until November if you start treatment in January.  If you break a bone there's a chance you'll be paying entirely out of pocket.  An unplanned $5,000 medical bill would be absolutely devastating to many people, including the low-income families and younger workers who cheaper plans would purportedly help.

Going beyond that, my questions about how much various treatments cost are salient because it's damn near impossible to actually comparison shop for medical care.  The vast majority of medical service providers don't provide clear price lists for services, the actual negotiated cost (before insurance steps in) of those services can vary wildly based on which health insurer you have, and many medical treatments involve a variety of services each with their own cost - it's not like you get a bill for 'Repair broken leg - $5,240' you get a pile of bills from the emergency room, the greater hospital, each individual doctor who may have seen you, one for any medicines they gave you, another for the cast, ones for each test, x-ray, lab, etc, that they run, and another when you go in to have it taken off plus for more tests.

So, to effectively comparison shop you'd need to find a way to call a number of medical providers and talk them into talking prices, which most aren't going to do before they see you and start charging you, find out what tests/imaging services they're going to run, which they may not be able to tell you before they see you, find out how much each individual medical professional you see is going to charge you, which they may not know until they see you and see who's available, and then assuming you could actually get all of that information you'd have to add in all of the various costs from all of the places you called and do a detailed comparison, none of which you're going to farking do while you're writing in pain with a damn broken leg!

Ahem...

FTFA:  In other words, the Cruz amendment is pro-choice -- which I thought was one of the anthems of liberalism. Cruz told me that he believes that based on the preliminary numbers that this approach could save tens of millions of Americans as much as 30% on their health costs. That's thousands of dollars of savings per family.

I sort of want to slap him for that snide 'pro-choice' comment, but moving on...  How is this going to save on health costs exactly?  I suppose it could save money in the event you never actually use your health insurance, but that's a problem, because as someone who's been stuck with an HDHP in the past (because it was all a previous employer (Pre-ACA) offered) I know that I always avoided going to the doctor because I knew everything was coming out of pocket.  Because of that I'd suffer miserably for a week with bronchitis and pneumonia before finally breaking down and going in when I just couldn't effectively work or sleep any more.  Even taking the cost of my lost productivity during those times out of the equation (which wasn't insignificant) it costs more to treat medical problems if you wait for them to get worse hoping they'll just get better on their own, and that's the behavior that these plans encourage.

FTFA: My advice for the Republicans is to start running national TV and radio ads right now with a Geico-type message. A mother is smiling as she pays the bills at the kitchen table and declares: "Hey, I just saved $5,000 on my health care thanks to Senator Cruz."

You really are a twat.

FTFA: To the left, the Cruz plan is like a cross in front of a vampire. They complain that this will destabilize the market "and [turn] the marketplaces into high-risk pools," as Larry Levitt, senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, has put it. Insurance companies are claimingthat the sick and those with pre-existing conditions will have to pay more.

That's partly true, but it's not the whole story. Cruz provides billions of dollars of subsidies for people who have pre-existing conditions and high medical costs.

Would that be the same pool of money that's recently been discovered as having been ear-marked for a variety of different purposes?  What happens when that pool of money, which is supposed to help lower premiums, help lower deductibles, help lower costs for those with pre-existing conditions, help ease the pain of those being kicked off of Medicaid, etc, runs out?

FTFA: The left prefers a system where people who want Cadillac coverage for contraceptives, dental care, substance abuse problems, etc., should be subsidized through higher premiums paid for by people who don't want that coverage. How is that fair?

How are any of those things 'Cadillac Care'?  Does this asshat not realize that offering low or no cost contraception and substance abuse treatment actually saves a ton of money vs the societal (and later medical) costs of not doing so?

FTFA: Another virtue of the Cruz plan is that if people can save money on their medical insurance by living healthier lifestyles -- by exercising, stopping smoking or doing drugs, getting enough sleep, taking vitamins, watching their weight, having the right diet with less sugar -- they will be rewarded with plans that offer lower premiums. This will incentivize wellness behavior, which will dramatically lower health care costs over time.

How does it do this exactly?  Are there defined discounts for certain behaviors?  How would those things be verified?  Am I going to have to wear a sleep tracker, go for random piss tests, allow my insurance company to see copies of my grocery receipts?  Yay freedom!

FTFA: The left wants everyone in the same insurance boat. No choice. No competition in plans.

What the left wants is everyone to be covered at an affordable cost for all medical needs.  The ACA may not do that as effectively as it could, but the solution isn't the creation of even crappier plans, it's doing away with the for-profit model of health insurance altogether and moving to a universal single payer system where the government can reduce costs of treatment by dictating costs directly to providers.


I think I love you.
 
2017-07-16 06:05:36 PM  
There are two things that improve healthcare:
1. expansion of coverage
2. reduction in costs without shrinking coverage.

That is pretty much it. There is some tiny window of value to be found in shrinking coverage in a small manner but significantly changing the costs, but that isn't at all what is going on with a Cruz plan to allow insurance companies to sell garbage insurance.

Fortunately for us, we don't really have to reinvent this wheel, as dozens of other countries are doing rather well.

Unfortunately for us, our country is full of stupid, selfish, and/or apathetic people, so we will likely remain behind the world for the rest of my life.  Oh well, I've got mine, so good luck everybody else.
 
2017-07-16 06:06:26 PM  

EyeballKid: [p.fod4.com image 500x278]


Wow. Elijiah Wood has really let himself go...
 
2017-07-16 06:06:31 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: CNN:
Stop trying to broaden your appeal by employing these right wing cocksuckers.  Right wingers are never going to start watching you; they hate you more and more every year and they're eventually going to start murdering your corespondents while the President cheers it on.


But they have to tell both sides of every story, equal time for different views!
 
2017-07-16 06:06:54 PM  

swaniefrmreddeer: Stephen Moore is an economic adviser to Freedom Works and a CNN economic analyst. He served as a senior economic adviser to the Trump campaign. The views expressed are his own.

F*ck off.


It's this guy:

In a 2014 Kansas City Star opinion piece entitled "What's the matter with Paul Krugman?" Moore responded to Krugman's opinion piece entitled "Charlatans, Cranks and Kansas."[14][15] In his piece, Moore claimed that job creation had been superior in low-taxation states during the five years following the recession ending June 2009. After substantial factual errors were uncovered in Moore's opinion piece, the Kansas City Star indicated that it would no longer print Moore's work without "thorough factchecking." [16][17][18] Miriam Pepper, editor of the Kansas City Star, decided to stop publication of Moore's work due to inaccurate statements.[19] Jonathan Chait, in his New York magazine column, in response to Moore's February 15, 2015 Washington Times column on Obamacare, stated "Perhaps the most revealing aspect of Moore's column is the fact that, five years after its [Obamacare's] passage, the chief economist of the most influential conservative think tank in the United States [the Heritage Foundation] lacks even a passing familiarity with its [Obamacare's] fiscal objectives".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Moore_(writer)
 
2017-07-16 06:07:09 PM  
Moore founded the Club for Growth in 1999.

Fark him.
 
2017-07-16 06:08:36 PM  

Ambivalence: Does it ensure more people and cost less? No? Then STFU.


Come on now everyone will be covered now- right?

img.fark.net
 
2017-07-16 06:08:44 PM  

EyeballKid: DrD'isInfotainment: Steven Moore has been selling shiat for, like, 3 or 4 decades. He's never been right. Ever
He's a Farking Moran

How shiatty do you have to be to be the #1 go-to punching bag on Bill Maher's show?


I honestly believe that no one really likes him...because his perspective is so odious.
He is a genuine "Useful idiot " to reactionaries like the Koch's or Norquist
 
2017-07-16 06:09:15 PM  
What incredible bullsh*t.  People who believe that we should be able to choose a-la-carte from health coverage don't understand the concept of insurance in the first place.
 
2017-07-16 06:10:09 PM  
I think the only reason they included Cruz's idea is to sway a certain number of hardliners. It's like they know they can't get all repubs to vote for it so they went thru names and figured that this will give them a chance to get a few more on board and forget the rest of the senators. It's politics. However, as politicians usually are, this is very short sighted as it gives more power to Cruz, a senator that is not well liked at all by his fellow party members. It's an all in by republicans who aren't, or just unwilling, to look around the corner.
 
2017-07-16 06:12:51 PM  
That was satire, right? It was totally written in the style of satire, what with calling Ted Cruz smart and the slavish devotion to the inherent virtue of "choice" in health insurance. I bet the author feels really silly for not including some sort of turn to emphasize the absurdity of that position. It was satire, right?
 
2017-07-16 06:12:58 PM  
Because everybody hates Ted Cruz?
 
2017-07-16 06:13:12 PM  

Ambivalence: Does it ensure more people and cost less? No? Then STFU.


It "insures" more people at a lower cost. That "insurance" will be next to useless and will drive up the cost of any legitimate plans.

It is smart politically because it helps cover the asses of everyone on the right:

1) It further undermines Obamacare for the wing nuts.
2) The lower number of uninsured (ignoring the millions that are effectively uninsured) with give the relatively moderate Republicans some plausible deniability so that they can blame the insurance companies during their next election campaign (like the House did to push the blame onto the states).
 
2017-07-16 06:16:51 PM  
GOP health care:

1. Includes all EHBs.
2. Reasonable premiums.
3. Reasonable deductibles.

Pick two.
 
2017-07-16 06:17:34 PM  
I'm not sure how much longer I can stand this. Our country is run by a bunch of chuklefarks that couldn't pass economics 101.

There is a proven blueprint to giving everyone healthcare. Multiple in fact. Tailor it to suit Americas special challenges, and you've made healthcare better. Stop farking around, and do it.

Yes, you are going to piss off a lot of insurance companies. So sorry they won't be able to afford the third yacht this year. Maybe a down quarter or two will help them manage the money a little better.
 
2017-07-16 06:19:38 PM  

Natalie Portmanteau: EyeballKid: [p.fod4.com image 500x278]

Wow. Elijiah Wood has really let himself go...


Like Elijah Wood and Dan Aykroyd had a baby
 
2017-07-16 06:19:43 PM  

Iczer: Because everybody hates Ted Cruz?


His dog loves him?

img.fark.net
And Rafael Edwardo claims god loves him.
img.fark.net
 
2017-07-16 06:20:21 PM  
What a bunch of farking bullshiat. Fark Cruz and fark everyone who defends this shiat.
 
2017-07-16 06:22:01 PM  
 
2017-07-16 06:23:43 PM  
What a tool!  No one wants to pay forinsurance, no one wants to have to use insurance, we have it because we'll need it at some point, no matter what.  He doesn't understand the first thing about how insurance works, the need for a large pool of folks that pay in who are healthy to bring down premiums for everyone insured.  Newsflash, the young and invincible will become the old and sickly, it's just a matter of time.
 
2017-07-16 06:24:34 PM  

Ambivalence: Does it ensure more people and cost less? No? Then STFU.


How is that possible?  That's the kind of thinking that got us in this mess.
 
2017-07-16 06:25:02 PM  
In other words, it empowers people and families to pick and choose what they want in their own insurance package purchase garbage and pretend that it's health insurance.
 
2017-07-16 06:25:05 PM  
GOP Healthcare:

1. You earn over $100,000 per year and have no problem affording healthcare
2. You can't afford healthcare
3. You are in prison.

Pick one.
 
Displayed 50 of 150 comments


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


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  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