INDIVIDUAL MANDATE UPHELD!
As a tax, which Obama desperately tried to say it wasn't during the HC debate two years ago. That'll go wonderfully on the campaign trail.
I really doubt anyone will bring that up as a big point of contention.
are you really celebrating that you get to subsidize health care for old and sick people? holypoppycock you're retarded
U forgot the tons of obese minority scum who are gonna get even more federal money for their diabetes and heart diseases
Republicans who are:
you're gonna need the health care bill to repair all that damage, better start liking it
haha, no really though. i'm glad you're psyched that you're being forced to hand over an increasing amount of your salary to insurers and the poor.
if you're under 26 and gainfully employed, you just got raped by this decision. but i know most liberals prefer to live off handouts so…
Those "minority scum" belong to an exploding demographic that hates Republicans.
So let's get this straight.
Romney's going to get slaughtered by Obama among Hispanics because he a) has no immigration policy, and b) mentioned "self-deportation" as a serious point in the GOP primary debates.
Romney's going to get slaughtered by Obama among blacks because LOL.
Romney's going to lose the Jewish vote; duh.
Romney's going to lose the Asian vote as well; and by a significant margin.
The ads attacking Romney's record at Bain Capital are working.
Romney currently trails Obama in all three key swing states (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida).
Florida has a ton of Hispanics. Their Republican governor (Rick Scott) is massively unpopular. Obama's currently up 45-41, with 9% undecided.
Obama is very popular in Ohio (as is progressive Senator Sherrod Brown, who is running 16 points in front of Josh Mandel). Their Republican governor (John Kasich) is massively unpopular. Obama is up 47-38 in Ohio, up from his 45-44 margin two weeks ago.
Obama is up 45-39 in Pennsylvania. Lots of blue-collar workers here; Obama's having a lot of success with them.
No president has won the election without two of these three states since…1960, I think. I could be wrong.
Add in the fact that Obama is going to snag up some southwestern states (New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada) and that he could, ironically, snatch a state like Arizona if Hispanics turn up in droves (which they very well could, given SB1070 and Obama's recent move on amnesty for young illegal immigrants) and you know it just does not paint a particularly rosy picture for one Willard Romney.
To top that off, the evangelical Christian vote is not fired up about Romney. Many of them are not voting.
From my cousin's megachurch pastor's sermon Sunday: "You have to vote biblically, and the first requirement for voting biblically is: voting for a Christian. Mitt Romney is not a Christian."
It's hard for New England libruls to understand that Southerners are very territorial about their religion, and that many Baptists/Pentecostals - crazy as they may be - do not finger Mormonism as being a Christian religion. They see it as a cult. I see it as the pot calling the kettle black, but whatever. I'm not a Southern Baptist (or at least, I haven't been for quite some time).
Oh and lest we forget to mention, Mitt Romney is going to have to get up on stage in front of a national audience to debate against what might be the most photogenic and dextrous presidential debater of our generation. I'm sure his dithering doublespeak and stiff demeanor will endear the American people to him.
My president is black.
>if you're under 26 and gainfully employed
>implying most people under 26 are employed
>implying most people under 26 aren't on their parents' insurance
>implying most people under 26 make enough money to be adversely affected by this decision
I mean, I'd prefer single-payer myself. But
Single payer >>>>> ACA >>>>>>>>>> status quo
and if you libertarians hate ACA so much, you should have been fighting for single payer.
Also, lest anyone forget, ACA was basically the Republican model for healthcare after the 1994 "Contract with America" that allowed them to recapture the House. So unless you fancy Newt Gingrich and Bill Frist as raging socialists, you'd be better served by helping yourself to a nice hot cup of STFU.
>ACA was basically the Republican model for healthcare after the 1994 "Contract with America"
Doesn't change the fact that it's still a steaming pile of bullshit.
Employed people with health insurance are a slim majority, and get screwed by this, hands down. that isn't up for debate - remove every form of risk and gender ratings and what you have isn't insurance, it's "coverage" with clear winners and losers. A healthy 27 year old making 80k will pay 1/3 the premium of an 85 y/o guy with diabetes/cancer/what have you. Something's terribly wrong with that.
it's a small minority of old people on medicare, people with pre-existing conditions, and those who are below the poverty line who will see any benefit from this.
Also, did you seriously respond to the racist spammer? lol bro
>Mitt Romney is going to have to get up on stage in front of a national audience to debate against what might be the most photogenic and dextrous presidential debater of our generation
So I take it you've never seen Obama try to hack it without his teleprompter lol
THANK GOD it passed
>ACA was basically the Republican model for healthcare after the 1994 "Contract with America"
>Doesn't change the fact that it's still a steaming pile of bullshit.
But what it does do is eliminate any grounds for arguing that it's a socialist/left-wing engineering/communist project. And what, pray tell, would you have us use as an alternative? It's not as if these old sick people and minorities are going to not receive care if this didn't pass. As a society, we've decided that we aren't going to let the uninsured die. It's a decision we've made. Don't like it? Move to Somalia - libertarian paradise! Here in America we've decided we actually give a shit about our poor and infirm. Now the question is - are we going to keep passing these costs along to an ever-shrinking pool of payees, leading to an inevitable insurance death spiral? Or are we going to expand the pool of payers?
I don't think insurance should be a choice. It should come out of your check, just like Social Security. But if we're going to let insurance companies and the free market exert the kind of power and control that they do, then yeah; an individual mandate/public option is the only way to guarantee care to everyone while trying to keep costs down.
I mean, this bill saves us hundreds of billions of dollars over the course of the next ten years. Just because you're going to have to divert a couple more thousand bucks from your posh IT job does not make this plan bad for America.
>A healthy 27 year old making 80k will pay 1/3 the premium of an 85 y/o guy with diabetes/cancer/what have you. Something's terribly wrong with that.
That 85 y/o guy is a blue collar worker that worked for 50 years of his life (sorry to disappoint you, but the majority of all old people are not deadbeat minorities), and his tax dollars went to funding the roads, public schools, fire departments and police departments that were servicing that 27 y/o's parents before that 27 y/o was even floating around in his father's ballsac.
Get your head out of your ass.
and now a massive chunk of that 27 year-old's tax dollars (now that the supreme court has ruled that obamacare is, indeed a tax) will go to funding retirees' inflated medical bills.
because it's not like 60 year-old roads need repaving or laid off teachers need to be re-hired or cops/firemen's budgets need to be un-slashed or anything. No, that young 27 year-old's tax money is best spent paying for expensive prescription medication and to line the pockets of insurance executives who now have a captive market
meant to say "individual mandate"
>Here in America we've decided we actually give a shit about our poor and infirm
noble sentiment, but when that means throwing money at them and subsidizing their care to almost $0…please tell me you understand that the potential for abuse is ridiculously high
Why do republicans have such a massive fetish for taxes? It's like some magical word for them that they secretly masturbate furiously to but denounce in public.
>>A healthy 27 year old making 80k will pay 1/3 the premium of an 85 y/o guy with diabetes/cancer/what have you. Something's terribly wrong with that.
maybe i'm misinterpreting this, but i'm reading that as the 27 year old is paying much less than the 85 year old, but SolidLikeIronMan seems to have read that as the opposite
yes, the 27 year old would pay much less than the 85 year old, but adjusted for risk - he's getting gouged.
put it this way, the 27 y/o is not even close to being 1/3 as likely to require or seek medical care. but when you remove risk ratings, fairness goes out the window.
What you might not know is that the US economy is 80% services by GDP. We have long since moved out of the production phase (save for complex, capital intensive production - ie planes and bombs). When you try to support a part of the population that is no longer necessary, you only stall social darwinism. Capitalism prevails.
>Just because you're going to have to divert a couple more thousand bucks from your posh IT job does not make this plan bad for America.
Holy shit, you populist dumbass, when every single young adult with a job has to "divert a couple thousand bucks" from their salary to pay for unnecessary health insurance - yes, this plan is terrible for America. That's money they could be throwing back into the economy buying shit they actually need or want, versus money spent going to drug companies keeping a couple million elderly alive.
It's really poppycocking simple, does this country want to invest in the past or the future? Obamacare is 100% a generational wealth transfer and needed to be reformed the day it was signed.
>I don't think insurance should be a choice. It should come out of your check, just like Social Security
Totally, look how well that turned out lol
I agree that we should not be spending so much of our money on the elderly. My aunt recently retired at age 50 from her cushy high school principle job and will get around half of her salary back for the rest of her life. That is a LOT of money being basically thrown away because she doesn't want to work anymore. I actually asked her if she felt guilty sucking money away from the already dirtpoor school system she once worked for. Lol,
But a lot of people are really over-dramatizing how things will be and downplaying how big things were. Poor people including the children of poor people didn't get the care they needed, including for cheap and easy routine treatments. People die from this shit and it's a waste. Don't think that everyone who dies from not having insurance is 80 and on death's doorstep already, and it clearly isn't worth starting a multi-million dollar series of drugs, operations, and radiation therapy to extend this person's life for five years/.
In my utopia there would be universal health care but there would also be the feared 'death panels' of sorts. It isn't fair to pay millions of dollars to extend a person's life a year, or spend millions trying to help extremely retarded kids make it to their fifth birthday. People over 70 shouldn't be having major surgery, etc. Some medical treatments have good benefit to cost rations, some don't, and those ratios, while painful to look at are with examining for people who can't pay for private insurance, unfortunately. Living to age 90 isn't exactly a right. Getting the cheap course of antibiotics? sure.
I also think it would've been worth trying to fix some of the problems making health care so ridiculously expensive here, and trying to fix some of the dirty practices health insurance companies employ. Because to me, it sort of makes sense that you should have to pay for at least some shit out of pocket if you are diagnosed with some serious condition and haven't been paying insurance until now. But, what doesn't make sense is when you are diagnosed with something, have been paying insurance, but your insurance company digs through your records and finds out about the case of athletes foot you had in second grade and says that was a 'pre-existing' condition you didn't tell them about so they don't need to pay for shit. And that did happen routinely.
>put it this way, the 27 y/o is not even close to being 1/3 as likely to require or seek medical care. but when you remove risk ratings, fairness goes out the window.
Don't be so sure about that bro. I was healthy as poppycock no need for medical care whatsoever and in the matter of a week and a half I became a $50,000 liability for any insurance company for the rest of my life.
People who think they are healthy as poppycock whine and gripe like "omg i hate this fuken shit i'm not sick i don't want to pay for insurance" but that isn't the point of insurance. The point of insurance is to give you a bit of piece of mind IN CASE you ever get sick. Let me tell you, you can never plan for that sort of thing - and that's why we have insurance. If my family hadn't been paying dat premium for my health insurance when I got sick, I would be poor as poppycock right now.
Don't take your life for granted.
Also, why so mad bro?
You're throwing a personal anecdote up against the wall of actuarial evidence that shows that kids 18-29 are something like 9x less likely to develop a chronic disease/need medical treatment etc in comparison to people 65+.
lol bro are you ILR?
>give you a bit of piece of mind
>piece of mind
stopped reading there
No, I'm not actually. I'm biology/pre-med. I'm just restating the value of insurance for those who it is completely lost on. I hear all kinds of people going "hurrrrrrrrrrrr i'm not sick fuk dat insurance sheeit don't need dat durrrrrrrrr" this is especially common from the libertarian types.
Sorry I made some typos bro.
Sure, but the problem is that now, health care coverage is way more expensive than it should be.
basically, this is why the law is shit.
as an actuary wannabe, i approve of this post
Hey republican cocksuckers. Are you against:
> Out of pocket healthcare expenses going down?
> Fast food joints displaying nutritional content information?
> People being accepted even though they have pre-existing conditions?
> A stupid tax on tanning indoors (auto cancer machine)?
> Preventing from being kicked off your policy if you need lots of care?
> Having no-copay preventative medicine and checkups?
> An appeal process on denied claims?
> Insurance companies being held responsible for their spending and security?
> Women having access to no-copay breastfeeding or domestic violence screening?
> Women having coverage for contraception while men have had coverage for Viagra?
> Health coverage being extended back into small businesses?
> Payments from Medicare being quality based instead of volume based?
> The Medicare Part D coverage gap being closed?
If you are, join your cock sucking republican brethren on the hill and vote it down. When you become critically ill, your insurance company will have you take a hike, you won't be able to pay your bills, the cost of medicine will go up due to your unpaid debt, and here we go again. Do us all a favor and an hero so we don't have to pay for your shit.
Also, if you think you're invincible ultra fratstar and you'll never get sick, you're already a burden on the system. Fuck off and at least get an emergency policy. It will cost you less than the penalty coming up, and it will cost the rest of us good citizens far less on our coverage.
Except literally none of this will stop overall health care costs from spiraling out of control over the next decade, quite the opposite in fact, it'll encourage cost overruns. Insurance will become ridiculously expensive for everyone, not just people with chronic diseases or whatever.
lol there's a reason every single private health insurer loves this law bro. You don't seriously think universal health care = premiums are going to go down for everyone?
>and it will cost the rest of us good citizens far less on our coverage
so….when you require insurance companies to pay for pre-existing conditions, and you require them to cover contraception and no copay breastfeeding and free screenings, and you require them to cover "kids" up to 26, do you think the insurance companies will just eat that cost, or pass it on to everyone else?
What you don't realize is that the real penalty goes to businesses that now have to cover their employees (leeches) under this new healthcare plan. Better health care does not lead to increased consumption, so they will not be able to pass on the price of more expensive employees onto the consumer. This means higher unemployment in non-service industries, which leads to more uninsured and higher medicaid costs.
Eventually, it will no longer be financially viable for those companies to operate within the US, and we will be faced with a decreasing GDP and increasing national deficit.
Ratings agencies use net debt / GDP as a basis for giving a country's national bank a credit rating. If our credit rating falls, and our national deficit continues to increase, we will find that we are no longer the best source of capital in the world. From there we tumble.
Sounds like Ron Paul economics.
that picture never fails to amuse me
costanza.jpg is a time-honored classic.
Amazing how many of you trust fund morons think you could make it on your own without America's blue collar workers… guess what. You all have a debt to the society that has allowed you to be successful. You're the ones wanting "hand-outs."
Very true, I rely on America's blue collar workers to pay taxes so I don't have to.
hit me with some more white librul guilt, poorfratstar
It's not guilt, it's just social awareness.
NBD, President Romney will overturn this shit.
Good luck bro, Romney is losing in every major poll!
Give it time man. No QE3 last month means Obama is the black Jimmy Carter. Besides, his approval ratings haven't been above 50 since last may
>NBD, President Romney will overturn this shit.
>implying Romney will become president
>implying does not exist
>implying Obama Super PAC attacks on Romney's record at Bain Capital in swing states aren't working
>implying Romney has put forth a concrete alternative to Obama's amnesty plan
>implying Romney has put forth a concrete alternative to replace PPACA with if he were to repeal it
>implying this article doesn't exist
>implying Mitt Romney isn't a "perfectly lubricated weathervane", to quote Champion Jon Huntsman
>implying every Republican Christian doesn't think Mormonism is a cult
>implying no Democratic SuperPAC will release a TV ad blitz in swing states detailing all the crazy shit Mormons do/believe
>implying Christianity doesn't believe crazy shit
And Obama is the black Calvin Coolidge, not the black Jimmy Carter. You've been spending too much time in the right-wing echo chamber. Actually spend some time studying American presidential history and you'll learn some things.
So, in the interest of public education - child, imma learn you some hist'ry.
From the all-knowing Wikipedia:
"Coolidge restored public confidence in the White House after the scandals of his predecessor's administration, and left office with considerable popularity." - Let's see…shitty previous president that everyone hated that abused the powers of his office. Sound familiar?
"He embodied the spirit and hopes of the middle class, could interpret their longings and express their opinions." - Populist rhetoric, claiming to be a champion of blue-collar workers, working families and a robust American middle class. Sound familiar?
"Coolidge's taxation policy was that of his Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon: taxes should be lower and fewer people should have to pay them. Congress agreed, and the taxes were reduced in Coolidge's term. In addition to these tax cuts, Coolidge proposed reductions in federal expenditures and retiring some of the federal debt. By 1927, only the richest 2% of taxpayers paid any federal income tax." - Hmm…class warfare, middle class/lower class pay little to no taxes while the richest Americans shoulder the burden…sound familiar? There's a little variation here in that - get this - Obama is not nearly the redistributive socialist Coolidge was, and yet people ignorant of American history (i.e. any Republican/libertarian that dares to call Obama the most socialist president we've ever had) still decry him as a modern-day Lenin.
2% of Americans fall into the 250k+ bracket that would be most adversely affected (in terms of volume) by the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for their income bracket…once again, sound familiar?
"On June 2, 1924, Coolidge signed the Indian Citizenship Act, which granted full U.S. citizenship to all American Indians" - that's eerily similar to Obama's recent amnesty move toward young undocumented illegal immigrants…starting to sound like somebody not named Mitt Romney, am I right?
If he increased taxes and government spending way more than he has, then maybe he could aspire to be the black Ronald Reagan.
Pic related, it's >mfw conservatives forget that their messiah was a huge proponent of big-government welfare state ideology, raised taxes, and oversaw skyrocketing unemployment in our country.
"In 1924, Coolidge responded to a letter that claimed the United States was a "white man's country":
"I was amazed to receive such a letter. During the war 500,000 colored men and boys were called up under the draft, not one of whom sought to evade it. [As president, I am] one who feels a responsibility for living up to the traditions and maintaining the principles of the Republican Party. Our Constitution guarantees equal rights to all our citizens, without discrimination on account of race or color. I have taken my oath to support that Constitution."
What was that provision in Obama's new executive order? Something about young undocumented Americans being able to avoid deportation and obtain a path to citizenship through military service? Well burn my britches.
We just need to admit that Romney is a pretty awful candidate. Y'all should've nominated Huntsman.
Yeah Obama is a calculating genius. first, he throws tax money at the poor, and swells their numbers by letting a bunch of uneducated illegals become citizens in exchange for three years of getting shot at.
Oh yeah, and when they need to see a shrink for their PTSD, en masse, let's make sure they can start sucking the welfare state's dick early on by giving them insurance with premiums and deductibles that are subsidized to essentially 0.
Creating a huge class of losers who depend on government handouts to survive in 21st century America - oh, and vote Dem for life - sounds like great social policy bro!
What else will the braindead lemmings infesting the Democratic Party machine throw at us next?
I'm really diggin his jacket in the picture.
Cubans are an extremely republican demographic. Just because Florida has a lot of Hispanics doesn't mean that those Hispanics will be voting for Obama.
Seirously, get your facts straight before you stereotype. Cubans are like the one subset of the Hispanic ethnicity that are actually successful. American born Cubans get college degrees at a faster rate than Caucasian non Hispanics and make more money than Caucasian non Hispanics (on average). The only other ethnic group that does better is Asians.
wtf?? racist as hell yo GTFO
How are citing facts racist????
oh shut up
No, I'm being dead serious..how can you actually believe that isn't racist? Start seeing people as autonomous individuals, scumbag
it's not racist at all. choke yourself to death, fratstar
>"Cubans are like the one subset of the Hispanic ethnicity that are actually successful."
Shitty collectivist mindset. Stay pleb
no one cares
Estimated Post Quality Meter