Win

The least important thing about the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act is how it impacts Barack Obama’s political fortunes. The winner here is not a politician or his political machine, but rather the human beings who will have health care thanks to the law passed by Congress and signed into law by the President.

I repeat: People will have health care.

That’s whats important. It’s not perfect. We need to do more. But the law is constitutional, despite conservatives complaining for years that it isn’t so. Sure, they’ll now claim that John Roberts isn’t one of their own (Citizen’s United, anyone?), but he’s there for life for better or worse.

This win for the American people affirms one of the reasons we backed Obama. Health care is one of the most important things in our society — I’ve gone through it recently within my own family — and a reform to our system is what we need and demanded.

We won. America won. This was a change we needed, and what we voted for.

  • Pingback: istanbul real estate for sale()

  • Pingback: jaluzi perde()

  • Zython

    Let me try one more time, Zython, but that’s all you get

    That would imply there was a first time.

    when federal interest in an area of law is sufficiently dominant

    Considering we have a federal department regulating immigration, I’d say that yes, federal interest is sufficiently dominant.

    when state law DOES NOT goes farther than Congress has seen fit to go, THEN a state law MAY BE declared a help .

    Considering that Arizona’s law permitted officers to seize documents based solely on the suspicion of someone being an illegal immigrant (feds can’t do this), yes, this goes farther than Congress has seen fit to go.

    By all means, keep digging, you’ll hit rock bottom eventually.

    Do you know anyone who has car insurance ? Ask them what happens to their premium after they have an accident…

    Alright. Justy, what DOES happen to your insurance premiums after your 5th DUI?

    • Justanotherrighty

      I have no car, and I do not drink, so I can’t answer your question, you twit.
      You are not interpreting the law correctly, you moron, and I can’t cure stupid. Go read a graphic novel; there must be some way you can learn something

  • Justanotherrighty

    Dark Avenger, you never stop declaring your ignorance . Nay, not declaring it; shouting it to the rooftops.
    The law is just that – the twisting and turning of words. You betray the cavernous depths of your ignorance when you fail to recognize that.

    You know what never changes , Dumb Ass? Your inability to grasp that I am smarter than you, and that I was smarter than you, and that I will always be smarter than you. You are so childishly overwrought over that simple state of affairs that you created a weblog, with the sole purpose of insulting me – someone you do not know, someone you have never met, someone you have never even spoken to.
    It is as unique as it is macabre. It is the stuff out of which movies like The Fan, or Gaslight, or Fatal Attraction are made: twisted excursions into the recesses of a warped and twisted mind. You are Daily Banter’s Norman Bates …

    Now try editing this to make it say what you want

  • The Dark Avenger

    That’s a lot of twisting and turning to get to your desired conclusion, Frank.

    You’re still as dumb as a box of rocks. Some things never change.

  • Justanotherrighty

    Anything else you would like to be completely wrong about while we’re here?
    Let me try one more time, Zython, but that’s all you get :
    Here’s the citation:

    In Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 (1956) the Supreme Court struck down the Pennsylvania Sedition Act, which made advocating the forceful overthrow of the federal government a crime under Pennsylvania state law. The Supreme Court held that when federal interest in an area of law is sufficiently dominant, federal law must be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject; and a state law is not to be declared a help when state law goes farther than Congress has seen fit to go.

    Now, let’s parse it, shall we?
    Clause 1 : The Supreme Court held that when federal interest in an area of law is sufficiently dominant, federal law must be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject
    Interpretation : when federal interest in an area of law is sufficiently dominant federal law must be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject
    So, IF federal interest in an area of law is NOT sufficiently dominant, THEN federal law MAY NOT be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject
    Clause 2: a state law is not to be declared a help when state law goes farther than Congress has seen fit to go.
    Interpretation : when state law DOES NOT goes farther than Congress has seen fit to go, THEN a state law MAY BE declared a help .

    So you are wrong once again …

    With health insurance, a large group of people pay into pool
    And in liberal LaLa land, a whole bunch of people paying insurance premiums is like “free” health care.
    Let me ask you something: Do you know anyone who has car insurance ? Ask them what happens to their premium after they have an accident…
    Get it now? Of course not.

  • The Dark Avenger

    When are you going to start bragging about your own killer Google skillz, Justanotherrighty?

  • Zython

    Besides which, just because I make a reference to common sense, doesn’t mean you are not lacking in research skills.

    It DOES mean that you’re in no position to judge others’ research skills, though.

    (I can fully appreciate your shock, since you have never encountered common sense before, since you only read left-wing blogs)

    Well, I have encountered “common sense”, since conservatives cite it all the time when they don’t have any facts or evidence to back up their claims.

    You cited an irrelevant Supreme Court precedent

    Irrelevant, huh? Let’s look at what was actually said. First, you wrote:

    … but common sense would dictate that if something violates Federal law, the states are not prohibited from enforcing it.

    Then, I cited the following SCotUS case:

    In Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 (1956) the Supreme Court struck down the Pennsylvania Sedition Act, which made advocating the forceful overthrow of the federal government a crime under Pennsylvania state law. The Supreme Court held that when federal interest in an area of law is sufficiently dominant, federal law must be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject; and a state law is not to be declared a help when state law goes farther than Congress has seen fit to go.

    In other words, SCotUS held that federal law enforcement comes at the exclusion of state law enforcement on the same subject. Or, to put it even more simply, the exact fucking opposite of what your “common sense” claimed.

    Anything else you would like to be completely wrong about while we’re here?

    Medical care costs money. Someone will have to pay it. If the person in the ER doesn’t pay it, if the person in the doctor’s office doesn’t pay it, if the person in the hospital bed doesn’t pay it, someone else will. And if the people who have to pay it, also have to pay for their own medical care , they will be reluctant to pay it.

    Oh, so there is. As I already said before, this is why we have health insurance. With health insurance, a large group of people pay into pool, which said people can withdraw from when they need medical care. This way, people can get the care they need without going bankrupt. So people are already paying for other people’s medical care, as well as their own. Get it now? Of course not.

    as noted by my use of bold type

    Italics.

  • Justanotherrighty

    “Medical care costs money. Someone will have to pay it. If the person in the ER doesn’t pay it, if the person in the doctor’s office doesn’t pay it, if the person in the hospital bed doesn’t pay it, someone else will. And if the people who have to pay it, also have to pay for their own medical care , they will be reluctant to pay it. That will be a political incentive to keep reimbursements down. That will be an economic incentive to either reduce services, or reduce compensation for services. This will make working in those fields less attractive, and / or workers in that field less productive.”In other words, the problem of high health costs and reduced access to healthcare has not been solved.” – Justy Simple Economics 101
    or, see TANSTAAFL

    So Oliver is protecting us from information easily found on multiple websites?
    … he can’t bring himself to post the hidden info easily obtainable by anyone?
    a) If it can be found on multiple websites, that only reinforces its accuracy.
    b) As to your questions about Oliver’s motive(s) you’ll have to ask him

    • M2

      Wow, as if I impugned the accuracy… no.

      And you’re the one questioning Oliver’s motives, but have yet to answer why Oliver is upset about a conservative posting a fact that is easily researchable. It’s okay, Justy. We know you are just talking out of yer ass again.

  • Justanotherrighty

    while I cited Supreme Court precedent
    You cited an irrelevant Supreme Court precedent, as noted by my use of bold type.
    Hence, the advice that you improve your “research techniques and practices”.
    Besides which, just because I make a reference to common sense (I can fully appreciate your shock, since you have never encountered common sense before, since you only read left-wing blogs), doesn’t mean you are not lacking in research skills.

    See? I told you that you sucked at being a wise ass.

  • Justanotherrighty

    Zython : This is directed to you:
    I wrote

    Sometime, while you’re still in school, take a research or a library course. Or you could read the work of Gary Price, Chris Sherman, or Tara Calishain …

    You responded :

    Do they recommend citing “common sense”?

    And I responded :

    You’ll never know , you ignorant buffoon, because it would require reading for comprehension.

    Got it now?

    • Zython

      Not seeing your beef here. You claimed I should study better research techniques and practices. I pointed out that you didn’t employ said practices when you cited “common sense” as your proof that states aren’t prohibited from their own enforcement of federal law, while I cited Supreme Court precedent. So yeah, care to elaborate?

  • Justanotherrighty

    You can always just stop responding to me … You know, like you do when you can’t answer a question or have met a fact.
    Project much ?

    • M2

      No, actually. You’ve left quite a few hanging. Perhaps you can’t remember as surely you were posting during a bender. Your posts read as such anyway.

      • Justanotherrighty

        M2: You mean like this one ?
        There it is again. Please just talk straight out of your ass so the conservatives can understand you,

        Or this one , which has been in Moderation since FRIDAY:

        When are your dire predictions going to come to fruition?

        One major component of Obamacare that will become effective on Jan. 1, 2013 is a tax hike on self-employment income and wages of single individuals who make more than $200,000 per year and married couples who make more than $250,000. The tax will increase by .9 percent, and the money will go to pay for some of the portions of the act intended to help provide cheap health insurance. Also, any investment income of singles who make more than $200,000 per year or couples making $250,000 will be subject to a 3.8 percent tax.

        I suppose you’ll get the link when Oliver is good and ready. He apparently hates it when right wingers cite facts…

        • M2

          Nothing says you know what you’re talking like reposting the same thing twice, but anyway…

          The site you pulled your Obamacare taxes 2013 quote got it right. I do wonder who runs it as the About section asks you to email them for info and they call the health care act Obamacare, but that 2013 info is correct, but nowhere does the site and its follow up info support your fever dream which is, again…

          “Medical care costs money. Someone will have to pay it. If the person in the ER doesn’t pay it, if the person in the doctor’s office doesn’t pay it, if the person in the hospital bed doesn’t pay it, someone else will. And if the people who have to pay it, also have to pay for their own medical care , they will be reluctant to pay it. That will be a political incentive to keep reimbursements down. That will be an economic incentive to either reduce services, or reduce compensation for services. This will make working in those fields less attractive, and / or workers in that field less productive.”In other words, the problem of high health costs and reduced access to healthcare has not been solved.” – Justy

          Where is the support for that right wing fantasy? Maybe WND but not on that site, and then you say…

          “I suppose you’ll get the link when Oliver is good and ready. He apparently hates it when right wingers cite facts…” Justy.

          No one needs the link. That info is easily available on the internet, including (shivers) Wikipedia. So Oliver is protecting us from information easily found on multiple websites? He hates your facts so much, you bruising right winger, he can’t bring himself to post the hidden info easily obtainable by anyone?

          You spout the exact same rhetoric whining wing nuts cried when the first AHCA provisions went into effect – and NOTHING HAPPENED.

          Jesus, you guys find a fact and you fuck all don’t know what to do with it, but would you like to buy my Armageddon 2013 Health Care t-shirt? It will go great in your collection, next to your Y2K – the End is Near t-shirt and your Rapture shirts with the multiple, differing dates.

  • Justanotherrighty

    (Hint: It’s not for the sole purpose of paying a middle-man).
    in·sur·ance
    Noun:
    A practice by which a company provides a guarantee of compensation for specified loss, damage, illness, or death in return for payment…
    The business of providing such an arrangement.
    You were saying?

    Hey, it pisses you off, so I must be doing something right.
    You mean you are doing something correctly. If your sole purpose here is to piss off conservatives, you occasionally achieve that. If you are for any other reason, I haven’t seen it yet.
    Your contributions to this weblog are, at best, poorly constructed, not well thought out, and – contrary to your own glowing self – assessment – poorly documented …
    Sometime, while you’re still in school, take a research or a library course. Or you could read the work of Gary Price, Chris Sherman, or Tara Calishain …
    This goes for you and M2 : WikiPedia is a collection of links you can find on your own .It is no authority – It is an encyclopedia with removable pages …
    -site:wikipedia.org will make this clear to you ….

    • Zython

      You mean you are doing something correctly.

      Yes, I meant “right” in that context.

      Sometime, while you’re still in school, take a research or a library course. Or you could read the work of Gary Price, Chris Sherman, or Tara Calishain …

      Do they recommend citing “common sense”?

      • Justanotherrighty

        M2: You mean like this one ?
        There it is again. Please just talk straight out of your ass so the conservatives can understand you,

        Or this one , which has been in Moderation since FRIDAY:

        When are your dire predictions going to come to fruition?

        One major component of Obamacare that will become effective on Jan. 1, 2013 is a tax hike on self-employment income and wages of single individuals who make more than $200,000 per year and married couples who make more than $250,000. The tax will increase by .9 percent, and the money will go to pay for some of the portions of the act intended to help provide cheap health insurance. Also, any investment income of singles who make more than $200,000 per year or couples making $250,000 will be subject to a 3.8 percent tax.

        I suppose you’ll get the link when Oliver is good and ready. He apparently hates it when right wingers cite facts…

      • Justanotherrighty

        You’ll never know , you ignorant buffoon, because it would require reading for comprehension.

        • Zython

          Uh, who are you even talking to/about here? A little context might help.

  • Zython

    Of course, you haven’t the slightest clue as to whether I know anything about health insurance .

    You wrote this, didn’t you?

    [blockquote]Medical care costs money. Someone will have to pay it. If the person in the ER doesn’t pay it, if the person in the doctor’s office doesn’t pay it, if the person in the hospital bed doesn’t pay it, someone else will. And if the people who have to pay it, also have to pay for their own medical care , they will be reluctant to pay it.[/blockquote]

    This shows that you don’t know why insurance exists or how it works. (Hint: It’s not for the sole purpose of paying a middle-man).

    Of course, you linked to WikiPedia, indicating that you know where to find someone’s explanation of Obamacare. That is not evidence – to me, anyway – that you know the first thing about it.

    *shrug* Fair enough.

    You’re not even a natural wiseass. You struggle mightily, and often fail, at being a wiseass.

    Hey, it pisses you off, so I must be doing something right.

  • Justanotherrighty

    M2 : Is incoherence your trademark?

    • M2

      Stupidity yours? Seems to be. Need me to slow it down?

      • Justanotherrighty

        No, M2, but English would be preferred to gibberish.

        Yes. … no, I won’t explain it to you.
        a) Of course, you haven’t the slightest clue as to whether I know anything about health insurance . Insult – wasted.
        b) Of course, you linked to WikiPedia, indicating that you know where to find someone’s explanation of Obamacare. That is not evidence – to me, anyway – that you know the first thing about it.
        c) By your logic, this proves I know more about it than you do .

        The point is that your remark to SaveFerris was rhetorical in a pejorative way. I notice you do that a lot. You’re not even a natural wiseass. You struggle mightily, and often fail, at being a wiseass. Yet another reason to give it up …

        • M2

          I am sorry you can’t follow a thread and sorry you and phlunky can’t handle it when someone dare back up their argumets with links to facts found on pages like wikipedia. Oh, the horrors.

          It’s a rather pathetic right wing tactic the two have used in this thread. Sad, really considering the talking point nonsense you spout daily.

          You can always just stop responding to me, Justy. You know, like you do when you can’t answer a question or have met a fact.

  • Justanotherrighty

    Save, be honest (i know that asking a conservative that is like yelling at the tides, but whatever), do you have any idea of what the ACA actually does?
    Zython (I know that asking a liberal not to be a smarmy wiseass is like yelling at the tides, but whatever) do you have any idea what the ACA actually does?
    And, please, no WikiPedia or LGF or Pandagon…

    • M2

      There it is again. Please just talk straight out of your ass so the conservatives can understand you,

    • Zython

      I know that asking a liberal not to be a smarmy wiseass is like yelling at the tides, but whatever

      I’m proud of my snark, thank you very much.

      do you have any idea what the ACA actually does?

      Yes. Oh, and before you ask, no, I won’t explain it to you. Explaining the PPACA to someone who doesn’t understand health insurance is like explaining calculus to someone who doesn’t understand algebra.

      And, please, no WikiPedia or LGF or Pandagon…

      Yeah, it doesn’t work that way. You don’t get to restrict the opponent’s sources just because they’re inconvenient to you. Also, what the hell’s your beef with LGF? I only linked it once.

  • Zython

    45,000 people a year die due to a lack of health coverage. Just thought I’d put that out there.

  • oi ly

    Won’t be long before the white sheets are dusted off …

  • Plunket

    New Poll: Voters Dislike Supreme Court’s Obamacare Ruling

    Voters are reacting in broadly negative ways to the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the legislation known as Obamacare, a new Newsweek/Daily Beast poll finds, with a majority disapproving of the ruling, fearing health-care costs and taxes will rise, and preferring Mitt Romney to President Obama on the issue.

    Only 24 percent of those polled said that they believe the ruling will make the country better off.

    There’s that 24% again. Aside from burn, Downtown Randy Brown, oi ly, el and M2, just who are these 24 per-centers, anyway?

    • M2

      The more people know what it exactly involves, the higher the approval rating. When you explain the benefits without the Obamacare handle, even republicans approve of the benefits. Your side has done a wonderful job of shitting the bed on the AHCA with death panels and granny is gonna die, but it’s still shit and that’s all you have to sell – and you lost.

      • The Dark Avenger

        Ahead of the Supreme Court’s Affordable Care Act ruling that’s expected Thursday, a new poll shows that while 56 percent of Americans oppose the law as a whole, most back its key provisions. The Reuters/Ipsos poll found that absent the controversy of the individual mandate, strong majorities favor most of what is actually in the health care law:

        61 percent of respondents favored allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance plans until age 26.
        72 percent of respondents wish to maintain the requirement that companies with more than 50 workers provide health insurance for their employees.
        82 percent of respondents favored banning insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.

        In recent weeks, some Republicans have come out in support of the most popular and successful Obamacare provisions, attempting to whitewash their longstanding blanket opposition. Insurance companies have also pledged to maintain key Obamacare measures regardless of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

        http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/06/25/505526/poll-most-americans-support-obamacare-provisions/

      • Plunket

        M2, all that was written by Bob Cesca on this >a href=”http://thedailybanter.com/2012/06/republicans-love-obamacare-they-just-dont-know-it/”>very blog. Every point. You left out where he blamed dislike for the bill on racism (being a liberal blogger that’s an obligation), but why didn’t you at least credit him, link to it, or refer to it in some way, especially since it was on this site?

        • Plunket
          • The Dark Avenger

            This president has bent over backwards and angered parts of his base as well as chunks of the progressive movement in order to reach out to Republicans, and, in spite of his efforts, Republicans hate him more than Satan and Stalin and the very rare demon Satanstalin combined, because AM talk radio and Fox News told them so. Hell, the individual mandate, which Republicans hated in the Reuters poll results, was invented by Republicans! But remove the name “Obama” from this legislation, and they love, love, love it by both majority and supermajority margins.

            Once again, it’s all about the reasonable African American smart guy liberal. They hate that guy. But they love his healthcare reform law.

            Now if by some twist of reasoning they could reach the conclusion that the man and his laws are intertwined, perhaps Republicans would be easier to deal with. But for now, they’ll continue to look like confused screechers who are incapable of realizing how buffoonishly contradictory they appear in light of polling and basic math.

            He doesn’t say they’re racists, Plunkett, just that they’re idiots

            like you.

          • Plunket

            You’re wrong, C+P.

            Here’s what Cesca wrote (the part M2 left out in his summary of Cesca’s article): “Once again, it’s all about the reasonable African American smart guy liberal. They hate that guy. But they love his healthcare reform law.

            This is absolutely saying they’re racists. He’s saying it’s all about racism. There’s no other way to interpret that, and from his prior blogging on the subject, I’d really be surprised if he even wanted you to interpret it any other way that that for him. If fact, he’d probably call you an idiot for interpreting that statement any other way like you’re doing.

            Regarding this drivel, here’s another idiotic thing he said where the logic doesn’t follow: “Hell, the individual mandate, which Republicans hated in the Reuters poll results, was invented by Republicans! “ Just because the Heritage Foundation wrote about it years and years ago and Massachusetts passed it years ago (for their state), doesn’t mean all conservatives were on board with it then, or now, for the United States as a whole, as a way to pass a really shitty overall bill.

          • M2

            Ha, phlunket, yeah practically word for word. Hilarious, with this and your previous “stop backing up your arguments with articles, assholes” it’s obvious you’re just upset that anyone knows anything. You’re pissed because anyone dares inform themselves of the issues at hand.

            Here’s phlunket in a nutshell – you’re an asshole for posting supporting material for your argument and when you educate yourself on a topic via a number of articles and distill your argument here without attribution, yes, you are also an asshole or “Copypasta.”

            In this way, phlunky never actually has to argue the subject at hand. A tactic so obvious, you can see it from space. And for the record; I like Bob Cesca, but I never read his article until you linked me to ot, so thanks.

          • Plunket

            Shorter M2: “It’s just a coincidence I said the same things he did. Cesca and I think exactly alike.”

            C + P doesn’t make an argument, he just copies and pastes someone else’s argument and says “Here, look at this, retards.” You, on the other hand, just summarize someone else’s argument and say “This is why you’re retards”, and then you skip any reference or credit to the person who wrote it.

          • M2

            Shorter phlunky: Let me prove your point with this post, M2.

            This goes a long way to show how a conservative gains knowledge to bolster their argument. Do they read a variety of sources to ascertain the facts? Seemingly, no. They just make shit up. Now, we always knew this, but thanks to phlunky and Justy for proving it in this very thread. They get knowledge beamed to them from the planet Wingnut, which is why you have to point and laugh.

            I encourage every right winger cruising through here to read the Cesca article and my post and find the plagiarism. I will wait. Using identical letters of the alphabet doesn’t count, just so you know.

          • Plunket

            This goes a long way to show how a conservative gains knowledge to bolster their argument. Do they read a variety of sources to ascertain the facts? Seemingly, no. They just make shit up. Now, we always knew this, but thanks to phlunky and Justy for proving it in this very thread. They get knowledge beamed to them from the planet Wingnut, which is why you have to point and laugh.

            Think about it, M2. If I didn’t read a variety of sources, or anything at all as you claim, then how was it that I instantly recognized your post as nothing more than your summation of Cesca’s article? And why are you being so defensive about it?

          • M2

            “Think about it, M2. If I didn’t read a variety of sources, or anything at all as you claim, then how was it that I instantly recognized your post as nothing more than your summation of Cesca’s article? And why are you being so defensive about it?” – phlunkie

            Oh, look, it’s Wingnut Debate Tactic # 13 – Upon the realization that you’ve argued some seriously stupid shit, claim your opponent is being defensive.

            Phlunket, Bob Cesca’s article sourced a poll from a Reuters article carried by Yahoo News and many other publications and outlets, as Reuters makes the rounds. To be clear, he quoted an already available poll and article from Reuters. He didn’t do it all by himself. The data is available to anyone who gets Reuters or carries Reuters, so he’s not the originator of that info. Are we following? I hope so. The car doesn’t get any slower than this.

            If you actually read Bob’s article you claimed I summarized without attribution, you would have realized that he linked to Reuters who carries the exact info I mentioned in my post. That proves to me that you don’t read from a variety of sources. Fuck, you don’t even read the sources you post, obviously.

            Also, reading Bob Cesca, who is on the same site as Oliver, doesn’t really prove your reading material sources are wide-ranging, because again, they’re on the same site.

            Good lord, when you guys shit the bed, you really shit the bed.

          • Plunket

            You were busted, burn. You can’t think and talk for yourself, and you don’t come here to learn anything or gather new information. None of your lib cohort Marcotte-bots even consider it a source for anything as none of you, what’s left anyway, bring anything new to the table here. You’re like a bird that flits around picking at different pieces of information on the nutroots that you gather up in your mouth in order to come here to shit them back out. All just so you can look around and laugh at anyone who might be disgusted by your droppings.

            That’s really all that politics is for you.

          • M2

            “You were busted, burn.” HA.

            How how embarrassing and sad. You even used “Marcotte bots” twice today.

            Poor phlunkie: Doesn’t understand attribution; doesn’t understand news wire services; doesn’t understand how to read an article let alone follow a link inside one; doesn’t understand plagiarism; doesn’t know how to think on his own; doesn’t didn’t learn much in right wing troll school.

            Don’t be defensive, Phlunket. You’re just a big waste of anyone’s time. I’m sure it’s not the first time you’ve been told that.

            Oooh, burn! Too funny.

    • db

      Plunk,

      How about Senator Brown (R) MA?

      He’s kept his daughter on his health insurance beyond the age of 24 because of OBAMACARE!

      • Plunket

        The residents of Massachusetts, who had similar health care, voted for Scott Brown to vote down the ACA, db. They did it knowing he was a Republican, and would be replacing the late Sen Kennedy, and that he’d be the 41st vote to keep it from being passed in the Senate. Was that hypocritical of Massachusetts voters? Even the ones who are Democrats who voted for him? Like, ‘yeah, it might’ve made sense in our state, but the national health care bill Dems just popped out their behinds stinks to high heaven.’

        If he voted against a hugely expensive, pork-laden, stinker of a highway bill that was put together largely to buy off votes to a certain voting bloc, would it be hypocritical to drive on that highway after it’s built?

        Really, db, you’re reaching. This is nothing more than the prog-blogs trying to find a diversion for Fauxcahontas, from the daily beatings she’s getting on her part-Cherokee claim.

        • db

          What reach? You asked for the 24% who like Obamacare & I point out someone who had received a direct, tangible, benefit. i.e. keeping his daughter on his taxpayer paid health care beyond the time that was permitted previously.

          If you want to talk hypocrit, I’ll nominate Rep. Paul who rails against the constitutionality of the Social Security Act of 1935(? check date) while he deposits his check from them.

          • Plunket

            The 24% figure was those who actually think the bill will make the country better off, db. Not the number who like it or certain things about it.

            Liberal reframing is starting to confuse you. Of course, though, that’s what it’s designed to do.

        • Zython

          This is nothing more than the prog-blogs trying to find a diversion for Fauxcahontas, from the daily beatings she’s getting on her part-Cherokee claim.

          That’s clearly worse than being a terrorism apologist.

          The residents of Massachusetts, who had similar health care, voted for Scott Brown to vote down the ACA, db.

          No, it was because his opponent sucked. Fortunately, the Dems aren’t making that mistake again. Unless, of course, you have some sort of proof?

          • Plunket

            No, it was because his opponent sucked.

            Yes, the Kos kids and Marcotte-bots tried really hard to push that one, and I guess you still feel the obligation to keep it going, but it’s just not so. Scott Brown ran as the 41st vote, signed his name “Scott Brown, 41″ and Massachusetts voters knew he was the 41st vote. Brown was way behind at the beginning of that race and got a huge bump in the polls after news of the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase deals. Massachusetts voters weren’t crazy about their state’s health care system, nor with the mandate.

          • Zython

            That’s nice and all, but I’m still gonna need some proof.

          • M2

            Massachusetts residents sure as hell don’t hate their healthcare.

    • The Dark Avenger

      Suck it, Plunkett:

      Support for the health care reform law increased after Thursday’s ruling in which the Supreme Court upheld the law, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll shows.

      The number of registered voters who support the law rose from 43 percent before the decision to 48 percent afterward. Opposition went down to 52 percent from 57 percent.

      Perhaps most important for Democrats, the survey showed support among independents jumping 11 percentage points, from 27 percent just before the ruling to 38 percent afterward. Among Republicans, opposition to the law dropped from 86 percent to 81 percent, thought the partisan divide over the law is still stark.

      So, the more the law is discussed, the more support for it increases.

  • M2

    The tards are up for rebellion. Republicans must be so proud today.

    http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/06/29/509010/tea-party-obamacare-rebellio/

  • Zython

    … and that this was a massive tax increase.

    What tax would that be?

    … and that people wouldn’t immediately start liking it after it was passed.

    This one’s interesting, because when asked about what the bill actually does, most people, even Republicans, love it. It’s almost as if people are attacking it based on complete falsehoods. But who would do such a thing?

    … and that it would intrude on people’s Freedom of Religion.

    I’m pretty sure “Freedom of Religion” doesn’t cover enforcing one’s religious views on other people.

    Don’t forget this important thing: People that normally don’t get sick, and / or don’t normally go to doctors, will now have health insurance …
    Like making 8 year olds pay for auto insurance or senior citizens pay school tax.

    But people who don’t regularly get sick CAN get sick. That’s like saying “I don’t regularly get into auto accidents, so I shouldn’t have to buy liability insurance”.

    Perhaps. But if you don’t own a home, it would be effin’ stupid, wouldn’t it ? …

    True, which is why the mandate doesn’t apply to robots.

    Where I live, if you go to the ER without coverage, you will be billed. Is there a problem with that?

    You mean besides the fact that medical bills are a leading cause of household bankruptcies?

    Medical care costs money. Someone will have to pay it. If the person in the ER doesn’t pay it, if the person in the doctor’s office doesn’t pay it, if the person in the hospital bed doesn’t pay it, someone else will. And if the people who have to pay it, also have to pay for their own medical care , they will be reluctant to pay it.

    Which is why insurance exists. I suggest you read on how insurance works before commenting further. For your own good.

    • SaveFarris

      What tax would that be?

      surely you’re not this dense. The “if it’s not a tax, then it’s unConstitutional” tax.

      This one’s interesting, because when asked about what the bill actually does, most people, even Republicans, love it.

      People LOVE driving Lamborghinis and living on their own tropical islands. Paying for it, not so much…

      I’m pretty sure “Freedom of Religion” doesn’t cover enforcing one’s religious views on other people.

      Obama’s HHS sure seems to think so, because it’s enforcing it’s religious views onto Catholics.

      That’s OK though Zython, right? Because I’m sure you won’t mind a Republican having the power to overide one’s religious beliefs. Right?!? Be careful what you wsh for…

      • The Dark Avenger

        That’s stupid even for you, SF. If I am a ‘religious employer’ does that give me the right to pay my employees 1$/hr, because my religion requires me to do so?

        • db

          DA,

          More importantly it would allow Christian Scientists to deny all health care as sickness is just the manifestation of sin. Jehovah’s Witness out to be able to deny coverage for blood trassnfusions.

          Farris has it exactly backward. The HHS is preventing Roman Catholic Employers from requiring all their employees, regardless of faith, to comform with Catholic dogma.

          SF,

          Show me in the Bible where contraception is bad. Then we’ll talk about Papal Infallibility.

      • Zython

        The “if it’s not a tax, then it’s unConstitutional” tax.

        Well, I already have health insurance, so how have my taxes increased?

        People LOVE driving Lamborghinis and living on their own tropical islands. Paying for it, not so much…

        Save, be honest (i know that asking a conservative that is like yelling at the tides, but whatever), do you have any idea of what the ACA actually does?

        Farris has it exactly backward. The HHS is preventing Roman Catholic Employers from requiring all their employees, regardless of faith, to comform with Catholic dogma.

        Right. No one’s forcing Catholics to use or purchase birth control. Besides, why should my employer get to dictate how I use my benefits? Should a Jewish employer get to fire people for buying a ham for dinner?

        • db

          Zython,

          Actually your Jewish Employer ought to require your circumcision.

          What was that quote in Latin from the Reforamtion, “The religion of the Employer is the religion of the Employees”? Or something like that.

          More seriously, it’s (surprising/apalling) that the RW gets to run the argument & no one really has called them on it.

  • oi ly
    • db

      But isn’t Canada where they have “socialized medicine”? So to avoid “pseudo-socialized medicine” here in the USA; they’re going for the full blown form?

      This is your brain on Fox?

  • M2

    Yes, Justy. It’s been 2 1/2 years since the AHCA’s frist changes were implemented. When are your dire predictions going to come to fruition? Give us a guess.

  • Justanotherrighty

    enlightened liberal and m2: I’ll do my own thinking, if you don’t mind. And I already have children – do you?
    I was not referring to something that might not happen – I was referring to something that most definitely was not going to happen.
    Where I live – not a conservative area by any measurement – senior citizens do not pay school tax. The school tax is charged to households with children, and households without children; why should senior citizens pay it, also ?
    Where I live, if you go to the ER without coverage, you will be billed. Is there a problem with that?

    That’s why I have theft and fire insurance on my home, because I am sure to get robbed and have my house burn down. If I wasn’t sure, it would be a waste of money, wouldn’t it?
    Perhaps. But if you don’t own a home, it would be effin’ stupid, wouldn’t it ? …

    Let’s put the straw men to bed, and face facts : Medical care costs money. Someone will have to pay it. If the person in the ER doesn’t pay it, if the person in the doctor’s office doesn’t pay it, if the person in the hospital bed doesn’t pay it, someone else will. And if the people who have to pay it, also have to pay for their own medical care , they will be reluctant to pay it. That will be a political incentive to keep reimbursements down. That will be an economic incentive to either reduce services, or reduce compensation for services. This will make working in those fields less attractive, and / or workers in that field less productive.
    In other words, the problem of high health costs and reduced access to healthcare has not been solved.
    So America has won nothing … biatches !!!

    And, oh yes, try running on this : I JUST SLAPPED YOU WITH BIGGEST TAX INCREASE IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE !!! (and killed bin Laden)

    • enlightened liberal

      “And, oh yes, try running on this : I JUST SLAPPED YOU WITH BIGGEST TAX INCREASE IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE !!!”

      Is Ronald Reagan or LBJ running again? Because otherwise that would be a lie.

  • oi ly

    I love the sound of the republican glass menagerie breaking.

  • enlightened liberal

    Your tears taste like ice cream, cons.

    It’s constitutional, biatches!

    “Don’t forget this important thing: People that normally don’t get sick, and / or don’t normally go to doctors, will now have health insurance …”

    Yes because there’s no point to having insurance for anything unless I’m sure that event will happen to me. That’s why I have theft and fire insurance on my home, because I am sure to get robbed and have my house burn down. If I wasn’t sure, it would be a waste of money, wouldn’t it?

    “Like making 8 year olds pay for auto insurance or senior citizens pay school tax.”

    You are aware that senior citizens that own homes pay school tax, correct? That was a epicly stupid comment.

    • M2

      He is the kind of parent who wouldn’t take his 8 year-old to a doctor until he or she looked sick. fuck checkups, kids.

      Healthcare Act ruling day 2 — the right grows violently dumber.

      Gonna be a long weekend.

    • enlightened liberal

      Oh no- I am loving the right-wing meltdown. Now Bush is a socialist because he appointed the traitor fascist socialist Justice Roberts.

      Or my favorite, Obama must have threatened Justice Roberts children the day before so he would change his vote.

    • SaveFarris

      It’s constitutional, biatches!

      Not in the way you claimed it was. B*tches.

      Congratulations. You’re now stuck running Walter Mondale’s campaign and there’s not a d*mn thing you can do to stop it.

      • M2

        Ha, now he’s Mondale. I love it.

        But, but, but, but… not the way you claimed it was.

        Too rich.

      • enlightened liberal

        The Giants won the Superbowl but the score wasn’t exactly the same. Therefore the Patriots REALLY won.

        We get if Farris- it was a conservative plan but you couldn’t let that Ni-CLANG take credit for it. But now you will have access to healthcare and there won’t even be an exclusion for the pre-existing condition of butthurt.

    • Justanotherrighty

      You are aware that senior citizens that own homes pay school tax, correct? That was a epicly stupid comment.
      You are aware that I have already said THREE TIMES that senior citizens do not pay school taxes where I live. Unless you think I live where you live, or that all cities have the exact same laws, you must be a moron.

      • enlightened liberal

        Don’t remember seeing that disclaimer (where I live) in your first post. Can you point it out?

  • SaveFarris

    No, they won’t. People will have health insurance. Insurance != Care.

    The thing is, though, all the insurance in the world won’t do you a bit of good if doctors leave the profession en masse.

    Oh, and you should at least try to acknowledge that we WERE right about it being unConstitutional via the Commerce Clause.
    … and that this was a massive tax increase.
    … and that people wouldn’t immediately start liking it after it was passed.
    … and that it would intrude on people’s Freedom of Religion.
    … and that it would increase, not decrease, the deficit.

    What else will we be proven right about?

    • Justanotherrighty

      The least important thing about the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act is how it impacts Barack Obama’s political fortunes.
      We’ll see how you feel about that concept in October.

      Don’t forget this important thing: People that normally don’t get sick, and / or don’t normally go to doctors, will now have health insurance …
      Like making 8 year olds pay for auto insurance or senior citizens pay school tax.
      One-quarter of a yay!

      • Christopher Foxx

        Senior citizens benefit from an educated populace. So why shouldn’t’ they help pay for it?

        • Justanotherrighty

          Because the assumption is that they either had children, and already paid for them; or that they have paid enough.
          Interestingly, where I live, senior citizens do not pay school tax. Where do you live – Taxachusetts ?

          • db

            “Justy”,

            Our schools are funded from the County Property Tax. How are your schools funded?

          • Christopher Foxx

            they’ve paid enough

            How is that figured, exactly? Does the person who has had two children go thru the school system have to pay twice what the single-child family does before they get told they’ve paid enough? At what point do those who home school get told they can stop? What about kids who drop out? Do their families get some sort of refund or credit?

            Do we get to start applying this idea to other areas? Because I’m pretty sure I’ve paid enough sales tax by now.

            Fun digression. Now, getting back to the point I actually made, have the senior citizens stopped benefiting from having an educated populace?

        • Justanotherrighty

          The property tax and school tax are separate , obviously, because senior citizens don’t pay it …

          • Christopher Foxx

            … in your area, apparently. But don’t let that stop you from stating the specific case as a general fact.

    • enlightened liberal

      It’s Friday, TRY not to be so butthurt going into the weekend.

    • enlightened liberal

      Funny, Farris, your link doesn’t say that doctors are leaving the profession. It does say that in Massachusetts, home of Romney-care, primary care doctors are becoming scarce. Because they are going to specialties. They are still practicing physicians. Like everywhere in the country, according to the survey you linked.

      But that doesn’t matter right now. What does is that you lost and America won. Eat it, douche.