Affordable Care Act survives Supreme Court challenge

It's laughable that you don't get you have to spend $1 in mortgage interest to get a $0.30 reward.

There you go making things up, but maybe you are at least starting to get the point. Can't be said for Federal Dumbass.

Still waiting for you to present something other than name-calling and . Not seeing it.

So, is this the end of the saga started in "affordable care act timeline"?


Cuz, arc wise, John Castle was the villain of that series, and we never got closure on him.
He gets banned, and rants at TK?
That's his ending?
That's lame.
It should have poetically gone along with the arc of the series, and end with him squashed by a giant orb with the Obama logo on it.
And then he wakes up alive, stitched back together by Obamacare mad scientists.
And then he has to become a smuggler of Mexican immigrants to pay off his new cyborg body.

And howcome I never made the opening title sequence for the series, which was a cartoon version of Garamet prancing along a wooded path dressed as Red Riding Hood tauntingly singing "affoooordable care act tiiiimeliiine! ", and tossing Obama logos like Easter Eggs out of her wicker basket, and then John Castle as a wolf pops out from behind a shrubbery shaking his fist with tears coming out of his eyes, shouting "IIII'll geeet yooouuu!! "?

Cuz that played in my head every single goddamned time I saw that fucking title.
Every time it was bumped.
All 500+ times.
You sons of bitches.

I should have animated that shit on Youtube somehow, and made you all suffer as much as my brain did.

Why didn't I?
Why?
Answer me that.

Anyway, back to the opening question, is it over?
Is it fucking over?
Is it fucking over?
Huh?
Eh?

You can still do a YouTube retrospective.

While you're doing that, take notes on Federal Farmer: The Sequel.

Stop lying.

Liar.

You know what? Forget it. I really can't be fucking bothered. Kudos for gturner and Tuttle and Ramen and the few who continue to fight the Good Fight, but there's naked 19 year old girls all over the Internet. I've got better things to do than watch you monkeys fling poop at each other.

Well... Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out!

No. You really, really aren't.

Given that the internet is as close as you're getting you might as well fling poop.....

Did you guys know that one name for a male fox is a "prancer"? Yeah, I do a lot of crosswords. You'll pardon me if I giggle every time Volpone prances in here to tell us how awful we are...

Gruber nailed it, and you're a bunch of lying thieving socialist fucks.

Your intent was to provide insurance to some 50 million people who were mostly opting out because the existing socialization of care was inflating prices beyond what they were willing to pay. And the strategy for paying for this was to increase the burden on everyone deemed capable of paying more. Gruber admitted that it was all about coverage, and that if there were any cost savings in there he couldn't see them -- and he said he advised the politicians of this.

The politicians (who are by far the party most responsible for fucking healthcare up in the first place) lied about savings that wouldn't come. They swore you'd keep your plan, keep your doctor, and that your costs would come down. They didn't tell everyone that millions of people's coverage would be shifted to Medicaid which is the only care system in the world whose performance has been found to be statistically equal to no plan at all.

In fact the law is so bad that five years later Democrats are still terrified to fully implement it because it's nowhere near finished getting worse yet. At every opportunity some Dem, usually facing re-election, comes out and begs to have some provision of the act waived for one of his special interests.

And when you lying thieving socialist fucks point to the "success" of the program you point primarily to the number of new policies written, while ignoring the policies lost, the unaffordability of the policies covered, and the fact that many of the people "added" are people who had better care before, or who were certainly getting a better value before. You don't dare measure its performance by what was promised, and even the goals you claim to have met are total bullshit.

We argued all along that, of the 48 million or so who were "uninsured", perhaps 15 million (at the outside, the real number probably closer to 12 million) were actually having a problem securing coverage. What wasn't made clear was that these people were never the target of the legislation. The target was the 33 million who could safely opt out, and who were avoiding paying for others by not buying at all. You weren't concerned about the 48 million. You weren't concerned about the 15 million. What really chapped your collectivist asses was the 33 million people whom you hadn't been able to milk to pay for others. They accounted for barely a blip of the uncovered costs of the healthcare system, yet you saw it as unmitigated gall that they dared to consume the fruit of their own labor rather than surrender it to pay for the care of others. How dare those greedy bastards ever imagine themselves to be free? Oh, how that had to be fixed!

So yes, it's a success if you wanted to increase the number of people on paper "covered" by health insurance.

However, it's been a miserable failure at actually providing care, improving quality, reducing costs, and increasing access or value.

These are the facts. They're readily available online, but all you really have to do is ask anyone in the 160 million majority of health insurance purchasers whether it's gotten better or worse.

I applaud your desire to help the 20 million or so people who needed a better solution. But you could really work on your honesty about how badly you were planning to fuck over everyone else in order to be in a position where you could falsely claim you solved it.

Go fuck yourselves.

You guys should pray that I turn into a liberal someday, because I'm fully committed to killing myself before I would ever become such a dishonest rationalizing dissembling parasitic elitist myrmidon. I couldn't live with myself if I presumed to tell everyone else how they have to live like that. It must be nice to have no soul.

No, u.

I don't believe for a minute that this was the only aim. But as far as that one aim among many others is concerned, let's remember that by refusing to pay for other people, they were also making other people pay for their health costs if and when they needed them and couldn't afford them. Your argument is that you wanted to keep these people subsidized.

And this is the part where you say "Google it yourself" because you don't have those facts, right? Otherwise you'd have provided them in the midst of that long, articulate, if slightly hyperbolic opinion you just posted.

Strawman. My argument is that we could have actually lowered costs by removing volumes of policy that make less expensive care illegal.

You have a problem putting "Jonathan Gruber" into Google, mags?

So all that business about the 33 million was just a distraction? Ok then. Next time, stick to your point, and you'll give others a chance to address it.

I have a problem with lazy-ass conservatives who'd rather write a 600+ word rant than provide the facts they claim they have, yes. But if Gruber's your only source, your reluctance is understandable.

Now, please continue to insult people. Very convincing.

Your one-liners are bullshit. If you have something worth saying, then be coherent.

There's nothing inconsistent between my disagreement about targeting the young invincibles to pay for unaffordable care and my belief that a much more effective and successful solution could have been reached by lowering costs.

I'm saying that targeting those unwilling to pay for their own healthcare although they are able to is a valid policy. If you agree that the law does this, then that is a point in its favour. Whether there were and still are also other measures that are sensible because they'll lower costs for everyone doesn't change that.

The point is coverage doesn't equal better care as garamet often likes to confuse the two. Costs have not come down as Gruber admitted, the whole thing was based on a lie. You guys can jump up and down for joy all you want, but none of that addresses the fact that the Supreme Court just nullified the law and usurped congress' power by creating new law, thus violating the separation of powers. If you don't see a problem with that, and I'm sure you won't until it happens to a law you favor, then the Republic is truly doomed. By the time liberals wake up to what is really going on, it'll be too fucking late.

Trolling is fine here, of course, but when you duck away out of an argument that quickly, it's just lame. If you're going to be sockpuppet, at least try to see it through for the length of a short conversation.

Liberals seem to have become convinced (probably due to demographic determinism) that they will never be decisively out of power, that the U.S. Supreme Court will never turn sharply the other way ideologically, and that current social trends are steady, predictable and inevitable.

Bad assumptions.

No, we're quite aware that your ilk will do your damnedest to drag us back to the 18th century, but you lot haven’t succeeded in reinstituting slavery, rolling back women’s suffrage, undoing child labor laws, or dismantling entitlements no matter how much you bloviate, so we’re not too worried about your efforts on this week’s court decisions, either.

Why do you discount Gruber? He was there, he constructed the rationalizations, and he said you'd be stupid enough to believe them.

Which part of that is a problem for you?