Obama Says You're Too Stupid To Know What Health Coverage Is Good For You

President ObamaWhite HouseIn a speech yesterday in Massachusetts, President Obama acknowledged the growing national outrage that his famous promise, "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan," has proven to be so much high-profile bullshit. Sure, millions of Americans are getting cancellation notices because their health plans aren't grandfathered under the Affordable Care Act's strict rules and don't meet the law's extensive new mandates, but that's for your own good. You may like your coverage, but you shouldn't. It's just not good enough, says the prez. And if you're getting stuck with a higher tab...well that's just the cost of helping everybody out, don't you know.

Smarmed the president at Faneuil Hall:

Now, it is also true that some Americans who have health insurance plans that they bought on their own through the old individual market are getting notices from their insurance companies suggesting that somehow, because of the Affordable Care Act, they may be losing their existing health insurance plan.  This has been the latest flurry in the news.  Because there's been a lot of confusion and misinformation about this, I want to explain just what's going on. 

One of the things health reform was designed to do was to help not only the uninsured, but also the underinsured.  And there are a number of Americans –- fewer than 5 percent of Americans -– who've got cut-rate plans that don’t offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident.  Remember, before the Affordable Care Act, these bad-apple insurers had free rein every single year to limit the care that you received, or use minor preexisting conditions to jack up your premiums or bill you into bankruptcy.  So a lot of people thought they were buying coverage, and it turned out not to be so good. 

Before the Affordable Care Act, the worst of these plans routinely dropped thousands of Americans every single year.  And on average, premiums for folks who stayed in their plans for more than a year shot up about 15 percent a year.  This wasn’t just bad for those folks who had these policies, it was bad for all of us -- because, again, when tragedy strikes and folks can’t pay their medical bills, everybody else picks up the tab. 

Now, if you had one of these substandard plans before the Affordable Care Act became law and you really liked that plan, you’re able to keep it.  That’s what I said when I was running for office.  That was part of the promise we made.  But ever since the law was passed, if insurers decided to downgrade or cancel these substandard plans, what we said under the law is you've got to replace them with quality, comprehensive coverage  -- because that, too, was a central premise of the Affordable Care Act from the very beginning.

If you couldn’t afford coverage because your child had asthma, well, he’s now covered.  If you’re one of the 45 million Americans with a mental illness, you’re now covered.  If you’re a young couple expecting a baby, you’re covered.  You’re safer.  The system is more secure for you and it’s more secure for everybody. 

So if you’re getting one of these letters, just shop around in the new marketplace.  That’s what it’s for.

You see, you just "thought" you were buying coverage, but "it turned out not to be so good." Aren't you glad that Barry was there to save you from your foolish choices? Oh, you have a case of sticker shock? But remember, your premium could have "shot up about 15 percent a year." Whaddya mean your Obamacare-compliant plan is shooting up a hell of a lot more than that? Are you a Californian, where middle-income consumers face an average 30 percent increase in premiums on the exchanges? You must hate poor people if you don't want to spread a little of your wealth. When you're impoverished by the premiums, you might qualify for a subsidy, too.

Don't think an employer's plan will protect your preference for "substandard" coverage; the president knows better than them, too. Up to 64 percent of large employer and 80 percent of small employer plans are under the gun, too. They're apparently just not good enough.

And if all this drives you nuts, be thankful that treatment for mental illness is now mandated under the Affordable Care Act. At a price.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • SugarFree||

    The only further statement I want to hear out of Obama is "When I wipe, there is so much blood."

  • Almanian!||

    When he wipes his mouth after he eats? So he's got a cut lip?

    WHAT?

  • SugarFree||

    Figure it out, old man!

  • Almanian!||

    GET OFF MY LAWN, YA SADBEARD!

  • Almanian!||

    Shorter The President™: "Derp!"

  • WTF||

    Shorter Tony's response: "Slurp!"

  • ||

    Speaking of Tony - haven't seen him or heard him lately.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Look below, see what you did!

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    We've got a live one!

  • Lord Humungus||

    Beetlejuice! Beetlejuice! Beetlejuice!

  • Gbob||

    "If you like your old troll, you can keep him". Damn it. We were promised. Now with the ACA we have to get a new one. Damn you Obama!

  • db||

    New slogan for prog supporters follof this administration:

    "Slurp the Derp!"

  • Hugh Akston||

    If you’re one of the 45 million Americans with a mental illness...

    Pretty sure Obama got more votes than that in 2012.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    How about:

    If you’re one of the 45 million Americans with a mental illness...

    ... I thank you for your vote.

  • Invisible Finger||

    How about:

    "If, like me, you are one of the 45 million Americans with a mental illness..."

  • Kid Xenocles||

    I like that too.

  • Killazontherun||

    Free shit brigade ain't crazy. They know which side of the redistribution they are on. Neither are the crony capitalist crazy. They know their deal with democrats is air tight, and though the GOP competes on that score, can they buy you an entire department of EPA bureaucrats made up of the most rabid haters of industry to graduate with environmental law degrees to knee cap your competition? Not, likely.

    It's little miss middle class who thinks her vagina is going to get a subsidy that more than makes up for the cost shift of burden she faces over a lifetime that's the fruitcake.

  • John||

    The free shit brigade wants free shit. And subsidized Obamasurance aint free shit. I will bet you my rent check that there are millions of people in this country who think that once that website goes live they are going to be able to go on and get free insurance and they are not going to be happy when they find out it costs anything.

  • Killazontherun||

    So far he has delivered on the free shit, and they'll only suffer from this to the extent that they are employed. That he has to hustle some young, middle class working types for their vote is just part of the game. EBT America knows who Daddy Street Organizer is really looking out for.

  • Invisible Finger||

    In other words, was Romney overstating the 47% or understating it?

  • John||

    If they don't have a job, they won't care. But remember a lot of them do have a job and get the EIC. And if they have a job, they will be paying for health insurance or paying the penaltax out of their EIC.

    That is not going to go over well. The problem with the free shit brigade, there is never enough free shit to make them happy. We all think cheap health insurance would be great. But we are not members of the free shit brigade. The free shit brigade is thinking "Obama lied to me, I have to pay for this shit".

  • Andrew S.||

    I'm still not sure how this makes sense. Mental Health was completely covered as of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008. What does mental health have to do with it at all?

  • Killazontherun||

    Many of the claims made for ACA were actually part of MHPEA and the SCHIP expansion. That wasn't good enough for the democrats; no, not equitable if people can pay for quality, Cadillac plans. We all have to do our part of the suffering.

  • Rich||

    Now, if you had one of these substandard plans before the Affordable Care Act became law and you really liked that plan, you’re able to keep it. That’s what I said when I was running for office. That was part of the promise we made.

    This is truly insufferable blather.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Given the American public's proven ability to buy this asshole's bullshit, I can understand why he is totally contemptuous of them.

    But he might want to look at his poll numbers and start realizing even a few of the dummies are waking up.

  • Mike M.||

    Yeah, I think we're just about at the point where even many of his low-information supporters are starting to face reality. It's likely to be the tipping point beyond which he never recovers.

  • Rich||

    And don't forget: Food stamp cuts kick in tomorrow.

  • JW||

    What do they get cut back to? 2009 levels?

    OH, THE HORROR.

  • Invisible Finger||

    He has nothing to recover FOR. The party may care, but he never has to run for office ever again.

  • Brett L||

    I have rarely been so viscerally angry in my life. I am actually surprised I can still get this angry.

  • Rich||

    Careful, Brett. It can enjoyable, like an adrenaline rush, for a while; but anger, like fear, eats the soul. Take some slow, deep breaths and channel the anger into productive activity.

    /unsolicited advice

  • Brett L||

    No, I decided I want to see the birth of my child more than I want to bomb Federal buildings. But goddamn, I could've punched a baby (someone else's) for a couple minutes after reading that.

  • ||

    If you’re a young couple expecting a baby, you’re covered.

    Expecting, you say? As in, you know it's going to happen? Interesting...

    So all I have to wait is for the ACA to come to the rest of the insurance market, then if I'm "expecting" to burn down my house, I'll be covered. Safe. Secure.

  • WTF||

    And if you are old, or a single male, or just not planning on ever having a baby, you still have to pay for coverage for it. Because fuck you, that's why.

  • SugarFree||

    "If you've knocked up some retarded slut, you're covered. We will even pay for a flight of stairs for you to push her down."

  • Rich||

    "Then, can I still keep her if I like her?"

  • wagnert in atlanta||

    Only if she meets standards.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Insurance is to protect against unexpected events, like when some young couple you've never met shows up at your doorstep and demands that you chip in for their maternity care.

  • Almanian!||

    *sees young couple on front step - looks heavenward*

    Thanks, Obamacare!

  • WTF||

    like when some young couple you've never met shows up at your doorstep and demands that has government goons force you to chip in for their maternity care.

  • Suki||

    I thought that was what a shotgun was for?

  • Rich||

    Suki?! WTH have you been? I heard you were dead!

  • JW||

    like when some young couple you've never met shows up at your doorstep and demands that you chip in for their maternity care.

    That depends how good they are with domestic work and um, "other duties as assigned."

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    Nonsense, Nikki. Under ACA logic, you can set fire to your house before you purchase your home insurance, and the insurance company has to sell you a plan AND cannot charge you a higher rate! Economic genius!

  • Suki||

    The only problem is the premium for a $100,000 house is $200,000 and the deductible is $50,000. But you get to choose which insurance company you get the Obama specified coverage from.

  • BuSab Agent||

    ^^THIS^^

  • John||

    No. You buy the insurance thinking you might have a baby and then when you do, it pays. Even if you totally plan to do it, it still is buying insurance. Absent of course buying it after you are pregnant. But I don't think that is what he meant in fairness.

  • ||

    If I totally plan to do it, it's not insurance, definitionally. You cannot insure against something you know will happen. You also can't insure against an event that you might choose to make happen at will. Will my car insurance pay out if I tell Geico that I purposely drove into a lake because I felt like it, I just hadn't decided, when I bought the policy, exactly which day and which lake?

  • John||

    If I totally plan to do it, it's not insurance, definitionally. You cannot insure against something you know will happen.

    First, you don't know for sure you are going to have a baby, you just plan to. Unless you are pregnant, there is always a chance you won't use it.

    Second, you can ensure against pretty much anything. You can insure against future costs. That is what derivatives and futures contracts are. They are just insurance against rising costs or even falling income in some cases.

    Lastly, to the extent your point works, it only works if you were buying pregnancy insurance. Yeah, if they just sold that in the policy, 20 something married couples would pay one hell of a high rate. But that is not all the policy covers. Just because you plan to use part of the coverage, doesn't mean the entire policy is no longer insurance or even that part isn't. It just means that you had a good reason to buy it.

  • Brett L||

    But the pregnancy/maternity rider is really just pre-paid healthcare that you may or may not use. The insurance part is if shit goes bad and you end up in the hospital for 3 weeks because of complications. Two very separate things. One you shouldn't have to do, the other you might elect to do at discovery of pregnancy, were they not tied together.

  • John||

    But not all pregnancies cost the same. Even if you take the rider just knowing you are going to get pregnant, you might get pregnant and miscarry in a month and never get pregnant again. You might have a perfect pregnancy and incur a minimum of medical costs. Or you might have all kinds of problems and run up huge costs.

    So what you are doing with that rider is not prepaying for medical care. You are at most insuring against increased costs and fixing the medical costs of your planned pregnancy. Insuring against unexpected costs is certainly insurance.

    This is just another example of people on here having deeply odd ideas about what insurance is.

  • Brett L||

    No, I understand. And I am saying that the pregnancy rider shouldn't pay for a standard pregnancy. It should insure you against the unexpected. When you put a container on a cargo ship, your insurance doesn't cover the cost of booking and transport. It covers unexpected financial loss. Thus, if you are 6 weeks pregnant, you can still buy the rider against problems in the free world.

  • ||

    Brett, what you are describing is a deductible, which in my understanding is a component of most insurance plans. The insurance company says that they'll pay for everything above the first $X/year, and sometimes has additional categories of coverage--for instance there may be a $1000 deductible on maternity care. I don't think this has changed too much under obamacare--hence all the people complaining that their deductibles have gotten way higher.

  • tarran||

    Both my kids were born using the Bradley method. As it turned out, we didn't do anything in the hospital we couldn't have done in our living room. We didn't even need the machine that goes "Ping!".

    Giving birth doesn't need to be very expensive at all. Occasionally there are medical emergencies, something that can be insured against. But a healthy birth doesn't need very expensive interventions.

  • John||

    Giving birth doesn't need to be very expensive at all.

    Sure if you are lucky and everything goes well. The risk that it won't go so well is probably something you might want to insure against?

  • Spoonman.||

    Pretty much. Same logic for giving birth at a hospital - it'll probably be fine, but it might get bad, and then you'll want to be there.

  • tarran||

    Exactly; hence the second sentence of my second paragraph...

  • wwhorton||

    To your first point, you can make the argument that you don't know that you'll end up with a car in a lake, you just plan to, and take steps to make that happen. Just like a baby.

    A bit of devil's advocacy, I know. The other angle is that when one buys health insurance, one expects to need it, even if one doesn't know specific incidents when that need will arise.

    If I knew I would never be injured or fall ill or need medical attention, I wouldn't need insurance. I buy insurance specifically because I think that I will likely someday need to use it, and that I might not have the funds necessary to cover the costs on my own. Also, a family policy would cover your child, so I'd argue that applies to the birth part as well.

  • Brett L||

    I carried a health insurance policy for 6 years. Never once needed it. My parents have had policies for 45 years, never used it as actual insurance, just prepaid medical. If my father drops dead of an aneurism, the only thing it will cover is his ride to the morgue. This is the experience a significant minority of people with health insurance have.

  • waffles||

    Is there such a thing as health insurance fraud?

    Well, of course there is. I just wonder how it plays out in this scenario. Well, something about winners and losers.

  • John||

    It is not fraud unless you lie. Saying that it is is saying that it is fraud buying insurance that you some day plan to use. If you were not pretty certain you would some day use it, why are you buying it?

    I bought my health insurance with the 100% certainty that I would some day get sick and claim some benefits. Was I stealing?

  • waffles||

    I suppose not. But forcing me into coverage I physically cannot or I'm extremely unlikely to use is totally cool.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    To be fair, even if you're pregnant you don't know how much having the baby is going to cost. A premature birth and a stay in the NICU changes the financial picture dramatically.

  • John||

    Exactly. You are buying insurance to fix your costs.

  • Zeb||

    I could see there being a market for pregnancy insurance that you could buy once you know you are pregnant in a free market for health insurance. A couple or expecting mother could buy a policy for a bit more than it would cost for an uncomplicated pregnancy (based on various risk factors) that would pay for any unexpected complications.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    You cannot insure against something you know will happen.

    My life insurance agent says you haven't thought that proposition all the way through.

  • Zeb||

    I think calling the non-term life insurance "insurance" is a bit of a stretch too. It more of a vehicle to avoid estate taxes.

  • ||

    I bet your life insurance doesn't pay out if you kill yourself though.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    I'm pretty sure that after two years in effect, it would. There might be a reduced payout or something, but I never paid particular attention since it was about as irrelevant to me as my maternity coverage will be.

  • Invisible Finger||

    The reminds me of the first Soprano's episode where Tony justifies beating up a HMO guy because he's covered by the HMO.

  • CatoTheElder||

    ACA allows people under 30 to buy catastrophic insurance that excludes coverage of maternity costs. Yes, the geniuses who drafted and administer this turd actually excluded the demographic group most likely to need maternity care from having to pay for maternity coverage.

    Men over 30 have to pay for maternity coverage. Geezers have to pay for maternity coverage. But women under 30 are exempt from that requirement.

    Of course, if a woman on a catastrophic policy happens to get pregnant, she can upgrade to a gold plan with no concern about the pre-existing condition of pregnancy.

  • John||

    You have to laugh to keep from crying. More evidence this law is not some evil plot but the totally insane result of complete craven morons writing law.

  • Mickey Rat||

    John, those are not mutually exclusive categories.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    This highlights the major problem with one size fits all policies. There is absolutely zero justification for this crap. My healthcare costs are going to more than double come Jan 1. This has a lot to do with the fact that now we have to have coverage for maternity care and pediatric care. My wife had surgery to sterilize her several years ago. It is literally a physical impossibility for us to have a baby.

    But, I guess Tony is right. We're just too stupid to know that we might need that expensive coverage. You know, the laws of nature could suddenly suspend themselves and cause a baby to magically appear.

  • blcartwright||

    I believe this could lead to a slew of lawsuits. "Why is the government forcing me to purchase a product, at great cost, that I know I will have no use for?"

    The other side is not allowing catastrophic plans for 30 and older. Somebody has one and then is told they can't have it anymore when they turn 30. ARBITRARY! Force them to explain why 29 year olds are allowed to have catastrophic while 30 year olds can not.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Just keep this in mind the next time the establishment tries to sell us on some bright new idea: They think that lying to promote a program to the public is OK, that focusing on the lies once discovered is just obsessive nitpicking, and that even after the lies are exposed there is no chance that the program will be repealed.

    So when they come to you with their bright new idea of making our lives better and their promises that it won't have bad effects, say, "well, if it turns out you're lying, how do you propose to be held accountable? Would you be willing to resign? Would you be willing to repeal this program if it turns out it was promoted with lies?" Of course we know the answer.

    You can't rely on the assurances they're giving now if you know that, if they should be caught lying later, they'll just shrug it off and suffer no consequences.

  • SweatingGin||

    I like your suggestion here, but I think you need to add two elements to your tough questions for those with bright ideas to make our lives better.

    One: Record their response
    Two: Put it on youtube

  • Bean Counter||

    Three: Shoot the bastard when he refuses to either repeal or resign.

  • GILMORE||

    One: Record their response
    Two: Put it on youtube

    Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    Oh, I miss Lonewacko so. He was so much more fun than Obama.

  • GILMORE||

    One: Record their response
    Two: Put it on youtube

    Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    Oh, I miss Lonewacko so. He was so much more fun than Obama.

  • ||

    Lonewacko? Is that you?

  • Lady Bertrum||

    And what will Obama's excuse be when they start cancelling group plans because they don't meet OC standards? When 96 million Americans get their group plans cancelled? Are all those plans "substandard" too?

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/th.....obamacare/

    Spin, fuckers, spin.

  • sarcasmic||

    Are all those plans "substandard" too?

    Yep. That's exactly what they'll say. And then they will demand that you thank them for it.

  • SugarFree||

    He only hits us because we make him so crazy sometimes.

  • Tony||

    If the private health insurance market isn't up to the task of providing universal, quality, affordable healthcare, then there is a perfectly sound alternative.

  • Dweebston||

    I suppose we won't know until we try it.

  • Tony||

    Every other wealthy country in the world has already tried it.

  • Cytotoxic||

    And has inferior healthcare.

  • Tony||

    Lie.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Tell that to Americans superior survival rates regarding cancer and heart attack and just about everything else.

  • #||

    Not to mention we haven't had any healthcare system even remotely resembling a free market in many decades now.

  • Blueman||

    ^THIS. I say we try an actual free market approach for once in my lifetime.

  • barfman2013||

    *barf*

  • Dweebston||

    I meant letting the market sort out unknowables like consumer preferences that manifest only as a result of competition, rather than empowering bureaucrats to meddle hamfistedly.

  • Tony||

    Market competition, as in, I exercised my consumer preference for this insurance policy, but it didn't cover my getting hit by a bus, so I died on the street, but next time I'll try something else?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Yes. Choices with consequences. Although in the real world, most insurance policies do not have bullshit highly specific exceptions like that. Not that I expect you to know anything about the real world.

  • Contrarian P||

    A large portion of trauma patients are uninsured, which you would know if you even bothered to try researching this issue instead of throwing out bullshit on a consistent basis, and yet they get rushed to trauma centers and receive the same xrays, CT scans, and surgical interventions you would get. Your complete lack of integrity is quite amazing. I used to think that posters here were too hard on you. I figured you were a well meaning but indoctrinated dimwit who might stand a chance of grasping the complete lack of logic and consistency inherent in his position. Now I must join and agree with my fellows at H&R: you're either the most oblivious troll of all time or an identity used by a variety of leftist flacks.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Give that bus driver a bonus.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    Every other wealthy country in the world has already tried it.

    Rationed care != universal care.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    If the private health insurance market isn't up to the task of providing universal, quality, affordable healthcare, then there is a perfectly sound alternative.

    See what you did there?

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    No, he doesn't.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Exactly. The passive-aggressive don't know they're being passive-aggressive.

    But Tony is one of the 45 million.

  • Blueman||

    Huh????? You mean, gulp, health insurance doesn't equal health CARE? My world is shattered.

  • Cytotoxic||

    No there isn't.

  • sarcasmic||

    then there is a perfectly sound alternative.

    Yep. A free market where insurance isn't tied to employment because of tax policy written by government bureaucrats, isn't forced to cover things mandated by government bureaucrats, and isn't limited to geographical areas as dictated by government bureaucrats.

    Oh, wait. You meant a system designed by government bureaucrats?

    I'm sure they could do much better than the current system that is fucked up thanks to government bureaucrats.

  • wwhorton||

    Insurance != Care.

  • Rich||

    Beautiful.

    Why does OC does not require *everyone* to have the same ("excellent") plan?

    Actually, it may very well do that, but Sebelius hasn't read down to that part yet.

  • Zeb||

    Sebelius hasn't read down to that part yet

    One disturbing aspect to a law like this is that it is pretty much certain that no one person has read and understood the whole thing. It is too complicated for a single person to know the whole thing.

  • Rich||

    Don't worry, Zeb. That's why it uses computers.

  • Invisible Finger||

    This includes Supreme Court justices.

  • Invisible Finger||

    OC probably is all one plan, your only choice is the premium/deductible trade-off you want to make.

  • GILMORE||

    That was because their employers were dicks. The government didn't MAKE them do it.

  • R C Dean||

    And what will Obama's excuse be when they start cancelling group plans

    Market failure due to racist libertarian teathuglican Kochsucker unmutual kulaks and wreckers?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I mean, he went from "we absolutely won't do it, no sir," to "yes we did it, but it was for your own good." Can you trust someone in that situation?

  • WTF||

    He lies to us because he loves us.

  • Almanian!||

    And you can see how it pains him to HAVE to do it. But he HAS to do it. For us. Because of his love for us.

  • WTF||

    If he didn't lie to us, we would never get what we really need. Because we don't know any better.

  • Almanian!||

    God praise him!

    President Obama, praise yourself!

  • Killazontherun||

    None of these prices would be shooting up if we had single payer. The costs however, that's an entirely different story.

  • Invisible Finger||

    We really need to start calling it "single-denier".

  • Killazontherun||

    Even Obama couldn't make the private sector solution work, what more proof does anyone need that single payer is the only real solution?

  • blcartwright||

    so you mean since govt fucked up the market so bad that only the govt can rescue it by totally taking it over?

    Seriously, single payer assumes that costs can be controlled by simply refusing to pay a higher price. The mechanic says it will take $1000 to fix your car, but you tell him $500 and he has to take it. Then you expect the same quantity and quality of product? How many health care workers will quit, or never enter the profession, because it's a job that doesn't pay?

    So after single payer, the govt will have to take over all the hospitals and clinics to keep them from going out of business. The govt telling citizens they aren't allowed to freely associate and make contracts, you can only purchase from them?

    Once they are paying for you, they own you. Fat people cost too much money to care for, so people will not be allowed to eat certain foods, therefor stores won't be allowed to sell unhealthy foods.

    It all sounds good to some people, but many of us prefer to make our own choices and live or own lives. Find a way to help the down and out and leave the rest of us alone.

  • Jordan||

    These assholes are still pushing the notion of False Consciousness? Holy shit. I'll bet Obama gets pissed when people rightly call him a Marxist.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    "If you like your coverage, and I approve of it, you can keep it."

    He could use a good does of the pancreatic cancer.

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    He could use a good does of the pancreatic cancer.

    Vitiligo would be funnier.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    But not enough pain and death.

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    Vitiligo, AND Glioblastoma.

  • John||

    I asked on Facebook if anyone actually cared about millions of people losing their health insurance or were we going to continue for the next three years about how much Obama cares about use when he seems to have created a lot of harm to a lot of people and has shown no interest in doing anything about it.

    Silence ensued. Not a single Obamatron friend of mine, and I have a few and they are generally all about defending Obama, said a single thing. Nothing. I was kind of stunned. I expected at least some bullshit excuse making or "that is just a rightwing meme" or something. Instead is was nothing. It is like this thing is just too horrible for them to contemplate right now. They are not even saying anything about it on their own pages, even though many of them post Dem propaganda all the freaking time.

  • Tony||

    Why don't you ask them how they feel about one of their Facebook friends being a sociopath who likes seeing millions of people lose health insurance because it hurts the president's approval ratings.

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    Maybe he dislikes the President for pimping the law that caused those people to lose their health insurance.

  • Tony||

    But that's not happening. The ACA introduced standards for private insurance. It included a grandfather provision that allowed plans that didn't meet those standards to remain. It did not include any further restrictions on private insurers forcing them to sell insurance to people, however, so some private insurers are changing their own terms, just as they have been able to every year since forever. People are still required to get coverage, so "millions of people" are not losing insurance.

    However, I do not defend this law as the paragon of universal healthcare schemes. But that's free marketers' fault.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    People are still required to get coverage, so "millions of people" are not losing insurance.

    Ohhh, I get it now!

  • Jordan||

    It included a grandfather provision that allowed plans that didn't meet those standards to remain knowing full well that those plans would have to change at some point.

    Mendacious fuck is mendacious.

    However, I do not defend this law as the paragon of universal healthcare schemes. But that's free marketers' fault.

    Free marketers are at fault for a bill they neither created nor voted for and have attempted to kill many times. Derp. You left out the Wreckers, Kulaks, and BOOOOSH.

  • Tony||

    So real free marketers thought the prior status quo was just peachy? Or what is your plan? Lemme guess, it involves a generous serving of unicorns?

  • Jordan||

    So real free marketers thought the prior status quo was just peachy?

    I think you've produced enough straw on this thread to qualify for a Dept of Agriculture subsidy.

    Poison that well! First of all, one does not need to offer a plan to criticize one. And second of all, Libertarians have offered many plans both here at Reason and elsewhere, as you are fully aware but too dishonest to admit.

  • GILMORE||


    Tony|10.31.13 @ 3:43PM|#

    So real free marketers thought the prior status quo was just peachy?

    Well it certainly cost fucking less.

  • Blueman||

    The status quo, establishment types would actually detest an actual free market.

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    So real free marketers thought the prior status quo was just peachy? Or what is your plan? Lemme guess, it involves a generous serving of unicorns?

    Wow, you're still saying this?

    Don't you fell kind of stupid having, all this time, told us that, since the Obamacare was different than the status quo, and we all didn't like the prior status quo, that it was a given that we had to support Obamacare? That Obamacare was simply de facto good simply because the status quo was bad? And if we didn't go for that, we were silly ideologues?

    And now that Obamacare has proven to be worse then the status quo, you actually think that argument is still a good, strong one?

    That's functionally retarded.

  • blcartwright||

    No.

    The problems I see with employer provided health care -

    1 someone else is choosing a plan for you
    2 the available providers are limited by geography
    3 you are not free to change plans when it fails you

    What has the ACA done to fix any of those? I pick my own auto insurance from any company in the country, not just my state. I tell them what level of coverage I want, the only requirements are that I must cover liability for injuries or costs I create for OTHER people, not for myself. Any day of the year I can call up AIG and say "You SUCK I am going to GEICO" and then some time later, at any given day of the year tell GEICO "I saved $35 a month by going to USAA".

    Create an individual market that emulates what works in other types of insurance. Give subsidies to poor folks, find a way to fund pre-existing conditions, and let "young adults" stay on their parent's policies as long they are being claimed as dependents.

    How's that??

  • Procrastinatus||

    This is amazing. You progs regulate the markets to inefficiency, and then blame the markets in order to keep fucking the markets even more. It really is a race to the bottom with you guys. I mean I've seen this all my life; you guys fucking up the food, education and healthcare markets, but now I'm watching it happen concentrated in the span of months. And still you retards keep the faith that this run of increasing food, healthcare and education costs coupled with decreasing wages is simply a regulation or subsidy away from fixing itself. I give you guys points for faith. I mean if my ideology consistently had the inverse effect I'd probably reevaluate my beliefs.

  • ||

    No Jordan, he covered wreckers earlier in response to John.

  • ||

    Jesus fuck Tony. My old german friend is right.

    There is only one way to deal with a socialist.

  • wwhorton||

    At what point does malicious stupidity become aggression for the purposes of the NAP?

  • Procrastinatus||

    Maybe when that maliciously stupid person sends agents of the State to your house to force compliance? Or, as many advocates of the NAP claim that the threat of force is sufficient to justify self defense, maybe when that maliciously stupid person threatens to use agents of the State against you if you don't comply. I find it hard to believe that if you don't buy insurance, and don't pay the fine, that the IRS will simply drop the matter.

  • GILMORE||

    " The ACA introduced standards SHOVED BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF COSTS FOR SHIT LIKE MENTAL HEALTH CARE ONTO private insurance" CUSTOMERS

  • FYTW||

    There were already a multitude of standards for private insurance. Private insurance has been regulated aggressively, to excess, by states for decades. The idea that state insurance commissioners were permitting fraudulent or junk policies to be sold in their states is flatly ridiculous. The only people pretending that policies that don't comply with the ACA's standards are "substandard" or somehow shitty are the Chocolate Jesus and his Kneepad Brigade.

    What the ACA did was to pile a bunch of stupid new national mandates on top of the existing stupid state mandates. This wasn't done to improve anybody's insurance; it was done to ensure that more healthy people would end up overpaying for health insurance they didn't really need, to defray the costs of "insuring" sick people. And while the law technically included a grandfather provision, the administration later eviscerated it through rulemaking, by insisting that even the kind of minor technical changes insurers make to their policies every year as a matter of course disqualified a policy from being grandfathered.

    TL;DR: Fuck off, sockpuppet.

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    But that's not happening. The ACA introduced standards for private insurance. It included a grandfather provision that allowed plans that didn't meet those standards to remain. It did not include any further restrictions on private insurers forcing them to sell insurance to people, however, so some private insurers are changing their own terms, just as they have been able to every year since forever.

    From Wonkblog: This is why Obamacare is canceling some people’s insurance plans. You like Ezra Klein, don't you?

    Tony:

    People are still required to get coverage, so "millions of people" are not losing insurance.

    This is a non sequitur: just because someone is forced to get coverage to replace insurance they lost, doesn't mean they never lost it. How much do you have to bend your perception of reality so that it can still appear comfortably consistent with your ideology? Obamacare is great, regardless of whatever really happens, apparently.

    However, I do not defend this law as the paragon of universal healthcare schemes. But that's free marketers' fault.

    So this enormous new regulation of healthcare is the free marketer's fault? Please try again with something stronger. Non sequitur's really don't cut it here.

  • blcartwright||

    and maybe someone lost their $100/mo catastrophic plan and after "shopping around" can only replace it with one costing $400, which they can not afford, so they opt for the penaltax.

    Yes, they lost their coverage.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Have you considered working in a movie theater? You are very good at projection.

  • John||

    Yeah Tony I love it. That is why I cheered for this bill to pass instead of warning everyone I could it was going to be a disaster.

    The only sociopath I see is the guy who is responsible for all this but won't admit there is a problem much less care to fix it because doing so would bruise his ego.

    Tell me Tony, do you think Obama cares about the people losing their insurance? If so, what has he done that causes you to believe that. If not, isn't he a pretty nasty person for not caring?

  • blcartwright||

    Obama loves those people - he is taking away the nasty fake insurance they chose for themselves, and replacing it with a shiny new plan that is so much better but they can't afford

  • GILMORE||

    "Why don't you ask them how they feel about one of their Facebook friends being a sociopath who likes seeing millions of people lose health insurance because it hurts the president's approval ratings

    I don't understand Tony = are you suggesting that Millions of People are actually LOSING their coverage??

  • PapayaSF||

    My lefty Facebook friends are busy spinning: "Temporary glitches! Better plans! GOP obstruction! This was their idea, anyway! Something had to be done, this is something, therefore we must do this!"

    But it's funny how the "substandard" argument only works in one direction. Can SoCons argue that gay marriage is "substandard"? Can immigration restrictionists argue that illiterate peasants are "substandard"? Somehow, I think not.

  • John||

    I like the gay marriage angle. Look gay people just don't understand that civil unions are better for them. LOL

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    Look, we've determined that gay marriages simply don't provide an adequate level of shrieking, sexless nights, and use of children as leverage in divorce actions. Hence, in order to avoid your ObamaMarriage penalty, you will have to enroll in a qualified Bronze, Silver, or Gold heterosexual marriage that provides an approved minimum level of heterosexual hostility.

  • John||

    Gay people are way too happy and need to be subjected to the experience of divorce court.

  • sarcasmic||

    It is like this thing is just too horrible for them to contemplate right now.

    Or they are busy spinning and rationalizing. Don't worry, before long they'll be bragging about how the ACA is helping people who were stuck with substandard insurance, and how the only thing better would be single payer.

    Then I'll say "See John. I told you so. Now pretty please, with sugar on top, go fuck yourself."

  • Kid Xenocles||

    If I like your plan, you can keep it.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Because there's been a lot of confusion and misinformation about this, I want to explain just what's going on.

    Jesus Christ.

  • John||

    How could there have been any confusion or misinformation about this? I mean who could have created that?

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    I mean who could have created that?

    Kulaks, Rush Limbaugh, the Koch brothers, and obstructionist teathuglicans.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    Also that wingnut Glenn Kessler.

  • Tony||

    People often are too stupid to know what's best for them and it's sometimes government's job to help them out, and that's just the way it is.

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    People often are too stupid to know what's best for them and it's sometimes government's job to help them out, and that's just the way it is.

    Translation: SLURP SLURP SLURP SLURP SLURP SLURP SLURP SLURP GAG SLURP SLURP SLURP SLURP SLURP SLURP SLURP

  • Ted S.||

    I don't think Tony gags when he's slurping Obama.

  • Dweebston||

    Who's spoofing Tony's name? This is a bit rich, even under that tag.

  • Tony||

    The word "stupid" doesn't have the right connotation, of course. But it is a fact of living in a civilization that people tend not to have 100% of the information they need to maximize their own well-being, even if they make all the right choices and don't have any bad luck.

  • PapayaSF||

    people tend not to have 100% of the information they need to maximize their own well-being

    Thankfully, Washington D.C. does!

  • Brian||

    Thankfully, Washington D.C. does!

    And they have all the best incentives!

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    Odd. How did you (or anyone else) acquire 100% of the information necessary to determine that their pre-ACA plans were inadequate?

  • Kid Xenocles||

    Obama said it, he believes it, and that settles it.

  • Dweebston||

    Why does it work for markets insuring other aspects of life, using complicated instruments and actuarial data inaccessible or incomprehensible to the vast majority of customers? You're making a better case for disaggregating healthcare delivery from insurance, something nobody seems interested in pursuing. Why not double down on demonstrable failures?

  • Tony||

    I was responding to the exaggeration of Obama's speech presented as the title and subject of this piece, not making an argument about healthcare. I'm for national single-payer healthcare with no private insurance involvement at all (but could tolerate some highly regulated private insurance marketplace as an alternative to obliterating the industry, as I'd prefer).

  • #||

    "I'm for national single-payer healthcare with no private insurance involvement at all."

    Hmm, something that exists nowhere except wonderful countires like Cuba and North Korea.

    We can turn around the usual leftist derp about how the rest of the world doesn't have that!

  • #||

    And could we please stop letting them get away with the term "single payer"? If we want to fight their next attempt at this we need to start refering to it as what it is, nationalized or socialized.

  • Blueman||

    Should be changed to "single line 10 miles out the door for any given health care".

  • Christophe||

    Hmm, something that exists nowhere except wonderful countires like Cuba and North Korea.

    Unfortunately Canada is actually pretty close to that state of affairs.

    Our Supreme Court has struck down some of the worst restrictions, but it's still nearly impossible for the average Canadian to purchase private health services or insurance for stuff covered by the public syste.

  • Brian||

    Hmm, something that exists nowhere except wonderful countires like Cuba and North Korea.

    Don't forget Canada. The three places in the world you're banned from purchasing medicine with your own money:

    1. North Korea
    2. Cuba
    3. Canada

    Don't worry, though: nothing like that could happen here.

  • Andrew S.||

    Back shortly after my wife and I were married, I was in graduate school and she worked a job without health benefits. So we were on the individual insurance market. Because we had no plans to have a baby at the time, and were using multiple forms of birth control (THAT WE *GASP* PAID FOR), we decided to save a good deal of cash and take maternity coverage out of the plan we bought for her (I went uninsured). The cost for the health coverage without maternity was 50% less than the cost with. Did we not know what we were doing? Should we have been forced to buy coverage we didn't want or need? If so, why?

  • Dweebston||

    Because Progressives care about the dullards who don't or can't know what's best for them, and since their hypothetical dullards need a paternalistic hand on their collective shoulders guiding their decisions, we must all chip in to help.

  • Jordan||

    You were suffering from False Consciousness, comrade.

  • Tony||

    What if you were hit by a bus?

  • Andrew S.||

    If I were hit by a bus, my wife still would not have been pregnant. I'm not sure what you're asking me.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    And then got pregnant?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    The catastrophic policy would pay for it, after the deductible.

  • Jordan||

    THAT'S NOT INSURANCE!!1

  • General Butt Naked||

    Damn all of you quick fingers.

    This is a Tony spoof, setting them up so we can knock 'em down...

  • General Butt Naked||

    The catastrophic policy would pay for it, after the deductible.

    But, but...

    if you don't have the $10k deductible in cash on your person the hospital will feed you to the dogs.

  • Tony||

    No but other people will have to cover the cost.

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    No but other people will have to cover the cost.

    And this bothers liberal fans of wealth redistribution why exactly?

  • Contrarian P||

    Let me get this straight. If you are hit by a bus and don't have the 10k deductible, other people will have to cover the cost, making it an absolutely horrible idea. Under "single payer" or this hideous hybrid, everybody else picks up the cost of your care, because most people qualify for a subsidy to buy insurance, and that's a great idea. It must take amazing mental discipline to split your mind in such a way as to avoid realizing the mutual exclusivity of your arguments.

  • Procrastinatus||

    "No but other people will have to cover the cost."

    Fucking not true. At all. You WILL be reported to a collection agency if you don't pay up and they WILL offer you monthly payoffs. My wife and I go this route because guess what; paying off old emergency room bills on a monthly basis is STILL cheaper for us than paying the middle man (i.e. insurance companies)to do it in advance for us.

    You don't get "free" medical care by showing up at the ER. How the fuck is such a stupid ass lie repeated so often?

  • General Butt Naked||

    What if you were hit by a bus?

    That's not how babies are made.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Tony has blessed us with a new meme.

    "Deep dish pizza is not pizza."

    "What if you were hit by a bus?"

    "What? Hmm, I don't know!?"

  • General Butt Naked||

    I'm not gonna sugarcoat this, if you concede the fact that getting hit by a bus causes pregnancy then Tony is right.

    /letting you down one last time

  • Kid Xenocles||

    What if you were hit by a bus?

    That's not how babies are made.

    Some of us happen to like it rough.

  • Acosmist||

    THIS IS WHAT TONY ACTUALLY ASKED

  • ||

    Nevermind, found it.

    The shit, she is holy.

  • Doctor Whom||

    But they have 100% of the information they need to vote for the correct Top Men who will maximize everyone's well-being.

  • Shocked||

    Are these the people too stupid to get a free ID so they can vote?

  • ||

    A 60 year old man clearly lacks sufficient information to know that he needs maternity coverage.

  • blcartwright||

    oh those fine folks in DC who don't know squat about you will do such a better job of making choices for you than you can make yourself

  • John||

    No spoof. This is really what they are going to say. They are going full retard on this. There will be no "well we tried our best and we are so sorry but if this didn't work only single payer can." Nope. They are going to die on this hill claiming the ACA was great and if you don't think so it is only because you are too dumb to know what is good for you.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Incredible. As Epi says, we are so so lucky that our enemies are this retarded. Their forebears had the connection with reality a conman does, but they couldn't transmit that, so they've bequeathed the world-through intellectual indoctrination-a generation of fascist retards. We can beat these people.

  • John||

    We are. It is sometimes easy to imagine them to be evil geniuses. They are not. They are morons. And once in a while justice is served.

  • Cytotoxic||

    LBJ was an evil genius, FDR as well to some extent. Obama is a sort-of charismatic juvenile moron.

  • Tony||

    You have an amazing penchant for completely misunderstanding the motivations of other people combined with wishful thinking. Liberals have never been happy with this law. This is the Max Baucus law. Now, because Republicans have treated it with such apocalyptic language, practical liberals have no choice but to defend their president's policy lest they suffer a major political setback that might bring the enemy to power--an enemy who doesn't even profess to care about reforming healthcare at all.

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    Liberals have never been happy with this law. This is the Max Baucus law.

    Fortunately, liberals had nothing to do with this dastardly law. Max Baucus passed it all by himself, in the dead of the night.

  • Lord Humungus||

    hahahaha... It's like a Stalin supporter.

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    Just wait until Joe Biden is airbrushed out of every photo.

  • Cytotoxic||

    practical liberals have no choice but to defend their president's policy lest they suffer a major political setback that might bring the enemy to power

    AHAHAHAHAHAH YES THAT'S RIGHT TOY THE ONLY WAY TO STOP THE REPUBLICANS WAS TO SUPPORT A BILL THAT MAY AS WELL BE CALLED THE 'GOP MIDTERM DOMINATION ACT' YOU FUCKING RETARD

  • Tony||

    You're missing the point. I believe that not only would a stronger single-payer law have been better policy, it would have been better politics, since it would have been more likely to succeed without as many hiccups as this overly complex reform attempt has had. I also believe Republicans would have called the law the Devil completely regardless of what its particulars were.

    Nevertheless, it is indeed "Obama's signature domestic legislative achievement," and The Enemy has gone so far into the depths of crazy that it evidently is pretending that the only problem with healthcare in this country is this law, so dealing further political damage to the noncrazies is not an option.

  • Cytotoxic||

    No you're missing the point. You're wrong about single payer both as policy and politics and you're wrong about Obamacare in terms of policy and politics. By defending Obamacare you have basically given the GOP endless ammo. Hell, you've probably given anti-statists a quick line on any government schemes. "You want the government to manage it? Like Obamacare? FTS." Congrats on fucking yourself.

  • Tony||

    You could be right, but it depends on the people forgetting that they despise Republicans far more and are perfectly well aware that they have not offered any policy ideas of any kind for the past 5 years.

  • Pulseguy||

    How did this law help healthcare? If you want reform of healthcare why are you defending a law that is actually the maintenance of the status quo, but writ somewhat larger?

    Now you say you're defending it, not because it is good, but because you don't want the 'enemy' to have been proved right. Even though the enemy was right.

  • Brian||

    Nevertheless, it is indeed "Obama's signature domestic legislative achievement," and The Enemy has gone so far into the depths of crazy that it evidently is pretending that the only problem with healthcare in this country is this law, so dealing further political damage to the noncrazies is not an option.

    This entire sentence is nonsensical. I can't even make out what you're saying.

    "Dealing political damage is not an option because The Enemy (TM) has gone so crazy that they pretend that the law is the only problem with healthcare."

    What does that even fucking mean?

  • John||

    Liberals have never been happy with this law.

    Yeah Tony. They just spent the last four years calling it their "signature accomplishment" and telling the country that the Republicans were terrorists for wanting to repeal it because they were not happy.

    Tony, I thought you were smarter than shreek. Don't you understand not everyone is as stupid as you are? Forget it dude. You own this piece of shit. You passed it without a single R vote. You celebrated in the streets when the SCOTUS didn't kill it. And you told the entire country that the Republicans were terrorists for wanting to delay it.

    No amount of "we never really liked it anyway" is going to get this albatross off your neck. Good luck claiming that. But you are about four years too late.

  • Tony||

    I've consistently said it wasn't my preferred way of reforming healthcare, but I will admit that I think it's an improvement over the prior status quo.

    What's your healthcare reform plan, again? What was the Republicans'? I mean, this was the Republicans until it had Obama's name on it, so what is their new plan? Anything? Helloooo?

    Do you guys have any policy ideas at all, for that matter, other than OBAMA BAD GOP SMASH GRRRRRR. ?

  • Cytotoxic||

    I will admit that I think it's an improvement over the prior status quo.

    And you will be wrong.

    Do you guys have any policy ideas at all, for that matter, other than OBAMA BAD GOP SMASH GRRRRRR. ?

    1) This is deflection that changes nothing in political terms.

    2) Yes we do which you'd know if you weren't retarded.

  • John||

    but I will admit that I think it's an improvement over the prior status quo.

    I have about 96 million voters who have or are about to lose their health insurance plans who say otherwise.

    "I never said it would be perfect" doesn't really answer the mail when it makes the lives of millions of people much worse. But you can go ahead try that.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    It's definitely not an improvement. The fact is, we were already paying for everybody's healthcare, one way or another. Take the hypothetical pregnant woman above. She has no insurance, but she will get prenatal care anyway. She will give birth in a hospital. And if something goes wrong, no expense will be spared to save her or her baby's life.

    THAT is the pre-Obamacare reality. It may not be all that efficient, but the job is getting done. So anything that takes that situation and makes it even more expensive - like Obamacare - is a really, really stupid idea.

  • Tony||

    Except that for the first time in anyone's living memory, healthcare costs have slowed since the implementation of the ACA.

  • FYTW||

    Correlation is causation!

  • Pulseguy||

    Healthcare costs slowed because Obama has nearly destroyed the economy. People have less, therefore things costs less, including health insurance.

  • Contrarian P||

    Point of fact: Obamacare has not yet been fully implemented, and many of the provisions that will increase costs have not yet come online.

  • John||

    What Fatty said.

  • Brian||

    "I never said it would be perfect" doesn't really answer the mail when it makes the lives of millions of people much worse. But you can go ahead try that.

    Or, "Hey: at least it's not that old status quo!" That really doesn't fly, either. Tony thinks it does. Which shows you how much of an ideologue he is.

  • Pulseguy||

    All of Obama's accomplishments, such as they are, are either continuation of Bush's policies, or taking something from Republicans, and doing it poorly.

    How does that make you feel?

  • Dweebston||

    Why take a principled stand against a thoroughly corporatist policy when you can politick instead? And then plead indifference later?

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    Liberals have never been happy with this law. This is the Max Baucus law.

    I think it's a bit late to name Obamacare Baucuscare. You're really reaching now. You really want to pretend that liberals didn't like Obamacare all along?

    Obama Hails Vote on Health Care as Answering ‘the Call of History’.

    “This is the Civil Rights Act of the 21st century,” said Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the No. 3 Democrat in the House.
    Winding up the debate, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: “After a year of debate and hearing the calls of millions of Americans, we have come to this historic moment. Today we have the opportunity to complete the great unfinished business of our society and pass health insurance reform for all Americans that is a right and not a privilege.”

    I could go on and on. Liberals were celebrating Obamacare. You keep distorting reality just to hold on to your ideology, which is on display, failing, in the news, everyday now.

  • Lord Humungus||

    hardly a shock - this is the same guy who wants to confiscate property from the deceased.

  • Tony||

    The deceased can't own property.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    lol - you are that dense aren't you?

    In a world where everyone knows upon death the state will take all of their worldly possessions, the rich will use things like trusts, part time jobs for families, and creative use of the gift laws to ensure there isn't anything left upon natural death.

    Not to mention all the rich people with wills leaving their entire estates to charities... do you think they'd do the same if their estates would just become property of the government upon their deaths?

    Or even better - setup the transfer of all funds prior to death - since most deaths aren't "quick" - assign power of attorney to someone to specifically invoke transfer when "near death".

    Either way - incentives effect behavior and taxing estates at 100% is a perverse incentive for those who plan.

    For those who don't plan well - they'll be screwed. And as usual, that will fall mostly on the poor.

    You just hate people don't you? I mean - you must given your goals.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Who will tell these stupid people how to vote?

  • Almanian!||

    Not the real Choney. No way.

    WHERE ARE YOUR SPACES NOW, C H O N E Y?

    D

  • creech||

    OK, so let's come up with a fair test that shows who is too stupid to vote.

  • PapayaSF||

    Thankfully, the central government always has the best judgment about the personal matters of 300 million individuals, and an infinite supply of money to make sure everything turns out for the best.

  • Andrew S.||

    From each according to their ability, to each according to their need, right Tony?

  • Tony||

    From each nothing, to each fuck you! Right, Andy?

  • barfman2013||

    *barf*

  • Andrew S.||

    You go through strawmen at an incredible rate. Maybe the government should be subsidizing them.

  • Tony||

    You implied I was a communist, so...

  • Lord Humungus||

    if you're not a commie, then you're one hell of a fascist.

  • Tony||

    I'm a liberal--I believe in a mixed economy structured so that human well-being is maximized, well-being measured in terms of physical and educational needs met, rights protected, and opportunities to prosper made available.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You don't understand what rights are so GFY.

  • Tony||

    On the contrary, I understand what rights are and I understand what you think they are.

  • The Heresiarch||

    What are rights?

  • Dweebston||

    And the worst strawmen aren't even sad caricatures of us! The worst are the strawmen he makes of his own side. Which leads me to suspect that Tony is nom de plume to one of the regulars here.

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    Tony's strawmen are currently insufficient to meet the ObamaRhetoric requirements for qualified rhetorical tricks. He will have to upgrade them to, at the minimum, Bronze-level strawmen (Which must consist of accusations of homophobia/sexism at a level not to go below 70%).

  • PapayaSF||

    I won't sugarcoat it: this "substandard" meme deserves to live on.

  • Cytotoxic||

    IT'S THE WAY IT IS BECAUSE I SAY SO

    Except it isn't Tony. Even if Obamacare isn't overturned-I think it will be-the pending brankruptcy of the USG and the rise of technology that makes 'internal secession' easier means you lose.

    I hope you're enjoying the moment and the last few years. This is probably your Golden Age. The bubble's bursting and you and your ilk are fucked.

  • Christophe||

    'internal secession'

    Love that term. Mind if I steal it?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    That's a winning message for any electoral campaign.

    "You are all stupid and I will take away the things you like and pay for! Clinton/Biden 2016!!!"

  • Andrew S.||

    Clinton/Biden? You wish! Clinton/Warren!

  • Doctor Whom||

    People often are too stupid to know what's best for them and it's sometimes government's job to help them out, and that's just the way it is.

    That notion has not ever been used and cannot ever be used against LGBT people, right? Right?

  • Tony||

    Yes government can do bad things.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    :-(

  • General Butt Naked||

    Yes government can do bad things.

    Because people are too stupid, and lack 100% information to know when the government does bad things we need to get rid of government.

  • Contrarian P||

    Yes government can do bad things.

    Like pretty much every policy you've ever advocated.

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    Yes government can do bad things.

    Oh, don't start moralizing now, Tony.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    Remember when Science(TM) used to say it was a mental illness?

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    People often are too stupid to know what's best for them and it's sometimes government's job to help them out, and that's just the way it is.

    If I don't know what's best for me, how does Nancy Pelosi knows what's best for her, or for me?

  • Tony||

    Because she's significantly smarter than you?

  • Kid Xenocles||

    [citation required]

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    [Citation Unavailable]

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Just google Nancy Pelosi and Visa. Sucka!

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    She compares taking over one-sixth of the economy to not looking at the complicated bits behind your refrigerator. I doubt she's smarter than even you.

  • Tony||

    Clever, healthcare is 1/6th of the economy. This law is about healthcare. Presto, this law is about "taking over" 1/6th of the economy!

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    OK, maybe she is.

  • Contrarian P||

    Forcing all companies to sell only products that are officially approved. Fining anyone who dares to not purchase the official product. Yeah, I'd say that qualifies as a takeover.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    If your vision of government requires people believing that Nancy Pelosi is a supergenius who should be entrusted with control over the most important facets of our lives, you're going to be very disappointed by the traction that vision gets.

    I know we've had right-wing trolls, but have any of them tried to claim John Boehner or McCain as some kind of supergenius?

  • Tony||

    Sigh. My point isn't actually that Nancy Pelosi should determine how we live our lives because she is smart. My point is that individuals consistently misjudge things such as their level of risk or the cost they impose on other people. We are capable of figuring this out, but individuals, even very smart ones, are going to go on misjudging things, so we devise community-wide policies that attempt to account for them. For example, we underestimate our risk for disease or injury, so an insurance scheme (private or social) exists to mitigate the consequences.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    For example, we underestimate our risk for disease or injury, so an insurance scheme (private or social) exists to mitigate the consequences.

    If we underestimate our risk for disease or injury, do legislators underestimate the risk that they just make things worse? Or, do these chronic underestimators of the bad things that can happen in life suddenly gain wisdom when they get elected?

  • Tony||

    It is generally better to have intelligent legislators than stupid ones. But if you want to argue for why anarchy is a superior form of social organization than archy, go ahead.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    That's not what I fucking asked. Why do chronic underestimators of risk suddenly stop being so when they are elected? If they don't, they are underestimating the risks of their policies, aren't they?

  • Tony||

    Legislators remain human beings. But they can simultaneously be human beings with inherent information deficiencies and be aware of the problem itself as well as strategies for combating it on a community-wide scale.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Being aware of strategies doesn't make legislators immune to the possibility that these strategies are wrong, counter-productive, and/or subject to risks they don't properly evaluate does it?

    Have you looked at the estimated costs of Medicare and Social Security spending for 1990 at the time the programs were instituted versus actual 1990 costs? They ain't the same fuckin' ballpark, ain't the same league, ain't even the same fuckin' sport.

    Why should legislators get to substitute their flawed judgment for the flawed judgment of individuals they've never even met?

  • PapayaSF||

    This illuminates the core flaw (or one of them) in Tony's point of view. These wise legislators make a decision, and we're stuck with the results for generations, whether they were right or not. They got money, votes, and power for making the decision they did, and suffered no consequences for being wrong. That's an inherently flawed system, in many ways worse than "anarchy" (i.e. distributed, local, flexible solutions).

  • blcartwright||

    because then mistakes are localized and the lessons can be learned by others, and we learn they are mistakes by the number of people turning away and going to alternatives.

    none of that exists in a federally mandated structure.

  • Acosmist||

    Andrew, do you post these things when you're on the down cycle of your testosterone treatments? I can't explain how a sane person would do this, so that's my explanation.

  • The Heresiarch||

    So either there is massive government intervention in the health care market or there is absolute anarchy. There is no other way?

  • PapayaSF||

    I think "anarchy" has often just prog shorthand for "letting people solve problems locally." Can't have that!

  • blcartwright||

    people get elected by promising free shit. that doesn't mean they are any more intelligent than the rest of us

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    My point is that individuals consistently misjudge things such as their level of risk or the cost they impose on other people. We are capable of figuring this out, but individuals, even very smart ones, are going to go on misjudging things, so we devise community-wide policies that attempt to account for them. For example, we underestimate our risk for disease or injury, so an insurance scheme (private or social) exists to mitigate the consequences.

    See? Insurance is good. Therefore, since pointing guns at people and making them participate in insurance schemes increases participation, then doing so is pure awesome!

    That's as complex as it gets for Tony. He still believes the fairy tale: the government is busy coming up with community-wide policies that attempt to minimize risk. Not a selfish one in the system.

    This is like what you tell 10 year old children, when reality is too complicated and painful to convey to their tender minds. You're not supposed to go on believing it into adulthood, Tony. Well, you're not expected to.

  • ||

    It is truly stupendous how you can tell bald faced lies when you know damn well every one here knows you are lying. Sanctimoniously adding in that absurd comment is just what I would expect from someone as vile as you are.

    God what a piece of shit.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Too stupid to know what's best for themselves, yet perfectly capable of knowing what's best for others.

  • carol||

    For the love of God, Tony, I don't believe you just said that. You are such a condescending twit. What makes you think that government is any smarter than the average person? Allowing the government to make decisions is a classic example of the blind leading the blind.

  • Brian||

    Tony:

    People Governments often are too stupid to know what's best for them everyone and it's sometimes frequently best ifgovernment's job to help them out government sits on its hands and stops bossing everyone around, and that's just the way it is.
  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    And there are a number of Americans –- fewer than 5 percent of Americans -– who've got cut-rate plans that don’t offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident.

    That's really the talking point they're gonna go with.

    Anybody got a "Mission Accomplished" banner anywhere?

  • Invisible Finger||

    Like I said, we need to start calling it "single-denier"

  • GILMORE||

    "..some MILLIONS OF Americans who have health insurance plans that they bought on their own through the old individual FORMERLY FREE market are getting notices from their insurance companies suggesting that somehowTELLING THEM UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT because of the Affordable Care Act, they may be ARE losing their existing health insurance plan.""

    Brought to you by the Auto-Obama-Speech-Unfucker(tm)

  • Rich||

    Well parsed.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I keep getting 'Update Java' pages replacing H&R and it's fishy looking. I opened Java and asked it to check for updates on its own and it said there were none! What's happening?

  • Andrew S.||

    The viruses the evil Rethuglicans used to sabotage healthcare.gov have gotten out into the wild.

  • Lord Humungus||

    hmm... not seeing it.

    What browser and add-ons are you using?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Chrome with YousableTube, Hint Media, and MuteTab.

  • sarcasmic||

    There is a new version of Java, and it's worth getting because they fixed some serious security flaws.

  • Cytotoxic||

    But Java's 'update checker' didn't find an update! Not saying you're wrong I heard the same thing but when I click on the link, it starts downloading some executable into the Download Folder. I don't want to open up some virus or Malware.

    Chrome Incognito with YousableTube, Hint Media, and MuteTab.

  • Tonio||

    Java is currently at version 7 update 45. If you're running an earlier version you will need to update. Also, once you update check your installed programs to make sure there's not an earlier version of Java still installed.

    FYI, we've also seen Java spontaneously uninstall from some of our computers so you may have experienced that.

  • GILMORE||

    "...Because there's been a lot of confusion and misinformation I HAVE GOTTEN CAUGHT COMPLETELY ASS-OUT about this, I want to explain just what's going on FEED MY ARMY OF RHETORIC-REPEATING-MONKEYS SOME NEW BULLSHIT TO SPIN IN THE MEANTIME WHILE WE TRY AND COME UP WITH A DECENT STORY""

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    “That’s the universe we’re talking about, 5 percent of the population,” said Carney.

    It fucking disgusts me that these assholes come right out and say "fuck these 14 million people, they're only 5% of the population. Miniscule." Yet, when something that affects .01% of the population is discussed (gun murders), IT'S AN EPIDEMIC OF BIBLICAL PROPORTIONS DON'T YOU CARE ABOUT THE CHILDREN WE'RE ALL GONNNNAAA DIIIIIIIEEEE!!!!!!111!!!!11

  • Tony||

    Because people who are getting different insurance options are just like people with holes in their brains.

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    Shorter Tony: .01% 5%

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    SQUIRRELZ TOOK MY "GREATER THAN" SIGN

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    No, the squirrels were very clear that you could keep your "greater than" sign if you liked it. It's simply that certain symbols on your keyboard don't meet the level of quality that the squirrels have deemed is appropriate for H&R. If this particular page of Reason was not allowing you to use the "greater than" sign, it is simply because your keyboard was not grandfathered in -- and the "greater than" symbol was not a *real* symbol, anyways. To resolve your problem, we recommend any of a list of Microsoft keyboards starting at $90 for the entry-level model.

  • Tonio||

    [claps]

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    No, you dumbshit. It's about the numbers. 5% of the population is an insignificant amount, while .01% is a fucking epidemic. I didn't equate the consequences, so stop being a mendacious ass.

    It's the insulting way they use the numbers that pisses me off. If you ask them about people negatively affected by something they like, they use this tiny sounding number like 5%. However, if you ask them about gun murders, they use GIGANTIC sounding numbers like 20,000. It's weasel words used to manipulate public perception.

    Seriously, do you think that if Carney had gotten up there and said "well, it's ONLY 15 million people" it would sound as innocuous as "5% of the population"

  • John||

    Do you think Bush's Press Secretary could have gotten away with saying

    "Less than one percent of the Iraqi population has died during the occupation"?

    Or "the homeless in New Orleans are less than 5% of the cities population"?

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Of course not, John. He'd have been called out on it, and rightfully so. Using weasel words to diminish the suffering of others is reprehensible. And when they're suffering as a direct result of your actions, it's just fucking disgusting.

  • John||

    I forgot the sarc tags.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    It's you, John. I kinda figured you were being sarcastic. It just pisses me off when ANYONE uses bullshit like that to make their fart sound like a symphony. You should see me when it comes to marketing in general. There are so many commercials I just have to turn off or mute because the weasel words, false equivalencies, and BS statistics will send me into a rage.

  • Tony||

    But I think the substance kind of matters. Those people (the claim is) are those without insurance that's up to the task of fulfilling the social contract implied by this law (if they get sick or injured, they will be a burden on the system, since their plans wouldn't cover it). Carney is not throwing them overboard. And the only reason it's necessary to talk about their proportion is because Republicans have been going around claiming that this law is going to put everyone in death camps.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    Holy crap. I didn't think it was possible to fit that many fallacies in one paragraph. Let's look at them, shall we.

    Those people (the claim is) are those without insurance that's up to the task of fulfilling the social contract implied by this law (if they get sick or injured, they will be a burden on the system, since their plans wouldn't cover it).

    Those without insurance... And why is it they suddenly find themselves without insurance?

    You should know better. Bringing up the "social contract" is a losing game on this board.

    If they get sick or injured, they might be a burden on the system. You and your proggie friends seem to think that no one is capable of paying for their own debts when they do incur them. Also, injuries that would be really expensive to fix would be covered by many of these plans that are being cancelled.

    Carney is not throwing them overboard.. ...is because Republicans have been going around claiming that this law is going to put everyone in death camps.

    Yes, Carney is not throwing them overboard, he's throwing them to the wolves. He doesn't care that these people will now have to pay for insurance they can't afford.

    Citation on the death camps? Aren't you running out of straw men yet? Even the most extreme examples aren't saying "everyone is going to die" they're saying "a bunch of people are going to lose their insurance despite being promised (repeatedly) that they could keep it.

  • Invisible Finger||

    If you get sick and have debts you can't pay, you are therefore an evil Kochtopus Teathuglican.

    Sociopaths like Tony call Hitler "right-wing". Even though they have mostly the exact same policies.

  • Tony||

    Without claiming to have complete knowledge of the law's particulars, the argument would be this: if someone can't afford health insurance that's up to the standards of the law, they are supposed to get subsidies for one.

    And you're already bringing a social contract into it when you acknowledge and defend the practice of universal treatment without the ability to pay. The whole point of this law was to match up individuals' contribution to the benefits they receive in such a society, with subsidies for those who can't afford it.

  • Contrarian P||

    Do you realize the inherent contradiction in that last sentence? If individuals have to contribute enough to offset the societal benefits they receive, why do they need subsidies, and where do the subsidies originate? Oh yes, from those millions of people who are contributing way more to the system than they will ever get out. You are robbing one group to pay the way of another. There is no way to avoid the fact that your arguments are mutually contradictory.

  • PapayaSF||

    +25% of the upvotes in this thread (because it sounds better that way).

    And, of course, don't forget the times the progs are screaming about "the principle of the thing" when talking about issues that involve minuscule numbers of people, such as transsexual elementary school kids. Numbers don't matter at all, then.

  • GILMORE||

    "'..One of the things health reform TAKING OVER LARGE SEGMENTS OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR was designed to do was to help not only the uninsured GUARANTEE A MASSIVE BASE OF BUREAUCRATIC POWER, but also the underinsured CREATE A FICTITIOUS CLASS OF OPPRESSED PEOPLES WE WERE CLAIMING TO BE SAVING FROM PERSECUTION. And there are a number of Americans –- fewer than 5 percent of Americans 15 MILLION OR SO TO BE EXACT -– who've got cut-rate COST-EFFECTIVE plans that don’t offer real financial protection FEED ANY CASH INTO THE LARGER HEALTH SYSTEM WHICH IS VERGING ON BANKRUPTCY in the event of a serious illness or an accident. Remember, before the Affordable Care Act, these bad-apple insurers had free rein TO RESPOND TO MARKET DEMAND every single year to limit the care ADJUST TO CHANGES IN THE MARKETPLACEthat you received, or use minor preexisting conditions to jack up your premiums or bill you into bankruptcy PRICE THEIR SERVICES ACCORDING TO THE RISK THEY FACED. So a lot of people thought they were buying coverage WERE INVOLVED IN FREE EXCHANGE OF GOODS AND SERVICES, and it turned out not to be so good FOR OUR PLAN TO SHOVE A ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL SYSTEM ONTO EVERYONE.

  • GILMORE||

    that shit is getting boring. the short of it is = FYTW

  • John||

    Pretty much. And the great part is soon they will be turning on each other as a few true believer progs tell the truth and admit what a disaster this is as a way to justify single payer and the real dead ender Obamatrons cling to their idol's signature accomplishment. It is going to be delicious.

  • Tony||

    Liberals tend to be quite a bit more thoughtful than you idiots. We're capable of simultaneously supporting an improvement on the status quo while advocating for increased improvement.

    Not everyone gets to fling shit all day long and call it doing politics. Though that must be nice for you.

  • tarran||

    Tony, please stop!

    The bathroom at my work is a good 50 yards from my desk, and I am laughing so hard reading your posts that I am about to pee myself!

    Even if you don't care about me, think of my poor, obedient proggie coworkers!

  • Tony||

    Obamacare covers incontinence.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    So do diapers.

  • Cytotoxic||

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • John||

    Liberals tend to be quite a bit more thoughtful than you idiots. We're capable of simultaneously supporting an improvement on the status quo while advocating for increased improvement.

    Oh yeah. And you advocated the hell out of this "improvement". Good luck with that. I don't think people are seeing it quite that way though. Just a thought.

  • Tony||

    I realize that as a conservative you are genetically predisposed to a black/white perspective on the world, but do try to squeeze this into the generous vessel that is your brain: Obamacare is far from the best possible healthcare reform we are capable of. It is simply what was politically possible. It is an improvement over the previous system, in which we were the only wealthy country that didn't provide healthcare to all of its citizens, yet we still paid twice per capita for healthcare, and even paid more in public dollars despite the lack of universality. It is my hope that a sufficient political coalition forms in the near future to improve upon the system further.

    This would be the kind of rational, sober thinking I wish we could all engage in, but which we can't because you morons are running around setting your hair on fire for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with anyone's well-being except Republican candidates for office.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Has this been the third time Tony has denied ObamaCare, already? Isn't a cock supposed to crow when that happens*?

    *No homo

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Also:

    do try to squeeze this into the generous vessel that is your brain

    Marcottean in its elegance. Are you an English major, perchance?

  • GILMORE||

    try to squeeze this into the generous vessel that is your brain: Obamacare is far from the best possible healthcare reform we are capable of

    THERE IS NO SUGARCOATING IT

  • Zeb||

    we were the only wealthy country that didn't provide healthcare to all of its citizens

    See, here's the problem. "We" are not a country. We are individual people. Countries aren't entities that can do things.
    And we do provide medical care to all citizens (and non-citizens). If you break your leg or catch pneumonia or whatever and go to the ER, you will be put back together.

  • Tony||

    Countries aren't entities that can do things.

    So wars are impossible? No war has ever happened? These are generally said to have been undertaken by and inflicted on countries.

    I can play this bullshit semantic game too. Individual people don't really exist. We're just a collection of cells. In fact, 9 out of every 10 cells in our bodies don't even contain "our" DNA, but are bacteria. "Individuals" are just ad hoc descriptions of what are really bacteria hotels.

    If you break your leg or catch pneumonia or whatever and go to the ER, you will be put back together.

    Yeah, at fucking significant cost to everyone else. Are you in favor of this social contract arrangement (basic medical ethics), but only favor the most expensive and least efficient means of achieving it? Or what?

  • Zeb||

    No wars are undertaken by the individuals who run the governments of countries. It's an important distinction.

    And the people who can't afford to buy insurance will still get their medical care at great expense to everyone else.

    Are you in favor of this social contract arrangement (basic medical ethics), but only favor the most expensive and least efficient means of achieving it? Or what?

    No. I'm just pointing out that to say that in the US not everyone has access to medical care is a lie. There are lots of other ways to address the problem of uninsured people using the ER as their primary medical resource and you know it.

  • Zeb||

    There should be a comma after the initial "No".

  • Tony||

    I'm all ears.

  • GILMORE||

    "".. try to squeeze this into the generous vessel that is your brain: THIS CLUSTERFUCK CALLED OBAMACARE IS A COMPLETE AND UTTER DISASTER, BUT WE MEANT WELL. ALSO, BUSH""

  • John||

    Sure Tony. Just go and tell Mr. and Mrs America how things are so much better now that they lost their health insurance they liked and have a policy now they don't.

    I am sure that will clear this whole thing up.

  • Tony||

    Your problem is with the insurance company that screwed them--the ACA doesn't require insurance companies to sell insurance. Sure the ACA changed the environment, but if you're afraid of any change to the status quo nothing will ever improve.

  • itsnotmeitsyou||

    The insurance company that screwed them? You mean the company that sold them a product they wanted, and would have continued to let them keep that product if it weren't for Obamacare? Jesus, you're especially mendacious today.

    the ACA doesn't require insurance companies to sell insurance

    No, but it does require them to not carry insurance that millions of Americans want.

    Sure the ACA changed the environment,

    Sure the atom bomb changed Hiroshima...

  • GILMORE||

    "if you're afraid of any change to the status quo nothing will ever improve."

    Correction =

    Objecting To Fucking Everything Up Enormously Does Not Constitute 'An Absence of Ideas'

    To the contrary = It is the belief that YOUR ideas are fucking stupid and make things worse, as is being amply demonstrated

  • Brian||

    Isn't that ridiculous? He's repeatedly told us that we have to embrace Obamacare because we have to get off the status quo. Otherwise, nothing will ever improve. And if we don't listen, we're just limited government ideologues.

    And now, Obamacare is the status quo. And it's worse than the old status quo. And he's still defending it with this "status quo" argument. He still thinks that's a great, strong argument to make. That's just functionally retarded.

    Well, if that's valid logic, then we need to repeal Obamacare, because if you're afraid to change the status quo, then nothing will ever improve. Oh, wait: now the status quo is "the law of the land, so get over it." So much for rejecting shitty status quos.

  • Blueman||

    "I realize that as a conservative you are..."

    LOL

    Uh, we're not conservatives in these here parts. You constantly work from this assumption and you are constantly wrong.

  • Pulseguy||

    Politically possible? You passed it without a single Republican vote. Couldn't you have written what you wanted? You're implying it was a compromise with Repubs. It wasn't. Your own party is who wrote this. It is poorly conceived and is being poorly implemented. And, it is yours, entirely.

    You won. Get over it.

  • PapayaSF||

    It is an improvement over the previous system, in which we were the only wealthy country that didn't provide healthcare to all of its citizens

    I hate to break it to you, Tony, but Obamacare seems to causing more people to lose coverage than it is helping people to get it. And it won't even come close to covering "all of its citizens."

  • GILMORE||

    "Liberals tend to be quite a bit more thoughtful than you idiots. We're capable of

  • GILMORE||

    "Liberals tend to be quite a bit more thoughtful than you idiots.

    We [liberals] are capable of simultaneously supporting an improvement on the status quo while advocating for increased improvement"

    So let's get this straight.

    We're idiots.

    And you support improvement *while* supporting even more improvement.

    Whoa.

    [never mind the improvement isn't improving anything and that by fucking things up horribly that further improvement will likely only get things to a point somewhere below where shit was before they started their whole 'improving' programme, but hey = omelets, bitches]

    Now try patting your belly and rubbing your head.

  • Dr. Frankenstien||

    I'm curious. What is your solution John? You have been defending employer based health care quite a bit. Do you think that is the best way to provide health insurance?

  • Invisible Finger||

    Like I said, Orwell never envisioned Obama's quadruplespeak.

  • Almanian!||

    So this WASN'T "Troll-Free Thursday".

    Good to know.

  • Kid Xenocles||

    I thought Tony was more of a mascot than a troll.

  • Almanian!||

    OH, PS, LOU REED IS STILL DEAD, YOU SELFISH MONSTERS!

    *returns to hastily-prepared Lou Reed shrine to light more incense*

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    What if Lou Reed was hit by a bus? Would he still be dead?

  • ChrisO||

    If so, he'd still have a chance to be let down by the Cleveland Browns.

  • Zeb||

    No love for Marcia Wallace?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Lou Reed is not dead, he just went home.

  • Gbob||

    Wait, I thought if we were happy with the rock stars we have, we could keep them?

  • Killazontherun||

    I was going for one who wasn't as tone deaf so I had him sent back.

  • Hillary's Clitdong||

    There is no sugarcoating it. After Lou Reed was let down by the Cleveland Browns, his heart was operating, but at a substandard level that does not meet the heartbeat standards needed to qualify for Bronze-Level life.

  • Biden's Scroteplugs||

    you mad Tony?

  • Tony||

    I'm one Sour Patch Kid away from a sugar coma, actually, but perfectly content.

  • Brian||

    Yeah, Tony eats Sour Patch Kids while typing screeds filled with ad hominems, all because he's perfectly content.

    Maybe so, in a sociopathic way.

  • Biden's Scroteplugs||

    cuz Obamacare covers that.

  • Mainer2||

    Reading this thread was a waste.
    I should have gone to the tractor pull.

  • ChrisO||

    At H&R, we feature only the finest quality Troll Derp. Don't settle for anything less.

  • Mickey Rat||

    I guess I am glad people are noticing this, but the health iinsurance mandates have always been incompatible with the idea that you would be able to keep your policy. It was the basis of Catholic organizations and companies like Hobby Lobby fighting the contraceptive mandates. It is nice to have these people on board, but where have they been?

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    Like I said, he's blaming the insurance companies, and most people will go along with the narrative. I'm sure this has been focus-grouped to death, or else he wouldn't have come out and put his name to this sin we've been hearing from his toadies for the last couple of weeks.

    I could have wrote this myself, right down to the use of the word "folks" to show how he's just looking out for the average Joe and Jane who were fooled by predatory lenders into buying houses they couldn't afford and evil insurance companies selling them policies they didn't want.

  • GILMORE||

    Current quality of debate on the ACA =

    "So, it appears your plan to reduce healthcare costs and increase coverage has raised healthcare costs and eliminated coverage for millions. Care to comment?"

    "YEAH WELL YOU DIDNT HAVE ANY BETTER IDEAS"

    I suppose "Not Fucking People Over" doesn't qualify as an idea anymore.

  • Michael Price||

    That hasn't been on the health insurance table in the USA since the 40s.

  • Mumu Bobby||

    Well, do you? Because doing nothing is H8ING :-(

    ,/,/,/,/,/, down twinkles.

  • ||

    Yes, Tony, A 60 year old man is too stupid to know that he needs maternity coverage.

  • blcartwright||

    making sure that everybody has the opportunity to purchase insurance that comes up to Obama's liking is one thing, but demanding that we all purchase it is another.

    Shop around? What's left to choose from?

  • Michael Price||

    "And there are a number of Americans –- fewer than 5 percent of Americans -– who've got cut-rate plans that don’t offer real financial protection in the event of a serious illness or an accident. "
    If they weren't offering what they said they were offering isn't that false advertising or fraud? Yet the government did nothing for years, maybe decades until they got the opportunity to coerce the victims.

    Underinsurance is a sensible, rational strategy. Insurance is designed so that you don't take a big loss, because the dollars you lose in a big loss are more valuable (because they include dollars lost when you have less of them, which are more valuable due to the Law or Returns). However premiums cost more than the average honest payout due to administration, fraud and other factors. So there is a balance between minimising the dollars spent and getting the more valuable dollars. Partial insurance covers the payout dollars that are most valuable, the dollars necessary to avoid absolute disaster, while saving much of the actual dollars. In the event of disaster you still have to pay the dollars between the ones that avoid absolute disaster and those that remove the financial hardshire totally. These are less valuable and may well be (on average) less valuable than the premiums needed to gain them. This will vary from customer to customer.

  • damonzgp640||

    my neighbor's mom makes $88/hour on the internet. She has been out of work for ten months but last month her pay was $16941 just working on the internet for a few hours. site here .......... http://www.BAM21.CoM

  • thorax232||

    Savior Obama took my donations, and they disappeared into a vacuum! He's like Jesus!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement