Obamacare

Healthcare.gov Works! — As a Portal Into Medicaid Limbo

|

Healthcare.gov
U.S. Government

If you want your health care, you can keep banging away on the federal Obamacare exchange website until you get routed to taxpayer-funded Medicaid. But you might not get to keep that Medicaid coverage, because you don't necessarily qualify, no matter what the nice, if slightly confused, robots at Healthcare.gov say. But, at least you'll have plenty of company. The vast majority of people getting enrolled in coverage through the website are being signed up for Medicaid. We just don't yet know how many of them will actually get covered by that coverage.

Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute points out in the New York Post:

The good news, if you want to call it that, is that roughly 1.6 million Americans have enrolled in ObamaCare so far.

The not-so-good news is that 1.46 million of them actually signed up for Medicaid. If that trend continues, it could bankrupt both federal and state governments.

That's no joke! My own Arizona, which has a comparatively lean and mean version of Medicaid in the form of the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), has seen costs rise by 98 percent from 2004 to 2014 (PDF). In Arizona, AHCCCS is only the second most expensive budget item, while "For most states," points out Tanner, "Medicaid is the single-largest cost of government, crowding out education, transportation and everything else."

But hold on there! Many of those people being routed to Medicaid by Healthcare.gov are arriving in the wrong location. Reports USA Today:

When consumers applying for insurance put their income information into subsidy calculators on HealthCare.gov — the exchange handling insurance sales for 36 states — it tells them how much financial assistance they qualify for or that they are eligible for Medicaid. If it's the latter, consumers aren't able to obtain subsidies toward the insurance, although they could buy full-priced plans.

If the Medicaid determination is wrong, consumers should file an appeal with the federal marketplace, says Department of Health and Human Services spokeswoman Joanne Peters, but she says she does not have an estimate on how long that would take.

Brokers are reporting that some of their clients are in insurance limbo as they wait for the error to be corrected by HHS or their states so they can reapply.

Jessica Waltman, top lobbyist for the National Association of Health Underwriters, says she's heard a number of reports from around the country of people making as much as $80,000 a year being told they qualify for Medicaid on HealthCare.gov.

Yeah… That's a mistake.

Nobody seems entirely sure how much chaos has been created yet. Basically, officials don't yet know what they don't know. But there's plenty of uncertainty to go around for state budget planners as well as people who just want to buy some health coverage without a hassle.

NEXT: Bankrupt San Bernardino Spends $1 Million on Police Raises

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.

  1. Let me grab my popcorn

    1. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,… http://PERFECT23.COM

    2. Reason really needs to update the comments section to allow for gifs. Every single healthcare post is perfect for the ScarJo popcorn gif

      1. Fuck no. I hate hate hate gifs substituting for video. They’re almost never funny and just a waste of bandwidth.

        1. Well no one said libertarians were right 100% of the time.

  2. “The not-so-good news is that 1.46 million of them actually signed up for Medicaid. If that trend continues, it could bankrupt both federal and state governments.”

    So, the good news is that all those people who think they have Medicaid are gonna get screwed?

    And they’re helping the working poor get health insurance they can afford by siccing the IRS on them if they don’t buy it?

    ObamaCare World is one jacked up parallel universe! I can’t believe people voted for this shit.

    1. It’s health insurance with a goatee!

  3. Imagine! Folks signing up for free shit!

  4. …”If the Medicaid determination is wrong, consumers should file an appeal with the federal marketplace,”…

    Oh, boy! If you think signing up was fun, just wait ’till you get to file an appeal! Fun and games FOREVER!

    1. I thought they were not going to verify whether someone was eligible for subsidy, so why would there ever even be an appeal?

      1. Considering they advise you to lie on your application, I don’t see a reason to even get to the “appeal” stage.

        1. Right, it is Kafkaesque.

        2. “Considering they advise you to lie on your application, I don’t see a reason to even get to the “appeal” stage.”

          The problem I have here is that tax obligations don’t seem to have any statute of limitations, and I’m sure fudging on this will be considered ‘tax’.
          So you may get away with it for a while, but boy, when and if you do get caught, I’m sure they’ll pile on penalties and interest.

          1. -So you may get away with it for a while, but boy, when and if you do get caught, I’m sure they’ll pile on penalties and interest.

            Well, after they check on who you have been donating too.

  5. There are still problems with the Affordable Care Act, and we can make it better if we work together. But we can’t improve the law without help from some reasonable Republicans. It’s time for my Republican colleagues to give up their fantasy of repealing the law that’s already benefiting tens of millions of americans and start working with us to make the Affordable Care Act succeed instead.”
    –Harry Reid (D-Ass)
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/l…..al-fantasy

    1. He’s delusional.

      It’s like listening to a Moonie talk about the good reverend.

      If the truth is that ACA has to be repealed, then the truth cannot be true.

    2. “But we can’t improve the law without help from some reasonable Republicans.”

      ‘We rammed it through and now we want you to save our sorry asses’.
      Up yours, Mr. Reid.

    3. They are all delusional:

      nineo3 hours ago
      Reid is doing two things I love: he’s both tying together the Affordable Care Act and Obamacare – its amazing the number of people that still do not know that they’re one and the same…

      …and he’s still continuing to call it Obamacare. The GOP will regret little that they’ve recently done more than tying this law to the President so perfectly that a Democrat couldn’t have done it better – it will be his legacy alone thanks to the GOP, and it won’t be a bad one. Keep calling it Obamacare!

      How will they explain the shellacking they get in 2014?

      1. …- its amazing the number of people that still do not know that they’re one and the same…

        How will they explain the shellacking they get in 2014?

        Typical Democrat Voter: I’d have my free health care if those bastard Republicans would have only supported Obamacare….instead we only got that piece of shit Affordable Care Act!!!

        HATERZ!!

      2. “How will they explain the shellacking they get in 2014?”

        See Ken’s comment above; ” It’s like listening to a Moonie talk about the good reverend.”

        Thats how. Remember, the left’s failings are always someone else’s fault.

        1. The only problem is that Harry Reid is neither delusional or stupid….profoundly evil…but not as Ken describes.

          1. Oh, Reid is misreading this.

            I mean, he’s locked in his role, but to most Americans, he’s looking like Baghdad Bob right about now.

            Baghdad Bob didn’t realize everybody was laughing at him either.

      3. If it wasn’t for those stupid Republicans we would have had a single payer system! And that’s what I’m voting for now. Bureaucracy was the problem in the first place so when more bureaucracy doesn’t work we will just vote for even more bureaucracy! It’s simple algebra! The problem isn’t that the equation isn’t balanced it’s that we need bigger numbers!
        -derp proggie

        1. The problem isn’t that the equation isn’t balanced it’s that we need bigger numbers!

          I’m stealing this.

      4. The Soviets only dreamed of having such boot-slurping sycophants.

      5. “How will they explain the shellacking they get in 2014?”

        Koch brothers bought the election. Also racism and/or patriarchy.

        1. That really made me want to smash something. Guess I’m going back to my hole.

          1. You know that will be the line, though.

      6. OK, I read the copied post three times and still couldn’t understand the grammar of the second paragraph.

  6. Has anyone gotten the reason donation packet in the mail yet?

    The star of the cover letter is Chad Henderson!

    1. I haven’t donated yet. I may not, if they don’t fix their web site’s issues with Android browsers.

    2. I’d tossed it in the “in” box; just looked.
      What happened to ol’ Chad anyhow? Sleazy, lying twerp; just like his hero!

      1. Reason.com comes up #2 on a google search for Chad Henderson. I hope he carries this with him for the rest of his shitty life.

        P.S. What a punchable face!

        1. I thought Chad Henderson was that kid that killed himself over losing his ipod.

        2. Hahahha, WaPo still has this propaganda piece up

          He logged onto the Web site around midnight on Oct. 1, ready to purchase coverage. Part of his decision was ideological: He wants the health-care law to succeed.
          “I’ve read a few articles about how young people are very critical to the law’s success,” he told me. “I really just wanted to do my part to help out with the entire process.”
          The sign-up process took about three hours.
          Like other Obamacare shoppers I talked to, Henderson passed the time by watching news coverage of the government shutdown, which was happening at the same time.
          “I had to wait like everybody else,” he says. “Millions of people apparently got on the Web site. It took me til about 3 a.m. to create an account. That was probably the longest thing. After creating an account and getting logged in, it was pretty smooth sailing.”
          Henderson purchased a health insurance plan with a $175 monthly premium. While that price does fit in his budget, he was also hoping for a better deal.

          1. Pure propaganda. The political equivalent of those pamphlets the CLDS used to leave lying around Doc’s office waiting rooms.

  7. “What moved the [Virginia] voters most was an attack [by the Cuccinelli campaign] on McAuliffe’s positions on abortion; a single phone message emphasizing McAuliffe’s support for unrestricted, late-term, and taxpayer-funded abortions shifted support a net 13 to 15 points away from McAuliffe and toward Cuccinelli. The cost per vote here was a remarkably cheap $0.50 per additional vote, and even less expensive still when targeting the most persuadable segment of the electorate.

    “A topic declared radioactive by nearly everyone, locked away in secure storage behind a blazing Hazmat warning by the Cuccinelli campaign, appears to have been a powerful weapon for the Republican ticket that could have substantially closed the gap, and possibly even won Cuccinelli the election.”

    http://www.campaignsandelectio…..ches.thtml

    1. Are there any Virginians here? From what I understand McCauliffe ran tons of ads about abortion and wanted to talk about little else. And he won.

      1. Did he want to talk about late-term and taxpayer-funded abortions? Because those are far less popular than abortion in general.

        1. I doubt it, but if it is true that McCauliffe was hammering away at Cuccinelli on that issue one can see why he was reluctant to even bring it up. It would be akin to Obama running an ad attacking Romney on Benghazi.

  8. Are there any websites that stream Fox Business online? I can’t get FBN in Canada but want to check out the new Welch show.

      1. Need to have cable through an American provider for that.

        1. Wow, that’s dumb. Fox should just offer $10/month for unlimited streaming of all of its services…

          Can try http://www.watchfomny.com/Vide…..Zo2fRDuk0, works for me.

          1. I think that just replays clips from earlier shows. I’ll keep hunting and let everyone know here if I find something.

    1. I had a website for streaming it but now I can’t find it. God damn it.

  9. OT: From 24/7 link on the Mars rover

    “The new results definitely reinforce the idea that past life on Mars was possible,……..The question of whether life existed or exists on Mars today is still open.”

    From a scientific point of view, yes. If you feel like gambling, then keep this in mind. Whenever and wherever life is possible, it is there.

    1. After reading about the fungus growing in the high rad areas of Chernobyl, I am quite sure life figures out a way to survive in any environment.

    2. Last night I saw one of the best sci-fi movies in recent years called ‘Europa Report’. It’s a low budget movie on Netflix but it’s very well-done, much better than ‘Prometheus’ and as exciting as ‘Gravity’, albeit in a more understated way.

      It’s about a private financed manned mission to investigate if life exists in Europa’s vast underground oceans.

      1. I watched that about a week ago. Great movie, I would recommend that to anyone who likes space movies.

      2. I will give it a try.

        I would be shocked to discover that life never existed on either Mars or Europa. There is also a good chance that better environments exist in our neighborhood that we have not yet found.

        My god, imagine what we could be/do/discover if we didnt squander the majority of our wealth stealing from and killing each other.

      3. I watched it recently too…it was a nice surprise. Slick production, good acting, good effects, good plot…great all-round movie, and hard sci-fi no less.

      4. I’m curious about the engineering needed to make extended deep space exploration safe and viable for humans.

        Does technology currently exist that would provide sufficient radiation shielding for a manned spacecraft? Obviously anything going near Jupiter would get fried without it.

  10. The not-so-good news is that 1.46 million of them actually signed up for Medicaid. If that trend continues, it could bankrupt both federal and state governments.

    That…actually sounds like hope AND change–for the better.

  11. California has the toughest gun laws in the country

    California has the toughest gun control laws in the nation, receiving an A- grade in a state-by-state analysis by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, officials said Monday.
    In the year after a gunman killed 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, eight states, including California, passed “major gun reforms,” said Amanda Wilcox, the legislation and policy chair for the California Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
    California chapters of the Brady Campaign supported 18 bills sent to Gov. Jerry Brown.
    “A record 11 bills were signed into law, including measures to keep guns out of dangerous hands and closing loopholes in California’s law prohibiting large capacity magazines,” Wilcox said. “The research shows that strong gun laws can keep people safe from gun violence. We know that California’s strong gun laws are saving lives.”

    1. “The research shows that strong gun laws can keep people safe from gun violence. ”

      What it doesnt say is that they keep people safe. In fact, quite the opposite.

    2. “We know that California’s strong gun laws are saving lives.”

      Unfortunately there isn’t a shred of evidence to support that claim.

      1. I would say fortunately.

      2. “We know that California’s strong gun laws are saving lives.”

        Which is why I didn’t have to use my AK.

        Today was a good day.

      3. Now they’ll prove that there isn’t not no god.

        1. A triple polarity leading to an negative grammatical polarity.

          Nice.

    3. “A record 11 bills were signed into law, including measures to keep guns out of dangerous hands”

      So you mean California’s police are no longer armed?

  12. Sort of OT: Oh the Yummy Tears

    Kominski acknowledges that the trend of narrowing provider networks predates the Affordable Care Act but has been speeding up under the law. And not just for individual policyholders; it’s been happening for people who get insurance through work as well.

    But he’s quick to add that it’s necessary. “If we want to keep health care from becoming completely unaffordable for everyone, at some point something has to give,” he says. “And in this case what’s giving is the ability to choose any doctor and any hospital.”

    Of course the stupid party could still fuck up the 2104 midterm massacre, but just thinking about the bloodbath should last a while.

    1. 2104.. I think we’re getting a little ahead of ourselves here…

      BUSH 2104!!!

      1. Unfortunately, some cursed Reid descendant will probably be representing Otisville, preventing my grandkids from fully enjoying it.

    2. “Of course the stupid party could still fuck up the 2104 midterm massacre…”

      Yep. They will feel emboldened and start yammering about abortions, jebus, praying away the gay, how women can mind-block real rapes and should all have their vag’s monitored…..how teaching evolution and a solar centered planetary system is a satanic plot….

      It makes a pain shoot through my temples imagining it.

      1. Perhaps you will be surprised to hear me say it, but as someone who spends a fair amount of time looking up illiberal nonsense from social conservatives I think they are actually getting better about all of this. It is not that they have suddenly started to embrace evolution and gay marriage or started rejecting vaginal probes, but they are focusing more and more on opposing government intrusions into their lives. Obama should get the thanks here, the contraceptive mandate and ENDA have them remarkably focused on opposing things we do too. I have doubts about whether it will ‘stick’ but there could be a real ‘moment’ here.

        1. Until they hold the reins, that is.

        2. The Night of the Long Knives against the SoCons has been loooong overdue.

      2. Or they’ll come out pro-immigration and Romney the entire election by keeping voters home.

        1. Don’t you worry your pretty lil’ head about that. The sibling-fucking yokel vote would have a hard time getting off their ass to vote despite any plank in the GOP’s platform.

          Now go back to masturbating to your interracial cuck porn and let us grown-ups have a conversation in peace.

          1. I wish the guy with the blog about the importance of black men cuckolding white men would swing by a few more times.

            1. Just imagine if him (?) and Herc had a baby….rhetorically.

              1. But where are we going to find a bus at this time of night?

  13. According to the state exchange, I’m eligible for Medicaid (God help me). If I made ~5% more a year, I’d be granted a tax credit worth almost the entirety of a $200+/month gold-rated plan.

    Deranged.

    1. do the math and if it makes sense, up your taxable income on your return.

      1. Right. Get someone to 1099 you if you need it.

  14. Kennedy show thread, please.

    1. Missed the first 20 minutes. How’s it going?

      1. Not bad. Lots of fast talking. It is the Kennedy show. Welch is a bit player.

        1. Who’s the chick in green? I like!

          1. She is a beautiful woman. And I notice they have the ground shot, ‘leg cam’ on this show as well.

            1. Jedediah Bila. She’s on Red Eye a lot.

              1. Jedediah is delightful and inappropriately named.

    2. Have I mentioned I like Stossel?

      1. Comin’ up!

      2. She kind of came off the rails with Stossel a bit.

      3. I just noticed this is live. How quaint!

      4. Francisco d Anconia|12.9.13 @ 9:28PM|#
        “Have I mentioned I like Stossel?”

        How about Clyde McPhatter in the Christmas spirit?
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddVZOK_9UUI

        1. Good, but not as good as Stossel.

      1. I’m looking forward to some minor media-matters outrage over the Pelosi and Feinstein with StossleMustaches joke.

        1. She talks so fast maybe they won’t notice.

  15. SoCon: Marijuana Should Be Illegal Because Bible

    -On his radio broadcast today, Bryan Fischer spent the better part of one segment railing against the dangers of marijuana and saying that it should never be legalized because it’s use violates the teachings of the Bible. Citing Paul’s admonition in Ephesians 5:18 that believers should “not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit,” Fisher said marijuana should be illegal because people “are not to be under control of anything except for the Holy Spirit.”

    “I’m primarily opposed to marijuana use,” Fischer said, “just for the same reason I’m opposed to drunkenness, same reason I’m opposed to cocaine use and heroin use: it’s turning control of your humanity over to something other than God.”

    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/…..9F6kq.dpuf

    Fischer is the leader of the American Family Association, a social conservative organization which had 18 million dollars in revenue in 2011.

    1. Bryan Fischer? That Preterist!

    2. Well, I’m convinced. What does the Bible say about incarcerating those who aren’t filled to capacity with holy spirit, Mr. Fischer?

    3. Survey finds young Christians think Jesus is just alright with weed

      “I’m primarily opposed to marijuana use,” Fischer said, “just for the same reason I’m opposed to drunkenness, same reason I’m opposed to cocaine use and heroin use: it’s turning control of your humanity over to something other than God.”

      So does he support alcohol prohibition?

      1. Theologically speaking, Fischer is advocating a form of apostasy. He seeks to build God’s kingdom through man’s efforts–punishing immorality, etc.–rather than relying on the completed work of Christ.

        Legalism is much more dangerous to a Christian’s walk with God than Licentiousness, which is why, in my opinion, we have 13 epistles from St. Paul in the New Testament and only one from St. James.

        God’s Free Grace is a hard thing for us humans to accept. We desperately want to earn our own salvation.

        1. Those of us who are concerned with such things, anyway.

        2. Bingo! That’s my main problem with the Christian attempt to legislate morality. If God doesn’t force people to live the right way, why would you give that power to the state.

        3. When I first read it my thought was that Fischer likely accepts the idea that God has granted man free will when He could force obedience. He could have prevented temptations. But He has not. He does not ask for forced conversions, but accepts that some, indeed most, will choose the wrong path.

          If God feels that way, why should Fischer advocate the state try to remove temptation and force obedience to God’s will?

          1. That’a easy.

            Didn’t you read the last line ?

            He made 18 million dollars last year. I’m a Christian and assholes like that piss me off. The Bible is pretty clear when it says that it’s not what goes into a man that defiles him, it’s what comes out of his mouth.

    4. Speaking of Bryan Fischer

      Focal Point – Bryan Fischer
      MSNBC host: “ObamaCare” a derogatory racist term. So she admits it’s an abject failure. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be derogatory.
      Like ? ? Share ? 1411 ? about an hour ago ?

  16. From what I understand, the MD exchange was one of the first functional exchanges. Not surprising when considering how fully on board the PRM was on this thing from the very start.

    Very early on, rumors had it around here, that a very large percentage of those enrolling through the exchanges were being dumped into Medicaid. Those rumors have now been confirmed and that scenario continues.

    So I am not even in the least surprised that this trend is being duplicated all across the country.

    The math is simple enough for thinking people, but for emoting people, like the progressive retards who have taken over the USA, it’s apparently too hard. But it’s a simple fact that you cannot take the dumbest, laziest, most corrupt people in society and put them in charge of running every aspect of the lives of 300+ million people without it resulting in an unmitigated disaster. Just the amount of overhead, wastefulness, and corruption added to everything is enough to doom a functional society. But they don’t care, they will never reverse course or even slow down, they will go down with the burning ship and take every one of us down with them.

  17. Do atheist politicians face discrimination becauseof their religion? Jennifer Michael* Hecht says it’s harder for a pol to come out as an atheist than to come out as gay.

    *Michael?

    http://www.politico.com/magazi…..ml=m_t1_2h

    1. That’s because gay people are friendly, erudite folk with good taste, artistic talent and a wicked sense of humor born of a life of social rejection.

      Atheists are whiny, annoying and condescending snots.

      1. “Atheists are whiny, annoying and condescending snots.”
        Who have grown up to the point of not needing imaginary friends.

        1. Who have grown up to the point of not needing imaginary friends.

          And constantly find it necessary to point out how much more growed-up they is.

          1. Lady Bertrum|12.9.13 @ 10:09PM|#

            “And constantly find it necessary to point out how much more growed-up they is.”
            Strangely enough only when asked by infantile bleevers.

            1. If only. Atheists aren’t quite as bad as vegans (“How can you tell if someone is vegan? Don’t worry, they’ll tell you!”), but they seem to be getting close in recent years. Too often they’re obnoxious, self-righteous, and pompous. It’s one thing to have your own beliefs, but it’s another to constantly mock and blow raspberries at the other side.

              (Personally, I’m agnostic, and see atheists as thinking they’ve proved a negative when they haven’t.)

    2. Well, they certainly think that’s true anyway. How many atheists have been public about their non-belief? I can’t imagine running as an atheist in a lot of parts of the country.

    3. “Can you name the 7 US States that Constitutionally forbid atheists from holding public office?”

      “Yep…
      Arkansas: “No person who denies the being of a God…”
      http://answers.yahoo.com/quest…..159AAK3Ff5
      Those are states; I didn’t search for localities.

      1. Did not know that. It was like, late 19th century before the first open atheist could take their seat in the British parliament.

        1. Well, the ‘War on Christmas’ gets more ink; political prohibitions for reasons of conscience are only aimed at atheists, so it doesn’t matter.

          1. Yeah, talk about dying on the wrong hill. I’m in the evangelical Christian camp, but would have no problem voting for an atheist libertarian.

      2. Those are all arguably unconstitutional under the religious test clause of the federal constitution.

        1. It most certainly would be, but unless someone is denied office because of them there’s no reason for the Federal courts to invalidate them.

        2. I do not think the religious test clause applies to the states. The Establishment Clause has been applied to the states, and I think that would bar these tests.

          1. I think it depends on how you read the clause. The key language is that it applies to offices “under the United States.” The phrase “United States” seems to refer to either the federal government only or to all the governments established subordinate to the Constitution (which would include all state and by transference all local governments). It’s certainly the case that the states are “under the United States” in the first sense of the phrase, and this clause automatically applies against the states in the second sense of it. So I’m not sure how you can justify not applying it to the states as well.

            1. I find your interpretation eminently reasonable, I was just remarking on what I took to be the accepted jurisprudence on the matter.

          2. There also seems to be SCOTUS precedent for my interpretation.

            1. The key precedent is torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961). I think your link is to a case from the south carolina supreme court applying that precedent.

              1. Thanks, sorry.

              2. Yes, but that case expressly declined to hold on the religious test clause, using instead the First through the Fourteenth approach to dispatch the religious test.

            2. That is the South Carolina Supreme Court (SCSCOTUS if you will).

              1. You’re correct, sorry.

                1. Nothing to be sorry about, it is a ‘neat’ case, and state supreme courts rule on the federal constitution.

        3. Kid Xenocles|12.9.13 @ 10:06PM|#
          “Those are all arguably unconstitutional under the religious test clause of the federal constitution.”
          They certainly are, but bleevers would never admit they denied office to someone because of rationality.

        1. Never stopped bleevers yet!

    4. -it’s harder for a pol to come out as an atheist than to come out as gay

      That is very interesting, I honestly never thought about it, though I bet it is true.

      Perhaps it has something to do with seeing homosexuality as something one is born with, but atheism as a choice (an obstinate one against all that is good and true, of course).

      1. ‘Perhaps it has something to do with seeing homosexuality as something one is born with, but atheism as a choice (a choice for rationality, of course).’
        Fixed.

    1. I’m an interior designer. Learning to code is necessary or beneficial to me in what way, Mr. President? It’s a cargo cult of stupid.

      1. You think Obama could even change the clock on his microwave?

        1. I *think* he could probably do that. You think he knows what an algorithm is?

          1. Sure! It’s when Tipper’s husband beats a drum.

            1. I suppose that’s why O doesn’t get along well with Net and Yahoo.

          2. “You think he knows what an algorithm is?”
            The beat of music Al Gore’s wife hates?
            Did I win?

            1. I won six minutes ago, bro.

              1. Did you? Was it really a “win”?

                1. It’s the game kind of feeling of victory plus regret that one feels after winning a food eating contest.

              2. Damn your fast fingers, HM.

      2. Writing plugins for AutoCad?

        Drape-related plugins?

    2. “Mr. President, given the coding exhibited by Healthcare.gov, why should I listen to you?”

    3. How timely, with all of the healthcare.gov problems and whatnot.

    4. Well, in his defense, he’s going to need the help with O-care…

      1. seguin|12.9.13 @ 10:50PM|#
        “Well, in his defense, he’s going to need the help with O-care…”

        Problem is, he already got help from the amateurs.

  18. There is an interesting twist to an income declaration in the 36 states where the Medicaid expansion provisions of the law were not exercised. Rules say that below poverty level income begets you Medicaid and poverty level or above gets you better coverage under Obamacare.

    Some of the millions of poor people expected to lose out on Obamacare coverage next year because their states are not expanding Medicaid might have a way to get help, but the strategy carries risk.

    Experts say the key is for them to project their 2014 income to at least the Federal Poverty Level, about $11,500 per person or $23,500 for a family of four.

    That would entitle them to federal subsidies that would cover nearly all the cost of private coverage sold on new online insurance marketplaces set up by the federal health law. The subsidies are available on a sliding scale to people making between the poverty level and four times that amount.

    While there are steep fines for knowingly lying on a government application for financial assistance, if someone merely miscalculates their income above the poverty level in 2014, and is later found to have made less than the poverty level, they won’t have to pay any money back, according to the Treasury Department.

    1. Wow, I can literally see them winking at me through my browser.

  19. Judge throws out frivolous charge against prolifer – authorities were trying to retaliate against free expression by peaceful clinic picketer. A protester held a sign saying “Free Pregnancy Tests and Ultrasounds” – there was a van parked nearby offering precisely those free services. The prosecution theory was that this was deceptive advertising because the protestser wasn’t personally offering these services.

    http://www.lifenews.com/2013/1…..ign=Buffer

    1. Jesus fucking Christ on the fucking cross, do you ever fucking stop?

      1. Sorry, I meant to say the sign said “Bong Hits for Jesus,” and the charge was misleading advertising because the stash was in another guy’s van. Would that be less icky? 🙂

        1. You do know you are driving people, who otherwise don’t care one way or the other, away from religion?

          I have no issue with religious folks. You believe as you wish, I’ll believe as I wish.

          That holds right up to the point that you try to push your beliefs on me. Your incessant blabbering on the topic is becoming offensive. Shut the fuck up!

          1. Is this the H&R consensus? Because I also do knock-knock jokes.

            1. I’m just as pro-life as you. I’d save it for something really outrageous or something that is germane to the topic of the article.

              1. OK, I thought this was a late night links deal. I wouldn’t want to violate h&r norms, they’re so few I ought to be able to remember them.

                But the free-speech principle would equally apply if a libertarian was picketing, say, a dea office and drawing attention to a colleague’s van where libertarian literature was on offer.

                1. And speaking of that…laws against notifying potential jurors about the concept of jury nullification are bullshit.

                2. OK, I thought this was a late night links deal. I wouldn’t want to violate h&r norms, they’re so few I ought to be able to remember them.

                  It wouldn’t be so bad if it wasn’t constant. I get that it’s an important topic for you, but does it need to be a crusade?

                  1. All right, if your complaint is that I initiate too many subthreads I’ll try and cut down. But if there’s three Reason articles in one week about how awful some religion is, I will feel free to comment as often as reason brings it up.

                    1. No, the complaint is that the topic is always the same…

                      Religion/abortion.

                    2. Yes I got that part. 🙂

              2. I am pro-choice…I found the article interesting.

      2. The fuck is wrong with his posts? Grow up.

      3. If he starts another Bo vs Ed fuckfest they are both going into the filter list.

        1. Look, I’ve repented of my bo-debating wicked ways. Check my replies to the St Paul v. dope link. Several people replied, but I wasn’t one of them. Ah haive seen the laht!

        2. I actually agree with the post. If the source is to be believed it is a case of the state using coercion to infringe on someone’s speech rights.

    2. The mask slips:

      “The City attorney argued that Westbrook [the demonstrator] was “taking business away from” the targeted business, namely, Planned Parenthood.”

  20. If the Medicaid determination is wrong, consumers should file an appeal with the federal marketplace, says Department of Health and Human Services spokeswoman Joanne Peters, but she says she does not have an estimate on how long that would take.

    Oh, come on, Joanne — take a guess. Two years? Three?

  21. Disney acquires the film rights to Indiana Jones, spurs speculation about future movies

    Disney’s purchase of the distribution rights to the “Indiana Jones” franchise from Paramount has whipped up a lot more interest than a typical marketing press release.
    For starters, it’s a clear sign that the studio is eyeing the potential of future films from the series starring the two-fisted archeologist made famous by Harrison Ford – a franchise is almost as valuable as real Holy Grail, having earned $2 billion worldwide at the box office to date.
    It’s unclear, however, what role the now 71-year-old Ford would play in a new Indiana Jones movie, since, to paraphrase a line from 1981’s “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” “It’s the age and the mileage.”
    “Indiana Jones could be a character very much like James Bond,” says Harry Knowles, founder of Ain’t It Cool News, the geek culture news site. “When you think about it, when Sean Connery (first) left Bond, it was five pictures into that franchise, and the movies continued after the role was recast.”

    I personally think the concept of Indiana Jones has long since run its course. How do you make such films relevant to today? With Bond you can do that but not so much with Indy.

    1. Good Pulp action never goes out of style.

      1. This is what is called ‘hitting the nail on the head.’

    2. Indy is a neutral mask character. He’s really just there for the audience to project themselves into. Casting a grandfatherly Ford for the latest (hypothetical) movie was a significant mistake. I could see it working if they did a reboot of the franchise for modern times like they did with Craig’s Bond or if they recast the role and made some new stories set in the twenties or thirties.

      1. I’d go with the later. The Doc Savage-Alan Q-Indy character doesn’t work well outside of the late 19th to early 20th century.

        1. I’m inclined to agree but I’m not willing to let my lack of imagination limit anyone.

          1. Even Jolie-boobs couldn’t save Tomb Raider, bro.

            1. Look, what I said doesn’t mean that I like everything. It just means that I’m willing to see if it works even if I can’t see a way for it to work.

              1. Fair enough. It would be funny in the gritty reboot for Indy to get captured by the Egyptian authorities and be sentenced with the death penalty for being a “Zionist spy”.

                1. When he gets back the uni or the government can break his balls for cultural insensitivity. It would be a hit.

                2. Hehe, the conclusion is simply Indy getting beheaded with a knife ? la an al Quaeda beheading video. And the movie just anticlimactically ends there.

      2. I agree about the escapism appeal, but the fourth Indiana Jones film is proof that politically correct Indiana Jones sucks hardcore. And politically correct is just the kind of environment that major studio films find themselves mired in.

        The original Indy films treated the exotic foreigners as a part of the background and setting. And while there were some pretty racist things in the films (particularly Temple of Doom’s depiction of Indians), it was integral to that pulp appeal HM talked about. .

        Today the foreigners would be depicted as being noble people exploited by US corporations or white people in general and the fun would get sucked out of it by the social commentary.

        1. I agree that Ford’s age (and apathy) was not the worst problem with (hell, let’s just admit it happened) Crystal Skull. But it is important. I hate to say it, but Indy is basically the hat, jacket, and whip.

          1. +1 Roy Chapman Andrews

    3. I could get behind another Indy. I think you’d need to keep the time frames the same.

      The big question is…

      Who do you cast?

      1. If you asked that question two weeks ago I would have said Paul Walker.

        1. That might have worked. Lance Harbor Indy.

          Nathan Fillion too old?

      2. I’ll say Tom Hardy.

        1. Very British. Can he do Murikan? Indy gots to be Murikan.

          1. How about his co-star from This Means War, Chris Pine?

            Maybe if he wasn’t already JTK.

          2. He did a convincing American accent in ‘Warrior’. He’s physically believable in the role and is a pretty good actor overall.

            I think he could do it.

          3. You know who sucks at playing american?
            That guy from the mentalist (not Simon Baker). His scenes are almost unwatchable.

            1. And by contrast, Welshman Matthew Rhys does a great job playing a Russian who’s posing as an American.

      3. I’ll go a little crazy and suggest Ryan Gosling as a dark horse.

        1. I’ll go even crazier: Michael Shannon.

          I know there’s no shot of it happening, but I like how Shannon can play a subdued, mild-mannered person and then go crazy in a more commanding role.

          Dr. Henry Jones Jr. and ‘Indiana’ Jones are really two separate characters in that way.

          1. His best work was reading that letter from the sorority girl.

            1. If that girl were smart she’d try to make money writing angry letters and emails for people.

              That email was Mamet-esque in its abusive language.

              1. She tried writing an article for Vice. It got ripped to pieces.

                  1. Yeah, that was depressing. Not because of the subject matter but because it was a story that went absolutely nowhere and someone thought it was worth publishing anyway.

            2. I loved him in The Runaways. Great character.

      4. Time frame has to be the same.

        A contemporary Indy would be facing a swordsman – this time with an AK – in a dusty Arab street, reach into his holster, and pull out a form from US Customs stating that he needs the right export forms to bring a firearm out of the country.

      5. Justin Beiber.

        1. As the female love interest? Bold choice.

        2. That’s just the jug wine talking.

          1. Hell, I’d pay good money to see him get squashed by a nine foot tall Mayan bowling ball any day. I can just imagine the little-girl squeal he’d let out as it caught his foot.

            1. Not painful enough.

              Something slower with prolonged screaming.

              1. Oh no, the ball wouldn’t completely squash him. Just crush his foot and throw him headlong into a bed of spikes. For the rest of the show we would be following Indy with short cuts back to a writhing, moaning Justin – kinda like his stage presence.

                1. Your idea has merit, but first we need to find a way to convert Belieber rage directly into electricity. Then we start teasing the movie, hinting that Beiber is the illustrious hero and convince all Belieber’s (including Anne Frank) to be there for the midnight showing.

          2. I wish. Still dealing with my disequilibrium.

            1. Maybe a beer helmet would do the trick. You can drink and it will protect your head if you fall.

              Did you rupture your eardrums, or were you poisoned by all of the jug wine?

              1. Ear infection I think. Been waiting on it to clear. Need to get more active on removing it.

      6. Either Corey Carrier or Sean Patrick Flannery would be an interesting choice.

      7. The Adventures of Short Round

  22. Microagression: Stop oppressing me!

    Photographer Kiyun asked her friends at Fordham University’s Lincoln Center campus to “write down an instance of racial microaggression they have faced.”

    The term “microaggression” was used by Columbia professor Derald Sue to refer to “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of color.”

    Only people of color? So it isn’t microaggression if I ask Irish if he beats his wife in a drunken rage in front of their 12 kids for burning his potato stew?

    1. An American walks into an Irish pub and says, “I’ll give anyone $100 if they can drink 10 Guinness’s in 10 minutes.”
      Most people just ignore the absurd bet and go back to their conversations.
      One guy even leaves the bar. A little while later that guy comes back and asks the American, “Is that bet still on?”

      “Sure.”

      So the bartender lines 10 Guinness’s up on the bar the Irishman drinks them all in less than 10 minutes.
      As the American hands over the money he asks, “Where did you go when you left?”
      The Irishman answers, “I went next door to the other pub to see if I could do it.”

      1. An Englishman, American, and an Irishman are in a bar drinking beer. Each of them discover a fly in their glass at the same time. The Englishman immediately discards his glass. The American fishes it out and keeps drinking. The Irishman fishes it out, puts it on the bar, and yells “SPIT IT OUT!”

        1. An Irishman walks into a bar because he is stupid drunk and didn’t see it. Now he’s injured and can’t work and has gone on the dole.

  23. I’m thoroughly tired of the whole “Knockout Game” thing, but still, this was pretty crazy.

    Also, I never thought I’d be posting a link to Worldstar on here.

    1. Drudge had that yesterday. Sorry, no Worldstar necessary…

      1. The one factor (for me) that Worldstar has going in its favor is that they still had the “racist” Mountain Dew commercials after they were taken down everywhere else.

        1. Didn’t know about those, and I am a hardcore Mountain Dew drinker.

    2. I’m sorry, but what’s with the comments?

      SHlTFORBRAINS ? an hour ago
      Whites evolved and left Africa.
      But the monkey remained in Africa until we needed it to pick cotton (mistake).
      Now these monkeys are turning large chunks of civilization into Little Africas.
      Baltimore, Philly, St Louis, Detroit, Oakland….
      QED.

      What is this site, again?

      1. The HnR trolls have really spoiled us.

      2. Well, as the name would suggest it’s a hip hop site, but it’s also widely known (or perhaps better known?) as a site that has a lot of fight videos that YouTube won’t host.

        I imagine they realize who that attracts, and don’t bother policing the comments…

        …perhaps like another site I know? *ahem*

    3. I’m beginning to think the whole “knockout game” story WAS complete and total bullshit until the media jumped on a few individual stories and morphed it in to a “thug life national past time”.

      I don’t doubt that there are “troubled inner city youths” who make up stupid games whilst troubled in the inner city, but I’m not buying that this a “trend” anymore than the vodka tampons. This just smells of bullshittery.

      The video in particular listed above is complete and total bullshit.

      1. No shit; letterbox and the inability to hold a cell phone steady should be a shooting offense.

  24. Anybody been in the same train wreck twice? http://abcnews.go.com/US/georg…..53527&ref;

    1. Is there any chance whatsoever that she used Zimmerman’s notoriety against him in as transparently attention-garnering a way possible? I really hate to go on defending this guy, but truly, bitches be crazy.

    2. Zimmerman needs to run as far and as fast from that woman as he possibly can.

  25. Cunty cops can consensual compensated cuddling.

    http://news.yahoo.com/video/la…..04220.html

  26. Slate realizes “krokodil” in America is bullshit scare story, calls out Time.

    A friend of mine sent it to me saying “Whenever I hear about krokodil I think of you”. Should I be worried.

    1. “Slate applies logic in deconstructing recent media hysteria, fulfills quota for the year, happily returns to endorsing media hysteria”

      FTFY

      1. Much improved. Thank you Tman.

        1. My pleasure. I applaud Slate for this piece, as I do when a thief returns stolen funds.

  27. What I keep wondering is, if the ACA website supposedly links to IRS and just about everywhere else the government has information about me, why do I have to enter all the same information.

    1. Yeah. Shouldn’t the government just send you a notice concerning which health insurance plan it picked for you, based on your income and lifestyle?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.