Obamacare

Win or Lose Halbig, Obamacare's Biggest Troubles are Still Ahead

|

To say that Obamacare enthusiasts are having a bad few weeks would be a major understatement. First, a three-judge panel at the DC Circuit Court ruled against them in Halbig vs. Sebelius, a lawsuit they called "stupid" and "criminal" for arguing that the subsidies that Uncle Sam was handing out through 36 federal exchanges violated the law. Then, videos surfaced showing that one of the law's key architect's — MIT's Jonathan Gruber — had gone around the country two years ago basically making Halbig's "stupid" and "criminal" argument, only to change his tune after the lawsuit was filed.

Meanwhile, liberal bloggers, who set out to destroy, once and for all, Halbig's argument, ended up confirming it. Greg Sargent of the Washington Post excavated Senate documents that he said proved — proved — that subsidies through federal exchanges were legitimate because they were contained in an earlier version of the bill — only to be

Obamacare.Justice
Shardayyy / Foter / Creative Commons

conspicuously dropped from the final law!

And yesterday our friends at the Competitive Enterprise Institute petitioned the Supreme Court to rule on the legality of these subsidies before the full DC Circuit reverses the three-judge panel and the lower courts are still split, given that other Circuits have rejected Halbig's argument.

But the odds, I note, in my latest column at The Week, are that the politically squeamish Chief Justice Roberts won't accept the case. He'll let the issue be resolved at the lower court level instead of getting his hands dirty in a partisan mudfight.

That might mean the end of Halbig, but not the end of Obamacare's political troubles. "The program's biggest vulnerabilities are still down the road," I note. And that's no accident. The administration postponed implementation of the more painful aspects of the program till after the president is safely out of office — partly through the original law and partly by altering the law through executive fiat. Hence:

a postponed tsunami of discontent awaits ObamaCare, just around the time the president exits office, when union plans are hit with new taxes; insurance companies may require a bailout; appropriation battles get underway; providers confront massive cuts; hospitals suffer losses; employers face mandates; and patients, once again, revolt against sticker shock as they are forced to pay higher penalties or buy policies they don't want…

So, the Obamacare film will be at 11 every night for the forseeable future.

Go here to read the whole thing.

NEXT: A.M. Links: Gaza Cease-Fire Collapses, Republicans Promise Border Bill, Ebola Patient Evacuated to U.S.

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. FIST!!!!!

    …err….first.

    1. FISH!

      er…fish

  2. It is such a sloppy, foolish, rushed take over of 1/6th of our economy that I really conclude that Obama and its supporters could care less about whether it works. No sane person could think this would work. Like most of this administration’s actions it only makes sense as a political tool: giving the base something to be excited about and helping the ‘obstructionist’ narrative that has become their political playbook.

    1. It’s working exactly as intended. It’s moving money around and redistributing it to the favored cronies, and there are all sort of goodies in there that will allow the government to exert more control over every minute detail of peoples lives.

      1. This.

        One reason nobody read it is plausible deniability. 8-(

        1. What a messed up world we live in where a government official thinks ‘you can’t blame me, I did not know the provisions of this thing I voted to impose on you’ is a face saving excuse.

          1. doesn’t matter. All that does matter is 1) intentions and 2) Team. Though Team should probably be 1-5 all by itself.

          2. I’m really thinking tarring and feathering should make a comeback.

            1. As a warning that if the tar and feathers aren’t effective, see that thing over there with the head slot and big shiny blade?

            2. Tar and feathering, railing, and dueling.

              I’d really be interested to know how many people Obama and Team blue would be willing to shoot dead in order to enact the ACA and if they really believe in the ACA enough to stake not just their careers but their lives on implementing it.

      2. I’m having trouble understanding who is getting the money, though. I don’t think the people who wrote this thing even have a coherent idea of what it was intended to do.

        1. I have come to the conclusion that they are so steeped in the idea that everything is better when handled by government that there was never any concern about the exact form of the result. Just as I, a happy chocolate addict, will try just about anything chocolate and forgive it for less than perfection, so do government addicts forgive and move on.

        2. I think a rather poor excuse for a software development company got about 650 million of the money so far. I’m sure that Sebelius also made off with her fair share.

        3. Some cronies are getting money, but mostly all this is doing is destroying value. When historians look back they may very well blame Obamacare for the imminent recession.

        4. Not in a conspiracy way, but Mexico is making out nicely. They are gearing up to be a major Medical Tourism Destination (like the US became for Canadians) much like Thailand has done for Asia.

          Canadians and Americans are going to need somewhere to go for quick, proper and affordable medical care. And Mexico is planning ahead, pumping tons of public and private investment into infrastructure.

    2. The tell-all book about how the law was crafted and passed by some ex-staffer should be interesting. I have the impression that the White House had this grand vision, but after it hit reality it broke into a bunch of pieces that people just started sticking back together haphazardly without anyone paying attention to the whole. A great way to make a law.

    3. No sane person could think this would work.

      all depends but how you define “work.” Too many folks make the mistake of ascribing Obama’s numerous odd decisions to bad advice or political miscalculation or some other aspect from the usual bag of excuses.

      It is neither gross incompetence nor epic stupidity. The outcome is what was intended. Look at the economy. He’s been in office 6 years with little improvement; that’s on purpose. The same could said for a host of other things.

      When you have exhausted the list of possible explanations, you have to consider those previously thought impossible. With Obama, it is a better bet to begin with the impossible; these folks are simply evil, and that is the part most Americans can’t or won’t wrap their heads around. No one wants to believe a US president, even one they did not support, would actively pursue outcomes bad for the nation.

      1. It’s much simpler: they believe in government, not the private sector, and so naturally want government to do as much as possible. Immediate results are immaterial because government will be better in the long term.

        Nothing else matters. They *know* government is better.

      2. You never know with Obama. The man’s behavior suggests he is deluded, insulated, and facto-phobic. He may have actually believed that we could keep our doctors and our plans while saving $2500 a year.

        I still have great difficulty understanding the 20th-century totalitarians (and now their softer versions in our current Democrat party). The mental compartmentalization required for such hypocrisy just blows my mind.

      3. Occam’s Explanation:

        Typical Politician: OK. Never mind what is in it. What do can I say that is easy for the simple ones to believe?

        Staff who colluded with vested interests to craft legislation: Say that even puppy dogs shall get free health care if needed.

    4. It was sloppy and rushed because the last time they tried to do it (Hillarycare), the details killed it.

      The same would have happened this time if it had been discussed and debated for a reasonable period of time.

      1. Not to mention, everything they said to sell it was lie. Replace any one of those lies with the truth and it would not have passed.

        BTW, I don’t see any Democrats running on ObamaCare. Didn’t they tell us ObamaCare would propel the Democrats to victory?

  3. Yes, it will only get worse. And the joke’s on all of us, because no matter how bad it gets, it isn’t going away. It will be ‘fixed’, and then ‘fixed’ again, and again, and again.

    And what happens when the government fixes things, children?

    1. We did a terrible job at this, let us keep at it!

      1. You mean the previous system where 50+ million people didn’t ‘t have health insurance and tens of thousands died every year because of under-insurance was something to be proud of and built upon ?

        1. No one died due to under-insurance.

          Bankrupted, yes, but died, no.

        2. Obamacare has probably only extended coverage to about 2 million or so that didn’t already have it. So nice job on that.

          I’ll be happy to look at a citation for your 10,000 dead due to underinsurance claim.

          1. Sure… Here’s a run-of-the-mill study that concludes that 45,000 die from lack of health insurance. There’s plenty more of these types of studies around.

            http://www.pnhp.org/excessdeat…..adults.pdf

            1. Thanks. They clearly state that lack of insurance is associated with other factors that could lead to higher mortality (e.g., lack of exercise, obesity, smoking). They also try to correct for this covariance. I’m always a little suspicious of these types of adjustments, and of covariances that they may not know about/account for. But I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and accept their numbers at face value: that somewhere in the neighborhood of 30,000 die because of underinsurance.

              So we are in agreement that underinsurance is a problem. I would have said that regardless of whether there was an increase in mortality. I want health insurance to be affordable and accessible to everyone who wants it.

              The previous system failed at that. You’ll get no argument from me there. But Obamacare isn’t helping! And it’s making other things besides the number of uninsured worse! And I have very little confidence that a single-payer, government provided universal insurance model would do better on balance (leaving aside my moral objections). Give me a system rooted first in liberty and truly competitive markets. It’s worked for so many other areas of life.

            2. The ‘study’ (actual a partisan paper with pre-determined conclusions) says “as many as” approx. 45,000, which means even they are admitting it could be much lower. Much less the numerous other problems with the biased assumptions made in the ‘study’ (it repeats the obviously fals 46 million uninsured claim – if 46 million lacked insurance, why have so few signed up for Obamacar?).

              Nothing but partisan bullshit.

            3. american socialist|8.1.14 @ 10:50AM|#
              “Sure… Here’s another lie.”

              1. Yes, peer-reviewed literature just isn’t credible. Only CATO position papers or columns on breitbart.com can be trusted.

                Dear Reason editors, can you rehire Dagny Taggart to run the comments section on reason.com. If this is the best that the free market can do, call me unimpressed. Website Needz Moar Top Jobz Creatorz!

                1. american socialist|8.1.14 @ 1:03PM|#
                  “Yes, peer-reviewed literature just isn’t credible”

                  Peer-reviewed lies are every bit as credible as your standard lefty lies.

            4. *Sure… Here’s a run-of-the-mill study that concludes that 45,000 die from lack of health insurance.*

              Hey, guess what–even if you have health insurance, YOU STILL DIE.

            5. I often see the proclamation that 45 thousand people die every year because they don’t have health insurance. This number comes from a Harvard study, so it is pronounced with great reverence and seldom questioned or considered. The study is widely available on the internet, and I suggest you read it. While reading it consider the point-of-view of one of the authors: according to the NIH website “Dr. Stephanie Woolhandler helped found Physicians for a National Health Program, a not-for-profit organization for physicians, medical students, and other health care professionals who advocate a national health insurance program.”

              Of course, the number quoted is the highest number in the study, and comes about only when using criteria suggested by the Urban Institute. The lower end of the estimated range is 27424, or a just about 50% less, albeit this covers only ages 25-64. Ignoring the Urban Institutes guidelines, the number provided is 35327 deaths annually for the non-elderly (ages 18-64), compared to the larger number 44789.

              But the study also had several severe limitations.

              1. First, the study relied on self-reported insurance status (unverified data). Further, the study only included insurance status at a single point in time, without determining whether the participants were actually insured at the time of their death. If a person had not been insured at the time of the initial interview, but got insurance later in the 6-year study period and may have actually had insurance at the time of death, they were counted as if a lack of insurance had contributed to their death. The authors have no information as to the duration of insurance coverage or lack thereof–only that the person was uninsured during the initial interview. To be fair, it may also be true that some people who reported having private insurance later dropped or lost their insurance, but the study does not consider either case.

                Next, the study made no effort to determine that the cause of death was related to health insurance status. Deaths due to auto accidents, homicides, etc. were counted the same as deaths due to untreated diabetes. This is made more problematic because the study oversampled blacks and blacks are six times more likely to be victims of homicide than whites.

                1. The study also excluded people on Medicare, which is reasonable as the study focused on the non-elderly. However, the study also excluded “nonelderly Medicare recipients and persons covered by Medicaid and the Department of Veterans Affairs/Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services military insurance, as a substantial proportion of those individuals had poor health status as a prerequisite for coverage.” These people were excluded because they were probably already sick and the fact that they had health care coverage, albeit government supplied, would likely have skewed the results. If they had died during the study, the hypothesis that lack of coverage is associated with increased likelihood of death may have been less strongly supported; also, it may well have indicated that having government-provided coverage is even more strongly associated with increased likelihood of death.

                  Although the study seemed to indicate that “uninsurance is associated with mortality,” it also points out that “uninsurance was associated with younger age, minority race/ethnicity, unemployment, smoking, exercise, self-rated health, and lower levels of education and income. Regular alcohol use and physician-rated health were also associated with higher rates of uninsurance.”

                  1. Or, as the authors put it “unmeasured characteristics (i.e., that individuals who place less value on health eschew both health insurance and healthy behaviors) might offer an alternative explanation for our findings.”

                    Finally, it is worth noting that of all those who were included in the study, a total of 3.1% died. Of those who died, 83.8% had private insurance (but still died). The overall rate of death was 3.0% for the privately insured, and 3.3% for the uninsured. So, 97% of the privately insured were still alive after the study period ended, and so were 96.7% of uninsured.

                    In other words, there may be a 0.3% increased chance of death associated with instances of unverified periods of uninsurance (of unknown duration) and where cause of death may or may not be related to health-care related factors.

                    By way of comparison, in 2008 there were 43,313 deaths in auto accidents in the U.S. That number is typical for the annual loss of life on our roads. Each of those deaths was 100% preventable by simply banning automobiles. We could save many of them by simply lowering the speed limit to 25MPH on all roads. Are we willing to spend $1T to save those people over the next 10 years?

                    1. For further comparison, the CDC says that approximately 90,000 people die each year as a result of acquiring an infection while in a hospital. Almost all of those deaths could be avoided if doctors, nurses, and other hospital staff would simply wash their hands and use hand sanitizers regularly and properly.

                      P.S. According to the numbers in the Harvard report, being male had almost the exact same “risk” as being uninsured.

          2. “I’ll be happy to look at a citation for your 10,000 dead due to underinsurance claim.”

            Here is one for you. I used to have to stop my car and drag their bodies out of the street all the time so I could pass. Sometimes, if they were just to weak and near death to move I would have to put them out of their misery myself.

            Don’t tell me you never had to do it. The ditches used to be lined with the bodies of the uninsured.

        3. Don’t confuse obamacare with actually helping people. The two concepts are almost completely unrelated.

        4. Is this a tu quoque or a false dilemma? Or is it both?

        5. I prefer the system we had before that. Where charity hospitals treated poor proletarian for free, and many bought cheap group insurance through fraternal organizations. Doctors worked cheap by todays standard. Hell, they would even come to your house. Then you’re idealogical ancestors decided to get involved, and after 75 years of fucking up the system you blame market failure. Jesus, you’re as useless as a used condom.

          1. Then you’re idealogical ancestors decided to get involved

            Christ you’re ignorant.

            The only person that had any impact on the origins of the modern f’d up insurance system outside of the New Dealers and their heirs was Friedman, and it was indirect at most.

            The entire system we have now was created by tax law and wage caps.

            1. I was talking about the New Dealers.

              1. I was responding to what I thought was american socialist. Obviously not enough coffee.

                1. It’s cool, you’re still my nerfherder.

            2. “The entire system we have now was created by tax law and wage caps.”

              Yes created by the market response to New Dealers stupidity, codified into tax law the put on a path to destruction by New Deal progeny with the advent of CMS/HHS.

          2. I regard fdr as a dangerous capitalist enabler so if you want a system to highlight the contradictions and return to the glorious days of 1932 and the Bonus Army than have at it.

            1. The Bonus Army? What does a group of veterans who were fucked over by the government have to do with capitalism? Talk about a non-sequitur.

            2. american socialist|8.1.14 @ 10:55AM|#
              “I regard fdr as a dangerous capitalist enable”

              Sure you do.
              Get lost.

            3. Ah. So you admit you’re ignorant, and an idiot. Glad we cleared that up.

        6. You can help hundreds of millions out of poverty, yet a socialist will bitch that you didn’t get 100%. You’re batting record is infinitely worse.

        7. american socialist|8.1.14 @ 10:10AM|#
          “You mean the previous system…”

          Do you ever post without lying? Is it a requirement that lefties lie in order to pass the lefty initiation of stupid?

          1. Well, they can’t really attempt to advance their arguments without lying, because their feelz are not supported by reality.

        8. 100% of everyone shall die regardless of insurance, eventually.

          Having insurance doesn’t prevent people form dying. If having insurance did, no one with insurance would ever die. Yet, millions die every year with insurance.

          Insurance exists to pay portion of bills upon a realized event. There is no other purpose for insurance.

          Insurance exists for financial health. Medicine exists for physical health.

          30,000 deaths is 9.6 one-thousandths of one percent of population. It’s so low as to be meaningless to discuss. 30,000 deaths is about 1.3% of total deaths, again a percentage so small as to be meaningless.

          Having insurance fails to prevent 1.4 million deaths every hear from cardiovascular disease and cancer. Combined both account for 56% of deaths.

    2. And what happens when the government fixes things, children?

      They become models of efficiency, profitability, and social justice??

      No wait, that’s not it . . .

    3. YOU get a car! And YOU get a car! And YOU get car!…

      *Keep it up and they’ll never notice*

  4. the politically squeamish Chief Justice Roberts won’t accept the case.

    Whoa, whoa, whoa!
    The Supreme Court of the United States is an apolitical institution, completely insulated from political pettifoggery. Cases are taken up based solely on the legitimacy of the Constitutional issues underlying them.

    1. He can prevent it if any 4 others want to take it.

      1. Was that supposed to be CAN’T prevent it?

        And was The Late P Brooks not being sarcastic?

        It’s okay, we all understand undercaffeination.

  5. “Jonathan Gruber”

    Why should I care what someone who wasn’t elected and doesn’t hold any public office that I am aware of said back in 2010?

    If states that failed to set up federal exchanges because they are either run by conservative windbags or right-wing ideologues don’t get funding for Medicare does that mean that states not run by the Tea Party get that money? I’m beginning to like this whole reconsideration of Obamacare.

    I have to say that even though I’m sympathetic to what Obama has done with regard to health care my hope is that the whole thing falls through and we eventually end up doing what most European countries have done, which is to get rid of medical insurance companies.

    1. Why should I care what someone who wasn’t elected and doesn’t hold any public office that I am aware of said back in 2010?

      Unlike your esteemed elected representatives, he actually read it.

    2. Shouldn’t you out practicing your anal cavity searches with T o n y instead of wasting everyones time here?

      Really…the nerve of National Socialist!

    3. I bet the VA scandal didn’t even make you pause for a second, did it? No, it didn’t. Socialist have proven time and time again that they’re incapable of learning from history, much less the present reality right in front of their face. But as long as you can tell yourself that you have good intentions it doesn’t matter how many people die or live in misery.

    4. It’s the deconstructionist theory of regulatory interpretation.

      It only means what the reader thinks it does.

    5. Proglodytes – Give us Romanian style healthcare damnit!!1!1!

      Oh, that’s not the european country you meant.

    6. Why should I care what someone who wasn’t elected and doesn’t hold any public office that I am aware of said back in 2010?

      Probably because he helped craft the law.

      1. Of course, if that’s still not good enough, there’s Max Baucus.

      2. Unimportant! Jacques Derrida would be proud of the modern Democratic Party.

      3. When you get commie-kid grasping at straws, it’s getting deep over there.

    7. Just above this you were bemoaning the uninsured dying in the streets, and now you’re saying it’s cool if they live in TEAM RED states?

      1. Tribal politics coupled with a lack of principled ethics will get you that.

    8. Why should I care what someone who wasn’t elected and doesn’t hold any public office that I am aware of said back in 2010?

      Uh, because that “someone” had great influence over crafting the bill that also passed in 2010?

      I mean, really, are you progs going to play stupid as a strategy?

    9. american socialist|8.1.14 @ 10:07AM|#
      …”I have to say that even though I’m sympathetic to what Obama has done with regard to health care”
      Yes. Lefties are in love with failed systems. It’s the l;efty way!

      “my hope is that the whole thing falls through and we eventually end up doing what most European countries have done, which is to get rid of medical insurance companies.”
      Well, at least that would keep Euro-trash from coming here for decent medical care. Who knows, maybe we’d get lucky and you’d contract a painful wasting disease.

    10. Because he was one of the main hired gun experts who helped craft the law. You don’t think Pelosi and Obama sat down and wrote it out themselves do you? No…

      Max Baucus: “I don’t think you want me to waste my time to read every page of the healthcare bill. …You know why? It’s statutory language. … We hire experts.”

      One of those “experts” that helped write the law was Jonathan Gruber, an MIT health expert who also helped write Massachusetts’ “Romneycare” law.

      So when he had something to say publicly about the intent about parts of the law, it should be clear he knows what the intent was.

    11. Medicare funding has nothing to do with the states. hth ywia

  6. iIf states that failed to set up federal exchanges because they are either run by conservative windbags or right-wing ideologues don’t get funding for Medicare does that mean that states not run by the Tea Party get that money?

    First, explain to us where that “money” will come from, or if it even actually exists.

    1. Forget it Brooks, it’s socialist town.

  7. Those bastards in the other party are out to suck you dry. Our bastards are out to help you. Pony up!

  8. my hope is that the whole thing falls through and we eventually end up doing what most European countries have done, which is to get rid of medical insurance companies.

    No kidding.

    What could possibly go wrong?

    1. This time it’ll work. I promise.

      1. We just have to get the right people in there.

    2. Switzerland has private insurance companies and progs like to claim it as a model.

  9. By blaming Obama for everything that is wrong with the nation, Libertarians and their camp followers, will be able to absolve the next President (who will probably be a Republican) of any wrong-doing whatsoever, for an indefinite period.

    Everything will be Obama’s fault, so if things are still screwed up in 2020, it will be Obama’s fault no matter what. The same crew will probably be blaming any of our country’s ills on Obama as late as 2050.

    Let’s say a dream comes true, and someone is actually elected President on a straight Libertarian ticket, and the nation has a Libertarian President for the entire 21st Century. If anything goes wrong, they can still blame it on Obama.

    In fact Obama will become like Satan in the so called Garden of Eden, and the religious world. He has been blamed for everything wrong with the world since the creation, so why not blame Obama for everything that is wrong with the fucking secular world.

    1. “By blaming Obama for everything that is wrong with the nation, Libertarians…”

      No comment necessary. Do better.

      1. straffinrun,

        By “Do batter” you probably mean that I need to post something totally denouncing Obama forever and evermore, and post a comment praising the libertarian movement (the new Hippies) for everything they do and believe in.

        In any event, and because you are so fucking dense, you missed my premise, which is that Obama can be used as a perpetual scapegoat long after he leaves office. He will be used for that purpose anyway.

        Too bad you are such an ass hole slug, or you might have seized on my post for propaganda purposes.

        Have a nice day, you fucking moron.

        1. Not that the blame game does anyone any good, nor does a tu quoque rebuttal add much, but…

          I’m pretty sure Bush is still being blamed for just about everything.

    2. On The Road To Mandalay|8.1.14 @ 10:33AM|#
      “By blaming Obama for everything that is wrong with the nation, Libertarians and their camp followers,”

      Road guy, do you have to post stuff that simply makes you look dumber every time you do?
      I got a hint for you: Blaming Obo for O-care is NOT a shot in the dark. Is that clear?

      1. Your post looks like a threat. What if I don’t see things “clear”? What are you going to do about it, you piece of pig shit? Will you post me to death, or put a fucking curse on me, you fool?

        In any event, because you are obviously so fucking undereducated, you missed my premise, which is that Obama will be used as a scapegoat for everything he does, be it right or wrong. Of course, for ass wipes of your ilk, he can do no right.

        You have a nice day, and when you accuse me of posting something dumb, you need to post something refuting my opinion, instead of your one liner farts, which show what a fucking retard you are.

        Knock off the threat language, you turd.

        Have a great weekend down at the trailer court having a circle jerk with your retard friends, scrotum brain.

        1. Do you know what “a shot in the dark” is? It’s a metaphor. It means something like “a Hail Mary pass.” Other examples of metaphors are “If they bring a knife, we will bring a gun” and “I’ll put my boot on their neck.” Not to be confused with “I’ll put on a pair of comfortable shoes and walk with them,” which was a lie.

        2. On The Road To Mandalay|8.1.14 @ 12:56PM|#
          “Your post looks like a threat.”

          Stupidity AND *paranoia*! Great combo, road-guy.

    3. By blaming Obama for everything that is wrong with the nation

      Aaaand you’re wrong right out of the gate. By the way, feel free to peruse the Reason archives to see what Reason had to say during Bush’s tenure. Somehow they managed to make the transition from blaming him to blaming Obama where appropriate.

      1. Oh, and we also got to listen to conservative from time to time accuse us of the same thing you’re accusing us of, only with respect to Bush.

    4. I think you confuse libertarian with repupublican. Knowing the difference would be helpful in these discussions. Also, considering the way progressives are still screaming about Bush after six plus years, I believe the technical term for your statements is “Projection”.

      1. dantheserence,

        It’s very difficult to confuse libertarians with either the Re POOP licans or the Demo CRAZIES.

        The libertarians are nothing more than the “New Hippies in a Suit” with anarchist credentials, when they are not begging Rand Paul for acceptance.

        In any event, the really are no progressives out there anymore. They might be called that, but they essentially disappeared a long time ago. They exist in people’s imaginations.

        Have a nice weekend.

      2. it is beyond projection. projection is an unconscious act. these twats deliberately ascribe to others their worst traits and think they are being clever.

    5. I don’t blame Obama for everything that is wrong. But he has done very little to fix the things that he inherited from the previous administration: NSA spying, Gitmo, Patriotic Act, etc. That is what is so disappointing about him.

    6. I blame Bush

    7. If only the mean republicans had defeated obamacare, they wouldn’t be able to blame him for obamacare. Sad realy.

    8. “By blaming Obama for everything that is wrong with the nation, Libertarians and their camp followers, will be able to absolve the next President (who will probably be a Republican) of any wrong-doing whatsoever, for an indefinite period.”

      HaHaHaHaHaHaHa

      But Booosh! Booosh !

      You meant this to be a joke right ?

      No one could be that non self aware and still breath without assistance.

      1. OneOut,

        Go back to school and take a remedial course in Reading Comprehension, AND English Composition. Too bad you are so fucking ass stupid that you could not catch sarcasm and realism in my original post.

        Is Obama being used as a scapegoat by the opposition or not? That was my premise, you retarded dip shit.

        1. He doesn’t have to be a “scapegoat” when he’s *actually* responsible for so many things.

          1. What things exactly. Start listing them, you fucking moron. Tell us what things.

            I’m waiting for your list, you moron.

        2. On The Road To Mandalay|8.1.14 @ 1:00PM|#
          …”Too bad you are so fucking ass stupid that you could not catch sarcasm and realism in my original post.”

          Dipshit, the only time you claim sarcasm is after you get called on your bullshit.

          1. Sevo

            I have read many of your posts. Anyone who does not agree with your opinions is denounced as bullshit.

            Anyway, you should go back to doing what you do best, which is rolling YOUR shit into little balls and throwing it against a wall.

            Have a nice weekend ass wipe. If you get time, try ramming a white hot poker up your rectum.

            Fuck you.

            1. On The Road To Mandalay|8.1.14 @ 7:10PM|#
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW9-FOLG-iA

    9. the next President (who will probably be a Republican)

      I don’t see how. The Repubs have a serious national demographic problem and probably won’t win the presidency the next time or the time after that.

  10. Sorry, libertarians are not plagued by the previous-president-derangement-syndrome like lefties are.

  11. “Ninety percent of the 1.4 million people who selected a Covered California plan chose to get the premium tax credit in advance.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/default/…..657904.php

    If I read this correctly, something close to 100% of those who “selected” a CC plan got subsides; i.e., they’re parasites like commie kid.
    Now if that holds true for all states, and the courts READ THE DAMN LAW, it looks like there is going to be a whole LOT of IRS fun over the next coupld of years.

  12. Plus, some things that we have to deal with after Obama leaves office will clearly and uneqivically BE his fault. There’s finger-pointing, and then there’s actual responsibility for something. The presence of the former doesn’t exclude the presence of the latter. Plus libertarians are pretty good about not playing Team A/B blame games, and will actually call a political spade a spade. (I know, racist).

    1. * Unequivocally

  13. By blaming Obama for everything that is wrong with the nation, Libertarians and their camp followers, will be able to absolve the next President

    You grievously underestimate our (MY, certainly) capacity to happily assign blame across a wide array of actors with no consideration whatsoever of their TEAM affiliation whatsoever.

  14. Everyone out there have a great weekend. It’s always a thrill posting with all of you aces. Take care, and best of luck.

    Make a wish. Done? I know, you want me to disappear. That is your wish isn’t it? Ha!

    1. don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out

      1. RJ

        Hi Asshole,

        I won’t. And did I forget to say FUCK YOU on my way out?

        Well then, FUCK YOU, moron.

          1. Fuck you too, scrotum brain.

        1. On The Road To Mandalay|8.1.14 @ 2:11PM|#

          Enjoy your exile. Up your IQ with a lobotomy and reinvent yourself. May I suggest looking down the barrel of a gun and getting beaten up on the beach while you are at it.

          Don’t go away angry…just go away. Should this be the post that pushed you over the edge, no credit necessary. You will never see it anyway. Ha!

          1. Come on ULOST,

            You can do better than this. You are not being hateful enough. Get with it. Show more word violence. You can do better than this. In any event, I did not say I was quitting this site. I was merely signing out of this particular article. However, when I saw your Hostile Man post, I could not resist a reply.

            1. Road guy, you are a fucking waste of bandwidth:
              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW9-FOLG-iA
              And I MEAN it.

            2. On the Road…
              I was caught up in the moment…couldn’t resist a pile on. Nice to know I will get another crack at it…to redeem myself of course. You did not disappoint.
              My “word violence” was merely selective quotes which in true libertarian fashion left you in complete control of any and all violence.
              I presume the reference was not lost on you of all people. You made me use up all of my best lines. I’m spent.
              I guess this article was like your farewell tour.

  15. Nah. Obamacare’s biggest “trouble” well ok maybe it was more of a test was the decision on the mandate. That was hallmark/precedent territory and freedom lost. It’s on the books for good now and there isn’t really anything anyone can do about it. In my eyes, the freedom to say no (at all in any way) was lost and it’s not coming back. So, to me, whatever else happens to Obamacare is pretty minor and almost irrelevant in the wake of the damage from the mandate decision.

  16. Use of Nanotechnology in Orthopedics
    The benefit of nanotechnology to regenerative medicine is immense. Firstly, when attaching biomaterial such as stem cells to a scaffold, that material may not grow due to the material not attaching to the scaffold properly. When using a scaffold for bone tissue, the osteoblasts need to adhere to the scaffold and be able to grow on it. Secondly, keeping the area clean while the cells develop can also be an issue. Nanotechnology is still young. However it is being shown that it has promise in solving both of these issues. Here are some of the most recent breakthroughs we find to be very promising.

    A hydrogel – a water based structure – has been found, when combined with nanotubes, to increase adhesion up to 236%. Not only is it a safe chemical to use, but it works in conjunction with the previous two methods.
    For more information- http://www.voyagermed.com

  17. I think we could all learn something about lower cost healthcare by doing some evaluation of our own. http://voyagermed.com

  18. I think we could all learn something about lower cost healthcare by doing some evaluation of our own. https://voyagermed.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.