A little political humor.

Wow I need to get Blue Cross!!!

I wonder how many late night comedians wish they'd told that joke! Good one, Shadow!

Wow old men telling good jokes...nice. still demonizing a budget care system is not cool. Its meant for those who can't afford private care. That doesn't mean that obama was GOING to give them top notch health perks, just the basic necessities.

Estafador: Its meant for those who can't afford private care.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! That's even funnier than shadowcat's joke! Good one, dude!

Great joke. All you need is an Ed McMahon as a sidekick.

Hahaha...like it

I thought it was meant to get all the young uninsured people insured to make the demographics fit and these people who don't have the necessity for lots of health care will pay premiums which will offset costs for us old farts who need to see a doctor or surgeon all too often. And I have BC-BS medical indemnification plan. I never got that kind of treatment.

The ACA is socialized insurance designed by a committee consisting of a bunch of urban political aides who never had health insurance before getting hired in D.C. and didn't know the difference between insurance and medical care. (Really) The only help these kids got was from folks from the Washington lobby firms. These confused, misinformed youth (all under 35) didn't even finish the A.C.A. until the night AFTER the Senate vote.

Scary, ain't it.

sc,

I'm old enough to remember that joke when it was new, but I like the obamacare update.

Wow...we have an expert on policy issues amongst us. I'm impressed! Maybe Mr. DallasDude could share his insights in a detailed post. I'm preparing myself to be amazed!

Gawker they absolutely need young healthy people to sign up or it won't work. I'm not sure that was the "purpose" but it's the reality.

weak!

Actually, the ACA is as much.fascist as socialist, if not more so. Fascism, more than socialism, has been the dominant trend in this country for a while now.

@gawker
@jester214: "Gawker they absolutely need young healthy people to sign up or it won't work. I'm not sure that was the "purpose" but it's the reality."

It's the business model of ALL INSURANCE, homeowners, auto, health, etc.
In order for private insurers to make $$ for their investors they must spread risk around, meaning some people holding insurance may not need to make a claim over the period for which they paid the premium. That's the reason for the individual mandate: to have enough participants paying in allowing insurers [theoretically] to set lower premiums.

You already participate in this risk-spread system by buying BCBS. Don't like it -- then don't buy health/auto insurance. My state requires all drivers to have minimum insurance. Some refuse and the rest of us MUST [state law] add uninsured motorist coverage to our auto policies. Either way insurers aren't left with uninsured risk.

Originally, Affordable Care Act was to include a public[ally] funded option. When it was abandoned and ACA was based only on using private insurers that required the individual mandate.

Some people hate mandates. Motorcyclists fume over state laws requiring wearing a helmet. Head injuries as a result of some motorcycle accidents affect more than the rider because taxpayers end up paying the underinsured riders medical bills or disability payments, etc.

I'm all for riders having the right to refuse to wear a helmet as long as they sign a legally binding waiver saying no public/taxpayer monies are to be used in their care, etc. You make a choice, YOU alone pay the consequences.

Sorry but their had to be some degree if socialism if everyone including those who can't afford or have pre-existing conditions are to be covered. I think only the most hard-core Randroid/Libettarians would like a system where such people are just SOL. Or, in othe words, as bad as ObamaCare is the alternative is worse.

Our own plan at work is now slightly worse and this is blamed on ObamaCare, but only by hair, so I'm fine with that if means everyone in the country is covered.

OK...I'll bite 'cos I need some LOLZ. How exactly is the ACA fascist or socialist? ...or fascist rather than socialist? ...or riddleresqe or whatever all the right wing nutjobs think it is?

It is what it is: a cobbled together system that arose of of compromises necessary to get it passed. I have a hard time getting that excited over it. But assertions like ol' Dallas' are a just a wee bit over the top. 'Cos we all know that typical congressional staffers...we know the come from backgrounds where they don't have health insurance. Indeed, I would be not at all shocked if -- to a person -- none had ever visited a doctor in their lives!

In fact, I heard that BigTuna is actually a congressional staffer. He doles out the medical care in the form of rumatiz medicine fro his granny's still!

It's clearly socialist because you are regulating insurance companies beyond how they would act in a purely free market. It is also a wealth transfer.

I'll let gmd speak for himself why he says it is fascist.

Obamacare SHOULD cover vasectomies; even my expensive private coverage doesn't. The cost is a lot less than having a baby and raining it.

BTW @shadowcat: loved your joke.

@joker, their business model is to spread risk around. They make it work, if they don't, they go out of business. It would seem they've been fairly successful at making it work without attracting the young healthiest people.

Since the ACA knows they can't induce these people to buy in and cover the high risk people who will likely purchase, they have to try and coerce them.

If you don't want homeowners insurance, rent. If you don't want car insurance, walk. Those are choices people are allowed to make, or perhaps WERE allowed to make.

WRT economic policy, socialism is typically characterized by government ownership *and* control of the means of production in an industry. Of the doctors actually administering care were government employees, then that would be socialism. If the government were the actual insurer, that would be socialism.

Fascism, on the other hand, especially as practiced by Nazi Germany, typically allows (ostensibly) private ownership of the means of production, but the government mandates how that production occurs, directing what may be produced, or how much it will cost, etc. The ACA is more the latter than the former.

Dougster will provide a rebuttal as soon as he finds something in Wikipedia.

GMD...you do realize that the US government regulates many aspects of business. For example, the FDA does place limits on the number of maggots above a certain size that you can have in mushrooms. Just looked it up and it is no more than 20 per 100 grams and no more than 5 of them can be longer than 2 mm long.

So is it fascism for the FDA to close down my mushroom plant just 'cos they gots the maggots. I mean this is a capitalist country...why SHOULDN'T I be allowed to sell 'shrooms with XXXtra maggots. ZOMG the fascists are coming to get me!

Regardless of whether the ACA is good or bad policy it isn't qualitatively different from plenty of other policies that are longstanding and many of which are good policy...unless you dig buying your 'shrooms and finding that they are actually 'shrooms 'n maggots that is.

Simply looking up a few factoids 'bout Nazi Germany doesn't mean any parallel you notice is Nazism. You do realize the real problem with the Nazis, don't you?

I of course am referring to the true issue with the Nazis...STUPID ASS MUSTACHES!

Oh, and the whole genocide and attacking their neighbors thing. But those mustaches were really FUCKED UP!!!

Obamacare sucks, but it's definitely better than just leaving the people it's going to cover with no insurance.

I guess it must be fascism that the government forces Ford and GM to make cars with working brakes.

Great joke, BTW. But I think only the insurance policies that John McCain wanted to tax might include a hot fuck with your vasectomy.

I don't give a damn about health insurance. Just a piece of paper. Health care is what I prefer.

My parents never had insurance when I was a child, rather they paid the doctor, usually in cash as he left our home after the HOUSE CALL! Worked pretty damn good!

Adding 30milllion people that can't afford health care to a system that will "pay" for it for them? Where are all of the extra doctors, nurses, and other specialist going to come from? When there's even less money available (the government is already running a trillion $/year deficit) are you going to pay the doctors less. At what point does it become a loss for them to practice medicine? What will we do when doctors stop practicing and fewer people try to get medical degrees? Are we going to force doctors to keep their practices open? Are we going to force them to work at caring for people? Eventually, there will be less medical care for more people and you will end up with some form of rationing.

This idea that people deserve medical care is a goddamn joke. Some of you guys argue about smoking bans...Well, do you feel that someone who smokes deserves the same priority to get health care as someone who never smokes? If not, then let's look at obesity, poor life choices, addictions, gender, genetics, and other reasons to prioritize who gets the medical care.

My general opposition to the ACA is that it isn't going to be able to work. You can't get enough young people paying into a system to take care of the older people (Look at social security and how fucked up that is). It'll drive us into further debt to maintain which will hurt the economy, which means more people wont be able to pay into the system and there we have a downward spiral.

We haven't always provided healthcare through insurance or other systems. Doctors provided their services to those who could pay and some even donated their time and skills to help those who couldn't afford their services. But it is a fucking service...not some obligation that because you study medicine you have to give it away to every person that comes along. I'm not unsympathetic to those who can't afford health care...but I'm not going to be forced to be charitable because someone else thinks I should. I have my own money issues and do my damnedest to make sure I to have to depend on charity. I am supposed to be a free man in a free country and that means I have the freedom to succeed or to fail. I have no claims on others to help me out if I fuck up or a goddamned meteor lands on my head.

/rant

PrimO states, "Adding 30milllion people that can't afford health care to a system that will "pay" for it for them?"

They ALREADY get healthCARE on our dime. Check out any ER and see how many have insurance. Idiots go there for a F*$#%ing cold! What they don't have is insurance. Read my post above yours.

Canada covers everybody, their economy is better than the US economy currently. The US always manages to tackle hard challenges when it makes up its mind it's going to do it.

And Canadians that can afford it come to the US for medical treatment in a timely fashion.

@ilbbaicnl: "I guess it must be fascism that the government forces Ford and GM to make cars with working brakes."

Well yeah, technically. It's certainly not capitalism, and it doesn't fit the definition of socialism, so what would you call it.

Mind you, that doesn't necessarily mean that I approve or disapprove of the practice.

I would call it "Democracy" where people do not have absolute property rights. It might even consistent with Republicanism (i.e. a democracy that must act within the constraints of a constitution guaranteeing minority rights) but I haven't bothered to study the legal status of ACA enough to say.

Fascism implies a concentration of power in a dictator. I know you might say Obama is moving closer to being the said dictator, and I do agree with that to some extent, e.g. NSA spying and other abuses of power, but ObamaCare did pass both the Senate and House, so calling it "fascist" is definitely a stretch, IMO. It's either the work of a Democracy you don't agree with, or elected bodies and a judiciary in a Republic that is violating its own constitution.

Comparing the ACA to minimum food standards or automobile safety requirements is just silly.

Imposing standards on production that can't be controlled by the markets, or can't be controlled without serious/lethal consequences, isn't fascist.

Is it sometimes a blurry line? Sure.

I still think it will be an epic failure that has some negative consequences for most of us.

Already I know a lot of people have seen significantly higher premiums and deductibles for the coming year. A family member told me there monthly premiums more than tripled for 2014 despite them never having used the insurance since they bought it.

@jester has your family member checked if they are eligible for the new tax credits?

They didn't mention it one way or another, though I'm sure if they haven't they will come tax time.

Though I doubt they'll qualify given their specifics. Though admittedly I don't know the requirements.

But even so, Obama said ACA would reduce premiums for people who already had insurance. For 2014 it doesn't look like that's going to be the case for a lot of people.

If the jestie-girl's relatives's income is as low as his own (very likely due to similarly lousy genes) they would qualify for major subsidies.

@Jester..."Comparing the ACA to minimum food standards or automobile safety requirements is just silly.

Imposing standards on production that can't be controlled by the markets, or can't be controlled without serious/lethal consequences, isn't fascist"

Hmm..you do realize you just made the case for government intervention in health care, don't you? It is actually kind of difficult to suss out what you think about the issue, but I think we've settled the issue of fascism. Unless you are implying that lack of access to health care NEVER has serious/lethal consequences.

After all...what is the worst that can happen from eating shrooms 'n maggots? Them maggots be a good source o' protein. But still, I understand that it is so much worse than a chronic health condition you can't get treated 'cos it was a pre-existing condition.

Fascism, as it applies to the economy, may imply a dictator, but it doesn't require one. A democratically elected government can enact fascist laws just as easily as a dictator could. *More* easily in some cases because of the "popular" support.

Hopefully the average premium will go down. But for young, healthy people, premiums will go up, to subsidize sicker, generally older people. This is so (technically) they can give a smaller number for the increase in taxes that Obamacare requires.

@GeorgeDude... You are being consistent in your use of the term fascist, but if you use such an expansive definition of fascist it becomes meaningless. Indeed, many "fascist" laws would be GOOD things.

Governments can and should take actions ensure that goods and services are fit for the general purpose for which they are sold. That means they should ensure that there is a very limited number of maggots in the 'shrooms (minor issue in the scheme of things), very small amounts of cadmium (at most) in your kids silly putty, and that the breaks on your car work properly. All good things. All fascist by your definition. But if you had to do the caveat emptor thing to the point where you personally checked all that stuff when you bought stuff society wouldn't function.

The issue is that "fascist" is a pergorative. It implies an overly intrusive and dictatorial imposition of rules. The problem is that a rule you find overly intrusive may be viewed as necessary and desirable (i.e., fascist by your definition) may be viewed as necessary and desirable by the majority. Consider my maggot 'shrooms. What's the harm? To my knowledge that case isn't associated with a health issue. It is just kind of gross. If the USDA lifted the rule we'd quit eating maggoty brands (if some companies imposed self regulation), give up on the 'shrooms, or get used to crunchy, crunchy maggots.

But enough Americans dislike the maggots that the government imposes the "fascist" rule.

So with the ACA there are two issues. Is it unreasonably intrusive on individual rights and is it well executed? The Supreme Court (our imperfect guardians against fascism, doncha know) answered question 1. The most important provision is constitutional. As for the second, we'll see in the long run. I suspect policy will change over time to sort out the ineffective parts. And in 10 years people will view this fight as ridiculous.

And the Republican Party will take credit for universal health care. (And I don't find the distinction between insurance and care compelling. Lack of insurance places limits on the type of care you have access to in the modern world, so they are inextricably intertwined).

“Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure. On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”


@comradezipman. thank you so much for reminding us that fascism is good and thank you for making the trains run on time. btw may i ask where those trains are going or should i just get on and stfu?