Oh Jimmy!. . The White House save It surpassed its new attr the Mellie enrolled Ill . ITS ( what will can WHEN will nitrite mandatory. Elli] thte if theg den’!
x
Click to expand
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#22 - anon (04/07/2014) [-]
NBC criticizing something Obama has done? I don't believe it. Did they have to hire one republican writer to meet a quota or something?
#29 to #22 - anon (04/07/2014) [-]
Hope he don't get fired for this
User avatar #38 to #22 - Harkonnen (04/07/2014) [-]
probably not. Republicans aren`t funny
#42 to #38 - anon (04/07/2014) [-]
Then you must be a republican. I'll help you out: cause that wasn't funny.
User avatar #66 to #42 - Harkonnen (04/07/2014) [-]
wasn't meant to be funny, just a fact
#32 - allamericandude (04/07/2014) [-]
Wait, hold on, is this real? I'm having way too much trouble believing a non-Fox person would ever criticize the ACA on television.
Wait, hold on, is this real? I'm having way too much trouble believing a non-Fox person would ever criticize the ACA on television.
#23 - deezknuts (04/07/2014) [-]
MFW the least funny comedian I've ever seen says something I agree with
User avatar #21 - drainbamage (04/07/2014) [-]
I love living in south carolina. Where this **** is ******* banned.
User avatar #40 to #21 - supertanto ONLINE (04/07/2014) [-]
The war of northern agression is not over
#20 - infinitereaper (04/07/2014) [-]
I hate Obama, not because I think he's a bad guy,   
   
but because I think he's a total figurehead, 			*****		 does nothing, 			*****		 ain't even a full 			*****		, he "helps" a few minorities and what? The country? 			****		. The economy? 			****		. Government? corrupt and 			****		. Healthcare? shhhihiiiiiiiiiiiiiittttttt   
   
it's 			****
I hate Obama, not because I think he's a bad guy,

but because I think he's a total figurehead, ***** does nothing, ***** ain't even a full ***** , he "helps" a few minorities and what? The country? **** . The economy? **** . Government? corrupt and **** . Healthcare? shhhihiiiiiiiiiiiiiittttttt

it's ****
#50 to #20 - anaklusmos (04/07/2014) [-]
I disagree with you, that man fights congress tooth and nail to get **** done. The fact that he got healthcare passed when almost every republican agreed to vote against him on everything forever, is nothing short of a miracle. You're ignoring everything he has accomplished because......what? The economy is recovering, recessions don't just end. Gas prices are holding steady and the man calls hellfire missiles down on people from killer death planes. ( I don't really know what to think about that) I feel like you're just uninformed,
#53 to #50 - anon (04/07/2014) [-]
You consider obamcare an accomplishment......?
#61 to #53 - anaklusmos (04/07/2014) [-]
I consider it a step in the right direction.
#59 to #50 - infinitereaper (04/07/2014) [-]
I hate to break it to you but you don't sound like you have a clue.    
I can't even begin here, but know this much, it's really not that simple.   
   
Recovering? Prices? Do you know how economies work? Do you know the nature of our government? Do you understand geopolitcs? That would account for cycles of plicy.
I hate to break it to you but you don't sound like you have a clue.
I can't even begin here, but know this much, it's really not that simple.

Recovering? Prices? Do you know how economies work? Do you know the nature of our government? Do you understand geopolitcs? That would account for cycles of plicy.
#62 to #59 - anaklusmos (04/07/2014) [-]
I actually do, what I don't get is why you think he doesn't do anything but sit in his office with his thumb up his ass.
User avatar #64 to #62 - infinitereaper (04/07/2014) [-]
Oh he's doing stuff, but with bureaucracy, corruption, and the gov these days everything and anything he's doing is pretty much fluff, it really means nothing. We should have had Ron Paul, but then again he probably would have died.
#65 to #64 - anaklusmos (04/07/2014) [-]
I'm pretty sure we both know that Ron Paul is an idiot who went to medical school and should have stayed a doctor.
User avatar #60 to #59 - infinitereaper (04/07/2014) [-]
policy*
#31 to #20 - anon (04/07/2014) [-]
Your opinion? **** .
#34 to #31 - infinitereaper (04/07/2014) [-]
There is 			****		 inside all of us.
There is **** inside all of us.
#10 - anon (04/06/2014) [-]
I wonder, do Americans against 'socialised' healthcare also think that police and fire department coverage should be an optional buy-in service?

#15 to #10 - kulamia (04/06/2014) [-]
There's a similar debate going on right now in my county, saying cops and fire should foot part of their retirement.

The thing about not wanting "socialized" healthcare is that the free market makes it so that private doctors/health care facilities will work hard and quickly to please you as the customer. But with the way people USE the system and their insurance, rather than shop around and make the system work for them, they all just pay into it and go to a friendly doctor rather than one that charges less(or many other factors).

People may look at Canada and say "oh look at their great healthcare" well it has problems too. Regardless of our current system or Socialized, "Obamacare" is just taking the worst aspects of BOTH systems. I'd prefer Socialized over Obamacare.
Links to Problems with Socialized Health Care on our side of the pond:
dailycaller.com/2014/01/16/report-tens-of-thousands-fled-socialized-canadian-medicine-in-2013/
www.huffingtonpost.ca/nadeem-esmail/canada-free-health-care_b_3733080.html
www.examiner.com/article/canada-s-health-care-system-has-its-problems
User avatar #44 to #10 - Ruspanic (04/07/2014) [-]
No, because protection of the citizens is one of the most fundamental functions of government.
#11 to #10 - widar (04/06/2014) [-]
Have you heard the story where the police let a family's house burn down because they didn't pay their fire department fee for the year? Yeah, that happened.
#46 to #11 - hazelnutqt (04/07/2014) [-]
It was actually a norm for many years to have a sign or plaque visible from the road on your house, stating the name of your insurance firm. Then, once a fire erupted, a bunch of different fire trucks would arrive, and the one you were insured by (if any) would put out the fire for you =)

source is QI
#13 to #11 - anon (04/06/2014) [-]
sauce?
User avatar #25 to #14 - mrgusti ONLINE (04/07/2014) [-]
this is the most ridiculous thing i have read in a while
#16 to #14 - widar (04/06/2014) [-]
Thanks, would have taken me a while to actually find that story again.
#57 to #13 - anon (04/07/2014) [-]
thumbed down because someone asks for a source. Come the **** on funnyjunk. Just because people aren't ready to jump to conclusions based on some random users statement means they deserve a thumb down?
#49 to #11 - anon (04/07/2014) [-]
Then why let people die without healthcare, you don't let them burn but you don't put out the "fire" inside them.
User avatar #47 - zomaru ONLINE (04/07/2014) [-]
I really don't understand why everyone always hates on Obama, I feel like nothing has changed in the years he's been in office. Also, I never remember people complaining about being 'Required' to have car insurance. Why is the affordable care act (Which everyone feels necessary to call Obamacare) so hated? It's in the name that they want healthcare to be both more affordable and easier to get, Employers just felt now that they are 'Required' to offer it they would rather not and instead complain about how now they have to pay a fine for not offering it any more.
Am I missing something here? Because as someone who only gets their news from BBC and other non-America sources (Because every article in America has to have a political agenda behind it.) I just really don't see how this is any different from any presidency before.
User avatar #51 to #47 - thegoodgatsby (04/07/2014) [-]
People call it Obamacare because Republicans tried to use the name as an insult and Obama promptly owned that **** and went with it.
User avatar #52 to #47 - dharkmoswen (04/07/2014) [-]
My monthly cost for obamacare, due to being a single white male would be $300+ if I wanted eye and dental with a $30 copay at every appointment (on top of whatever the doctor's office charged me) With the regular government healthcare I was on before, and before people start flipping out, I'm not able to work currently and wouldn't be on government assistance if I didn't have to be. I was paying a $12 copay whenever I went to the doctor. Period.
User avatar #56 to #52 - zomaru ONLINE (04/07/2014) [-]
I have never heard of a 12$ copay even with Gov assistance.
User avatar #63 to #56 - dharkmoswen (04/07/2014) [-]
It's because the rates were adjusted to your income. No income meant you paid a LOT less. You can see how Obamacare can piss some people off though, with rates like that. Asked around and figured out the reason my monthly is SO high, is because I have no job, which makes me a credit liability.
#30 - lordhaha (04/07/2014) [-]
Comment Picture
#1 - tksparty (04/06/2014) [-]
Can an informed American (as in not some racist school kid) explain to me why people are against Obamacare? Because I pulled the following_ 'The ACA was enacted with the goals of increasing the quality and affordability of health insurance, lowering the uninsured rate by expanding public and private insurance coverage, and reducing the costs of healthcare for individuals and the government. It introduced a number of mechanisms-including mandates, subsidies, and insurance exchanges-meant to increase coverage and affordability'_ off the wiki page and it doesn't sound like a bad thing. Is it a rich people only type of thing or do people just not like being told what to do, even if it helps them.
User avatar #26 to #1 - andriod (04/07/2014) [-]
To me it basically comes down to the government forcing me to buy a something.
If I don't, They fine and tax the **** out of you. The government can't force you to buy anything, But they get around that by Fining you crazy amounts if you don't sign up. Its grossly overstepping there power over a technicality.

Another reason is because its a colossal waste of money. Our healthcare is so ******* expensive because hopitals and insurance companies have pissing matches over the price of treatment. If you have no insurance you still have to pay the horribly inflated price that the hospital wanted to milk from the insurance company. Now instead of cutting back this horrible inflation It costs 14 cents to make an IV bag but the hospital charges you 450+ just for the bag and the insurance company says that ******* crazy and refses to pay it and end up cutting a deal where they will pay like 40% of that. This led to hospitals jacking up prices because they had to start at high ground because of negotiations. the government is just going to throw more and more money at hospitals.

And also because I refuse to have my taxes spent on having a bums stomach pumped because he OD'ed on pills for the 20th time.
User avatar #2 to #1 - bendeman ONLINE (04/06/2014) [-]
some people just don't like being forced to do things by people, but some would actually have increased rates for the same or less coverage.
User avatar #4 to #1 - ilfarmboy (04/06/2014) [-]
It baisicly boils down to this in a nut-shell....The government should not be able to force me to buy healthcare. (or anything else for that matter) Nor should it be able to fine me if i choose not to buy a product or service. Especially if i already had purchased insurance that fits my needs privately or with an employer. Now i have to switch to a "government approved" plan, pay for coverage options i dont need or want at this point in my life (like maternity/prenatal care because im a 25 yr old single male) not to mention my cost of coverage has increased, and because of this i had to raise my deductible so now not only do i have to pay more for my insurance i have to pay more out-of pocket before i can even take advantage of these over-price benefits. But that is just my own personal experience.
#28 to #4 - anon (04/07/2014) [-]
Do you drive? You're required by law to have car insurance, and you're not allowed to drive if you don't have it, facing steep fines as well as being liable for all damages if you're caught or worse, are in an accident. Private car insurance companies work fine, and people are able to get insurance across a wide price range. In the world of health insurance, millions of people who require/will require care are denied due to a variety of factors including pre-existing conditions, but basically because the insurance companies know that the patients will require care, and soon. As such, it becomes hard for them to make money off of those people. Obamacare is intended to force people to buy insurance coverage of some kind, by providing a government-funded option, as well as fines for not having any. Sounds like car insurance to me, while at the same time mitigating problems with the current system. Course I don't care that much atm cause I get to stay on my parent's plan till I'm 26.
User avatar #48 to #28 - commontroll ONLINE (04/07/2014) [-]
I drive, but if I wanted to stop buying car insurance and stop paying for registration and inspections, then I would stop driving. Simple as that. Seeing how I don't feel like becoming an hero, my only options are to buy the insurance, or let them fine me. Or I don't pay that fine and they take it out of my taxes even more so. Or if I don't do that I'm caught for tax evasion and put in prison.

All because I can't afford any health insurance on my own, thanks to the costs being increased.
#39 to #28 - anon (04/07/2014) [-]
The difference being is that nobody forces you to buy car insurance, it's a choice, if you want to drive on public roads you need car insurance, if you just want to have a car sitting in your driveway you don't have to buy **** .
User avatar #6 to #4 - lolollo (04/06/2014) [-]
Where did you get that the government won't count the healthcare provided by your place of employment?

Was it your boss?

Please tell me it was your boss.
User avatar #7 to #6 - ilfarmboy (04/06/2014) [-]
Sorry let me clarify i didnt mean they dont count employer provided insurance i meant that once the employer mandate that was delayed kicks in and your employer cant provide coverage at the same cost, it will be passed along to the employees.
User avatar #8 to #7 - lolollo (04/06/2014) [-]
So the issue is that your employer, who's been covering your healthcare this entire time, is suddenly going to tell you to go **** yourself with respect to healthcare coverage? And that this is Obama's fault?
#17 to #8 - anon (04/06/2014) [-]
Way to just ignore half of what he said. You even added stuff he didn't say.
User avatar #9 to #8 - ilfarmboy (04/06/2014) [-]
I suppose some very well could if they wanted to. Businesses dont have to offer insurance benefits. But what i am trying to say is that if the cost changes beyond what an employer is able to afford, then the employees will have to put more money in. And i never said anything about obama, its the federal government as a whole. They should not be able to force people to buy a product they dont want if they dont want it . Thats the point
User avatar #24 to #9 - lolollo (04/07/2014) [-]
The thing is that the government does that **** all the time. You pay taxes right?
User avatar #27 to #24 - thelastamerican (04/07/2014) [-]
Yes, we pay taxes. And those taxes are being used for things that I do not agree with. Therefore I will vote for candidates who will promise to not take over private businesses. The ACA has been nothing more than a money grab on the part of the government and that rubs me the wrong way. Make more than $50,000 a year and intend to pay for medical expenses out of pocket because you calculate that you will save money by doing so? Well, here's a fine for not buying out product.
User avatar #33 to #27 - lolollo (04/07/2014) [-]
I notice you have a really pessimistic view of the government. Either way, the whole point of the healthcare plan is that it makes sure everyone's co ered in some way. It's implemented horribly, but that's the key point, everyone has healthcare of some form. Do you at least agree with that?
User avatar #35 to #33 - thelastamerican (04/07/2014) [-]
No I do not. If everyone had health care in one way or another there would be no need for the penalty for not having health care.

Also, their coverage is terrible. Woo hoo! We have coverage! But wait there's more! You have to spend $500 before you actually get any coverage of any kind! And, if you decide that you would be better off without coverage in the first place because you make plenty of money we're going to punish you for not buying OUR insurance.

This is a net loss for the country. It's poorly planned, poorly implemented, and poorly run. I will not be voting for anyone who voted for this.
User avatar #36 to #35 - lolollo (04/07/2014) [-]
I'm starting to seriously doubt wherever you're getting any of this. I'm talking about a healthcare system like Canada, or the UK...or literally anywhere but the Unted states.
User avatar #37 to #36 - thelastamerican (04/07/2014) [-]
I'm sorry, I thought the conversation was about the ACA. I'll bow out now.
User avatar #41 to #37 - lolollo (04/07/2014) [-]
Well like I said, the ACA is jus way poorly executed, it's the main point behind it I'm trying to justify.
User avatar #43 to #41 - thelastamerican (04/07/2014) [-]
Besides the computer problems from when it first got started it was excited exactly how the people who planned it intended. It's an excellent little money net for the Government and I resent that it exists. Like I said. I will not be voting for anyone who voted for this when it was a bill.

As for the single payer system that is common in other parts of the world... I do not believe that the US can sustain a program with that kind of goal. Not while we're paying for the national defense of half the world.
User avatar #5 to #1 - reginleif (04/06/2014) [-]
12 year old racist school kid who plays COD in between taking breaks from my full time job **** yer mom reporting in. :/

Some people dislike it because of principle like the guy mentioned above, he doesn't believe that the government should get involved in health care.

He mentions another point in that if you're a healthy 20 something person you probably don't think about health insurance and thus could probably get a cheaper plan on the private market.

Also there's the fact that since many GOP governors opposed the law so much, they pretty much made no efforts to ensure success in their state resulting in a huge disparity of feedback from people because of different rates/services available in your state. In some places, thanks to GOP opposition and **** the cost of healthcare went up. So people in those states, especially the young, just find it easier to pay the fine.
#12 to #1 - Bacabed (04/06/2014) [-]
So here's my situation so you know where I'm coming from. The ACA helped me out in that it let's me stay on my father's insurance longer plus I'm in college where they make you have medical coverage anyways (not because of ACA but it's just always been their policy, you either get your own or something through the school since illness spreads so fast in universities they want to at least make it possible to get help). The main argument I've seen against it from co-workers my age who are not in college nor have kids is that a main premise of it is that the act seeks to make health coverage more affordable for those who didn't have it who were at risk (the elderly, those with pre-existing conditions etc.) but that they try to do that by drawing in those who don't "need" it (the young, healthy people who would only use it in an emergency) . So the main idea is that they're funneling money from those who aren't using the insurance to those who are to offset their costs. Some people don't like it because it means they're paying for someone else's medical coverage while not needing any themselves. I can sympathize with that but, and if you listen to the oral argument before the Supreme Court this was raised as well, you typically don't know when you'll be entering the medical marketplace. A lot of it is emergency or just getting sick, things you can't control so paying into it when you don't need it could be seen as paying into a system knowing that one day you'll need more than you're giving at a certain time and what you've put in will serve to help you. I know, how I'm describing it seems convoluted and might be hard to follow but I hope that helps you.

Just as a sidenote, personally I'm not against PPACA but I'm against the implementation of it. The way I see it is healthcare should be handled the same way as firehouse/police stations. That being said, we'd need to completely restructure the health services market and, likely, get rid of insurance companies.
#18 to #1 - repostsrepost (04/06/2014) [-]
Well it hasn't made anything more affordable, putting aside the hundreds of billions the program costs, it has raised insurance premiums across the board by anywhere from double to 300%.
User avatar #19 to #18 - ilfarmboy (04/07/2014) [-]
Lets not forget what Vladimir Lenin said- "Socialized medicine is the keystone to the arch of the socialized state" is that what America has come to? Is this what we want for the greatest country ever founded?
User avatar #45 to #19 - Ruspanic (04/07/2014) [-]
I'm not sure if you're being satirical, but Obamacare isn't socialized medicine.
User avatar #58 - phoenixprince ONLINE (04/07/2014) [-]
what was the name of that triage unit that had to go to Knoxville cos of how bad the health care was?
User avatar #55 - demandsgayversion (04/07/2014) [-]
I usually hate talking about politics, but how is this any different from just adding it to taxes? You're just paying it yourself instead of having it added to taxes.

But I don't know the specifics or quality of it. I'm more worried that if it's required, I haven't done **** to sign up for it. Hopefully I'm notified if it becomes a problem.
User avatar #54 - daentraya (04/07/2014) [-]
America just ain't ready to get a sensible health care systems. Too many problems that has to be untangled first, too much change, too much bother
0
#3 - ilfarmboy has deleted their comment [-]
 Friends (0)