Pajiba

They've got a very interesting thread on Metafilter that's running circa 1000 comments right now:

http://www.metafilter.com/1173...

This day has been hilarious. Seriously...its like everyone is a legal scholar now. Facebook is lit up with asshole morons who now seem to have the courage to open their mouths on a complex issues they have no understanding on.

The trolling has been so...so sweet. This is like Christmas except everyone got shitty gifts in a secret Santa at a company where everyone hates each other and is borderline retarded.

This is like Christmas except everyone got shitty gifts in a secret
Santa at a company where everyone hates each other and is borderline retarded.

So, we've worked the same place?

I work at a health insurance company. (Booooo! Hiss! Yeah, yeah, my dad's a doctor, sister works at a hospital, I've heard it all.)

Anyway, I was in an all-day training, and my coworker and I were whispering about the ruling before she announced the news to the room. Nobody said anything. At all. Zero interest. I don't know if the relentlessly dull training had rendered everyone's brains useless, but how could there be no reaction? Bueller? I don't know if this helps with the "evil corporation" idea or worsens the "miles of uninterested bureaucracy" idea.

One of the funniest things I heard today was Marco Rubio fussing because the Obama Administration never refers to it as "Obamacare"

No shit dumbfuck. That's because it's title is the "Affordable Care Act"

It's not quite what I wanted, but then I'm a socialist. Okay not really, but I've been accused of being a socialist for listening to NPR. Of course, being poor socialism sounds like a great idea to me. Someday I hope to be wealthy enough to feel differently.

Enough rambling. Back to the point. I'm happy this bill passed because it's likely to be the only way my friends and I actually get health insurance. Y'see, I've got a shit job. The sort of place where your boss cries poverty when you ask for a raise and then gloats to his friends about how well the business is doing and about the five luxury cars he owns. The sort of job where you don't get health insurance worth the money you pay for it.

Now maybe I can abandon my current plan which covers me just fine as long as I don't need medical treatment.

There was never a good option in this decision. Obamacare is not a good bill without a public option, but doing nothing is also a bad choice for the millions who have no access to healthcare. It's a lose/lose no matter what.

Better a lose/lose than an epic fail?

Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian.

I'm not fond of the idea of "Muslin mitts." Myself I prefer a nice velvet glove.

BUT WILL THEY MAKE ME BUY BROCCOLI NOW?????

Though it's uncool to admit, I have trouble following/understanding what this bill (and many government policies) will actually do.

But as somebody who got laid off from their job about 4 weeks after getting a cancer diagnosis over a year ago, I have *way* more experience with the healthcare system in this country than I'd like to.

My question is this: does anybody else feel that the point is really being missed here on what requires reformation, i.e. why are we still using insurance companies instead of trying to remove their pestilent bureaucratic greedy middle man bloat from the transaction between patient and healthcare provider?

Insurance companies are evil soulless bastards. And I really feel like they are a legalized racket--how can it possibly cost more to pay cash for a service than to route it through 18 levels of billing hell? If you've ever glanced at your benefits statements, you can see the gross disparity between what a procedure costs and what the "allowed costs" are for your insurance company. I've seen $800 tests with allowed costs of $87 bucks for the insurance company. But Joe Regular would have to pay the full price. Racket.

I'm sure, and would be glad to hear, the explanation as to why we can't remove these greedy insurance fucksticks from the equation. I dislike the fact that now people will be forced to use them even more, seems fundamentally wrong and to be rewarding bad behavior.

Well, you're right that we're sitting on the cusp of the maximum possible badness. You could go one way - single payer, tax funded completely decoupled from the individual, their interest or ability to secure their own care. You could go the other way - individuals pay for themselves (which is what you are doing with "employer-provided health care" anyway, except with two middle men with different interests than yours), we let individuals secure what they want, subsidized up to a point.

I think there's a way to get coverage for pre-existing conditions, kids, and indigent without risking having the next George Bush's secretary of HHS determining what's supported care and what isn't. Right now Sebelius is inclined to tell Catholics they must support procedures they find repugnant. Sometime later TNGB's secretary will be declaring that abortion *can't* be part of an insurance package. I sketched out an alternative in another thread (When pookie was calling me names. I've arrived, yay!) which I won't repeat.

During SCOTUS arguments, all I could think was "aren't they really making the case that healthcare should just become part of the infrastructure, like roads? Something we all pay for, because of the public good, even if some of us drive more than others?"

Maybe, but it's not a public good, because 1) your health has little impact on my health, and 2) your health care services aren't delivered by exactly the same, singular road net as mine, and 3) service delivery is not *only possible* if we all do this together.

The second and third distinctions are a bit harder to make clear. I don't do this for a living, so ... Thing is there's only one road (or road net). The road net only works for each of us if it's all there. By its nature the road net can only be there equally there for all of us. It's in the nature of road nets that There Can Be Only One, several different ways. It's in the nature of service delivery that there can be many. Collecting health care delivery into one thing is possibly convenient, but not a necessity.

The fallacy here is that something all or most of us want isn't a public good. A public good is something singular that can only be gotten by all or most of us together. That's a way weaker argument - that we can only get this thing together or not at all - for health care than for roads.

Something we all pay for, because of the public good, even if some of us drive more than others?"

I don't mind a utility or better a purchasing collective for *most aspects* of health care services. This isn't that, nor is health care delivery a utility in our more enlightened -just ask, they'll tell you how much we suck for being different - first-world neighbors. (But, this is the appreciation for diversity of opinion that you get in, for example France, where they are busy banning hijabs. Sorry. Sorry. Didn't mean to hit anyone in their snotty condescension.)

I think my health CAN have an impact on yours. Let's say: I don't get flu shots. That means I may not end up suffering badly from the flu, but I can transfer it to others who are susceptible. I don't get tested for all STDs. That means I don't know if I have them, and I can transfer them on to others. I don't do those things, because I don't see a doctor regularly - I only see a doctor when I'm already sick, because a physical - or a standard OB-GYN - check up is expensive. (a clinic is cheaper/free yes, but if it takes up most of your day, that also costs me money, and I'm unlikely to get the same quality of service.)

I see the suggestion of roads as analogous infrastructure is somewhat flawed, but there are county roads and federal roads. You can have one without the other. They both work, but some are better. Roads in California could ostensibly exist without my tax dollars. Roads also could be privatized. It's not impossible. It's just not how it's been done, so it seems farfetched. Though there maybe just one NYC subway system, different people pay different amounts for it.

I don't think this law is a panacea. I think it's going to be more expensive than many anticipated - but it's going to force individuals and the nation to confront our healthcare system. I think it is an improvement. I hope it will prove so. (thanks for things to think about!)

Hey, Sara,

We're in an interesting time. As we get smarter about how the world works, we realize that every damn thing anybody does impacts other people in some way. The question is how much, and what's the impact on the person we would restrain. It comes down to one of those inconvenient balancing tests.

My favorite over-sensitive jackholes example is from the State of New York. Some bunch of SUV driving city-dwellers got their knickers in a knot about upstate folks using wood pellet boilers for heat and hot water. Summarily banned them. Global warming, doncha know.

The pellets are local, often scrap from logging ops. The people who use them aren't using oil, gas or similar stuff we dig up & haul long distances. It's not a first-growth forest. Nothing new being cut down. Many folks doing this are poor and older, even on fixed incomes - the savings from using their own wood matters. Many enjoy the exercise and the autonomy. BTW, keeping a woodlot working means lots and lots of growing trees.

Do the people in that city have a point that smoke particles from retired woodsy-guy have *some* *speculative* impact on their world. Sure. Do they know how much? Nope. Nobody measured a thing. It was just "OMG, OMG, *smoke.* Well, and fine, what's the impact of their SUV? Of hauling food into Gotham, where they live? Of their iPod batteries? I will see their every supposed impact from woodsey-guy and raise them the harm they do the poor guy in the woods.

Woodsy-guy's crime isn't putting a load on the world - we all do. His crime is being different, because wood smoke is bad, but car smoke is normal.

Using your example, I get picky about words because "public health" can mean, well, you aren't allowed to skip measles shots because that could kill a whole lot of us. Your personal behavior might start a plague and wipe out "the public." Sanitation of water and sewage handling are like that. This is what "public health" used to mean. Your (or my) STD impacts non-participants differently. Your (or my) Cheetos addiction impacts non-participants differently still. Meanwhile "public health" has come to mean not a doom some bonehead imposes on us all, but there is a public and they have some health, so it's our business to tell them what to do about it, whatever their preference.

How to figure the line? Health care in the US is interesting in figuring how one person impacts another because the horrible, evil cost of free riders *only accrues because we insist on treating them.* We are complicit. If it were a car crash, we'd have a hard time holding *them* liable. Besides, why is compelling them to buy our insurance the only way to recoupe the painful consequences of our generous meddling? I can name three other possible ways to recover these costs.

Now, here's a surprise - I think the overriding uncorrectable flaw of our current horrible health care law isn't the law, but THE ABSENCE OF THE DISCUSSIONS WE'RE HAVING RIGHT NOW back when the D's slammed the thing through by any means necessary. Worse, the D's didn't learn from the HillaryCare debacle. It doesn't matter how good that policy was it was doomed because of how it was done.

Politics? I mean, it's a disappointing answer, but it's the reality. A) The healthcare industry has a lot of money and that money goes into campaigns. Without serious campaign finance reform (which, despite Citizens, is still possible), it's difficult to go against that industry and this bill is a pretty big gift to insurance industry (everyone must be a customer now!). Few politicians on either side would seriously support a single payer system because they want HC money to fund their next reelection campaign. B) Republicans wouldn't vote for it. In a climate where 60 votes are needed to pass anything, you need some bipartisan support.
So, instead of doing what progressives would like (single payer), the administration introduced a solution that, while imperfect, would greatly expand coverage. The best part, of course, was that this was a plan developed by the Heritage Foundation and implemented by Mitt Romney when he was a governor. It still didn't translate into Republican support (shock), but at least it got enough middle fo the road Dems along to pass the damn thing.

I'm so surprised it stood! I'm mid-30s and uninsured, so this will definitely change things for me. I definitely have not done ANY preventative care in the past decade or so. (I thank God I have been healthy heretofore, but I know it's a gamble)

I'll also note - to some discussing the "slippery slope" - that the justices themselves noted in arguments - all of life is a matter of degrees. Just because a mandate fits in this instance, does not mean it fits all instances, such as being forced to purchase guns.

Welcome among the First World countries, USA.

As a Norwegian/Godless European, I'd like to welcome you to the Socialist Brotherhood. What with the treating gay people like human beings and allowing poor people to get a basic human right, you guys are starting to look distinctly pink! So the next steps to gaining full Communist Status is to: get rid of the death penalty, stop killing foreigners with drones, gun control and - oh this is a doozy! - say the word "vagina" at least 10 times during any Congress session. I know you can do it! USA (And other countries because we're all comrades here)! USA (And other countries because we're all comrades here)!

lol - incredible that on a site like this you still managed to get 4 downvotes! For shame merkans, for shame!

SOMEONE TELL ME WHAT THE KARDASHIANS THINK OF ALL THIS I MUST KNOW NOW!!!

Since Obama will be doing a victory dance today, here's this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

My initial reaction to this post: I love that this couple dances all the time. They're just so darned cute together!

Also rather thrilled that those in my family with pre-existing conditions will be able to get insurance, but I do hope my kids don't need to stay on my insurance until they're 26.

I'll bite. Is no one here concerned about the precedent set by saying that the mandate is a tax? That sounds like a pretty big license to control citizen behavior. A hypothetical:

A few years down the road, Congress is controlled by people who believe that an armed citizenry will create a safer community. We'll call this hypothetical group me, or I. It seems that since I control Congress, I can pass a law that taxes you for not owning a firearm, or for not having taken a firearm safety class this year, or for not upping your carry permit. After all, in my opinion, you are contributing to an unsafe environment by not carrying a firearm for your own protection and the protection of others, and should have to pay your fair share.

I don't care what your opinion is on the 2nd amendment, I just think such a scenario is defensible with the precedent set by this ruling, and it makes me a bit uncomfortable.

Here's the problem with that analogy: there are a ton of other provisions in the Constitution, separate from the limits on the taxation power, that stop the federal government from doing things. It is extremely, EXTREMELY likely that the gun example you propose would be unconstitutional on another ground (probably as a violation of substantive due process rights).
The only thing that the decision today held was that the individual mandate is a valid exercise of the taxation power. No one even tried to argue that it was a due process violation (in part because the due process clause applies equally to the States, and they didn't want to challenge their own power to do this kind of thing).
You can come up with a lot of scary-sounding hypotheticals about the government making people buy ridiculous things. But the reality is that most of that would not be constitutional for other reasons. And for the ones that might pass muster -- well, you've got to work that shit out at the ballot box. The Supreme Court doesn't protect people from stupid laws, only from unconstitutional ones.

I like that. The Supreme Court doesn't protect people from stupid laws, only unconstitutional ones. Indeed.

Of course, SDP has fallen out of favor in the past few decades, and I hope that my legal people would construct the law well enough to avoid the obvious pitfalls, but that's picking nits in a rather extreme hypothetical.

My only point was that there is now one less way to stop such a law.

As Long Pig Tailor says, this really didn't change the law regarding taxing powers. The government could already say "either do X or pay a tax" and/or "if you do X you don't have to pay a tax".

The decision itself describes laying a tax on homeowners who haven't purchased energy efficient upgrades. I agree with the Mr. Able in the sense that I think that Congress has fairly broad authority to tax you for whatever reason they see fit. I disagree in seeing that as so much of a problem, however, because of the limiting principle of REPUBLICANISM. Even in his scenario, the only way the "Lack of Gun Tax" works is if people vote those legislators into Congress. So yes, if that happened, they probably could levy such a tax, however - what's the alternative? The ability of every American to be some kind of conscientious objector to individual lines on their tax bill?

what's the alternative? The ability of every American to be some kind
of conscientious objector to individual lines on their tax bill?

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Well considering taxes would then pretty much be turned into voluntary charitable donations and considering Americans' self-centered nature,the only way that's not a bad thing is if you're a libertarian just shy of being an anarchist.

...is if you're a libertarian just shy of being an anarchist.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Meanwhile, I look forward to the Bush-III administration "Clones make better dynasties", where we're all mandated to pay for reeducation of the unconverted. The Muslim madrases are such a good idea, we need some christican ones. Right now we have Sebelius mandating that observant Catholics - who exist, and I claim are people, too - fund activities they find abhorrent. So, I suppose it'll be fine when the HHS Secretary under Bush-III makes a "finding" that funding abortions is disallowed. Also, all the women folk must use fluff-inducing hair product, because they all should look like the barbies on Fox News. God said.

The points, because Godtopus help me you have to spell these things out:

1) Coercion is bad.

2) The mechanisms of coercion will be co-opted by knuckleheads eventually all the time.

Also, your premises are wrong, twice.

1) Americans have for years been the most generous among the "first-world" and second, third, and fifth-world countries, by multiple measures.

2) Charity - giving support to folks having a bad time - is different from reorganizing a big chunk of their lives for people who aren't having a bad time.

Just for giggles, let's note that the US Health care bill, along with assisting people who can't get their own health care (it says), also mandates bundles of services, allows and disallows services, sets payment levels, includes a tax, we now know, to go along with the two massive transfers *from* existing charity-like federal health programs, favors some industry segments over others (research tax credits for drug development but not devices), and doubtless more. I haven't read the whole thing yet, even though it's been passed so we can see what's in it.

This is what you get when you let Leviathan loose without adult supervision.

You say that like it's a bad thing.
That I do. Or at the very least, I say it like it's a fairly naive, quixotic thing.

Right now we have Sebelius mandating that observant Catholics - who exist, and I claim are people, too - fund activities they find abhorrent.
GASP! No, you're telling me that in this republic, people must fund things that they might not fully support? You mean pacifists fund the army, Amish fund road construction, and Christian Scientists pay for Medicare?!!? My stars and garters, you've truly opened my eyes.

So, I suppose it'll be fine when the HHS Secretary under Bush-III makes a "finding" that funding abortions is disallowed.
Geeze, you've educated me so much with your, uh, interesting prose, I'm surprised you've never heard of the Hyde Amendment. Were "Bush-III" to do such a thing, Federal policy wouldn't change in the least with regard to abortion funding because Federal policy already prohibits such funding (and has since 1976). But let's ignore that for a moment and go back into your fantasy realm (I call getting to be Brutalitops, the Magician!) - YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT IN OUR REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT, ADMINISTRATIVE AND EXECUTIVE POLICIES CHANGE WHEN PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT IDEOLOGIES ARE ELECTED? Will wonders never cease?

Americans have for years been the most generous among the "first-world" and second, third, and fifth-world countries, by multiple measures. - *eyeroll* - A few things: A) Even if that is the case - I never said we were more self-centered than others - just replace Americans with HUMANITY because the international comparison is a galaxy away from the point. B) A good deal of charitable giving is based on the incentive of tax breaks elsewhere, which begs the question: Without the scary Leviathan, would we be quite so charitable? C) A good chunk of that charity is in the form of tithes and donations to Churches (http://photos.windley.com/gall... - oh, what generous folks!). The main point is, if you left it up to individuals to decide whether they would like to voluntarily pay for things like roads, or education, etc. - you end up either not getting those things or having to deal with free riders. Funnily enough, the latter is what this whole ACA kerfuffle is about.

2) Charity - giving support to folks having a bad time - is different from reorganizing a big chunk of their lives for people who aren't having a bad time.
Eugh, semantics argument on the internet... You're the worst. Next, I assume, will come the Hitler comparison. But considering that the main thrust of this bill is making it easier for folks to get healthcare who can't afford that (let alone the fact that, if you're insured, your life really isn't going to be reorganized), aren't you just being obtuse? (The answer is yes).

As for the rest: Yes, I understand that a bill that was passed by people with incredibly different ideological values is far from perfect. Thanks for yet another brilliant observation.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

That I do. Or at the very least, I say it like it's a fairly naive, quixotic thing.

Unlike, for example, massive opaque bureaucracies which always avoid interest-group capture and unsustainable over-commitment. Need I rattle off the current examples of things going sideways at state, national and international levels?

I think it's damn "naive" to think that this massive cluster-fark of a bill can work, and was "quixotic" to try the way they went about it.

What's your argument that it will work? In making the case that it will work, in addition to the usual stuff like regulatory and interest-group capture, do address the specific problems already manifest in this bill - bad estimates, preferential carve-outs and vote-buying needed to get the thing passed. If they had to do that to get it passed, how the hell can it be implemented successfully?

GASP! No, you're telling me that in this republic, people must fund
things that they might not fully support?

Why no. Since you wouldn't step up and say "Coercion happens and I'm OK with that." I provided a few examples, to which you added more - pacifists, Amish, Christian Scientists. I'd like to reserve coercion for the big stuff, the more we meddle, the more local those decision should be. To illustrate the distinction between big and little, requiring inoculations vs. plagues even of Christian Scientists - OK with me. Requiring inoculations against hangnails of, well, of anybody, seems like that's mostly their problem and we ought to have better things to do.

We could poke at the distinction between "public health" and the aggregate of individual health of people in some identified "public", but that would be semantics, which you object to later. I'm a fan of consistent meanings for the words we use, but that's just me.

YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT IN OUR REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT,
ADMINISTRATIVE AND EXECUTIVE POLICIES CHANGE WHEN PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT
IDEOLOGIES ARE ELECTED? Will wonders never cease?

Why no. I'm getting you to make my point for me. A law that pulls tremendous amounts of implementation into regulation at the discretion of the HHS secretary, makes more rather than less room for ideologies to play their biases. We might get a feel for how much discretion by counting how many times the bill says "the secretary shall determine" or similar.

I'd prefer a government of laws, not of men using it's coercive power to impose the stuff we largely agree on, rather than the momentary whim of 50% +1 vote, nor the discretion of the secretary of the moment. Again, that's just me.

We could argue various examples of coerced funding for abortion, but you make my point for me that laws - like the one you site - restrain the ideological impulses of folks in power.

" ... and considering Americans' self-centered nature,

Your words. So your big objection is, well, just wrong. We're talking about Americans, not "human nature." What Americans do matters.

We're also talking about charity because one of the justifications for this law is taking care of folks who can't get insurance or health care for themselves - charity. I don't think we need thousands of pages directing HHS "determinations" to find in ourselves an impulse toward charity - even us Americans, with our self-centered nature.

We might even choose to use the government as a vehicle for that charity. It doesn't take 2,700 pages (page counts vary) to do that.

Between "naive" "quixotic", "fantasy", "*eyeroll*", and the rest, I think I'm done here. I've made my case, or rather you mostly made it for me. Thanks for that.

They didn't really set a precedent with this ruling, though, they just continued to say, "Yeah, Congress can pretty much tax you whatever the fuck way it wants," which is pretty established. They could already do what you've suggested, if they had a mind to.

Point well taken.

...very interesting.

I'm not 100% on where I stand on this. But bad journalism makes me furious. So how fitting that CNN would use as their tag: "Doctors React to Obamacare". For fucks sake. Can we actually just call the bill what it fucking is? Can we call it by it's real name? Using propagandist portmanteaus in reporting is irresponsible and it is why I've traded in CNN for BBC and AJE. --The only reason it's on right now is because it plays at my work and is inescapable.

The revenge here is when the law becomes wildly popular after people realize what it really does, it will be remembered as Obamacare and a tribute to the President who got it done.

Seriously, word.

Once the President actually called it Obamacare, I don't think you can really fault a news organization for using it too. The real problem here, as it usually happens, is that Democrats are really really awful at messaging.

I compltely agree that Democrats are terrible when it comes to messaging. However, CNN is a news orgnization, not a person. Their whole point is to describe facts and events accurately, without using inflaming rhetoric, propaganda, or insinuation. The term obamacare should be off limits. At least not without some sort of quotation mark or qualifier such as "the bill commonly referred to as..."

Well, again, I can't see it as that inflammatory if even the President is using the term. But a quick Google search (Obamacare site:cnn.com) seems to show that they tend to do exactly what you describe (either use quotations or say it's described by critics as...).

I was screaming about that earlier. "Obamacare" is a stupid name coined by stupid people.

Terrorist fist bump!
(but seriously, yay!)

That pic of Michelle is dangerously hot.

I thought the same thing. That is some sexy stare she's giving there.

I can't get the gif link to work, but suffice to say: My reaction to CNN's coverage was not becoming of the sophisticated, classy Ewok that I usually am.

Michelle is hot!

I like her snappy finger sassy face look.

Aww I liked that he told me to chill out before. Now he looks like he's about to tell a really dirty joke.

Eh, I suppose O did the best he could with him being a tool of our capitalist masters, and considering what he had to work with.

As a member of a houseful of preexisting conditions who are currently paying through the nose for Kaiser because nobody else would cover us, FUCKING YAY. It is scary to get declined for insurance when you really really want it.

MAAAAAAAAANDATE WAAAAAAAAAAAR!

Mandate or tax, I still can't afford Health Insurance for my family. I am appreciative that the SCOTUS did something fairly unexpected, especially Roberts. The GOP must be having a communal conniption fit, which luckily, they have health coverage for.

The GOP must be having a communal conniption fit, which luckily, they have health coverage for.

Kennedy interests me the most on this one. He's the "moderate" / "swing vote" yet sided with a scathing rejection of the law in toto (in the dissent.) We got some evidence that both Kennedy and Roberts made their decisions based on something other than partisan affiliation. (Kennedy's really a bit of an enumerated powers / federalist, more than mapping to the "right / left" spectrum.)

The other justices may also have come to principled conclusions, but since their possibly principled positions turned out the same as you'd get with partisan hackery, you can't tell from this decision.

I prefer to believe that Supreme Court justices use principled arguments, but work from different principles given different weights, vs. being hacks, but that's just me.

I broke a sweat waiting for the decision. WORTH IT.

That's my boy getting' it done!

As soon as I heard about this, I had this reaction

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Ah... so this is why we are supposed to get our new insurance information tomorrow. And they are trying to talk us into going with the health care "savings" plan.

I guess I really should watch the news, or start a stock pile like GunNut2600... that's not a bad idea... hey, I can crochet and make tortillas, I might be handy to have around!

The Donut does not engage in political (or religious) discussions on the internet.

He's been around too long for that kind of thing and wasted far too much time engaging in such fruitless follies.

Still, he is pleased with this decision, but he wonders how this will affect where Ryan Suter and Zach Parise will end up (hopefully Detroit).

Well I am off to my stock pile of food and guns, held over from the Y2K Zionist led scare of 2000 that we got through with our faith in baby Jesus. Y'all can just enjoy your government take over of medicad and social security.

If this is what I think it is, it's absolutely brilliant.

If it's serious, it's brilliant in a different way. Like "Ancient Aliens" is brilliant for all the wrong reasons.

Bwak?! There is no "government take over [sic] of medicad [sic] and social security". They are government programs.

medicad: that super cute intern you went home with who produced fake certificates proving he had no STDs.

Wait, this is a joke, right? If so, congratulations! You made me snarf my coffee. Thank you, good sir.

Not my Social Security!!!!! Gummint better just keep their muslin socialist hands offa that...

Gummint better keep their atheist-muslin mitts off my Social Security!

Umm, the government already runs medicaid and social security. Has anyone ever told you you're pretty? Like REALLY pretty?

Hello You Crazy Fucking Fruitcake! Thanks for joining us.

I love how they can rule to destroy the American way but they can't take the time to for the Muslim in Chief to hand over his birth certificate.

Oh, sweetie, are you lost? This is Pajiba, not FoxNews.

Um thanks but no. I don't go to that liberal Jew-York city news outfit. I get my information from trusted sources like Alex Jones and small children on play grounds.

I HATE WHEN I TYPE BEFORE THINKING!!! ARRRGH IT'S GONNA BE A LONG DAY.

BANHAMMER. *KAPOOSH*

First of all...its "Boooosh". Jesus haven't you ever watch "Frisky Dingo". Also "Jew York City" is taken from "Delocated" and "I get my information from trusted sources like rumor and small children on playgrounds" is from the show "Sledgehammer".

Its so hard to troll obviously these days...

Harumph!

Harumph!

Obvious troll was obvious.

NYC is happy you stay away.

Good lord you folks can't get satire at all...

I thought it was funny. Irony sometimes doesn't work on Americans the internet, though. That's why I recommend the use of exclamation marks enclosed in parentheses. It's like a bright red flag for the dull-witted literal-minded and causes them to stop and drool like retarded monkeys think. The overuse of strike-throughs is funny(!)

I thought it was funny too. Look at that I'm agreeing with Ballymena Bob. It's a great day all round. And Italy are beating Germany. I think I will buy a lottery ticket tonight.

Forza Mario! I'm going to name my next child Balotelli. The world does seem brighter today. Figuratively speaking. The skies are literally pishing down and Belfast is under three feet of water but metaphorically it's all blue skies and butterflies. It's that handshake between Betty and Martin what did it(!)

Satire's supposed to be witty or funny.

Wit and humor is in the eye of the beholder.

I thought it was pretty funny.

I respectfully suggest that instead of BanHammering the trolls, you BanHammer the fuck out of anyone who does not have enough on the ball to recognize OBVIOUS sarcasm. The trolls are amusing; the humorless/oblivious are boring.

Its okay Jerce...the great thing about the new discussion format is that its impossible to actually ban trolls. This is one of the many reasons why I don't understand why more and more websites are using this service as it pretty much sucks donkey balls.

BREAKING: Supreme Court upholds Obama law's requirement that most Americans have health insurance. Supreme Court upholds the healthcare law and the individual mandate as a tax.

WOOHOO! Now for single-payer...

Thank flying spaghetti monster!

What's up with the contradictory reporting?!!? MSNBC and CNN are reporting the exact oppposite.

They fucked up.

No they didn't.

As I understand it, the court ruled a mandate unconstitutional but then ruled it wasn't a mandate after all, it was a tax.

If you thought "WTF?" you're not alone.

I can't believe they posted the wrong info and left it there for some time. Actually, yes I can. The major news networks don't care about actual journalism anymore (facts? What are those?) but it's all about beating the competition and get ratings/hits/whatever.

Fox News won a court case in FL by successfully arguing that there is "No Law, Rule or Regulation" requiring news reporting to be truthful.

Holy crap CNN updated. They were wrong for a 10 minutes.

http://www.uproxx.com/media/20...

It's like they were that annoying person who finishes your thoughts for you, but doesn't understand what you are saying so they finish them with the wrong words.