Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Well... holy wow. Healthcare Bill UpheldFollow

#152 Jul 02 2012 at 2:29 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,790 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Bigdaddyjug? wrote:
Dear Mr. Almalieque,

I'm really not one to beg, but I am dying for either a)some of the drugs you're on, or 2)an invitation to whatever fantasy land you're living in.

Sincerely (ok, not REALLY sincerely),

Bigdaddyjug


I'm sorry, but WTFRU?

Jus' sayin'


Where should I begin? The 34 and 1/2 years of my life are a long and twisting road that have led to me being the person I am to-

Oh, you meant you didn't recognize my posting name?

Well, let me answer that with an analogy.

Does one have to be a coroner to recognize the stench of death?
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Midgarsormr realm
Eartha Kitty 30 BRD/12 MNK
#153 Jul 02 2012 at 2:34 PM Rating: Good
******
43,073 posts
Bigdaddyug wrote:
Where should I begin?
You shouldn't.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#154 Jul 02 2012 at 2:37 PM Rating: Good
***
2,790 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Bigdaddyug wrote:
Where should I begin?
You shouldn't.


But, but, but, but...

HE STARTED IT!!!
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Midgarsormr realm
Eartha Kitty 30 BRD/12 MNK
#155 Jul 02 2012 at 2:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
They named a state after the band?
Umm, where do you think Chicago got it's name?

I assumed the guys from Boston named it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#156 Jul 02 2012 at 2:48 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Wait a minute, did the post count just change? How the..? Hmmm.. must be a glitch.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#157 Jul 02 2012 at 2:57 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Wait a minute, did the post count just change? How the..? Hmmm.. must be a glitch.


Alma hears the sound of footsteps as the agents come up the stairs.

He opens a window, looking for an escape, but it's been bricked up. Just a moment ago, it was open. He tries another window, then another. All sealed.

He opens a case and pulls out a set of tommy guns. The agents burst in, and he fires into the air impotently as they fill him full of lead. He falls to the floor, very much dead.




Somewhere, Keanu Reeves feels an itch.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#158 Jul 02 2012 at 5:17 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,021 posts
Quote:
Wow... in any case, I win....as always...Smiley: nod Carry on..

As Joph might say, I won't even dignify this with a long string of "ha"s.

Quote:
Are you implying that the people on this thread are incapable of realizing that a word with multiple meanings can be used in different ways and that one definition doesn't necessarily negate the other?

Except when a word is used in a legal context, in which case it has a very specific definition. The definition that you quoted is not the legal definition of "tax" in this context, and you'd have to be retarded to think or argue otherwise. Your statement above (and your argument based on the definition) is really a non-sequitor, and proves nothing except how blindingly stupid you are.

Here's the applicable definition: "a governmental assessment (charge) upon property value, transactions (transfers and sales), licenses granting a right, and/or income." Notice that nowhere in there does it state that a "tax" is applicable to the lack of possession.

Quote:
So, I guess that most people on this thread love paying thousands of dollars for insurance only to still have to pay a deductible, with possibly higher insurance rates?

I love paying for insurance, because it means that I won't be financially destroyed if something serious were to happen to me. Bemoaning a deductible (which you can partially control via your elected premium) and increased rates after an accident (which is determined by statistical and actuarial prediction models) just proves even further how little you understand insurance.

Edited, Jul 2nd 2012 7:13pm by Demea
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#159 Jul 02 2012 at 6:22 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
Demea wrote:
Here's the applicable definition: "a governmental assessment (charge) upon property value, transactions (transfers and sales), licenses granting a right, and/or income." Notice that nowhere in there does it state that a "tax" is applicable to the lack of possession.


I think someone already made this point, but if you look at the new tax as a blanket tax from which the insured merely receive exemption, then it is just as perfectly valid under the quoted definition as existing FICA taxes. I realize the wording of the law may not be structured this way, but the net result is equivalent. It's a silly pedantic argument, really.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#160 Jul 02 2012 at 6:26 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,021 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Demea wrote:
Here's the applicable definition: "a governmental assessment (charge) upon property value, transactions (transfers and sales), licenses granting a right, and/or income." Notice that nowhere in there does it state that a "tax" is applicable to the lack of possession.


I think someone already made this point, but if you look at the new tax as a blanket tax from which the insured merely receive exemption, then it is just as perfectly valid under the quoted definition as existing FICA taxes. I realize the wording of the law may not be structured this way, but the net result is equivalent.

This is true, but it's not just the results that matter, but the precedent it establishes.

Edit: also, I'm fairly certain that Obamacare originally passed in the Senate, then was passed through the House, after which it was amended using reconciliation. If this were truly a tax, wouldn't it have to originate in the House? Or does that not even matter at this point?

Quote:
It's a silly pedantic argument, really.

I completely agree; your argument is silly and pedantic.

Edited, Jul 2nd 2012 7:28pm by Demea
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#161 Jul 02 2012 at 6:33 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
Demea wrote:
This is true, but it's not just the results that matter, but the precedent it establishes.


The argument over precedent is valid, and I agree with your point there, I think.

Quote:
Edit: also, I'm fairly certain that Obamacare originally passed in the Senate, then was passed through the House, after which it was amended using reconciliation. If this were truly a tax, wouldn't it have to originate in the House? Or does that not even matter at this point?


Fair point, and possibly a second avenue for legal challengers?

Quote:
Quote:
It's a silly pedantic argument, really.

I completely agree; your argument is silly and pedantic.

Srsly...
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#162 Jul 02 2012 at 6:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
From what I heard or half recall, it was originally some other unrelated House bill that was essentially replaced entirely by the Senate bill. So it technically did start in the House. And yes, this is something both parties have done and which has passed master under the Supreme Court in the past.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#163 Jul 02 2012 at 7:28 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,021 posts
I did read somewhere that the GOP would try to use a similar method to repeal it, assuming (a big assumption) that they get the White House and a majority in the Senate.

Now if only Romney would get on message.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#164 Jul 02 2012 at 7:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The second time it hit the Senate, it passed under a budget reconciliation rule which can't be filibustered. The Republicans say they could use the same rule to repeal the mandate part (by lowering the tax penalty to zero) if they have a simple majority in the Senate.

They really shouldn't be able to do so since the Byrd rule states that any changes which would increase the deficit under reconciliation have to be offset and the ACA was scored to lower the deficit by 800 billion so technically they'd have to find money to offset that. Realistically, the GOP would likely just ignore the rule as they have in the past.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#165 Jul 02 2012 at 7:47 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,148 posts


Fair point, and possibly a second avenue for legal challengers?


Not a fair point, there are no "second avenues". The end around on AIA expressed in the opinion eliminates standing for challenges related to the 'tax" qualification. All done, SCOTUS is the end of the line, without further congressional action it's law, the machine wheels continue to turn, etc. There's zero chance another writ is granted in the next decade if the law isn't repealed (which, while it's a pithy campaign plank, has about a .005% chance of actually occurring).

Also, you don't understand law. I realize you aren't claiming to or anything, but @#%^, you're a mess. Read the relevant syllabus at least.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#166 Jul 03 2012 at 5:27 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Demea wrote:
Except when a word is used in a legal context, in which case it has a very specific definition. The definition that you quoted is not the legal definition of "tax" in this context, and you'd have to be retarded to think or argue otherwise. Your statement above (and your argument based on the definition) is really a non-sequitor, and proves nothing except how blindingly stupid you are.

Here's the applicable definition: "a governmental assessment (charge) upon property value, transactions (transfers and sales), licenses granting a right, and/or income." Notice that nowhere in there does it state that a "tax" is applicable to the lack of possession.


Oh really?

a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
2.
a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.


As a noun, there is no "legal" definition as prefaced in the verb definition. In any case, the two definitions say the same thing, except one is the government demanding money to support a service versus anyone else doing the same thing. There is no need for "lack of possession", it's support of a service.

Given the fact that the SCOTUS believes it's a tax and I doubt that you have more experience than them, I'll just stick with my gut on this one. But hey, maybe you can argue with SCOTUS on how they don't know how to use a dictionary.

Demea wrote:
I love paying for insurance, because it means that I won't be financially destroyed if something serious were to happen to me.


Then you don't love paying for insurance, you love being insured. There's a distinct difference that I made in my argument which you obviously overlooked. If you could be insured for free with no backlash to anyone, would you do it? Some people work because they love getting paid, some people actually love their work and would do it for free as a hobby.

Besides, that didn't answer my question. I didn't ask if you love paying for insurance, but paying for a deductible that's less than the amount of the money paid in insurance.

Demea wrote:
Bemoaning a deductible (which you can partially control via your elected premium) and increased rates after an accident (which is determined by statistical and actuarial prediction models) just proves even further how little you understand insurance.


That statement only proves your continuance of not knowing what the terminology "necessary evil" means. Just because I don't like it doesn't in any logical argument means that I don't understand it. As I said, insurance companies are businesses. Just like banks charge interests, insurance companies charge deductibles. It defers people from using the insurance money. People don't like paying interest on credit cards and/or loans, but that doesn't mean that they don't understand it or if the practice is beneficial.

All State seemed to have figured it out. Oh wait, I guess you know more than All State also.. hmmm. Aren't you the smart one?Smiley: oyvey

Demea wrote:
As Joph might say, I won't even dignify this with a long string of "ha"s.


So as I said. I win in any case, Mr. "I know more than the SCOTUS". Carry on now while the rest of us rejoice on the fact that there aren't people out there uninsured. I know that must bother you.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#167 Jul 03 2012 at 6:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Given the fact that the SCOTUS believes it's a tax...

Really just one guy on the Supreme Court does. He just got to write the majority opinion.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#168 Jul 03 2012 at 8:03 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,790 posts
that dictionary Alma linked wrote:
a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.


See, that word services I bolded? When you don't have health insurance and go to the emergency room, guess who picks up the tab? Hey, it's the government. So basically, Roberts decided that the ACA was a tax on people who used those services that the government provides.

Does that fit your definition well enough?
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Midgarsormr realm
Eartha Kitty 30 BRD/12 MNK
#169 Jul 03 2012 at 8:18 AM Rating: Good
******
43,073 posts
Demea wrote:
As Joph might say, I won't even dignify this with a long string of "ha"s.
Would have been better if you had.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#170 Jul 03 2012 at 12:44 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Given the fact that the SCOTUS believes it's a tax...

Really just one guy on the Supreme Court does. He just got to write the majority opinion.


Well then, I believe that one guy has a better understanding on this scenario than Demea does. I could be wrong, as politicians tend to label stuff they don't like "unconstitutional", but I see no issue with the usage of that word.

Bigdaddyjug wrote:
that dictionary Alma linked wrote:
a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.


See, that word services I bolded? When you don't have health insurance and go to the emergency room, guess who picks up the tab? Hey, it's the government. So basically, Roberts decided that the ACA was a tax on people who used those services that the government provides.

Does that fit your definition well enough?


This.

I don't see how the conservatives don't see this. Honestly, I think they support it and they are just jealous that a Democrat pulled it off. Furthermore, this "success" gives the president more leverage for the election. Both sides claim it's about the people and not politics, but we all know the politics play a major role.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#171 Jul 03 2012 at 1:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Well then, I believe that one guy has a better understanding on this scenario than Demea does.

You're welcome to believe that but there's a legitimate argument to be made using the opinions of the eight other Justices who didn't see it that way.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#172 Jul 03 2012 at 1:12 PM Rating: Good
***
2,790 posts
Saying that the ACA individual mandate can be construed as a tax is as far as I'm willing to agree with you Alma. I can see why the anti-ACA crowd is up in arms, though. Barry O, as well as Dem leaders from Congress, told us over and over how it wasn't a tax, and then one of their (our) own stabs them (us) in the back and lets it pass muster and, of all things, says it counts as a tax.
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Midgarsormr realm
Eartha Kitty 30 BRD/12 MNK
#173 Jul 03 2012 at 1:43 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Well then, I believe that one guy has a better understanding on this scenario than Demea does.

You're welcome to believe that but there's a legitimate argument to be made using the opinions of the eight other Justices who didn't see it that way.


That's why I said that I could be wrong. Everything is political and I'm not a robot without a mind of my own. Just because a politician says "x" is wrong or right, that doesn't automatically change my mind. My point was that this definition of the word can't be as trivial as Demea claims if it were interpreted as such at the SCOTUS level.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#174 Jul 03 2012 at 1:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I dunno. The same body told me that corporations are people.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#175 Jul 03 2012 at 2:04 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I dunno. The same body told me that corporations are people.

I got nothing... More the reason I pride myself on being an independent.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#176 Jul 03 2012 at 2:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Political Wire wrote:
A new Pew Research poll finds that 45% of Americans either didn't know what the Supreme Court had decided with regards to President Obama's health care law (30%) or thought that the Supreme Court had overturned the law (15%).

The Fix concludes that "assuming that the electorate is paying close attention to the political goings-on -- even when they are so seemingly high profile as the Court ruling on health care -- is a mistake. Most people -- especially those who are unaffiliated or independent voters -- tend to be relatively low information voters. That is, they don't have all the facts on an issue -- and they don't really care to find them out."


This has nothing to do with Alma's "independent" remark; I just read it and found it interesting

Edited, Jul 3rd 2012 3:29pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#177 Jul 03 2012 at 2:50 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Political Wire wrote:
A new Pew Research poll finds that 45% of Americans either didn't know what the Supreme Court had decided with regards to President Obama's health care law (30%) or thought that the Supreme Court had overturned the law (15%).

The Fix concludes that "assuming that the electorate is paying close attention to the political goings-on -- even when they are so seemingly high profile as the Court ruling on health care -- is a mistake. Most people -- especially those who are unaffiliated or independent voters -- tend to be relatively low information voters. That is, they don't have all the facts on an issue -- and they don't really care to find them out."


This has nothing to do with Alma's "independent" remark; I just read it and found it interesting

Edited, Jul 3rd 2012 3:29pm by Jophiel


Even though that wasn't in regards to me, I agree. I'm an independent because I have views on both sides and I don't like being pigeon holed into certain views . However, if I were to vote, I would likely vote Dem.

I would argue that the average person who isn't registered to vote probably doesn't know the primary differences in REPs and DEMs.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#178 Jul 03 2012 at 4:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Alma wrote:
I'm an independent because I have views on both sides and I don't like being pigeon holed into certain views


This has never been more relevant:

Screenshot
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#179 Jul 03 2012 at 4:51 PM Rating: Decent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,021 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Demea wrote:
Except when a word is used in a legal context, in which case it has a very specific definition. The definition that you quoted is not the legal definition of "tax" in this context, and you'd have to be retarded to think or argue otherwise. Your statement above (and your argument based on the definition) is really a non-sequitor, and proves nothing except how blindingly stupid you are.

Here's the applicable definition: "a governmental assessment (charge) upon property value, transactions (transfers and sales), licenses granting a right, and/or income." Notice that nowhere in there does it state that a "tax" is applicable to the lack of possession.


Oh really?

a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
2.
a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.


As a noun, there is no "legal" definition as prefaced in the verb definition. In any case, the two definitions say the same thing, except one is the government demanding money to support a service versus anyone else doing the same thing. There is no need for "lack of possession", it's support of a service.

Given the fact that the SCOTUS believes it's a tax and I doubt that you have more experience than them, I'll just stick with my gut on this one. But hey, maybe you can argue with SCOTUS on how they don't know how to use a dictionary.

What Joph said.

Quote:
Demea wrote:
I love paying for insurance, because it means that I won't be financially destroyed if something serious were to happen to me.


Then you don't love paying for insurance, you love being insured. There's a distinct difference that I made in my argument which you obviously overlooked. If you could be insured for free with no backlash to anyone, would you do it?

Wow, a hypothetical situation that will never, ever exist in reality! What a valuable insight!

Grow up.

Quote:
Carry on now while the rest of us rejoice on the fact that there aren't people out there uninsured. I know that must bother you.

Actually, there most definitely will be people out there who are uninsured. This law does nothing to achieve "universal coverage", although this is realistically a pipe dream without a single payer system.

For the record, I think that universal health insurance is an admirable and worthwhile social goal. I simply disagree with how Democrats chose to go about it (and how Roberts essentially re-wrote the bill in question to uphold it).
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#180 Jul 03 2012 at 6:09 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,717 posts
Demea wrote:
Actually, there most definitely will be people out there who are uninsured. This law does nothing to achieve "universal coverage", although this is realistically a pipe dream without a single payer system.


The insurance mandate most certainly will expand coverage. It may not make it universal, but to say it does nothing is incorrect. Also, I wish people would stop equating the mandate with the entire law. It is but one piece. Expanding dependent coverage to age 26, expanding medicaid, banning the screening for preexisting conditions, and doing away with the idea of annual or lifetime caps on coverage all do significantly more to extend coverage levels toward universal, even if they don't quite reach the goal.

____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#181 Jul 03 2012 at 6:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,021 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Demea wrote:
Actually, there most definitely will be people out there who are uninsured. This law does nothing to achieve "universal coverage", although this is realistically a pipe dream without a single payer system.


The insurance mandate most certainly will expand coverage. It may not make it universal, but to say it does nothing is incorrect.

Perhaps a poor choice of wording on my part, but as we both say, it doesn't achieve "universal" coverage. I realize that the law didn't intend to do that (again, since this isn't possible without a single-payer system), I merely wanted to address Alma's flippant remark as quoted in my post.

Quote:
Also, I wish people would stop equating the mandate with the entire law. It is but one piece. Expanding dependent coverage to age 26, expanding medicaid, banning the screening for preexisting conditions, and doing away with the idea of annual or lifetime caps on coverage all do significantly more to extend coverage levels toward universal, even if they don't quite reach the goal.

Since the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate, we'll never know if it was severable from the rest of the law or not. However, it is the linchpin of the entire law, and without it there's no way Congressional Democrats would have been able to present the bill as deficit-neutral (or get it passed).

As I may have inferred previously but not explicitly stated, I don't have any particular grievance with the other parts of the bill. It just so happens that the other parts are dependent upon the individual mandate, which I don't think should be constitutional under the Commerce, Necessary and Proper, or Taxing powers of Congress.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#182 Jul 03 2012 at 6:43 PM Rating: Good
**
485 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I dunno. The same body told me that corporations are people.



I'll see your "Corporations are people" and sweeten the pot with a "Separate but equal IS constitutional".
____________________________
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
#183Almalieque, Posted: Jul 03 2012 at 7:36 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) You're right. However, this tax works just like deductibles. It's merely a deterrent.
#184 Jul 03 2012 at 8:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,021 posts
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Smiley: laugh

Shine on, you crazy diamond.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#185 Jul 03 2012 at 9:00 PM Rating: Good
******
43,073 posts
Clearly cubic zirconia.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#186 Jul 03 2012 at 9:44 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
477 posts
Almalieque wrote:
All State seemed to have figured it out. Oh wait, I guess you know more than All State also.. hmmm. Aren't you the smart one?Smiley: oyvey

Says the guy that doesn't know how to correctly spell the name of a major insurance company like Allstate.
#187 Jul 03 2012 at 10:37 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Political Wire wrote:
A new Pew Research poll finds that 45% of Americans either didn't know what the Supreme Court had decided with regards to President Obama's health care law (30%) or thought that the Supreme Court had overturned the law (15%).

The Fix concludes that "assuming that the electorate is paying close attention to the political goings-on -- even when they are so seemingly high profile as the Court ruling on health care -- is a mistake. Most people -- especially those who are unaffiliated or independent voters -- tend to be relatively low information voters. That is, they don't have all the facts on an issue -- and they don't really care to find them out."


This has nothing to do with Alma's "independent" remark; I just read it and found it interesting

Edited, Jul 3rd 2012 3:29pm by Jophiel


It might not be as interesting as you think. I gather that CNN falsely reported that the law had been overturned for 7 minutes or so early on. I suspect many people saw that report, then moved on to other things.

Of course, depending on when the polling was done, that could say something about the level to which said people are following the story, if they never happen to run into the correct version of it later on.

Edited, Jul 4th 2012 12:39am by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#188 Jul 03 2012 at 11:42 PM Rating: Good
Quote:
Says the guy that doesn't know how to correctly spell the name of a major insurance company like Allstate.


Grammar trolling is lower than Gbajing. Boo to you, sir,
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#189 Jul 04 2012 at 5:43 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Demea wrote:
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Smiley: laugh

Shine on, you crazy diamond.


I have something that might interest you.



Oh, there's also that "cloud insurance".. You never know, those clouds can get testy...



You sure do have an interesting hobby, just paying for insurance for the heck of it. Hey, I have some Jupiter insurance for you also.. PM for details. I'll give you a good deal.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#190 Jul 04 2012 at 6:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,277 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Quote:
Says the guy that doesn't know how to correctly spell the name of a major insurance company like Allstate.


Grammar trolling is lower than Gbajing. Boo to you, sir,

No, it's legit when dealing with people like Alma. Not that he ever learns from it, but he should.
#191 Jul 04 2012 at 6:51 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Nadenu wrote:
Omegavegeta wrote:
Quote:
Says the guy that doesn't know how to correctly spell the name of a major insurance company like Allstate.


Grammar trolling is lower than Gbajing. Boo to you, sir,

No, it's legit when dealing with people like Alma. Not that he ever learns from it, but he should.


Misspelling an insurance company's name that I don't use somehow changes their insurance policy?
Well, if I were ridiculing someone on spelling, then you would have a point; however, the word "smart" was in reference to the knowledge of certain insurance practices. Pointing out an unneeded space and capitalization makes you look really foolish. But, hey, whatever makes you sleep at night. (is that right lolgaxe?)
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#192 Jul 04 2012 at 7:10 AM Rating: Good
***
2,790 posts
I would wager that I know more about the automobile insurance industry than anybody else who has posted in this thread. Having said that, the majority of auto insurance companies have no freaking clue what they are doing and usually end up getting their rates correct through some massive version of trial and error. For the most part, auto insurance companies also do not write their own policy. The particular state a policy will be sold in tells tham what has to be in the policy and how much wiggle room they have to personalize the policy, and then the state DOI has to approve the policy before the insurance company can start selling it.

So anyone trying to claim that the insurance companies are all-knowing (in regards to insurance) needs to think again.
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Midgarsormr realm
Eartha Kitty 30 BRD/12 MNK
#193 Jul 04 2012 at 7:39 AM Rating: Good
******
43,073 posts
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
So anyone trying to claim that the insurance companies are all-knowing (in regards to insurance) needs to think again.
Anyone arguing with someone who's entire goal is to be contradictory should probably think again, too.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#194 Jul 04 2012 at 8:07 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,021 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
So anyone trying to claim that the insurance companies are all-knowing (in regards to insurance) needs to think again.
Anyone arguing with someone who's entire goal is to be contradictory should probably think again, too.

No you.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#195 Jul 04 2012 at 8:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
BeanX wrote:
Also I have a question why is this any different then it being illegal to not have car insurance in most states?

As other noted, you don't HAVE to drive a car. However, the early US government at least once passed a measure requiring citizens to purchase privately produced products.
PolitiFact wrote:
Then, in 1792, a Congress that included 17 framers passed a law requiring nearly every "free able-bodied white male citizen" age 18 to 44, within six months, "provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges," along with balls and gunpowder. A rifle could be substituted. The purpose was to establish a uniform militia.

Again, that sounds like a mandated purchase to us.

Reading the law in question, essentially it was like being conscripted to join the National Guard except you would also be mandated to provide your own M4 rifle, ammunition, combat knife and backpack to have when you showed up rather than the military providing them.

Assuming you're already an able-bodied white male citizen in that age bracket, there was really no escaping this mandated purchase from private companies short of cutting your arm off. One can argue differences of scale against the ACA, but not differences of principle -- mandating a purchase of private goods based on criteria you can't help or change.

Edited, Jul 4th 2012 9:29am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#196 Jul 04 2012 at 9:31 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,021 posts
In 1792, blacks and women couldn't vote, slaves counted as 3/5ths of a person for census purposes, and the federal government couldn't yet collect income taxes.

So using a legal precedent from that era isn't overly compelling in terms of justifying one now.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#197 Jul 04 2012 at 9:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Demea wrote:
So using a legal precedent from that era isn't overly compelling in terms of justifying one now.

Tell that to the screaming GOP legions wearing tri-corner hats and waving "Don't Tread on Me" posters as their primary form of political discourse Smiley: laugh

And I would say it's compelling in determining the intent of the early government. Obviously it was not 100% against mandated purchases from private companies. Arguing now that it's a bad idea is fine but it should be done with the agreement that it wasn't a problem with many of the men who formed this nation.

Edited, Jul 4th 2012 10:45am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#198 Jul 04 2012 at 10:15 AM Rating: Decent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,021 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Demea wrote:
So using a legal precedent from that era isn't overly compelling in terms of justifying one now.

Tell that to the screaming GOP legions wearing tri-corner hats and waving "Don't Tread on Me" posters as their primary form of political discourse Smiley: laugh

The silliness of a few protesters doesn't diminish the validity of the argument.

Quote:
And I would say it's compelling in determining the intent of the early government. Obviously it was not 100% against mandated purchases from private companies. Arguing now that it's a bad idea is fine but it should be done with the agreement that it wasn't a problem with many of the men who formed this nation.

Nowhere in the law does it state that a citizen can't smelt their own musket and ammo!

Also, I doubt that anybody back then thought that this fell within Congress's power to lay and collect taxes. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#199 Jul 04 2012 at 10:17 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
Demea wrote:
Also, I doubt that anybody back then thought that this fell within Congress's power to lay and collect taxes. Smiley: rolleyes


And what constitutional power do you think they thought it fell under?

Edit: Referring to the musket and bayonet thing, not insurance.

Edited, Jul 4th 2012 11:17am by BrownDuck
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#200 Jul 04 2012 at 10:17 AM Rating: Good
******
43,073 posts
The King's.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#201 Jul 04 2012 at 10:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,021 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Demea wrote:
Also, I doubt that anybody back then thought that this fell within Congress's power to lay and collect taxes. Smiley: rolleyes


And what constitutional power do you think they thought it fell under?

Edit: Referring to the musket and bayonet thing, not insurance.

Edited, Jul 4th 2012 11:17am by BrownDuck

I never said I thought it was a legitimate exercise of Congressional power, only that the comparison didn't lend any credibility to the individual mandate. Remember, I'm arguing against a Congressional power to mandate the participation in private commercial activity.

Although, were I to take a stab at it, I'd guess the power "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress".
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 46 All times are in CDT
BeanX, Anonymous Guests (45)