Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

The Blind Boys of High CourtFollow

#27 Aug 02 2014 at 7:18 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,278 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
And, again, pay your people better, employers. So they can, y'know, just buy their own health insurance.


But do you see how something like Obamacare makes that less likely, and not more? It's about the portion of a persons compensation which they get to choose what to spend it on shrinking. Yes. A percentage of workers were not being paid enough to be able to purchase their own health care. However, the dirty little secret of the health care debate is that a much larger percentage of workers earned enough to afford to purchase health care but choose not to. Choice. That's freedom. That's what's being taken away with all of this.
If you don't make enough to get health care at all, that's a loss of freedom, too. And if the corporation you work for could either pay you more or give you a health care package and don't?...it's a theft of freedom.
gbaji wrote:
The overwhelming majority of employees do earn enough to obtain health insurance if they want to. .

Cite, plz.



You are also ignoring the bit about ACA disallowing refusal of coverage based on pre-existing conditions. Now, if you link an health care plan that will take me, with my PEC's, I might think better of you...but you can't.

Edited, Aug 2nd 2014 7:48pm by Bijou
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#28 Aug 03 2014 at 12:09 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts
Much larger than "zero" in a cosmic sense, I suppose.

Look at this @#%^ with his "facts" and "citations to data".

While we are here, it's also commonly known among conservatives that:

Women choose to make less money to they can stay home and be moms.
Black people don't want to work, and would rather loaf about on public assistance.
Illegal immigrants steal high paying middle class jobs from honest hard working white folks, and commit most crimes that aren't committed by black men.
Lowering taxes always leads to economic growth, except for taxes on the middle class which we need to pay for corporate welfare. Those taxes are needed to "pay for things" that government provides. There's no free lunch...for the middle class.
Etc. Etc. Death panels, magic rape contraception from Jesus.

Edited, Aug 3rd 2014 2:14pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
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 *****. 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? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#29 Aug 04 2014 at 6:14 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
gbaji wrote:
The split was ideological, and not gender based.

They're not exclusive. Women are ideologically more pro-women. It wasn't me that made the claim it was Ruth Ginsberg.

You look silly explaining how you're more understanding of the inner workings of the SCOTUS than one of the Nine.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#30 Aug 04 2014 at 10:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The split was ideological, and not gender based.

They're not exclusive. Women are ideologically more pro-women. It wasn't me that made the claim it was Ruth Ginsberg.

You look silly explaining how you're more understanding of the inner workings of the SCOTUS than one of the Nine.
Well if the Republicans would actually put a woman on the court we could all see whether or not it's really a chick thing.

Seems like they'd rather just accuse people of playing politics. Smiley: disappointed

Edited, Aug 4th 2014 9:01am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#31 Aug 04 2014 at 11:46 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The split was ideological, and not gender based.

They're not exclusive. Women are ideologically more pro-women. It wasn't me that made the claim it was Ruth Ginsberg.

You look silly explaining how you're more understanding of the inner workings of the SCOTUS than one of the Nine.
Well if the Republicans would actually put a woman on the court

Sandra Day O'Connor.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#32 Aug 04 2014 at 12:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Elinda wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The split was ideological, and not gender based.

They're not exclusive. Women are ideologically more pro-women. It wasn't me that made the claim it was Ruth Ginsberg.

You look silly explaining how you're more understanding of the inner workings of the SCOTUS than one of the Nine.
Well if the Republicans would actually put a woman on the court

Sandra Day O'Connor.
We can't live in the past. This is a 'what have you done for me lately' kind of world.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#33 Aug 04 2014 at 12:33 PM Rating: Good
******
49,658 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
We can't live in the past.
Tell that to our distinguished Californian that is still trying.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#34 Aug 05 2014 at 7:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,860 posts
First off, Joph, "not needing it" and "choosing not to buy it" are not mutually aligned concepts. Very few people, if asked "do you need health insurance" would say no. But a much larger number of people (like say, most single people between the ages of 18 and 30), if given the choice to purchase health insurance will choose not to because they'd rather spend their money on other things. Those are not reflected in the statistics you cited.

Friar Bijou wrote:
If you don't make enough to get health care at all, that's a loss of freedom, too.


No, it's not. Not without radically changing the meaning of the word "freedom". Freedom doesn't mean you get stuff. Freedom means others have less power to tell you what to do. Whether you have health insurance or not has *nothing* to do with freedom. On the other hand, being forced to purchase health insurance does infringe your freedom (cause, it's someone else telling you what to do).

Quote:
And if the corporation you work for could either pay you more or give you a health care package and don't?...it's a theft of freedom.


Huh? No, it's not. It's the corporation paying you whatever the fair market value of your labor is. What that buys you is an entirely different issue. And again, neither of them have anything at all to do with freedom. It's just strange to me how so many people have come to believe that freedom means someone else giving you something. That's just bizarre. Where the **** do you get this idea?


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
The overwhelming majority of employees do earn enough to obtain health insurance if they want to. .

Cite, plz.


Really? Joph's cite says 47 million uninsured Americans. The BLS says that there are 156 million people employed in the US. Ergo, basic math tells us that the majority of employed people earn enough to obtain health insurance. Even if we assume that 100% off the uninsured people are employed (um... certainly not close to true), there are over twice as many employed people with insurance than without (which may or may not qualify as "overwhelming", but this is the worse case scenario). Assuming we agree that most of the 47 million uninsured are also unemployed (btw, there are around 90 million people who are not participating in the labor market, just to put the numbers in perspective), then my use of the phrase "overwhelming majority" is pretty darn accurate.

There's a lot of bait and switch language that floats around the ACA stats. But the reality is that the actual number of people who did not have health insurance prior to the passage of the ACA because they simply could not afford it is likely lower than the number of people who could afford it, but choose not to buy it but are now forced to do so by the same law. And when we add in all the people now forced to purchase insurance that covers a wider assortment of things than before (increasing the cost of their premiums), the ratio of people negatively impacted by the law relative to those benefited by it grows even greater.

Quote:
You are also ignoring the bit about ACA disallowing refusal of coverage based on pre-existing conditions.


I'm not ignoring this at all. It's just not super relevant to the discussion at hand. Except perhaps to the point that this is yet one more thing that increases the cost to everyone actually paying into the system. A side issue, I suppose.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#35 Aug 05 2014 at 7:23 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,860 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The split was ideological, and not gender based.

They're not exclusive. Women are ideologically more pro-women.


I think that liberal women are more pro-women, for a very narrow definition of "pro-women". You do understand that it's usually the folks on the left who view things primarily through the lens of identity politics, right? Conservative women tend to think more in terms of "what is in line with the constitutional principle at hand"? You know, just like conservative men, and conservative blacks, and conservative latinos, and conservative homosexuals. Because we think in terms of the principles, not what benefits the group we happen to be a member of.

Quote:
It wasn't me that made the claim it was Ruth Ginsberg.


So? She has a strong motivation to make this about gender instead of yet another case of "liberals want to impose big government rules on us all". ****. You created an entire thread because she said this was about gender. If she'd said that the ruling reflected the ideological differences between the left and right, you would not have had a reason to make an outraged post about it. This thread is the evidence of why she said what she said, and the precise reaction she hoped to get.


Quote:
You look silly explaining how you're more understanding of the inner workings of the SCOTUS than one of the Nine.


It's not about the inner workings of the SCOTUS. It's about a pretty obvious ideological methodology at play. The left consistently attempts to paint issues within the context of the identity of the people involved and how it affects those groups. This is not new or anything. Conservatives tend to judge based on actions/choices people make, while liberals tend to judge based on who the people are and what identity group(s) they belong to. So it's kinda obvious that Ginsberg is playing to the "war on women" idea. It's an easy sell to the liberal base.

Edited, Aug 5th 2014 6:24pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#36 Aug 05 2014 at 8:00 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,278 posts
gbaji wrote:
I wrote:
And if the corporation you work for could either pay you more or give you a health care package and don't?...it's a theft of freedom.


Huh? No, it's not.
You get to claim that taxation is theft, but I'm not to claim that underpaying employees is also theft? Huh.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#37 Aug 05 2014 at 8:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
First off, Joph, "not needing it" and "choosing not to buy it" are not mutually aligned concepts.

Right. And if we just ignore numbers that are inconvenient to us and make up our own numbers, we can say it's a "dirty little secret" when we're actually just making shit up.

Great job teaching everyone, Professor. Probably not the lesson you meant to give though.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#38 Aug 06 2014 at 6:01 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
gbaji wrote:
[
It's not about the inner workings of the SCOTUS. It's about a pretty obvious ideological methodology at play. The left consistently attempts to paint issues within the context of the identity of the people involved and how it affects those groups. This is not new or anything. Conservatives tend to judge based on actions/choices people make, while liberals tend to judge based on who the people are and what identity group(s) they belong to. So it's kinda obvious that Ginsberg is playing to the "war on women" idea. It's an easy sell to the liberal base.

Edited, Aug 5th 2014 6:24pm by gbaji

The thing is this: Gender inequality exists, just like racism and sexism exist. If Women's issues are not part of the republican agenda (ideologically speaking of course Smiley: rolleyes), then you've marginalized women.

I've never personally used the term 'War on Women' to describe the right's stance on gender inequality. That's your term.

But it's nice to see you own up to the fact that not only do women's issues go unrecognized within your political party, but other groups that may attempt to rectify or bring to light gender-inconsistencies are anti-conservative.

You and your cronies just keep wondering why women vote overwhelmingly democrat....Smiley: oyvey.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#39 Aug 06 2014 at 7:16 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,658 posts
gbaji wrote:
I think that liberal women are more pro-women,
Just because you work in a building with women doesn't make you an expert on women.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#40 Aug 06 2014 at 7:18 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I think that liberal women are more pro-women,
Just because you work in a building with women doesn't make you an expert on women.

He came from a women (maybe).

edit: How could I forgot this....






Edited, Aug 6th 2014 8:18pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#41 Aug 06 2014 at 7:21 AM Rating: Good
******
49,658 posts
Maybe one day he'll see a second one.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#42 Aug 06 2014 at 7:45 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts

There's a lot of bait and switch language that floats around the ACA stats. But the reality is that the actual number of people who did not have health insurance prior to the passage of the ACA because they simply could not afford it is likely lower than the number of people who could afford it, but choose not to buy it but are now forced to do so by the same law.


This is wildly false. I mean LUDICROUSLY false. So false that one would have to be alarmingly ignorant, or possibly, gullible to find it even vaguely credible.

That aside, you can see the problem it would cause had it ever been true, right? People who "could afford health insurance but choose not to buy it" are the people who must be in the system to ALLOW health insurance to be affordable to people who need it. It's not ******* rocket science. Healthy people with money overpay in exchange for protection from catastrophe. The overpayment subsidies sick people without money. We call it "society". The previous system of "heads I win, tails you lose" conservative theory of "I don't pay for health insurance because I'll probably be fine, but you know, if **** goes sideways you provide care to me gratis" was untenable.

Can you see why? Just kidding, you can't. You suck at math.
____________________________
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 *****. 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? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#44 Aug 06 2014 at 12:29 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,084 posts


Nuh uh you're wrong. Gotta love those impressive debating skills you're throwing out there.


Facts aren't debatable. Sorry. I know your entire political philosophy is predicated on the idea that they are :( So sad :( I feel great pity for you.
____________________________
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 *****. 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? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#45 Aug 06 2014 at 12:51 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
freedomfried wrote:
Gotta love those impressive debating skills you're throwing out there.


When you respond to gbaji logic you have to improvise on debating skills.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#46 Aug 06 2014 at 5:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,860 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I wrote:
And if the corporation you work for could either pay you more or give you a health care package and don't?...it's a theft of freedom.


Huh? No, it's not.
You get to claim that taxation is theft, but I'm not to claim that underpaying employees is also theft? Huh.


You're not talking about underpaying employees though. You're saying that an employer must pay for health care or it's theft of freedom. Setting aside the whole freedom angle and just looking at "theft", the issue is over what we define as "underpaid". If the labor you are performing for me isn't worth the cost of paying for your health insurance, then requiring me to pay that isn't preventing me from underpaying you, but requiring me to overpay you.

You can't just arbitrarily decide that not paying for health insurance is underpaying. The market decides what the value of your labor is. If you're underpaid, then go work for someone else who will pay you what you are worth. If there is no one willing to pay what you *think* you are worth, then you think you're worth more than you actually are. There's no underpaying going on here.

I'll also point out (again) that in some cases the employee would rather receive more money rather than more benefits which he may or may not need. Assuming we agree that health benefits are part of compensation, then it follows that if your employer provides you those benefits, it's always at the expense of lower pay than you would have received otherwise. Requiring the employer provide health benefits is basically taking the money the employee would otherwise receive. And if he's healthy and doesn't need much health care, that's actually theft right there.


Why is it so wrong to just let people make their own decisions? Isn't that what freedom is really all about?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#47 Aug 06 2014 at 6:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,860 posts
Elinda wrote:
The thing is this: Gender inequality exists, just like racism and sexism exist. If Women's issues are not part of the republican agenda (ideologically speaking of course Smiley: rolleyes), then you've marginalized women.


Except that conservatives don't think in terms of "women's issues". We think in terms of "equality under the law". Period. The second you start dividing people up into groups and labeling them, and defining different issues for each one, you're no longer fighting for equality. You're pandering to each group to get votes. Calling not doing that "marginalizing women (or whatever group we're talking about)" is unfair IMO. And it's certainly inaccurate when you start out justifying this on the basis of inequality existing because you're not actually fighting against inequality.

Quote:
I've never personally used the term 'War on Women' to describe the right's stance on gender inequality. That's your term.


It's a term that is broadly used by the left and applied to the right. It's not all about you, you know! Smiley: tongue

Quote:
But it's nice to see you own up to the fact that not only do women's issues go unrecognized within your political party, but other groups that may attempt to rectify or bring to light gender-inconsistencies are anti-conservative.


Again though, my problem is with the very label of "women's issues". Who gets to decide what one must do in order to be sufficiently active with regards to women's issues? Because it looks as though the measuring stick being used is that if conservatives don't take the same positions as liberals, we're somehow marginalizing women because we don't care about "women's issues". I just don't buy that at all.

Quote:
You and your cronies just keep wondering why women vote overwhelmingly democrat....Smiley: oyvey.


We don't wonder about it at all. We know why. However, our base principles prevent us from engaging in the same pandering that the left does. It's like two parents engaged in a custody battle. One parent lets the children stay up as late as they want, eat whatever food they want, doesn't require any chores, and gives them a big honking allowance, while the other is actually being responsible with the children. No one would be surprised if, when asked who they prefer to live with, they say the first one.

It doesn't make that right though. You could label those "children issues" and call the other parent names because she doesn't do those nice things for her kids, but at the end of the day she's doing what's right and fair, while the other parent is just buying the kids affections. Surely you can see how this isn't a great way to go about things?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#48 Aug 06 2014 at 7:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You hear that, Elinda? Your reproductive rights are just like being given ice cream and pin money! And people say Republicans don't know how to pander...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#49 Aug 06 2014 at 7:18 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,278 posts
gbaji wrote:
We don't wonder about it at all. We know why. However, our base principles prevent us from engaging in the same pandering that the left does. It's like two parents engaged in a custody battle. One parent lets the children stay up as late as they want, eat whatever food they want, doesn't require any chores, and gives them a big honking allowance, while the other is actually being responsible with the children. No one would be surprised if, when asked who they prefer to live with, they say the first one.
You realize you just said that conservatives view woman as children, right?

Thanks for making Elinda's point.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#50 Aug 06 2014 at 7:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Not only children, but children who are easily bought off and make all their decisions based on who is letting them stay up late.

Party of Santa Claus!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#51 Aug 06 2014 at 7:59 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,339 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Not only children, but children who are easily bought off and make all their decisions based on who is letting them stay up late.

Party of Santa Claus!


Well, yeah, they are easily bought off. A shiny new purse and a gift card for Saks, and they might even swallow!

Smiley: tongue

Nope, guess not.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 76 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (76)