Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, July 02, 2012

OT-P: July: Obamacare Decision as Baseball: the Runner is Safe, so Now What?

My favorite play in baseball is the second base steal. In the play, the base runner watches the pitch, and at just the right moment, he sprints toward second. The catcher snatches the pitch, springs up and rockets the ball to the second baseman who snags it and tries to tag the runner as he slides into the base. As the dust clears, all eyes are on the second base umpire who, in a split second, calls the runner safe or out. When the play is over, the players dust themselves off, and the game goes on.

Some on the field may disagree with the umpire’s call.  However, the umpire’s decision is final, and arguing can get you ejected. To stay in the game, great teams simply adjust their strategy based on the umpire’s call.

 

Morty Causa Posted: July 02, 2012 at 02:26 PM | 4025 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics, special topics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 41 pages  1 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›
   1. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: July 02, 2012 at 02:56 PM (#4171456)
To stay in the game, great teams simply adjust their strategy based on the umpire’s call.


They do? "Hey guys, don't run the basepaths anymore, Angel Hernandez is making shitty calls at second again."
   2. Shredder Posted: July 02, 2012 at 03:03 PM (#4171464)
Angel Hernandez is making shitty calls
Redundant.
   3. Guapo Posted: July 02, 2012 at 03:11 PM (#4171472)
Come on, come on, now let me tell you what it's all about
In this thread, you must go 'round runnin' off at the mouth
That's rule number one in this OT:P establishment
You shoot your mouth off and it won't get closed by Dan or Jim
Exciting isn't it, a special kinda business
Many of you will read the same sorta OT:P silliness
No lounger for sure is going to admit it
When OT:P comes, damn-- skippy I'm with it

Chorus:
You down with OT:P? (Yeah you know me)
Who's down with OT:P? (This whole party)
You down with OT:P? (Yeah you know me)
Who's down with OT:P? (This whole party)
   4. Swedish Chef Posted: July 02, 2012 at 03:17 PM (#4171477)
This writer literally strains his metaphors.
   5. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: July 02, 2012 at 03:18 PM (#4171479)
I guess this means the other politics thread is being shut down?

Or maybe it's been a discussion of the world's best rollercoasters for the last 900 posts. Who is brave enough to check?
   6. Swedish Chef Posted: July 02, 2012 at 03:23 PM (#4171485)
Who is brave enough to check?

They are stuck in a loop.
   7. Fernigal McGunnigle has become a merry hat Posted: July 02, 2012 at 03:24 PM (#4171486)
I guess this means the other politics thread is being shut down?


Except that there isn't anything interesting or controversial here. I assume that the writer is anti-Obamacare, but his little blog entry could come from a pro-Obamacare person just as well. His argument is that we have to accept that the Supreme Court decision actually happened and is final, and go from there. That doesn't strike me as something that should stir up much controversy, except from people with interesting ideas about causality and spacetime.
   8. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: July 02, 2012 at 03:27 PM (#4171490)
This writer literally strains his metaphors.


With a sieve? Or an unhealthy, excessive effort?
   9. Joey B. has reignited his October #Natitude Posted: July 02, 2012 at 03:32 PM (#4171496)
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
   10. Morty Causa Posted: July 02, 2012 at 03:36 PM (#4171503)
I don't know how Jim Furtado chooses which submission to designate as the one. I submitted this just in the spirit of it being one of a number he would choose from. It actually combined a baseball and a political argument. Maybe others have better selections in mine. Submit them, I would suggest, and let Jim vet them and then make a definitive choice.

EDIT: But whatever the submission, and choice, the topic will change anyway.
   11. Morty Causa Posted: July 02, 2012 at 03:39 PM (#4171508)
This poem is more the way some people discuss larger questions:

The Sloth by Theodore Roethke

In moving-slow he has no Peer.
You ask him something in his Ear,
He thinks about it for a Year;

And, then, before he says a Word
There, upside down (unlike a Bird),
He will assume that you have Heard--

A most Ex-as-per-at-ing Lug.
But should you call his manner Smug,
He'll sigh and give his Branch a Hug;

Then off again to Sleep he goes,
Still swaying gently by his Toes,
And you just know he knows he knows.


   12. Jim Furtado Posted: July 02, 2012 at 03:43 PM (#4171512)
Morty, since Repoz had already approved this thread, I closed the other submission and marked this one appropriately.
   13. zonk Posted: July 02, 2012 at 03:52 PM (#4171519)
Interesting article on Jonathon Krohn -- viral video hit a few years ago at CPAC; now a Daily Show watching, gay marriage loving, ACA supporting 17 yo.

See, Ray? There's always hope!
   14. Morty Causa Posted: July 02, 2012 at 03:52 PM (#4171520)
Okay.

Edit: response to #12.
   15. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 02, 2012 at 04:00 PM (#4171525)
I don't mind moving the discussion to a new "July" thread. Just wondering: Did the other thread actually disappear, or can we still view it? Because it's not on my hot topics list anymore.
   16. Brian C Posted: July 02, 2012 at 04:05 PM (#4171529)
Speaking of sloths ... my wife and I were at the Milwaukee Zoo a couple years back, and saw one of the keepers cleaning out the sloth enclosure. It turns out that sloths can really move when they want to; they were jumping around the enclosure like monkeys. I had no idea they were capable of it.

Then the keeper finished her work, left, and the sloths went right back to being their normal motionless selves. Kind of extraordinary, really.
   17. Kurt Posted: July 02, 2012 at 04:08 PM (#4171532)
Ray, the old thread is still viewable.
   18. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 02, 2012 at 04:09 PM (#4171533)
I don't mind moving the discussion to a new "July" thread. Just wondering: Did the other thread actually disappear, or can we still view it? Because it's not on my hot topics list anymore.

You can view it by using your History tab, and you can then save the thread in your Favorites. You'll be glad to know that the question about funding the Iraq war voluntarily is still there for you to answer, but if that's too much work I'll be glad to post it here for you.
   19. PreservedFish Posted: July 02, 2012 at 04:11 PM (#4171535)
What is the likelihood that any one comment in this thread will surpass #16 in novelty, interest and importance?
   20. Lassus Posted: July 02, 2012 at 04:14 PM (#4171537)
Or maybe it's been a discussion of the world's best rollercoasters for the last 900 posts. Who is brave enough to check?

There can be only one.
   21. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: July 02, 2012 at 04:17 PM (#4171539)
Speaking of sloths ... my wife and I were at the Milwaukee Zoo a couple years back, and saw one of the keepers cleaning out the sloth enclosure. It turns out that sloths can really move when they want to; they were jumping around the enclosure like monkeys. I had no idea they were capable of it.

Then the keeper finished her work, left, and the sloths went right back to being their normal motionless selves. Kind of extraordinary, really.


I've heard the same about Molinas.
   22. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 02, 2012 at 04:20 PM (#4171541)
I guess this means the other politics thread is being shut down?


It means that we have a third major OT thread, in addition to the NBA and Soccer monsters. Try not to cry too hard. Is it time to make fun TAFKaR yet?
   23. JE (Jason) Posted: July 02, 2012 at 04:26 PM (#4171545)
Interesting article on Jonathon Krohn -- viral video hit a few years ago at CPAC; now a Daily Show watching, gay marriage loving, ACA supporting 17 yo.

See, Ray? There's always hope!

I had no idea that Ray is only 13.
   24. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 02, 2012 at 04:36 PM (#4171551)
You can view it by using your History tab, and you can then save the thread in your Favorites. You'll be glad to know that the question about funding the Iraq war voluntarily is still there for you to answer, but if that's too much work I'll be glad to post it here for you.


My only trouble with answering it is that it kind of destroys the opportunity to see you continue to pose your easily answerable question over and over and over again. How many times has it been now, 10? 12?

But here:

And since you've repeatedly demonstrated that you're afraid to answer that perfectly legitimate question about voluntary funding of the Iraq war, I wonder if there are any less reticent libertarians out there who will give it a shot.

To repeat the question: If the solution to the health care / health insurance issue is to rely on voluntary contributions to pay for those who can't afford it, then why shouldn't those who opposed Bush's invasion of Iraq be equally able to have refused to pay taxes to subsidize the war? I have yet to see a coherent answer to this----or from Ray, any answer at all.


I don't see why you think this question is a "gotcha." For you and many of your fellow high-fivers here, it wasn't merely a matter of "supporting" the ACA. We were told we were selfish and lacking in compassion to not want to be forced to pay for health insurance for the have-nots. And all the while, y'all had the opportunity to reach into your own wallets and volunteer to pay for it even though us heartless bastards did not want to. Instead of doing that, you went the route of forcing us to pay. Your people were ultimately successful in doing that (I reiterate that I don't think there's a snowball's chance in formerly dp's house that efforts to repeal the law will be successful), but you didn't win any "compassion" game because you didn't group together to pay for anything yourselves.

   25. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: July 02, 2012 at 04:43 PM (#4171553)
Reposting from the closed thread, dialing back a page...
The [privatized retirement savings] bill allowed one to divert (*) a portion of the social security taxes one paid to a private account. But despite the label "privatization" that some used, it didn't actually eliminate the government social security system. And one was free to simply pay all of those taxes directly to the government (as we currently do) and not privately invest any of them.
This sounds like the ACA, though. People are given a choice whether to (A) to invest a portion of one's money in a private account or (B) leave their tax dollars with Social Security, but one is not free to not save for retirement. It's not called a mandate, but it acts in exactly that manner, since it requires everyone to become actors in that particular market.
   26. formerly dp Posted: July 02, 2012 at 04:44 PM (#4171555)
I don't mind moving the discussion to a new "July" thread.

4 PM, July 2, 2012: TAFKaR declares the new thread constitutional. And his subjects exhale, relieved.
   27. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: July 02, 2012 at 04:51 PM (#4171559)
4 PM, July 2, 2012: TAFKaR declares the new thread constitutional. And his subjects exhale, relieved.
Unlike Jonathan Kohn, TAFKaR has not yet become self-aware.
   28. thetailor Posted: July 02, 2012 at 04:53 PM (#4171560)
I had really high hopes for this article, in the vein of the Common Law Origins of the Infield Fly Rule. Oh well.
   29. formerly dp Posted: July 02, 2012 at 04:57 PM (#4171563)
I don't see why you think this question is a "gotcha." For you and many of your fellow high-fivers here, it wasn't merely a matter of "supporting" the ACA. We were told we were selfish and lacking in compassion to not want to be forced to pay for health insurance for the have-nots. And all the while, y'all had the opportunity to reach into your own wallets and volunteer to pay for it even though us heartless bastards did not want to.

How is this any different from, like, any other tax-funded social policy or initiative in a democracy? Replace ACA with "Iraq war", "prison", "new highway", "tax credit for having children", ect, and you've got the same equation. Your gripe is more with being a member of a democratic society than it is specific to ACA. When you lose, you want to be able to take your ball and go home. Most people learn to suppress this response before they grow to adulthood.

If it makes you feel better, think of those tax dollars as all going toward paying for something you like (funding for AI research?), instead of something you don't. You'll sleep better, and maybe even complain less.
   30. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 02, 2012 at 05:03 PM (#4171566)
How is this any different from, like, any other tax-funded social policy or initiative in a democracy? Replace ACA with "Iraq war", "prison", "new highway", "tax credit for having children", ect, and you've got the same equation. Your gripe is more with being a member of a democratic society than it is specific to ACA. When you lose, you want to be able to take your ball and go home


Well, to cut into the dog pile on TAFKaR, he's not being inconsistent here, he's just not answering your question outright for some reason. (What man can know the mind of TAFKaR on these things?) But he's been pretty clear in other conversations that he thinks all tax policy is theft - you know, the whole "at gunpoint" debacle? So I think the straight answer to your question of "if the ACA, why not voluntarily fund wars and roads and stuff" from Ray's POV is "yes, exactly. Why not?" Artists and other societal leeches don't get to use his privately funded roads, etc.
   31. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 02, 2012 at 05:10 PM (#4171570)
When you lose, you want to be able to take your ball and go home


don't we all want to be able to do that, even if we may not all act on the urge?

   32. Lassus Posted: July 02, 2012 at 05:16 PM (#4171574)
When you lose, you want to be able to take your ball and go home

When I was losing at air hockey in my youth, I had a move that would actually send the puck with pretty decent regularity into the guy's face. I actually drew blood once. So I wouldn't call that going home.
   33. formerly dp Posted: July 02, 2012 at 05:17 PM (#4171576)
So I think the straight answer to your question of "if the ACA, why not voluntarily fund wars and roads and stuff" from Ray's POV is "yes, exactly. Why not?" Artists and other societal leeches don't get to use his privately funded roads, etc.

I understand that. It just seems like his beef with ACA is indistinguishable from his beef with the whole concept of government. But then we're right back to the free rider problem-- all I have to do is shove my head in the sand/up my ass and claim I derive no benefit from ACA (or prisons, or the Iraq war, or the tax credit for having children, or public education). So yeah, I get the complaint, it just seems kind of dumb to have to relitigate the case for democratic governance every time things don't come out your way.
   34. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: July 02, 2012 at 05:22 PM (#4171579)
Who is brave enough to check?

They are stuck in a loop.

That's what happens when you outsource your algorithm development to India.
   35. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: July 02, 2012 at 05:30 PM (#4171584)
Over/under for this thread?

eta: We're going to need a ruling on this:

That was pretty exciting, although I think posts specifically about the bet shouldn't count toward the total.
   36. thetailor Posted: July 02, 2012 at 05:30 PM (#4171585)
When I was losing at air hockey in my youth, I had a move that would actually send the puck with pretty decent regularity into the guy's face. I actually drew blood once. So I wouldn't call that going home.

Everyone is a tough guy when the statute of limitations is up!
   37. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 02, 2012 at 05:31 PM (#4171587)
Guys, the issue is not taxes -- indeed, I don't think the mandate is actually a "tax" at all -- the issue is laws forcing others to do what self-professed "compassionate" people could have and should have done themselves. I (again, I will speak only for myself here, not for "libertarians") support laws that protect individual/property/contract rights. Free association. Etc. If I think A should have health insurance, I should pay for that myself, and not force B to foot the bill. This is a law that forces B to purchase a product in order to foot the bill, instead of the so-called compassionate people footing the bill themselves.

   38. Downtown Bookie Posted: July 02, 2012 at 05:31 PM (#4171588)
Over/Under for this thread?


Twenty-nine days.

DB
   39. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 02, 2012 at 05:38 PM (#4171591)
If I think A should have health insurance, I should pay for that myself, and not force B to foot the bill. This is a law that forces B to purchase a product in order to foot the bill, instead of the so-called compassionate people footing the bill themselves.


Do you recognize that there are functions where charity simply will not suffice to maintain a livable society?
   40. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: July 02, 2012 at 05:39 PM (#4171592)
Guys, the issue is not taxes -- indeed, I don't think the mandate is actually a "tax" at all -- the issue is laws forcing others to do what self-professed "compassionate" people could have and should have done themselves.
But hasn't that ship already sailed decades and decades ago? If this is just another law "forcing others to do what self-professed "compassionate" people could have and should have done themselves", then there's ten tons of precedent that says the ACA is constitutional.
   41. formerly dp Posted: July 02, 2012 at 05:39 PM (#4171593)
If I think A should have health insurance, I should pay for that myself, and not force B to foot the bill.

"If I think A should have children, I should pay for that myself, and not force B to foot the bill."

"If I think A should have a church, I should pay for that myself, and not force B to foot the bill."

Sometimes, it just sucks to live in a democracy. You have to pay for things you don't want to, like health care for poor people.
   42. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 02, 2012 at 05:41 PM (#4171594)
On to political strategery. I think the GOP drive to try to brand ACA as a terrible tax is not going to pay dividends.

1) Reality is against it (it is a really small penalty tax, well the mandate part anyway)
2) It is counter to the previous ACA branding (unconstitutional, death panels, etc...)
3) Romney is a terrible (comically bad) messenger for that particular message
4) Much of the US wants to move on (just saw a poll about that)
5) Talk of taxes (generically a GOP staple) allows the Dems to bring up the popular "Millionaire tax" more
6) Is not what the Romney campaign wants to talk about - Economy, Jobs, Obama bad!

But I don't think they can stop themselves. Am I underestimating the GOP message machine/efficacy of the message?
   43. thetailor Posted: July 02, 2012 at 05:42 PM (#4171596)
The issue is that the government is well within its power to require people to purchase insurance. The collective maintenance of insurance for certain things (automobile insurance, home insurance) is taken for granted as an obvious and necessary thing.

However, unlike with healthcare, there are obvious penalties for those who don't want to go along with the scheme and purchase those mandated insurances: if you don't insure your vehicle according to the law, you get tickets, your driver's license gets revoked, etc. If you don't maintain your insurance on your home, your lender will foreclose on you, or the state will intervene, etc. What is there to do for healthcare? We can't murder people who won't purchase health insurance.

Ultimately, making sure that everyone has access to affordable health care is not only the right thing to do, but it brings down costs for all. The question is how to get there.
   44. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 02, 2012 at 05:42 PM (#4171597)
Attempted hijack:

Global warming


1: The earth is warming and humans are causing it (CO2)
2: The earth is warming, but humans are not causing it (the sun, random variation, volcanoes etc etc.)
3: The earth is not warming, it is all a hoax.
4: The earth is not warming, natural variations are being misconstrued, measuring errors, etc ( a fave argument is that there are more measuring stations -just coincidentally- in areas that have had temperature rises- and less where temperatures have been lower- skewing the overall results)
5: The earth is warming- but less than has been reported
6: The earth is warming, and some part may be human activity related...

It's be noted that a belief in 3 & 4 above seems to be strongly related to political inclinations

I'll go slightly further- a belief in 3 seems to be strongly related to a belief in creationism- so strongly that I daresay that if global temperatures rose by 5 degrees over the next 10 years, and sea levels rose 10 feet (which no, not even the most alarming of the alarmists are predicting that)- that group would undoubtedly assert- the earth was not warming, what happened was that since people have been so wicked the Lord has engineered a mini-flood as a warning- and there is nothing we can do to reverse it- except re-ban gay marriage and kick the gays out of the military.


   45. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 02, 2012 at 05:44 PM (#4171598)
To repeat the question: If the solution to the health care / health insurance issue is to rely on voluntary contributions to pay for those who can't afford it, then why shouldn't those who opposed Bush's invasion of Iraq be equally able to have refused to pay taxes to subsidize the war? I have yet to see a coherent answer to this----or from Ray, any answer at all.

I don't see why you think this question is a "gotcha." For you and many of your fellow high-fivers here, it wasn't merely a matter of "supporting" the ACA. We were told we were selfish and lacking in compassion to not want to be forced to pay for health insurance for the have-nots. And all the while, y'all had the opportunity to reach into your own wallets and volunteer to pay for it even though us heartless bastards did not want to. Instead of doing that, you went the route of forcing us to pay. Your people were ultimately successful in doing that (I reiterate that I don't think there's a snowball's chance in formerly dp's house that efforts to repeal the law will be successful), but you didn't win any "compassion" game because you didn't group together to pay for anything yourselves.


That was a lovely filibuster, but you still didn't answer the question as to what makes this different from war supporters being asked to support the war with their own money instead of forcing the opponents (at gunpoint) to chip in.

Guys, the issue is not taxes -- indeed, I don't think the mandate is actually a "tax" at all -- the issue is laws forcing others to do what self-professed "compassionate" people could have and should have done themselves. I (again, I will speak only for myself here, not for "libertarians") support laws that protect individual/property/contract rights. Free association. Etc. If I think A should have health insurance, I should pay for that myself, and not force B to foot the bill. This is a law that forces B to purchase a product in order to foot the bill, instead of the so-called compassionate people footing the bill themselves.

Again, we got your point the first 10,000 times you've made it, since you've been making variants of it every time you get steamed about some "welfare" program.

But what makes the ACA different from the Iraq war? You say about health insurance for those who can't afford it: "It's your concern, why don't you pay for it?"

Is that the answer you'd give to those who supported the invasion of Iraq?----"It's your war, you pay for it"?
   46. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 02, 2012 at 05:45 PM (#4171599)
Oh yeah, by the way, thanks Jim. I like having a dedicated OT Politics thread each month. I hope it works out well.
   47. The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott) Posted: July 02, 2012 at 05:46 PM (#4171600)
No, it's just that the temperature hasn't changed and the sea levels haven't risen, and the climate scientists are all lying to make their big bucks and you're too stupid to see how they're using you. Unlike me, I know because I'm the smart one and I don't get suckered like you.
   48. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 02, 2012 at 05:48 PM (#4171603)
Am I underestimating the GOP message machine


yes...

4) Much of the US wants to move on (just saw a poll about that)


much of the US always wants to just move on, whatever the topic is...

apparently recent polling is showing a small bounce for both Obama and Obamacare, I assume both will be transitory- but reporting on such polling has gotten some wingers worked up into a fine froth regarding polling- they must be frauds because WE ARE OUTRAGED DAMMIT, AND EVERYONE WE KNOW IS ENRAGED, AND EVERYONE KNOWS THAT 63%* OF AMERICANS WANT OBAMACARE REPEALLED AND NO POLL CAN SHOW ANYTHING DIFFERENT

*I've seen the 63% figure bandied about quite often, I'm not sure what poll/article it originates from. but at some point it must have hit the official wingnut talking point disseminator
   49. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 02, 2012 at 05:49 PM (#4171604)
On to political strategery. I think the GOP drive to try to brand ACA as a terrible tax is not going to pay dividends.

...

But I don't think they can stop themselves. Am I underestimating the GOP message machine/efficacy of the message?
You always need to have an argument. "It's a tax!" is probably the best argument they have. But the Romney campaign doesn't need to "win" health care to win the election. They just need to "win" on the economy. So they'll just keep beating JobsTheEconomyJobsTheEconomy into the ground. While Romney is for obvious reasons among the worst possible standard bearers for an anti-Obamacare argument, I don't think that Zombie Reagan (or Zombie LBJ if the partisan lines were reversed) would do any differently. Obamacare polls as a 50/50 issue, or close enough to one, that it isn't a political winner for either party.
   50. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 02, 2012 at 05:51 PM (#4171606)
The issue is that the government is well within its power to require people to purchase insurance.


I would agree, as the "power" of the government was never in question - they have the guns, after all - the question is whether they have the right to compel this. And any such right would have to come from the Constitution. Alas, it does not.

The collective maintenance of insurance for certain things (automobile insurance, home insurance) is taken for granted as an obvious and necessary thing.


Do you notice that those who have automobile insurance have automobiles? That those with home insurance have homes? Those people already acted to purchase cars and homes. Someone sitting on his couch in his rented apartment with no car wasn't told to purchase home insurance or car insurance. Compare that with this situation, where someone sitting at home minding his own business is now compelled by law to purchase health insurance.
   51. Morty Causa Posted: July 02, 2012 at 05:55 PM (#4171608)
I had really high hopes for this article, in the vein of the Common Law Origins of the Infield Fly Rule. Oh well.


That's neat. We need to coordinate this with Carlin's early routine that includes the bit about holding hostages until the infield fly rule is repealed.
   52. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 02, 2012 at 05:59 PM (#4171611)
Do you notice that those who have automobile insurance have automobiles? That those with home insurance have homes? Those people already acted to purchase cars and homes. Someone sitting on his couch in his rented apartment with no car wasn't told to purchase home insurance or car insurance. Compare that with this situation, where someone sitting at home minding his own business is now compelled by law to purchase health insurance.

But unless you're willing to let that "someone" die on the street if he gets run over by a bus and gets his legs smashed, he's not going to be "minding his own business" once the hospital bill arrives and the rest of us are stuck with it.

He's going to be---what's the word?---a "freeloader", and if he can afford to buy insurance there's absolutely no philosophical justification for not requiring him to obtain it----unless again, your position is that we should simply refuse him treatment, or just keep him alive but let him remain a cripple rather than fixing his broken legs.
   53. Zipperholes Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:00 PM (#4171614)
I thought the main thrust of the health care bill was to set up a system whereby it's economically feasible for insurers to insure--and thus be prohibited from denying--people with preexisting conditions. Not people paying for the health care of those who can't afford it.
   54. Morty Causa Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:04 PM (#4171619)
So I think the straight answer to your question of "if the ACA, why not voluntarily fund wars and roads and stuff" from Ray's POV is "yes, exactly. Why not?" Artists and other societal leeches don't get to use his privately funded roads, etc.


Milo Minderbinder lives! Take the respective governments out of war. Let free enterprise contract with the parties and take care of it.

And for medical care--use The Soldier in White principle. Just switch the input and output jars when it is time.
   55. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:08 PM (#4171622)
#53 - exactly right. The system is a tripod.

1) Regulation of insurance to provide affordable care to everyone who can pay
2) Subsidization of insurance and Medicaid expansion to provide affordable care to everyone who can't pay
3) Mandate to purchase insurance to stave off adverse selection effects and fully fund the private insurance system

Most countries with universal care fund a central government payor through the tax system. If you're going to have universal health insurance without a central government payor, some other form universal buy-in is necessary.
   56. Morty Causa Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:08 PM (#4171623)
1) Reality is against it (it is a really small penalty tax, well the mandate part anyway)


Not only that, it's unenforceable unless you have a refund coming back to you. There are no criminal or civil sanctions. You can't bring them to criminal court and you can't place a lien on property or garnish bank accounts or wages, etc. It's a pretty pathetic bill, but it's a start.

   57. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:10 PM (#4171624)
I thought the main thrust of the health care bill was to set up a system whereby it's economically feasible for insurers to insure--and thus be prohibited from denying--people with preexisting conditions. Not people paying for the health care of those who can't afford it.


You need to take it back a step further. Why didn't these people with pre-existing conditions have insurance? Because they either didn't want it or couldn't afford it. What this bill does is say that you can't "not want it" anymore -- you are required to purchase it -- and if you "can't afford it" (as judged by income level), well, then, we won't force you to purchase it - we'll just force other people to pay for you instead.

Since people were already getting free emergency room care, and since this scheme is not really "insurance" at all (insurance is when a group of people VOLUNTARILY band together and AGREE to pool THEIR assets according to RISK), then at its core this is a wealth redistribution, although this time it's not being done through taxing but by requiring people by law to participate in the market.

Instead, this scheme is a group of people being FORCED BY LAW to band together WHETHER THEY AGREE OR NOT to pool their assets but NOT according to risk so that SOME people who have put NO assets in get to be in the group and reap the benefits. And that ain't insurance.
   58. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:13 PM (#4171629)
#44: 1, with a caveat. There may be other causes in addition to man's impact, but man is contributing.

#54: Took me a second to get the Catch-22 reference. Long time since I read it.
   59. Morty Causa Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:13 PM (#4171630)
The issue is that the government is well within its power to require people to purchase insurance. The collective maintenance of insurance for certain things (automobile insurance, home insurance) is taken for granted as an obvious and necessary thing.


Yes. I mean, there's the entire Social Security Act, including the tax for Medicare. At one time, not long ago, people who were not covered by Social Security did not pay a tax for Medicare and thus were not eligible or entitled to receive it. Then that changed. Those under retirement systems that excluded Social Security coverage could still pay that part of the Medicare tax so as to be covered. Guess what, those systems and those people jump on it like stink on broccoli.
   60. Zipperholes Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:15 PM (#4171632)
Why didn't these people with pre-existing conditions have insurance? Because they either didn't want it or couldn't afford it.
I think a lot of people with preexisting conditions weren't able to buy insurance at any price.
   61. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:15 PM (#4171633)
Why didn't these people with pre-existing conditions have insurance? Because they either didn't want it or couldn't afford it.


This is incorrect, or at best incomplete, and what is worse you know it. Shame on you.
   62. JE (Jason) Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:15 PM (#4171634)
You always need to have an argument. "It's a tax!" is probably the best argument they have. But the Romney campaign doesn't need to "win" health care to win the election. They just need to "win" on the economy. So they'll just keep beating JobsTheEconomyJobsTheEconomy into the ground. While Romney is for obvious reasons among the worst possible standard bearers for an anti-Obamacare argument, I don't think that Zombie Reagan (or Zombie LBJ if the partisan lines were reversed) would do any differently. Obamacare polls as a 50/50 issue, or close enough to one, that it isn't a political winner for either party.

MCoA, I agree with the first part. Social Security and Medicare enjoyed broad public support when passed and ever since, whereas Obamacare has consistently polled under 50%. In any event, the lousy economy would be issue no. 1 for Romney even if he didn't have the baggage.
   63. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:20 PM (#4171640)
Beginning next month, insurers who don't spend 90% of their premiums on care will be forced to start issuing refund checks. Think that'll tweak the polling numbers?
   64. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:21 PM (#4171642)
1) Regulation of insurance to provide affordable care to everyone who can pay
2) Subsidization of insurance and Medicaid expansion to provide affordable care to everyone who can't pay
3) Mandate to purchase insurance to stave off adverse selection effects and fully fund the private insurance system


I wish people would stop using the word "affordable" in this context. The lie in using that word is that insurance was already affordable. The vast majority of people were able to "afford it," and so it was already "affordable," pretty much by definition. (Contrast that with the low percentage of the population who, say, own their own plane or mansion or have a chauffer.) Insurance was as "affordable" as a car or a home or anything like that, which people already could "afford."

If you couldn't afford it, the problem was not the cost of the insurance. The problem lied elsewhere. It is just misleading and deceptive to use that word to describe insurance.
   65. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:25 PM (#4171646)
Why didn't these people with pre-existing conditions have insurance? Because they either didn't want it or couldn't afford it.

I think a lot of people with preexisting conditions weren't able to buy insurance at any price.


Yes, not once they had the preexisting condition. But before they had it, they were. Which is of course the state in the state diagram that I'm speaking about.
   66. greenback calls it soccer Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:26 PM (#4171648)
insurance is when a group of people VOLUNTARILY band together and AGREE to pool THEIR assets according to RISK

You should be familiar with the concept of "social insurance", which is generally not voluntarily. Social insurance schemes make sense in situations where adverse selection would otherwise be prominent.

So in which OT thread does this belong?
   67. Zipperholes Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:30 PM (#4171650)
Yes, not once they had the preexisting condition. But before they had it, they were. Which is of course the state in the state diagram that I'm speaking about.
That's irrelevant to the issue we're discussing, which is that the thrust of the bill was to establish a system in which people with preexisting conditions could obtain insurance.
   68. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:31 PM (#4171651)
You need to take it back a step further. Why didn't these people with pre-existing conditions have insurance? Because they either didn't want it or couldn't afford it.


Or they were born with heart arrythmia or something.
   69. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:32 PM (#4171652)
I wish people would stop using the word "affordable" in this context. The lie in using that word is that insurance was already affordable. The vast majority of people were able to "afford it," and so it was already "affordable," pretty much by definition.
That's not how language works. The meaning of words is not determined by the meanings of their component parts.

Would you call a $3000 suit "affordable"? Technically, most people could find the money for that suit somewhere, if they cut back on consumption in other areas. That's not how the word is ever used - "affordable" is used in contexts which presume a household budget typical for people at a certain income level.
   70. Morty Causa Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:34 PM (#4171653)
Do you notice that those who have automobile insurance have automobiles? That those with home insurance have homes? Those people already acted to purchase cars and homes. Someone sitting on his couch in his rented apartment with no car wasn't told to purchase home insurance or car insurance. Compare that with this situation, where someone sitting at home minding his own business is now compelled by law to purchase health insurance.


And the presumption, which is as close to irrefutable as can be, is that people will avail themselves of medical care, so they should have medical insurance. Medical care costs, one way or the other, and to extent we can make them pay, they should pay. To extent government can systematize it, it can. Just like for Social Security and Medicare, there's no opting, except under strenuous circumstances where you have what is recognized as equivalent substitute. You're going to drive a car, you have to have insurance; you're going to use medical care, you have to have insurance or pay a penalty/fee/fine/bond. It's not abstruse.
   71. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:35 PM (#4171655)
[66] The jokes just write themselves ...


The front of the jerseys for FC New York, which plays in National Premier Soccer League, will feature Romney’s name and his campaign slogan, “Believe in America.” The league stands in the fourth level of the U.S. soccer hierarchy.

Romney’s name will appear on the pink and white jerseys for the rest of the season, which lasts another nine days.


Fourth rate team for a 3rd rate politician ...
   72. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:36 PM (#4171656)
That's irrelevant to the issue we're discussing, which is that the thrust of the bill was to establish a system in which people with preexisting conditions could obtain insurance.


Whatever its merits as a policy, this is not insurance. This is welfare. Or free riding off the backs of others. Because there is no way any premium from "insurance" will cover your condition at that point.

The idea that it's just so evil for the insurer not to offer you a policy once your house is burning down (or once you have a preexisting condition) is one of the most unfortunate pieces of propaganda put out by liberals. It would make no rational economic sense for anyone to offer you a policy at that point. It doesn't make them bad people.
   73. Morty Causa Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:37 PM (#4171657)
What this bill does is say that you can't "not want it" anymore -- you are required to purchase it -- and if you "can't afford it" (as judged by income level), well, then, we won't force you to purchase it - we'll just force other people to pay for you instead.


Just like Social Security. Many people couldn't afford to save for retirement. They pay what they can, when they can, and others take up the slack. You'll be surprised what you can afford if comes off the top.

   74. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:37 PM (#4171658)
.
   75. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:39 PM (#4171659)
The idea that it's just so evil for the insurer not to offer you a policy once your house is burning down (or once you have a preexisting condition) is one of the most unfortunate pieces of propaganda put out by liberals. It would make no rational economic sense for anyone to offer you a policy at that point.
This is precisely why there's a mandate. In order to make it feasible for health insurance companies to offer affordable rates to people with pre-existing conditions, you need near universal buy-in from people who don't (or aren't likely to) consume more health care than they pay for.
   76. formerly dp Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:45 PM (#4171660)
insurance is when a group of people VOLUNTARILY band together and AGREE to pool THEIR assets according to RISK

TAFKaR hath decreed: this is the only possible definition of insurance.

Keeping this as a conflict between machinic entities: The Socialist Knowledge Kollectiv Known as Wikipedia (TSKKKaW) disagrees.

If you couldn't afford it, the problem was not the cost of the insurance

So TAFKaR hath decreed unto his subjects.

For a guy who insists on evidence for every claim every made, your argument that insurance is affordable came down to "some people without health insurance have iPhones and flat screen TVs." It wasn't backed up by anything resembling math or serious thought; basically it was just a rehashing of '80s welfare queen stories.

My sister is jobless (post-college) right now and her COBRA's expiring. She's paraplegic, and hunting for a job with health insurance, but failing that, she's trying to buy some insurance. The last quote she got was roughly $1000 a month. COBRA's costing her around $500 right now. Even if you don't mind living out of a tent, that's not "affordable." It seems like you have no concept of what insurance actually costs, but have no problem telling us that people without it could easily afford it.
   77. Lassus Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:45 PM (#4171662)
Yes, not once they had the preexisting condition. But before they had it, they were.

Yes, when I was eleven years old. And totally lazy about my finances.
   78. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:45 PM (#4171663)
That's not how language works. The meaning of words is not determined by the meanings of their component parts.

Would you call a $3000 suit "affordable"? Technically, most people could find the money for that suit somewhere, if they cut back on consumption in other areas. That's not how the word is ever used - "affordable" is used in contexts which presume a household budget typical for people at a certain income level.


No. That is how liberals use the word - as a marketing label when they want to pass their pet redistribution bills. Such as their "Affordable Housing Act" or whatever it was called.

The fact that some people can't afford a loaf of bread does not make bread "unaffordable."

---

And why couldn't people "find the money" for health insurance, if they had it but just needed to reallocate? We've been told that health insurance is SO IMPORTANT, that people can't go without it, that they might GO BANKRUPT if they didn't have it. Your argument that they had the money but prioritized other things over it proves too much.

I wouldn't call a $3,000 affordable to the vast majority of people. And I also wouldn't call a $3,000 suit important. If people thought it was so important to have a $3,000 suit -- like they think it important to have a $20,000 car -- they would reallocate. Why didn't they do that with health insurance? Because they decided health insurance wasn't that important to them. That in no way means that health insurance wasn't "affordable" for them.
   79. Morty Causa Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:45 PM (#4171664)
Yes, not once they had the preexisting condition. But before they had it, they were. Which is of course the state in the state diagram that I'm speaking about.


But let's not consider that?

How about the paying of medicines? Medicines can run you thousands of dollars a month if you're not covered by insurance? Example: for Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia, Gleevec is over $4K for a month's supply; the backup Sprycel is ovre $8K for a 30-day supply. Who will pay that if you don't have insurance and you can't pay otherwise?
   80. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:50 PM (#4171667)
The idea that it's just so evil for the insurer not to offer you a policy once your house is burning down (or once you have a preexisting condition) is one of the most unfortunate pieces of propaganda put out by liberals. It would make no rational economic sense for anyone to offer you a policy at that point. It doesn't make them bad people.


I have never heard of anyone but you saying this as a straw man. People do say insurance companies are evil (mostly because they are), but no one expects a policy on a burning house. Because your pre-existing condition/burning house analogy is deeply flawed (as we have discussed pretty much every time you bring it up).
   81. Morty Causa Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:50 PM (#4171668)
Whatever its merits as a policy, this is not insurance. This is welfare. Or free riding off the backs of others. Because there is no way any premium from "insurance" will cover your condition at that point.


And what was it when the insurer was young and healthy and the insurance company was collecting a premium but paying out little or nothing in care--and getting to invest those premiums in those boom markets? Was that welfare for the insurance companies? Then when the market go bust, they raise the premiums? Sweeet.
   82. Zipperholes Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:51 PM (#4171669)
If people thought it was so important to have a $3,000 suit -- like they think it important to have a $20,000 car -- they would reallocate. Why didn't they do that with health insurance? Because they decided health insurance wasn't that important to them.
No, because they weren't able to obtain insurance with a preexisting condition. The problem isn't the people who just chose not to buy insurance; these aren't the people driving up health care costs. This has already been explained.
   83. Tripon Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:51 PM (#4171670)

The idea that it's just so evil for the insurer not to offer you a policy once your house is burning down (or once you have a preexisting condition) is one of the most unfortunate pieces of propaganda put out by liberals. It would make no rational economic sense for anyone to offer you a policy at that point. It doesn't make them bad people.


The comparison actually would be if you could opt out of say, service by the local fire department and because of whatever reason you refuse to pay the annual, and then your house catches on fire. You're pleading with the fire department, who shows on your doorstep and *they* refuse to do anything to stop the fire, and are only really there because they want to make sure the fire doesn't spread out to other houses who did pay the annual fee. You might think this is ridicoulious and it doesn't happen, but read this story.

Now, that's evil and cold blooded.
   84. formerly dp Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:51 PM (#4171671)
How about the paying of medicines? Medicines can run you thousands of dollars a month if you're not covered by insurance? Example: for Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia, Gleevec is over $4K for a month's supply; the backup
Sprycel is ovre $8K for a 30-day supply. Who will pay that if you don't have insurance and you can't pay otherwise?


Do society a favor and die already, cancer boy.
   85. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:53 PM (#4171673)
When did Ray start CAPITALIZING for emphasis like a YOUTUBE commenter? It's OFF-PUTTING.
   86. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 02, 2012 at 06:53 PM (#4171675)
they might GO BANKRUPT if they didn't have it.


Well since 60% of bankruptcy is caused by medical bills, then yeah it just might here in the real world.

EDIT: And many of them have insurance already, but with life time maximums, co-pay, insurance company weaseling and so on even insurance is no guarantee (but it helps, especially since ACA limits some of that).
   87. formerly dp Posted: July 02, 2012 at 07:00 PM (#4171680)
When did Ray start CAPITALIZING for emphasis like a YOUTUBE commenter? It's OFF-PUTTING.

VIRUS
   88. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 02, 2012 at 07:02 PM (#4171681)
Matt -- Part of my capitalizing was because I was editing and I don't know how to bold or italicize words once I'm in editing mode.

Regardless, I think your idea that we should judge what is "affordable" by looking at those who can least afford it, rather than by what the vast majority of people can afford, is ridiculous.
   89. Srul Itza Posted: July 02, 2012 at 07:02 PM (#4171682)
Since mine was the last post before Jim shut it down --

1395. Srul Itza Posted: July 02, 2012 at 03:37 PM (#4171504)

I said the ACA is unconstitutional. The Court ruled. I said the Court was wrong. And since you think the Court was right, you (and whoever else also thinks that) are also wrong.



No, what you said was "it's not even close", as if it was inconceivable that anyone could possibly disagree with you, implying that the many scholars, judges and justices who did disagree with you must be liars or insane or incurably stupid. It is this type of hubris that calls forth the hounds.

Edit
   90. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 02, 2012 at 07:06 PM (#4171685)
Regardless, I think your idea that we should judge what is "affordable" by looking at those who can least afford it, rather than by what the vast majority of people can afford, is ridiculous.
The goal is for health care to be affordable for everyone, not just to the "vast majority". This means finding a way to get people with pre-existing conditions, for whom health care will not be affordable, into the system. This means finding funding for people with very low incomes to get health care - for most poor folks, there's Medicaid and the Medicaid expansion, and for the remaining small minority of people, there are further subsidies.

So, you get the Medicaid expansion and subsidies for the latter two groups, and community rating for the former. In order to cover the costs of the subsidies and Medicaid expansion, you get the "excise tax" on insurance plans to force insurance companies and health care providers to cut costs. In order to cover the costs of community rating, you get the mandate.
   91. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 02, 2012 at 07:07 PM (#4171686)
Regardless, I think your idea that we should judge what is "affordable" by looking at those who can least afford it, rather than by what the vast majority of people can afford, is ridiculous.


You raise a good point. How does one define affordable? Or, what percent of uninsured is OK? My answer is much lower than yours I suspect, since I think 100% is just about right.
   92. Heinie Mantush (Krusty) Posted: July 02, 2012 at 07:08 PM (#4171687)
So, now that the ACA stands, we're all agreed that the sensible next step is to extend ACA exchanges to include the 65+ bracket in exchange for Medicare being universally available as a public option? Maybe streamline the state exchanges into a single national insurance exchange and get rid of state monopolies while we're at it? That should foster market competition.
   93. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 02, 2012 at 07:18 PM (#4171692)
It would make no rational economic sense for anyone to offer you a policy at that point.


Exactly. That's what I've been saying forever. Health outcomes don't function properly on a profit/loss, "free market" mechanism. Congratulations. You've just stated simply why health insurance should be single-payer and universal.
   94. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 02, 2012 at 07:20 PM (#4171695)
The fact that the ACA withstood the constitutional challenge doesn't mean that there is any chance of further leftish reform passing Congress. A filibuster-proof majority in the Senate is a once-in-a-generation thing. It's possible that Obamacare will prove popular enough that further leftish reforms will become possible even without a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, but that will take at least 5-10 years. It's possible that the filibuster will be finally removed from the books, but that's much more likely to happen under Republican control of the Senate (and House and Presidency), and then leftish reforms would only be possible after another shift of power, so again it's 5-10 years minimum.

And in 5-10 years, unless the law is repealed by President Romney, we'll have a much better idea of how the system works and what reforms it needs. (I like the Medicare public option, of course, but that was fought tooth-and-nail by insurance companies the first time around already. I don't know what will both be a good reform and be sale-able to entrenched business interests.)
   95. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 02, 2012 at 07:21 PM (#4171696)
Regardless, I think your idea that we should judge what is "affordable" by looking at those who can least afford it, rather than by what the vast majority of people can afford, is ridiculous.

Is it really that hard to grasp the concept that what may be affordable to some people----is not affordable to others? And is it that hard to understand that when people say that insurance is unaffordable----they're talking about people who can't afford it?

Of course the third concept is completely beyond your reach: The idea that people whose income is $25,000 a year can't afford to pay half of that for health insurance. All that says is that you find the whole idea of a social contract unacceptable and immoral, but then we've known that since 3:42 PM EST on March 13th, 2007.

And BTW since you keep ducking the Iraq war funding question, why should we pay for freeloaders who use the emergency rooms?
   96. Brian C Posted: July 02, 2012 at 07:23 PM (#4171697)
You folks (by which I mostly mean, 'Ray') understand that "unaffordable" is a relative term, right? Something can be "unaffordable" for someone and affordable for someone else. It's perfectly legitimate to say that something is unaffordable for lots of people even though others can easily afford it.

It's a nonsensical thing to object to.

EDIT: What Andy said in his first paragraph of #95.
   97. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 02, 2012 at 07:41 PM (#4171705)
You folks (by which I mostly mean, 'Ray') understand that "unaffordable" is a relative term, right? Something can be "unaffordable" for someone and affordable for someone else.


And we're back to philosophy of language!
   98. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 02, 2012 at 07:43 PM (#4171707)
And BTW since you keep ducking the Iraq war funding question, why should we pay for freeloaders who use the emergency rooms?

Because Ronald Reagan signed that law into being, not Obama. You're such a silly.
   99. Lassus Posted: July 02, 2012 at 07:44 PM (#4171708)
I will admit, I actually find the constant questions to Ray about who will pay for this and who will pay for that to be a little weird. Ray thinks whomever is getting something should be the one paying. If you don't volunteer to pay for something you're not getting, you shouldn't be paying.

I mean, he didn't bother to say how a juvenile diabetic would manage to get insurance when he developed his pre-existing condition as a juvenile, but if you don't understand his answer is "tough, work", then at this point I'd say - debate-wise - the problem is yours, not his.
   100. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 02, 2012 at 07:49 PM (#4171709)
I will admit, I actually find the constant questions to Ray about who will pay for this and who will pay for that to be a little weird. Ray thinks whomever is getting something should be the one paying. If you don't volunteer to pay for something you're not getting, you shouldn't be paying.
No, that isn't quite his position. That's David's position.

Ray has endorsed current US law under which emergency rooms must provide care regardless of ability to pay. His position does require some finessing if he's going to support that while opposing more direct forms of social insurance.
Page 1 of 41 pages  1 2 3 4 5 6 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
A triple short of the cycle
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(4669 - 1:47pm, Oct 30)
Last: The Good Face

NewsblogMadison Bumgarner, World Series legend - McCovey Chronicles
(65 - 1:44pm, Oct 30)
Last: Der-K and the statistical werewolves.

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(589 - 1:33pm, Oct 30)
Last: A Fatty Cow That Need Two Seats

NewsblogSan Francisco Giants at Kansas City Royals - October 29, 2014 | MLB.com Box
(68 - 1:33pm, Oct 30)
Last: Booey

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(980 - 1:29pm, Oct 30)
Last: madvillain

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-30-2014
(13 - 1:19pm, Oct 30)
Last: JJ1986

NewsblogJoe Maddon is to become Cubs manager, sources say
(98 - 1:19pm, Oct 30)
Last: McCoy

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 7 OMNICHATTER
(1438 - 1:16pm, Oct 30)
Last: Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1959 Ballot
(11 - 1:05pm, Oct 30)
Last: neilsen

NewsblogHeyman: Pablo Sandoval is on Boston's 3B wish list, but so is Chase Headley
(30 - 1:05pm, Oct 30)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogRoad maps to pitching success in Game 7 | FOX Sports
(10 - 12:39pm, Oct 30)
Last: The Chronicles of Reddick

NewsblogVanguard after the Revolution | NBC SportsWorld
(52 - 12:13pm, Oct 30)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogStatcast: Butler chugs home
(1 - 11:38am, Oct 30)
Last: Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos

NewsblogJapan Times: Nakamura belts three-run homer in 10th to put Hawks one win away from Japan Series title
(10 - 11:32am, Oct 30)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

NewsblogAngell: The World Series is Almost Over
(1 - 9:22am, Oct 30)
Last: sotapop

Page rendered in 0.9582 seconds
52 querie(s) executed