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 6 of 41 pages ‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 >  Last ›
   501. BrianBrianson Posted: July 04, 2012 at 12:44 PM (#4173021)
Now, for the record, Hume noted the errors in both of these guys, but that's another story. Suffice to say that Hobbes has the force of history and science on his side. Evolution does not promote Locke's ideas very well, etc.


Libertarianism is an ideological position, so don't try to bring facts or experience into it. All they can do is not answer, then everybody picks on them.
   502. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 04, 2012 at 12:50 PM (#4173024)
And David, since you're not a complete coward like Ray, maybe you'll tell us if you think that an Iraq war opponent should have been compelled to pay taxes for that war, when he had no interest at all in its outcome, or thought that Bush's policies were only going to make things much worse. Why shouldn't the Pentagon have relied on voluntary contributions from hawks and defense contractors to finance their adventure?


Andy, I don't mind if you disagree with me, or insult me, or even if you call me names. I do mind when you tell lies about me, as you've been doing over and over again. I answered this question hundreds of posts ago. The Iraq thing is different, for a number of reasons. President Bush had the power and the right to go to war, authorized by Congress and supported by the Constitution, while Congress did not have the right to pass the ACA and President Obama did not have the right to sign it - because the mandate is unconstitutional. And the mandate is not a tax. And if you were "compassionate" you would have gotten your closest 50 million compassionate liberal friends together and paid for the health care for everyone who couldn't pay yourself. All you needed to do was to organize and write checks and give away your money. It's not hard; charities do this all the time. In the Iraq situation, before Bush went to war, right wingers could have collected all the donations they wanted. But they couldn't have forced Bush into war, and they couldn't have gone to war themselves. Contra the health care situation where you compassionate volunteers could indeed have accomplished the objective of providing health insurance for everyone yourselves. I never objected to the right of government to tax people and use the taxes for whatever legitimate purpose they wish. I do object to the government mandating people to purchase a product, and then fining people for not purchasing the product, in order to gain revenue that was gotten improperly. That is not a legitimate function of our government, per the constitution.

That is my answer to your Iraq question. You may disagree with it. You may not like it. But please don't ever lie again and say I didn't answer it.
   503. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 04, 2012 at 02:16 PM (#4173063)
Andy, I don't mind if you disagree with me, or insult me, or even if you call me names. I do mind when you tell lies about me, as you've been doing over and over again. I answered this question hundreds of posts ago.

What BS. The only time you even acknowledged my question about the Iraq war was in this exchange:

24. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 02, 2012 at 04:36 PM (#4171551)
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.


Which was a complete non-answer. Neither "Iraq" nor "war" were even mentioned anywhere in that post above.

But now to continue with your belated response:

The Iraq thing is different, for a number of reasons. President Bush had the power and the right to go to war, authorized by Congress and supported by the Constitution, while Congress did not have the right to pass the ACA and President Obama did not have the right to sign it - because the mandate is unconstitutional. And the mandate is not a tax.

Never mind that the Supreme Court upheld the law---tell me how you knew anything about the constitutionality of the mandate, or whether it qualified as a tax, prior to the Supreme Court decision, considering that the mandate's constitutionality had been upheld by several lower courts.

And of course since the ACA has now been upheld, it's every bit as much of a fact of life as those Iraq war appropriations had been in 2003. Which means that you still haven't answered the moral / philosophical distinction between mandating individuals to pay for a war they oppose and complying with a law they oppose. Both the war and ACA have been cleared by the Supreme Court, so whatever distinction you wish to make will have to be on that moral / philosophical level, and up to now you still haven't made that case.

And if you were "compassionate" you would have gotten your closest 50 million compassionate liberal friends together and paid for the health care for everyone who couldn't pay yourself. All you needed to do was to organize and write checks and give away your money. It's not hard; charities do this all the time. In the Iraq situation, before Bush went to war, right wingers could have collected all the donations they wanted.

But we're not talking about "before Bush went to war", we're talking about the funding for the war after the decision was made. Why should war opponents then have been forced to contribute their taxes to the war effort?

But they couldn't have forced Bush into war, and they couldn't have gone to war themselves.

Nothing other than inconvenience was stopping them from going over there and joining the local opposition parties.

Contra the health care situation where you compassionate volunteers could indeed have accomplished the objective of providing health insurance for everyone yourselves. I never objected to the right of government to tax people and use the taxes for whatever legitimate purpose they wish. I do object to the government mandating people to purchase a product, and then fining people for not purchasing the product, in order to gain revenue that was gotten improperly. That is not a legitimate function of our government, per the constitution.

That's an argument against the ACA's passage. That's also a brief against the law's constitutionality, prior to last Thursday. That's not an argument for why anyone today has a moral or philosophical right not to comply with the law.

That is my answer to your Iraq question. You may disagree with it. You may not like it. But please don't ever lie again and say I didn't answer it.

You've given a partial and non sequiturish response, three full days after I first posed it. Better late than never, I guess.
   504. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: July 04, 2012 at 02:19 PM (#4173064)
I suppose it could have been part of a nefarious plot to trick us into paying for something we didn't need to pay

I don't think it's a plot; I think it's SOP. Lots of providers bill patients for whatever, figuring that even if a very small percentage of the saps write them a check, that's literally money in the bank. As others have noted, ACA tries to reform some of these abuses.


This is a good reason I am for single payer. Let the government bean counters fight with the hospital bean counters and leave the sick non-professionals (non bean counters) out of it. Of course that follows from my belief health care is a human right and my feeling that the government could run it better than a crazy quilt of government and insurance companies.

Amen

Shortly after my mother died 2.5 years ago, my father became very ill and was hospitalized for about 2 weeks. I began handling his financial affairs, and still do to this day. A few months after his hospitalization I received the bill. The total was ~ $32,000, with medicare paying a few thousand, my Dad billed for just under a thousand, and $27,000 waived, ostensibly some sort of Medicare provision. I paid the thousand and went on with life.

About 6 months later I got a bill for the remaining $27,000. I called the hospital, and after some digging, was told it was a mistake and ignore it. A few months after that, I got a past due notice for the $27,000. I ignored it until I got a notice from a collection agency. So I went round and round with the hospital again, this time insisting they send me something in writing that the bill was fully discharged, which they did. A year later, I got a first notice bill for $27,000. I ignored it until I got a past due notice for $27,000. I then called the hospital again, but the person who had resolved it before was no longer working there. As the new person started to explain why the bill was due, I cut her off and requested a fax number, and told her that was going to fax the document stating the bill has been discharged and that was the last time I was ever going to respond to them, and if I ever heard from them or any collections agency again I was hiring a lawyer.

Currently, I getting the run around from my insurance concerning some dental work. I had an infected tooth which over the years had eroded the bone. I had to have the tooth extracted and then a bone graft, and eventually an implant. I checked the policy restrictions to make sure it was covered, and found that the implant had to be pre-approved. As I needed 6 months or so for the bone to regrow prior to the implant, I wasn't in a hurry and had the extraction and bone graft. Well, turns out the bone graft wasn't covered, because they only cover bone grafts as part of an approved implant procedure. That was not written anywhere in the policy, but supposedly it's "common knowledge" that bone grafts are only done if an implant is anticipated. Jeeze louise, like someone not in the health care or insurance industry is supposed to know that.
   505. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 04, 2012 at 02:20 PM (#4173065)
The mandate does not force anyone to buy insurance. It offers a choice, it incentivizes one behavior by penalizing you for not engaging in it.


Like the woman who is raped is offered a choice? The man does not force her to sleep with him. He offers a choice! He incentivizes her to sleep with him by penalizing her for not sleeping with him.

And it can only penalize you if you are already engaging in economic activity (ie, not for just "sitting on your couch"). The state incentivizes having children and home ownership through the tax code as well. I fail to see how doing so equates to state tyranny and the death of freedom.


This has all been explained to you.

These cries of state oppression coming from society's most privileged class always seem to ring a bit hollow.


Why would people exempt from the mandate feel oppressed by the ACA?
   506. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 04, 2012 at 02:23 PM (#4173068)
But there are lots of little bullies in everyone's life. Obamacare trades freedom to not purchase insurance for freedom to have it available,


Everyone already had "freedom" to have insurance. Just like everyone has the "freedom" to buy their own jet. They may not have had the means. That is a separate issue, having nothing to do with "freedom."
   507. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 04, 2012 at 02:33 PM (#4173072)
Andy, I don't mind if you disagree with me, or insult me, or even if you call me names. I do mind when you tell lies about me, as you've been doing over and over again. I answered this question hundreds of posts ago.

What BS. The only time you even acknowledged my question about the Iraq war was in this exchange:

24. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 02, 2012 at 04:36 PM (#4171551)

...

Which was a complete non-answer. Neither "Iraq" nor "war" were even mentioned anywhere in that post above.


And so you answered my charge that you were lying, because I had already answered it, by quoting the post where I answered it.
   508. tshipman Posted: July 04, 2012 at 02:37 PM (#4173073)
Everyone already had "freedom" to have insurance. Just like everyone has the "freedom" to buy their own jet. They may not have had the means. That is a separate issue, having nothing to do with "freedom."


So someone born with a heart arrhythmia had the freedom to purchase insurance?

   509. formerly dp Posted: July 04, 2012 at 02:40 PM (#4173075)
Like the woman who is raped is offered a choice? The man does not force her to sleep with him. He offers a choice! He incentivizes her to sleep with him by penalizing her for not sleeping with him.

This is the absurdity of the Libertarian position-- they compare a small fine for noncompliance to rape.

Ray, you suck at analogies.

This has all been explained to you.

Was that the part where you made some stuff up and pretended you convinced people? The state incentivizes behavior through the tax code. It incentivizes property ownership, having children, charitable donations, and all sorts of other behaviors. You cannot be assessed the (small) fine for noncompliance if you have not earned any income, just as I cannot be penalized for not having children unless I have earned income.

This is the state tyranny you're whining about (from Forbes):
there is the issue of whether the IRS can collect the tax if someone refuses to either buy insurance or pay the fine. The ACA says the IRS should enforce the law by imposing a tax penalty—but then effectively blocks the agency from using most of the tools it normally uses to go after tax scofflaws.

The ACA bars the IRS from bringing a criminal enforcement case against someone who refuses to pay the non-insurance penalty. And it makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for it to enforce a tax lien. Law professors Jordan Barry and Bryan Camp have a nice piece in Tax Notes explaining it all.

That leaves only one tool—the IRS can subtract the penalty from any refund it owes a taxpayer. But that applies only if the IRS happens to owe somebody a refund. These days, two-thirds of taxpayers get one, but it is usually their choice.

Only low-income households who receive refundable credits, such as the Earned Income Credit, always get refunds. But the ACA specifically exempts most of them from the tax because their income is so low.
   510. CrosbyBird Posted: July 04, 2012 at 02:45 PM (#4173078)
However, wearing a seatbelt, from an insurance perspective, is not really much different from getting your brakes inspected: it's just an actuarial calculation that overall risk will be reduced if everyone complies. It just seems more intrusive because buckling your seatbelt is a conscious act you undertake every time you drive, and protects just you, rather than the pedestrians you will hurtle into if your brakes fail.

I would argue that because it protects just you, it is fundamentally different. I have no problem with mandatory inspections because it addresses a societal problem (your failed brakes are not just your issue). Seatbelts and helmets for motorcycles are examples of safety measures that address purely individual consequences, and enforcement there is, by its nature, more intrusive.

I think that's what turned me around on the idea of universal health care in the first place. People without health care are a societal problem. They make medicine more expensive for everyone, and they contribute to greater contagion rates when they get sick and go untreated. That's a problem that it's not reasonable to push off to just those "willing to pay."

Once we accept the idea that as a society we can't turn away sick or injured people who cannot afford treatment, we're accepting the idea of spreading the cost. We've already bought into some form of socialized medicine (well, nearly all of us have); now the question is how to best distribute that cost over society. Obamacare doesn't reduce my freedom, but merely allocate responsibility (hopefully, more fairly and efficiently) within a system where freedom has already been reduced.
   511. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 04, 2012 at 02:53 PM (#4173082)
Like the woman who is raped is offered a choice? The man does not force her to sleep with him. He offers a choice! He incentivizes her to sleep with him by penalizing her for not sleeping with him.

This is the absurdity of the Libertarian position-- they compare a small fine for noncompliance to rape.

Ray, you suck at analogies.


No, the problem is that you don't understand the point of analogies. The exercise above was not to see if you understood the difference between rape and paying the penalty; the exercise was to see if you understood the concept of "choice." And, as you ably showed, you do not.

   512. Morty Causa Posted: July 04, 2012 at 02:58 PM (#4173084)
I do object to the government mandating people to purchase a product, and then fining people for not purchasing the product, in order to gain revenue that was gotten improperly.


This ignores what actually happens in real life. All people will avail themselves of health care, and they are all entitled to get it in some, more costly, fashion, whether they pay or not. I knew someone who no longer could afford to pay for insurance. He had cancer and he was going to die. He figured he'd just hole up in his apartment with some street drugs and whiskey as palliatives. Let me just say that dying is not that easy. In the end, he had to seek professional medical care, and he was not turned down. Let's try to see and understand how things really work.
   513. formerly dp Posted: July 04, 2012 at 03:07 PM (#4173085)
No, the problem is that you don't understand the point of analogies. The exercise above was not to see if you understood the difference between rape and paying a penalty; the exercise was to see if you understood the concept of "choice." And, as you ably showed, you do not.

Again, you really do suck at analogies.

The law, like all laws, has an enforcement mechanism. The question, to reasonable people, concerns how appropriate the mechanism is to the rule being violated. You're complaining about how awful ACA is, but the only way you can portray it as such is to trump up what it actually does, because in practice, its teeth are not very sharp. In short, recognizing that some people will choose to disobey the law, is the consequence of that choice appropriate to the law they're choosing to disobey? In this case, that consequence is calibrated very specifically to the law being disobeyed.

I'll float the question out there again-- for opponents of ACA, how would you rank order its provisions, in terms of least bad to worst? Or, if you could strike 1/2 of them, which ones would you choose?
   514. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 04, 2012 at 03:17 PM (#4173086)
And so you answered my charge that you were lying, because I had already answered it, by quoting the post where I answered it.

Ray, if anyone thinks that that original "answer" of yours I quoted in #503 is anything other than a complete evasion of the question that was actually being asked, I'd love for them to give me their reasoning. There's no further point in even trying to get either an honest or a coherent response from you.
   515. bobm Posted: July 04, 2012 at 03:21 PM (#4173088)
[510] Seatbelts and helmets for motorcycles are examples of safety measures that address purely individual consequences, and enforcement there is, by its nature, more intrusive.

They are also safety measures that reduce the availability of organ donors. Maybe society would be better off allowing those who check off the organ donation on their driver's license to ride "donorcycles" without helmets.

People without health care are a societal problem. They make medicine more expensive for everyone, and they contribute to greater contagion rates when they get sick and go untreated.

While contagion is not insignificant and vaccination and infection control are important, the two leading causes of death in 2010, heart disease and cancer, killed as many people/100,000 as the leading causes in 1900--pneumonia, influenza and tuberculosis--did then, with a 50% overall reduction in death rates since then. We're dealing fine with contagion in the present system.

It seems that now it's people who are living longer but eating poorly and not exercising who make medicine more expensive for everyone by consuming medicine that could otherwise have been avoided through healthier living, even with their longer lifespans.

Fixing this country's perverse agricultural subsidies and incentives and its public health policy would actually do something to reduce health care, but people would rather ##### about restrictions on smoking and food labeling and serving sizes for sodas.

Once we accept the idea that as a society we can't turn away sick or injured people who cannot afford treatment, we're accepting the idea of spreading the cost.

Regardless of one's philosophy or politics, making (preventive) care more accessible in the system we have now will increase overall medical costs and not merely spread them. (A single payer system could reduce costs more through increased buyer power putting downward pressure on prices--eg Medicare--than through streamlining administrative costs.) Besides, a 5-minute annual lecture from a PCP on diet and exercise alone won't do much.
   516. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 04, 2012 at 03:23 PM (#4173089)
There was a really fascinating discussion of freedom and private coercion / private governance at Crooked Timber, recently, in dialogue with the Bleeding Heart Libertarians blog.

Bertram, Robin, and Gourevitch, "Let it Bleed: Libertarianism and the Workplace"
Yeah, I read that the other day thanks to a link from LGM. Wasn't particularly impressed. The problem, as I see it, is that liberals vastly overestimate the power of business compared to (a) government, and (b) workers. For that reason, they mistakenly view a workplace as an employer "governing" an employee, rather than as a contractual relationship.
   517. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: July 04, 2012 at 03:26 PM (#4173090)
The Algorithm (or Android) Formerly Known as Ray? Swiftian satire it's not.

I didn't come up with the name, simply the abbreviation.


Yeah, by stealing Prince's intellectual property rights. Showing your true colors again!
   518. Lassus Posted: July 04, 2012 at 03:35 PM (#4173093)
The Algorithm (or Android) Formerly Known as Ray? Swiftian satire it's not.

Agree


The problem, as I see it, is that liberals vastly overestimate the power of business compared to (a) government, and (b) workers. For that reason, they mistakenly view a workplace as an employer "governing" an employee, rather than as a contractual relationship.

In a world where every worker is part of a powerful, power-hungry union and massive tax breaks and incentives weren't given en masse to countless corporations, I agree.

The world that exists outside of your brain, however, is another story.


   519. BDC Posted: July 04, 2012 at 03:37 PM (#4173094)
Crosby, you make good points in #510. Perhaps there would be less need for seatbelt laws if there were a single-payer national health plan, (and pace bobm, not just because organ transplants would suddenly be free :). Or perhaps seatbelts would be treated more like smoking is now in most health-insurance plans: swear you act safely and get cheaper benefits?) But the problem is that if my personally risky behavior is going to result in costs borne by all or many (as happens under any health plan except the total prohibition of insurance itself), it's never just about me.

Now, the government telling me how low I have to mow the grass, #### that. Get off my lawn. :-D
   520. BDC Posted: July 04, 2012 at 03:39 PM (#4173095)
I also don't think Ray is an android, or being trollish. He's just expressing an extreme opinion pretty doughtily. I can very well see that a mandate to buy insurance may be unconstitutional in a non-insane theory of the constitution. If the backers of the ACA had had the huevos to just tax people, it would have been completely constitutional, and not an issue. (But also probably never passed in this tax-averse climate.)
   521. Morty Causa Posted: July 04, 2012 at 03:41 PM (#4173098)
Well, the government does tell you how low to mow your grass. If you've ever lived next to someone who doesn't want to mow you'd know why. And if the law didn't mandate a certain height, how would it be know that law is being broken. Also, if the grass isn't cut, the government will do it, or hire someone to do it, and bill and fine the owner. Now, what does that sound like?
   522. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 04, 2012 at 03:47 PM (#4173100)
So someone born with a heart arrhythmia had the freedom to purchase insurance?
Certainly. Of course, they're not going to be offered it at price comparable to people born healthy, because, well, that would be irrational.
   523. Morty Causa Posted: July 04, 2012 at 04:02 PM (#4173109)
   524. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 04, 2012 at 04:11 PM (#4173116)
The Iraq thing is different, for a number of reasons. President Bush had the power and the right to go to war, authorized by Congress and supported by the Constitution, while Congress did not have the right to pass the ACA and President Obama did not have the right to sign it - because the mandate is unconstitutional. And the mandate is not a tax.

Never mind that the Supreme Court upheld the law---tell me how you knew anything about the constitutionality of the mandate, or whether it qualified as a tax, prior to the Supreme Court decision, considering that the mandate's constitutionality had been upheld by several lower courts.


It's very simple. Because I know how to read the constitution and understand the precedent. And since the Supreme Court is not supposed to be amending the constitution, I knew the law was unconstitutional.

And if you were "compassionate" you would have gotten your closest 50 million compassionate liberal friends together and paid for the health care for everyone who couldn't pay yourself. All you needed to do was to organize and write checks and give away your money. It's not hard; charities do this all the time. In the Iraq situation, before Bush went to war, right wingers could have collected all the donations they wanted.

But we're not talking about "before Bush went to war", we're talking about the funding for the war after the decision was made.


No, you're talking about that. I am talking about, and always was talking about, before the ACA was passed. That was my original comment that set off your obsession with this Iraq tangent. I remarked that it was unfortunate that instead of all of you "compassionate" liberals grouping together and paying for everyone's health care, you decided to pass an unconstitutional law instead.

Why should war opponents then have been forced to contribute their taxes to the war effort?


I answered this. I have never objected to the government's right to collect taxes and use those taxes for whatever legitimate purpose the party in power wants to use them for. I'm not objecting to that now. I don't think the fine for not complying with the mandate is a "tax," but what's done is done, and the fines will be used for the purpose desginated in the ACA. I was talking about the situation before the ACA was passed. And, in your analogy, the situation before we went to war in Iraq.

But they couldn't have forced Bush into war, and they couldn't have gone to war themselves.

Nothing other than inconvenience was stopping them from going over there and joining the local opposition parties.


Well, fine, but they couldn't commandeer the U.S. military, which was my point.

---

Also, as a side note, continually demanding that other people here such as David answer your silly Iraq question, which was borne out of a comment I made, is bizarre behavior on your part.
   525. Morty Causa Posted: July 04, 2012 at 04:15 PM (#4173122)
Legalists have been arguing and debating what's a tax, a fine, and a fee for ages.
   526. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: July 04, 2012 at 04:21 PM (#4173125)
"And now, friends and countrymen, if the wise and learned philosophers of the older world, the first observers of mutation and aberration, the discoverers of maddening ether and invisible planets, the inventors of Congreve rockets and shrapnel shells, should find their hearts disposed to inquire, what has America done for the benefit of mankind? let our answer be this--America, with the same voice which spoke herself into existence as a nation, proclaimed to mankind the inextinguishable rights of human nature, and the only lawful foundations of government. America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. She has uniformly spoken among them, though often to heedless and often to disdainful ears, the language of equal liberty, equal justice, and equal rights. She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the inde-pendence of other nations, while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama, the European World, will be contests between inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit."
- John Quincy Adams, July 4, 1821
   527. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 04, 2012 at 04:40 PM (#4173136)
It's very simple. Because I know how to read the constitution and understand the precedent. And since the Supreme Court is not supposed to be amending the constitution, I knew the law was unconstitutional.

That's English for "C'est très simple. Parce que je sais comment lire la constitution et comprendre le précédent. Et puisque la Cour suprême n'est pas censée amender la constitution, je savais que la loi était inconstitutionnelle."

Which has been said much more succinctly:

"L' Etat, c'est moi"
---Louis XIV

Also, as a side note, continually demanding that other people here such as David answer your silly Iraq question, which was borne out of a comment I made, is bizarre behavior on your part.

Dumb old me, I was assuming that at least one of you anti-statists would have the intelligence and the guts to answer it. Guess not.

But as Jack Webb said in Red Nighmare, "In America, there's always a tomorrow", so my hope springs eternal.

   528. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 04, 2012 at 04:45 PM (#4173140)
Andy, Happy 4th.

And to the rest of you as well, statists and non.
   529. BDC Posted: July 04, 2012 at 04:52 PM (#4173141)
But as Jack Webb said in Red Nighmare, "In America, there's always a tomorrow", so my hope springs eternal

I always remember Scott Fitzgerald instead: "There are no second acts in American life."

But I endorse Ray's sentiment: Happy Fourth of July! I found some red-white-and-blue gummy bears at the Kroger's yesterday, and bought them because they were called Freedom Bears. I intend to eat them non-ironically.
   530. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 04, 2012 at 05:02 PM (#4173142)
Andy, Happy 4th.

And to the rest of you as well, statists and non.


And back atcha, my main man in spite of everything. Me and Mrs. JOSN, we're going to revel in the taxpayer-subsidized fireworks display from a Foggy Bottom condo roof, and try not to feel too guilty about not paying for it directly. (smile)
   531. greenback calls it soccer Posted: July 04, 2012 at 06:22 PM (#4173158)
So someone born with a heart arrhythmia had the freedom to purchase insurance?

Certainly. Of course, they're not going to be offered it at price comparable to people born healthy, because, well, that would be irrational.

There are conditions where my nameless former employer would not offer insurance no matter the price, and I'm sure my nameless former employer was not alone in that practice. That's a rational consequence of a thorough familiarity with adverse selection.
   532. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 04, 2012 at 07:06 PM (#4173170)
And if you were "compassionate" you would have gotten your closest 50 million compassionate liberal friends together and paid for the health care for everyone who couldn't pay yourself.


And again we did. We got together and got ACA passed. It was our hard work and money that helped it happen. Mission accomplished. We saw a problem and we (partly) solved it. I am sorry you don't like how we did it, but we did it according to the rules, it is constitutional and it was a much more effective and efficient use of our time and money than your way. It is like teaching the guy to fish instead of feeding them once.

Go us.
   533. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 04, 2012 at 07:15 PM (#4173176)
And again we did. We got together and got ACA passed. It was our hard work and money that helped it happen. Mission accomplished. We saw a problem and we (partly) solved it. I am sorry you don't like how we did it, but we did it according to the rules, it is constitutional and it was a much more effective and efficient use of our time and money than your way. It is like teaching the guy to fish instead of feeding them once.

Go us.


Yes, that's all well and good. (Or isn't, but whatever.) My point was that in so doing you forfeited your claim to being compassionate.
   534. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 04, 2012 at 07:19 PM (#4173179)
I would feel more sympathy for Ray and the name calling if he did not misstate my positions and constantly assert how I (and other progressives) feel and think. If he stuck to his side and left me mine it would be much more cordial. That said I don't think calling folks names is helpful (and don't engage in that sort of thing).

And no I don't hate freedom, I just acknowledge life is about choices and pure unadulterated freedom, with no taxes, no regulations is not what I want. I want a social safety net, one better than we have, but I'll keep working on it and I have history on my side so I am pretty sure we will get there.

And yes, happy 4th everyone.
   535. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 04, 2012 at 07:21 PM (#4173181)
com·pas·sion/k?m?paSH?n/
Noun:
Sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others: "the victims should be treated with compassion".

No, I have both pity and concern. And I helped do something about the misfortunes of others. I forfeit nothing, sorry.
   536. Shredder Posted: July 04, 2012 at 07:53 PM (#4173187)
No, I have both pity and concern. And I helped do something about the misfortunes of others. I forfeit nothing, sorry.
Your sympathetic pity and concern for those who are unable to afford or purchase health insurance is far outweighed by your lack of sympathetic pity and concern for Ray's wallet, and let's face it, that's the real victim here.
   537. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: July 04, 2012 at 08:17 PM (#4173194)
Hooray for unum! Screw you, pluribus!
   538. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 04, 2012 at 08:25 PM (#4173196)
Your sympathetic pity and concern for those who are unable to afford or purchase health insurance is far outweighed by your lack of sympathetic pity and concern for Ray's wallet, and let's face it, that's the real victim here.


The funny part is it is the health care not the insurance. And the current methods of applying health care are crappy and inefficient. ACA should lead to a more efficient health care system and that and the increased overall economic growth (healthier people lead to more output) may actually help Ray's wallet.

I don't hate Ray's wallet any more than I hate freedom.
   539. Zipperholes Posted: July 04, 2012 at 08:41 PM (#4173201)
And again we did. We got together and got ACA passed. It was our hard work and money that helped it happen. Mission accomplished. We saw a problem and we (partly) solved it. I am sorry you don't like how we did it, but we did it according to the rules, it is constitutional and it was a much more effective and efficient use of our time and money than your way. It is like teaching the guy to fish instead of feeding them once.
Again with the weak "them's the rules" argument. When someone uses that to justify a policy, it indicates they have no intellectual argument to support it.
   540. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 04, 2012 at 09:00 PM (#4173209)
If Ray did not keep telling us we should have pooled our money I would not have to respond that we did in fact pool our money.

I am more than willing to argue on the merits. When Ray brings up process though I answer with process. He keeps telling me the process should be voluntary money pooling. If he brings up process then I get to also.

Does his bringing up process make his argument weak?

Just a few posts down (and up actually) I argued it on the merits. Of course though the rules are the rules. And the liberals won using the rules. When was the last time a safety net program was dismantled? You may not like it, but it is here (even if it were merit less) and very likely here to stay. And since it is here to stay I don't have to justify it, though I admit I like the back and forth on both merit and process.
   541. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 04, 2012 at 09:07 PM (#4173211)
If Ray did not keep telling us we should have pooled our money I would not have to respond that we did in fact pool our money.


? No, you pooled other peoples' money.

The fact that your money is included doesn't mean you didn't pool other peoples' money.
   542. Zipperholes Posted: July 04, 2012 at 09:13 PM (#4173214)
I am more than willing to argue on the merits. When Ray brings up process though I answer with process. He keeps telling me the process should be voluntary money pooling. If he brings up process then I get to also.
He's arguing the intellectual and moral merits of the process, right or wrong. Saying "but we won" contributes nothing. His point is that if we want to effect certain changes in the health care system, those of us who want these changes should accomplish it voluntarily, rather than forcing others to participate.
   543. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 04, 2012 at 09:38 PM (#4173222)
? No, you pooled other peoples' money.


Silly boy we pooled our money (and other things like votes) and used the system to enact legislation. That legislation had the effect of pooling everyone's money. But by using the process (democracy) we accomplished something. Telling me I should have done it a different way is silly. (EDIT: OK it is not really silly, but it is process based as far as I am concerned, because the goal is better health care and this was the right - best, most efficient - process to do it).

#542. The process is democracy and specifically the rules the US operates under. He can claim democracy (or specifically the rules of the US) are wrong or illegitimate, but that is a much larger discussion than this specific law.

Mentioning we won DOES accomplish a couple things. It makes me happy. It also helps counter the continuing thread of his and others that the law is illegitimate. The law is just as legitimate as any other law, that would be the point of having rules and a process.

He may want me (us) to change the system voluntarily. And we did. Voting and campaign contributions are voluntary. And they are just as legitimate as pooling money and using that charity pool to give people healthcare. His voluntary method is not more legitimate than mine. Both have been used as long as the US has been a nation.

If you want to argue all taxes are illegitimate or the entire foundation of US government is illegitimate we should explicitly have that conversation (and we can).
   544. Zipperholes Posted: July 04, 2012 at 09:53 PM (#4173229)
No, it's not as legitimate because you're undermining the will of people who don't want to participate. If I force you to do something in order to enact my personal desired outcome, whether through legislation or a gun, that's not as good respecting each person's will and leaving it to their own conscience whether to participate.

The fact that "it's the rules" and "this is how democracy works" have absolutely nothing to do with the merits of using legislation rather than charity to effect a particular end.
   545. Dan Szymborski Posted: July 04, 2012 at 09:58 PM (#4173230)
No, you pooled other peoples' money.

He wasn't being inconsistent as progressives define "your money" as the amount of money the progressives have granted you the privilege of retaining. You should already know that - progressives love to ding conservatives that previously supported mandates, but conveniently forget that the employer-tethered health insurance and medical free-riding that they rail against was their direct invention.
   546. Zipperholes Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:00 PM (#4173231)
If subverting the will of people is cool simply because it's in accordance with the rules of the particular government in place, well, you've got an uphill battle here.
   547. Dan Szymborski Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:01 PM (#4173232)
Silly boy we pooled our money (and other things like votes) and used the system to enact legislation. That legislation had the effect of pooling everyone's money.

See, Ray, just what I said. "Your money" is defined as what they've relented to leave you.
   548. booond Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:07 PM (#4173233)
Silly boy we pooled our money (and other things like votes) and used the system to enact legislation. That legislation had the effect of pooling everyone's money.


Elections have consequences, #######.
   549. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:08 PM (#4173234)
No, it's not as legitimate because you're undermining the will of people who don't want to participate. If I force you to do something in order to enact my personal desired outcome, whether through legislation or a gun, that's not as good respecting each person's will and leaving it to their own conscience whether to participate.


So every law is illegitimate? Because every law has force at the bottom. Or is it only laws you don't like? And it is not me that is forcing anyone. The nation's government is doing that. If you don't like the rules the nation is governed under happily there is a way to amend the rules.

Dan - please don't talk about what "progressives define". Your money is your money. We all pay (again according to the rules) money into the pot to keep civilization going. The process of paying taxes is much much older than the US, but hey feel free to work the process and change things so the US government can tax you. Until the rules are changed it is legitimate to tax you, me and everyone. But everything else is your money to do with (within the law) as you please.

On the mandate side I have not dinged conservatives on it (or if I did it was a long time ago). Conservatives came up with it when the alternative was a single payer. I don't blame them for trying to support the lesser evil (from their standpoint). Once the mandate showed up (and there was no real fear of single payer) they were against the mandate because it was not the lesser evil any more. This is perfectly rational.

   550. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:09 PM (#4173235)
Elections have consequences, #######.


Yes. And, with any luck, you'll see what they are in November.
   551. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:12 PM (#4173238)
If subverting the will of people is cool simply because it's in accordance with the rules of the particular government in place, well, you've got an uphill battle here.


The will of the people is not being subverted though. Not any more than any other law. We have a fine process of democracy linked with the constitution to protect from the tyranny of the majority. The law made it through (sorry talking about success again).

DOMA also made it. I hate DOMA. I think it is a terrible law and will one day (hopefully soon) be gone. Gay marriage will be allowed and quickly become normal. However as much as I hate it and the fact that it is impinging on the freedom of gays it is still a legitimate law. Just because I don't like it does not magically make it illegitimate.
   552. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:15 PM (#4173240)
The nation's government is doing that. If you don't like the rules the nation is governed under happily there is a way to amend the rules.


Yes. As the Supreme Court showed us.
   553. Zipperholes Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:19 PM (#4173243)
So every law is illegitimate? Because every law has force at the bottom. Or is it only laws you don't like?
No, not every law is illegitimate. But a law is the wrong way to achieve a particular outcome if that outcome can be obtained through voluntary action of the people.
And it is not me that is forcing anyone. The nation's government is doing that.
Wait a minute. Your argument a minute ago was that the government carries out the will of the people and that this is a celebration of that. Now, you're putting up your hands and saying, "don't talk to me, this is those guys in Washington." Of course you're not "forcing" anyone as an individual. I'm talking about the general merits of forcing behavior by law.
   554. booond Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:20 PM (#4173244)
Yes. And, with any luck, you'll see what they are in November.


It will take more than luck to elect Mitt Romney.
   555. Morty Causa Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:21 PM (#4173246)
Again with the weak "them's the rules" argument. When someone uses that to justify a policy, it indicates they have no intellectual argument to support it.


What do you use to justify a law?

He's arguing the intellectual and moral merits of the process, right or wrong.


That's not true. He argued it was unconstitutional; he argued it in absolute terms (if undicipherable); and he made no mention of morals or process. In fact, he denied the legitimacy of the process.

Saying "but we won" contributes nothing.


Of course it does. That's why there are elections (even the Supreme Court has elections--they vote on cases), and that's why their are votes in Congress and legislatures. We cannot revert to policy or "right and wrong" at every instance on every measure. That's the way of political chaos.

His point is that if we want to effect certain changes in the health care system, those of us who want these changes should accomplish it voluntarily, rather than forcing others to participate.


That may be his point, but it's not the system we have--and he is under that system. If he isn't going to play by the rules, he can't whine when if he's treated like scofflaw he is.
   556. Zipperholes Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:22 PM (#4173247)
The will of the people is not being subverted though. Not any more than any other law. We have a fine process of democracy linked with the constitution to protect from the tyranny of the majority. The law made it through (sorry talking about success again).
The will of some people is being subverted. That's the point. If you can achieve a result through voluntary action, it's better than imposing your individual desires on the entire populace.
DOMA also made it. I hate DOMA. I think it is a terrible law and will one day (hopefully soon) be gone. Gay marriage will be allowed and quickly become normal. However as much as I hate it and the fact that it is impinging on the freedom of gays it is still a legitimate law. Just because I don't like it does not magically make it illegitimate.
We're not discussing whether laws are "legitimate" i.e., that they have legal force. Geez. We're talking about the merits, on an intellectual and philosophical plane.
   557. Morty Causa Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:26 PM (#4173251)
No, it's not as legitimate because you're undermining the will of people who don't want to participate.


The game is poker; you don't get to play by bouree rules unless you can change the political system so that it recognizes that bouree is now the game.

This is frigging elementary politics. You can't have a system where everything's voluntary and people can opt out or veto at will.


If I force you to do something in order to enact my personal desired outcome, whether through legislation or a gun, that's not as good respecting each person's will and leaving it to their own conscience whether to participate.


Tough titty. That's what politics is: the personal becoming the public. You play by a process and you abide by it, while, if you will, trying to change it or improve it. You don't get to win even if you lose, though, which seems to be system you envision.

The fact that "it's the rules" and "this is how democracy works" have absolutely nothing to do with the merits of using legislation rather than charity to effect a particular end.


It has everything to do with it. If you want to be privately charitable, be my guest. That, in a political sense, is besides the point.
   558. Morty Causa Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:28 PM (#4173252)
If subverting the will of people is cool simply because it's in accordance with the rules of the particular government in place, well, you've got an uphill battle here.


How does a political process work without some people's will being "subverted"?
   559. Zipperholes Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:30 PM (#4173253)
What do you use to justify a law?
My personal beliefs and opinions. Not whether it went through the designated legislative process.
Of course it does. That's why there are elections (even the Supreme Court has elections--they vote on cases), and that's why their are votes in Congress and legislatures. We cannot revert to policy or "right and wrong" at every instance on every measure. That's the way of political chaos.
Saying "them's the rules" contributes nothing to a discussion on the merits of the law. The rules makes the law politically and legally legitimate; it doesn't make it morally or philosophically so.
That may be his point, but it's not the system we have--and he is under that system. If he isn't going to play by the rules, he can't whine when if he's treated like scofflaw he is.
See above.
   560. Morty Causa Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:30 PM (#4173254)
See, Ray, just what I said. "Your money" is defined as what they've relented to leave you.


That's politics. It always worked that way, and it always will. When tribal elders parsed out kill at the end of a hunt on the basis of group need you had it right there to start with. If you don't like that, go rogue--and then we can hunt you.
   561. Morty Causa Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:31 PM (#4173255)
Yes. And, with any luck, you'll see what they are in November.


Why should I validate its outcome if you don't?
   562. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:33 PM (#4173256)
But a law is the wrong way to achieve a particular outcome if that outcome can be obtained through voluntary action of the people.


The US has a terrible health care system relative to other similar nations. Voluntary action wasn't getting the job done. It was ineffective and inefficient. We tried voluntary* and it was not working.

We got tired of waiting, pooled our money, voted, acted, got a bit lucky and the law is here. Maybe history will prove out ACA as a bad idea. Maybe it won't last. But I doubt it and looking at US history with safety net programs and the rest of the world it seems a good bet it is here to stay.

Every law subverts the will of some people. And the merits are there. I brought up one of the provisions (posting of calories) a while back. That is a great provision. There are a pile of great pieces (and some not so great pieces).

EDIT: * Voluntary - well more voluntary than the much hated mandate.
   563. Shredder Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:34 PM (#4173257)
The will of some people is being subverted. That's the point. If you can achieve a result through voluntary action, it's better than imposing your individual desires on the entire populace.
What law accomplishes something that CAN'T be accompolished through voluntary action? By your logic, if everyone would just volunteer to pay for roads and the military, we wouldn't need the government to include those items in the budget. If everyone would just drive safely all the time, we wouldn't need speed limits. If nobody ever killed anyone, we wouldn't need laws making murder illegal.

And unless the argument is that every law passed by the legislature must always be subject to rolling opinion polls, laws duly passed by a legislature fairly elected by the electorate are by default "the will of the people". The will of the people may change, but that's decided at election time. Unless a law passes with unanimous support of the entire electorate, then sure SOME of the people aren't going to get what they want. Basically your argument is that the ACA is unfair because it didn't pass via referendum with 100% support. That holds the ACA to a standard to which no other law in thistory of the United States has ever been held.
   564. Zipperholes Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:34 PM (#4173258)
How does a political process work without some people's will being "subverted"?
I don't object to subverting the will of people. I object to justifying subverting the will of people on the basis that the "rules" allow it. You need a better reason.
   565. Morty Causa Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:35 PM (#4173259)
Yes. As the Supreme Court showed us.


So you've been ######. Wake up and smell the coffee. How many times has the SC done this? Many still hold it goes back to Marbury.

   566. Morty Causa Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:35 PM (#4173260)
No, not every law is illegitimate. But a law is the wrong way to achieve a particular outcome if that outcome can be obtained through voluntary action of the people.


Who says? There is no authority for this in the entire history of law.
   567. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:37 PM (#4173262)
I don't object to subverting the will of people. I object to justifying subverting the will of people on the basis that the "rules" allow it. You need a better reason.


That is not the justification. It speaks to the legitimacy. The justification is from the good the law does (or at least the good those who supported the law believes it does).
   568. Zipperholes Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:38 PM (#4173263)
The US has a terrible health care system relative to other similar nations. Voluntary action wasn't getting the job done. It was ineffective and inefficient. We tried voluntary* and it was not working.
Well, then, maybe we're not all that interested in helping the underprivileged, and one might argue that the law should reflect who we are as a society.
   569. Morty Causa Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:39 PM (#4173265)
What do you use to justify a law?

My personal beliefs and opinions. Not whether it went through the designated legislative process.

And everyone gets to do this? How does anything become law if process is to have no effect?
   570. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:40 PM (#4173266)
Well, then, maybe we're not all that interested in helping the underprivileged, and one might argue that the law should reflect who we are as a society.


But we ARE interested, we just passed a law to do something about the problem. It is called progress.
   571. Morty Causa Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:43 PM (#4173267)
Saying "them's the rules" contributes nothing to a discussion on the merits of the law. The rules makes the law politically and legally legitimate; it doesn't make it morally or philosophically so.


Yes, it does. At some point, talk stops, and the amateurs need to clear the floor. Everyone has their version of merits--it can't end there.
   572. Zipperholes Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:44 PM (#4173268)
What law accomplishes something that CAN'T be accompolished through voluntary action? By your logic, if everyone would just volunteer to pay for roads and the military, we wouldn't need the government to include those items in the budget. If everyone would just drive safely all the time, we wouldn't need speed limits. If nobody ever killed anyone, we wouldn't need laws making murder illegal.
Some things can't be accomplished without government regulation. If we want people to be able to transport across town, voluntary action does no good if Harvey doesn't give us an easement through his farm. No individual's obstinance prevents others from enabling the underprivileged to pay their medical expenses.
   573. Brian C Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:46 PM (#4173269)
I object to justifying subverting the will of people on the basis that the "rules" allow it. You need a better reason

What does this even mean? Defenders of the ACA have been giving reasons for their support over thousands of comments here at BTF - it's because we think that the current system is inefficient and unfair.

You don't like the reason? Fine - it's called debate. It doesn't make the law illegitimate because you disagree with the reasons for the law's existence. It just means you disagree.
   574. Morty Causa Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:46 PM (#4173270)
I don't object to subverting the will of people. I object to justifying subverting the will of people on the basis that the "rules" allow it. You need a better reason.


See above. Quit saying "the will of the people" when it's the will of some people who lost in the process. If you don't have rules that lead to a result, how do you arrive at a result? Just talking about merits forever? The big problem with this country is there is too much talk and deliberation and too little action.
   575. Morty Causa Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:49 PM (#4173274)
Some things can't be accomplished without government regulation.


Who says, and what will winnow the wheat from the chaff?
   576. Zipperholes Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:50 PM (#4173275)
Who says? There is no authority for this in the entire history of law.
Of course there is. There are plenty outcomes which we've decided are desirable but which should be effected in an extralegal manner.
And everyone gets to do this? How does anything become law if process is to have no effect?
I didn't say it has no effect. I said it's not a basis for evaluating the merits.
Yes, it does. At some point, talk stops, and the amateurs need to clear the floor. Everyone has their version of merits--it can't end there.
No, the mere legislation of something speaks nothing to its merits morally or philosophically.
   577. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:55 PM (#4173276)
Yes, it does. At some point, talk stops, and the amateurs need to clear the floor. Everyone has their version of merits--it can't end there.

No, the mere legislation of something speaks nothing to its merits morally or philosophically.


You guys are too much. They argued merits, ad naseum and with great fervor and conviction. So then you (small you, maybe not you personally, but your side) started arguing process, so they switched to process, and then you switch to "process is not everything".
   578. Morty Causa Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:55 PM (#4173278)
Of course there is. There are plenty outcomes which we've decided are desirable but which should be effected in an extralegal manner.

So saith you. I disagree. Now, what?

   579. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:56 PM (#4173279)
Hmm. Someone should tell Mayor Bloomberg that court decisions can't be wrong.

Mayor Bloomberg laid into an appeals court Wednesday for overturning two stop-and-frisk gun busts, saying the decisions were “wrong on what’s good for America.”

The Appellate Division on Tuesday threw out a weapons case against a 14-year-old identified as Jaquan M., caught with a gun and ammo in his backpack two years ago.

The ruling came a week after the same court sided with another 14-year-old, Darryl C., who was caught with a gun during a stop-and-frisk.

The judges said the stop- and-frisks were illegal — which Bloomberg called mind-boggling.
   580. Morty Causa Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:57 PM (#4173280)
I didn't say it has no effect. I said it's not a basis for evaluating the merits.


And then? We just stay on the hamster wheel of evaluating merits. That gives those who want nothing done a wild card. I win if I win, and I win if I don't win cause we just keep evaluating until I win.
   581. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:57 PM (#4173281)
Hmm. Someone should tell Mayor Bloomberg that court decisions can't be wrong.


And this proves what exactly?
   582. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 04, 2012 at 10:59 PM (#4173283)
You guys are too much.


It is very understandable. It sucks to lose. To really believe something and then have your belief rebuked. This one is especially painful because most people thought the SC would act differently and then bam - disappointment.

I don't blame them a bit. I do disagree with them and think them wrong. But in their shoes I would be annoyed as well.
   583. Morty Causa Posted: July 04, 2012 at 11:00 PM (#4173284)
No, the mere legislation of something speaks nothing to its merits morally or philosophically.


All law has public policy basis that has been discuss over and over and over. Jeez, just look at seat belts and smoking. You think there has been no discussion of the merits to ACA morally and philosophically? Legislation only comes after the public policy debates are exhausted. There are thousands and thousands of laws that attests to this.
   584. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 04, 2012 at 11:05 PM (#4173287)
Hmm. Someone should tell Mayor Bloomberg that court decisions can't be wrong.

And this proves what exactly?


That Bloomberg doesn't understand the new religion that the liberals found here after the ACA was upheld by the supreme court: that court decisions can be wrong.

   585. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 04, 2012 at 11:08 PM (#4173289)
It is very understandable. It sucks to lose. To really believe something and then have your belief rebuked.


Whose belief was rebuked? I continue to believe the same thing about the ACA that I did before the court ruled: it is unconstitutional.
   586. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: July 04, 2012 at 11:09 PM (#4173290)
That Bloomberg doesn't understand the new religion that the liberals found here after the ACA was upheld by the supreme court: that court decisions can be wrong.


And this helps your argument how? Last I checked, you weren't arguing with Bloomberg.
   587. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 04, 2012 at 11:09 PM (#4173291)
We (at least I) never said the court can not be wrong. They are humans, so of course error is a possibility. However what was said (at great length) is that there is not a platonic "correctness" that exists, and even if there was you are not the holder of that correctness. You saying a SC decision is wrong is not very significant.

The decision is the decision and it was decided to be constitutional. it will be so until it is decided otherwise. But baldly stating that it is not constitutional is incorrect. The arbiter of constitutionality is the SC (even if they get it wrong they still are the arbiter).

And here we are back at process.
   588. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 04, 2012 at 11:10 PM (#4173292)
I didn't say it helped my argument.
   589. Morty Causa Posted: July 04, 2012 at 11:11 PM (#4173294)
That Bloomberg doesn't understand the new religion that the liberals found here after the ACA was upheld by the supreme court: that court decisions can be wrong.


Weak, Ray, really weak. It reveals a level of comprehension that is not flattering.
   590. Brian C Posted: July 04, 2012 at 11:11 PM (#4173295)
That Bloomberg doesn't understand the new religion that the liberals found here after the ACA was upheld by the supreme court: that court decisions can be wrong.

Not that any liberals are actually saying such a thing, but is there any substantial reason to turn this into an argument? Libertarians and liberals alike ought to be very skeptical of police searches just for the hell of it.
   591. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: July 04, 2012 at 11:12 PM (#4173296)
I didn't say it helped my argument.


Then why bring it up?
   592. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 04, 2012 at 11:14 PM (#4173298)
re·buke/ri?byo?ok/
Verb:
Express sharp disapproval or criticism of (someone) because of their behavior or actions.

Yeah, not the right word. Your belief in the constitutionality of ACA was rejected by the SC (when you likely believed it would not be rejected). Now the ACA (a bad, terrible no good law - in your opinion) is the law of the land.

This has really struck a nerve with many conservatives (you may or may not be one of them). It goes to the long standing "betrayal" narrative that is very popular in the current GOP. It explains the outrage many express.

But again rebuke was not the right word, reject is much closer.
   593. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 04, 2012 at 11:16 PM (#4173300)
Then why bring it up?


Are you being serious with this?
   594. Brian C Posted: July 04, 2012 at 11:18 PM (#4173301)
Are you being serious with this?

Seems like a valid question on Miserlou's part, especially given your stated opposition to "gotcha" moments.
   595. Morty Causa Posted: July 04, 2012 at 11:20 PM (#4173303)
Some people can only understand not getting their way only in terms of being betrayed. They can't tolerate the idea that people have different interests and that the purpose and function of public institutions and their processes is to mediate among these competing interests. It's not about moral and philosophy ultimately. That's only the pretext to justify getting your way. And they are only persuasive.
   596. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: July 04, 2012 at 11:21 PM (#4173304)
Are you being serious with this?


Absolutely.
   597. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: July 04, 2012 at 11:24 PM (#4173305)
Your belief in the constitutionality of ACA was rejected by the SC (when you likely believed it would not be rejected). Now the ACA (a bad, terrible no good law - in your opinion) is the law of the land.

This has really struck a nerve with many conservatives (you may or may not be one of them). It goes to the long standing "betrayal" narrative that is very popular in the current GOP. It explains the outrage many express.


Gee, ya reckon?
   598. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 04, 2012 at 11:25 PM (#4173306)
#595 - When you believe you are chosen, your belief is completely correct, and that the forces of history make victory inevitable then it is hard to accept losses. I am not saying Ray or anyone here thinks that way, but many in the GOP do have (or at least appear to have) this going on.

Conservatism never fails, it is only failed by various agents of conservatism. But I am not sure it is that different in the "true believer" segment of the Dems, but at this moment in history the true believers are not nearly as strong in the Dems as they are in the GOP.
   599. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 04, 2012 at 11:30 PM (#4173307)
The Bloomberg snippet was brought up as what I felt was a humorous sidebar to the notion that court decisions can't be wrong. No more, no less. I'm not responding to any more asinine questions about why I brought it up.
   600. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 04, 2012 at 11:31 PM (#4173308)
#599 - I thought it was funny.
Page 6 of 41 pages ‹ First  < 4 5 6 7 8 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Jim Wisinski
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogAre Wil Myers' flaws fixable? | FOX Sports
(54 - 6:11pm, Dec 17)
Last: Squash

NewsblogMorosi - Effects of US Shift on Cuba Policy
(2 - 6:11pm, Dec 17)
Last: CraigK

NewsblogOT: Politics - December 2014: Baseball & Politics Collide in New Thriller
(4466 - 6:10pm, Dec 17)
Last: Dan The Mediocre

Newsblog"You Are F----d": Breaking down the first-year candidates on the Hall of Fame ballot (Sports Illustrated)
(14 - 5:58pm, Dec 17)
Last: JE (Jason)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 12-17-2014
(22 - 5:58pm, Dec 17)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogAZCentral: Miley's Preparation Apparently an Issue for DBacks
(4 - 5:52pm, Dec 17)
Last: morineko

NewsblogThe Dan Shaughnessy Hall Of Fame Ballot
(51 - 5:47pm, Dec 17)
Last: Gonfalon Bubble

NewsblogOT - College Football Bowl Spectacular (December 2014 - January 2015)
(94 - 5:42pm, Dec 17)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

NewsblogOT: Soccer December 2014
(291 - 5:32pm, Dec 17)
Last: I am going to be Frank

NewsblogNY Judge Gives MASN Partial Edge In Nationals Dispute
(2 - 5:12pm, Dec 17)
Last: toratoratora

NewsblogOrioles agree to one-year deal with LHP Wesley Wright, pending physical, source says
(10 - 5:08pm, Dec 17)
Last: Pops Freshenmeyer

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - December 2014
(626 - 5:04pm, Dec 17)
Last: Jimmy P

NewsblogPitching-deficient Yankees re-sign Chris Capuano
(21 - 4:35pm, Dec 17)
Last: madvillain

NewsblogDodgers sign Brett Anderson for $10 million
(38 - 4:25pm, Dec 17)
Last: zonk

NewsblogCooperstown vote: The Ron Chimelis ballot
(15 - 4:16pm, Dec 17)
Last: JE (Jason)

Page rendered in 0.8762 seconds
48 querie(s) executed