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

Thursday, April 03, 2014

OTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments

Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 03, 2014 at 01:59 PM | 4718 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: 7 million aca signees and counting, i-95 south, nc, politics

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 48 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >  Last ›
   501. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 08, 2014 at 03:10 PM (#4682097)
If you head down this argumentative path you may find yourself agreeing with Sam on something...

I know. It was bound to happen sooner or later.
   502. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 08, 2014 at 03:11 PM (#4682099)
People in Iowa don't get "risk pooled" with people from California in earthquake insurance.

Don't give Washington any ideas. We've already seen the effects of the flood-insurance boondoggle.
   503. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 08, 2014 at 03:18 PM (#4682105)

Dumb. I never said women should be paying for prostate coverage, or that "the whole point of the ACA was to reduce maternity costs."


And yet you didn't say boo about women paying for prostate coverage for the last 40 years, it's only when maternity care comes up that you get all huffy.
   504. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 08, 2014 at 03:20 PM (#4682109)
And yet you didn't say boo about women paying for prostate coverage for the last 40 years, it's only when maternity care comes up that you get all huffy.

You have no idea what I've said. Good try, though.
   505. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 08, 2014 at 03:55 PM (#4682128)
And yet you didn't say boo about women paying for prostate coverage for the last 40 years, it's only when maternity care comes up that you get all huffy.
Did the government mandate that women pay for coverage that included prostate coverage?
   506. spike Posted: April 08, 2014 at 03:58 PM (#4682131)
And yet you didn't say boo about women paying for prostate coverage for the last 40 years, it's only when maternity care comes up that you get all huffy.

How about the entire risk pool having to pay for fat peoples elevated risk? Or those at high risk for Tay Sachs? Or sickle cell? It's almost like everybody is expected to contribute to a pool of money so that all have equal access to benefits, but screw that. I'm sick of helping to pay for people who might get sick (except me of course).
   507. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 08, 2014 at 04:13 PM (#4682141)
How about the entire risk pool

What is it about the phrase "risk pool" that's so hard for liberals to understand?

Men are at zero "risk" of getting pregnant.
   508. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 08, 2014 at 04:31 PM (#4682155)
How about the entire risk pool having to pay for fat peoples elevated risk? Or those at high risk for Tay Sachs? Or sickle cell? It's almost like everybody is expected to contribute to a pool of money so that all have equal access to benefits, but screw that. I'm sick of helping to pay for people who might get sick (except me of course).

All people with elevated risk should have to pay more for insurance.

If you want to have subsidies for those who can't afford the premiums, fine. But there's no reason that people who can pay the higher cost associated with their higher risks shouldn't. For example, my company has a $50/month surcharge for smokers in our company health plan. Makes total sense.
   509. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 08, 2014 at 04:41 PM (#4682165)
For example, my company has a $50/month surcharge for smokers in our company health plan. Makes total sense.
And that's just about the only risk rating allowed under Obamacare.
   510. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 08, 2014 at 04:42 PM (#4682168)
Why, exactly, given your clear belief in "rational actors" in the "efficient markets" would someone drop a plan they liked in order to buy one they didn't from the ACA?

About 70% of Americans were OK with the healthcare they had (according to numerous Gallup surveys), but ObamaCare requirements outlawed many of those plans, despite Obama's promise that people could keep their plan if they liked it, keep their doctors if they wanted, and save an average of $2500 per family a year. Not sure why people here are trying to claim that all ObamaCare sign-ups are happy campers - that is clearly not the case. If you waited to the last month to sign-up because of the gun-to-the-head tax penalties, you're probably not happy about being forced to do so. ObamaCare will be judged against what the President promised, and based on that standard it is likely to be found wanting by many people.
   511. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 08, 2014 at 04:44 PM (#4682172)
And that's just about the only risk rating allowed under Obamacare.

Which is stupid. If you're morbidly obese, you should pay more, for example.
   512. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 08, 2014 at 04:47 PM (#4682178)
About 70% of Americans were OK with the healthcare they had (according to numerous Gallup surveys), but ObamaCare requirements outlawed many of those plans, despite Obama's promise that people could keep their plan if they liked it,


Obama didn't cancel those plans. The insurers did. You keep spinning, baby doll.
   513. Lassus Posted: April 08, 2014 at 04:48 PM (#4682181)
For example, my company has a $50/month surcharge for smokers in our company health plan. Makes total sense.

I wonder how many people this surcharge specifically made permanently quit smoking?
   514. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 08, 2014 at 04:48 PM (#4682183)
I wonder how many people this surcharge specifically made permanently quit smoking?

Any would be a great thing.
   515. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 08, 2014 at 04:49 PM (#4682185)
Obama didn't cancel those plans. The insurers did. You keep spinning, baby doll.

Are you really trying to claim that Obamacare didn't make certain types of plans illegal?
   516. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: April 08, 2014 at 04:54 PM (#4682194)
ObamaCare requirements outlawed many of those plans

What % of Americans had plans that were eliminated because they didn't comply with Obamacare?
   517. Guapo Posted: April 08, 2014 at 04:55 PM (#4682197)
Obamacare didn't make those plans illegal.

Insurance companies are free to offer those crappy plans and you are free to buy them. They just don't satisfy the individual mandate, so you will have to pay a tax penalty. This is to protect those of us hard-working conservatives that have decent health care from subsidizing you shiftless welfare queens that were paying $50 a month for plans that didn't cover hospitalization. You and your illegal immigrant buddies would get hit by a car, go the emergency room, and your crappy insurance wouldn't cover it, and our plans would end up absorbing the costs. Stop trying to freeload off hardworking Americans.
   518. Lassus Posted: April 08, 2014 at 04:56 PM (#4682200)
Any would be a great thing.

Sure. I've no doubt it's unanswerable, I'm just really curious about tangible numbers.
   519. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 08, 2014 at 05:00 PM (#4682212)

You have no idea what I've said.


I've been reading the OTP thread since its inception. Believe me, I know what you've said.
   520. Shredder Posted: April 08, 2014 at 05:01 PM (#4682214)
About 70% of Americans were OK with the healthcare they had (according to numerous Gallup surveys)
Is this 70% of Americans on the individual market, or 70% of all Americans? Since about 60% of people with insurance in this country have employer sponsored health insurance, and 13-14% are covered (or at least eligible) for Medicare, what's you're basis that "most" of the people purchasing health care through the exchanges were happy with the health care they had and subsequently unhappy with the insurance they now have?
gun-to-the-head tax penalties
Oh good lord.
keep their doctors if they wanted
No one has ever been able to keep their doctors if "they" wanted. Unless you believe for some reasons that doctors are indentured servants who cannot quit, retire, or change networks without the consent of their patients.
Are you really trying to claim that Obamacare didn't make certain types of plans illegal?
The ACA made shitty health insurance plans non-conforming. I'm sure there are some people who were happy with shitty health insurance plans. I'd be happy to sell those people a fancy laminated card that says "Health Insurance!" less a discount for what they'll pay in penalties so that they come out even. The coverage provided by that card will be about as effective as one of those shitty health insurance plans would have been in the event they actually got sick.
   521. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 08, 2014 at 05:08 PM (#4682218)
The ACA made shitty health insurance plans illegal.
Yes, that's the Obamabot talking point. It did not; it made plans that didn't satisfy the welfare functions of Obamacare illegal. They weren't "shitty"; they just didn't help young healthy people subsidize sick old people.
   522. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 08, 2014 at 05:12 PM (#4682228)
The ACA made shitty health insurance plans illegal. I'm sure there are some people who were happy with shitty health insurance plans. I'd be happy to sell those people a fancy laminated card that says "Health Insurance!" less a discount for what they'll pay in penalties so that they come out even. The coverage provided by that card will be about as effective as one of those shitty health insurance plans would have been in the event they actually got sick.

I would be thrilled to buy insurance where I paid the first $10,000 out-of-pocket, and was 100% covered thereafter.

That plan is nowhere close to "shitty" and is now illegal.

They just don't satisfy the individual mandate, so you will have to pay a tax penalty.

When you fine me for doing something, you've effectively made it illegal.
   523. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 08, 2014 at 05:12 PM (#4682229)
I've been reading the OTP thread since its inception. Believe me, I know what you've said.

Then I guess #503 makes you a liar. From bashing Obamacare's absurd mandates to bashing flood insurance and disaster-relief schemes that force people in Iowa and South Dakota to subsidize people in Miami, my position on insurance and risk has been consistent during the entirety of my time here.
   524. Shredder Posted: April 08, 2014 at 05:46 PM (#4682282)
I would be thrilled to buy insurance where I paid the first $10,000 out-of-pocket, and was 100% covered thereafter.
Those plans were more like "pay the first 10,000 out of pocket, then get dropped". A lot of people were happy paying for those, because it made them feel all warm and fuzzy to have insurance. Those plans sucked. They're gone for a reason.
When you fine me for doing something, you've effectively made it illegal.
Kind of how it's illegal for me to not own a house or have a child. Where you want to draw the base line is up to you. I think it was very shady of the administration to call it a penalty instead of just raising everyone's taxes and giving them a deduction that would have gotten us to the exact same place, but that's politics.
   525. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 08, 2014 at 05:55 PM (#4682292)
Obama didn't cancel those plans. The insurers did. You keep spinning, baby doll.

If Obama & his supporters want to peddle that line, go right ahead, since just about everyone knows better. Feel free to insist that those plans were all crappy, too, because that's also a losing argument. Again, look at the Gallup poll, which has examined the issue for decades, IIRC. Most people were satisfied with the healthcare they had - they didn't think they had a bad plan, just one that fit their needs better than what they are now getting in many cases. Whether people are better off with a plan that tilts more toward catastrophic coverage rather than pre-paid routine health needs should be an individual choice.

ObamaCare will be judged against what the President promised, and it comes up well short of that. Folks are not getting to keep their plan if they want, not getting to keep their doctor, and not saving on average $2500 per family. All the spinning in the world can't disguise that.
   526. Shredder Posted: April 08, 2014 at 06:06 PM (#4682302)
Most people were satisfied with the healthcare they had
Most people, in fact the vast majority of people, have health insurance either through their employer or through the government. Those plans were marginally affected, if at all. You keep throwing that out as if it's meaningful. If you're argument is that 70% of the people in the individual market were satisfied, and are now unsatisfied, please provide that evidence.
   527. spike Posted: April 08, 2014 at 06:12 PM (#4682309)
I would be thrilled to buy insurance where I paid the first $10,000 out-of-pocket, and was 100% covered thereafter.

If you were willing to fully colleteralize that in perpetuity so that the rest of us won't have to take on your debt if you file for medical bankruptcy, I'd be ok with it too.
   528. spike Posted: April 08, 2014 at 06:34 PM (#4682327)
Not to mention I think you'd be more than surprised by what the premium cost would be on top of that.
   529. greenback calls it soccer Posted: April 08, 2014 at 06:49 PM (#4682341)
For example, my company has a $50/month surcharge for smokers in our company health plan. Makes total sense.

For a private plan, yes. For a social insurance plan (read: a mandatory plan), the definition of 'fair' isn't driven by actuarial calculations. That's probably just as well in this case, since Big Data is, or at least was, on the verge of forcing some pretty dramatic shifts in the individual market for health insurance.

BTW last I heard Florida was about to pass a law that makes it illegal to rate property/casualty insurance risks or cancel policies based on gun ownership. They've got their priorities in order.
   530. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 08, 2014 at 06:56 PM (#4682342)
If you were willing to fully colleteralize that in perpetuity so that the rest of us won't have to take on your debt if you file for medical bankruptcy, I'd be ok with it too.

How the F is ten grand a year going to bankrupt me?

If you can't afford that, you can't afford the premiums for the currently available insurance.

For a private plan, yes. For a social insurance plan (read: a mandatory plan), the definition of 'fair' isn't driven by actuarial calculations.

No, it's driven by how many votes you think you can buy.

That's probably just as well in this case, since Big Data is, or at least was, on the verge of forcing some pretty dramatic shifts in the individual market for health insurance.

Then just outlaw that sort of analysis. Hell, outlaw genetic testing too. No good is going to come from that.

BTW last I heard Florida was about to pass a law that makes it illegal to rate property/casualty insurance risks or cancel policies based on gun ownership. They've got their priorities in order.

They do. Gun ownership is a Constitutional right, unlike free health care.

You wouldn't let insurers charge black people higher rates, if the actuarial studies showed them to be higher risks.
   531. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 08, 2014 at 07:06 PM (#4682349)
Most people, in fact the vast majority of people, have health insurance either through their employer or through the government. Those plans were marginally affected, if at all. You keep throwing that out as if it's meaningful.

Of course it's meaningful. Obama didn't present his plan as restricting choices & raising costs for most people in order to cover the uninsured. If you replace a healthcare system that satisfied 70% with a system that satisfies fewer people you have a political problem, especially if it's clear that you misrepresented the plan to the American people & Congress.

As far as employer-provided healthcare only being "marginally affected" - that doesn't seem to square with the Administration's efforts to postpone the employer mandate until after the 2014 elections. They know they problems.
   532. spike Posted: April 08, 2014 at 07:11 PM (#4682352)
Gun ownership is a Constitutional right, unlike free health care.

So? It's also an obvious risk factor like motorcycle ownership or skydiving, Why are these gun owning moochers allowed to pass on their higher costs to the body politic?
   533. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 08, 2014 at 07:45 PM (#4682372)
So? It's also an obvious risk factor like motorcycle ownership or skydiving, Why are these gun owning moochers allowed to pass on their higher costs to the body politic?

Because you (or any business) have no right to know who does or doesn't own a gun. Just like you have no right to know who voted Democratic or Republican.

Being black is a known risk factor for all kinds of things. We don't let insurers apply a "black surcharge".
   534. Shredder Posted: April 08, 2014 at 07:56 PM (#4682378)
As far as employer-provided healthcare only being "marginally affected" - that doesn't seem to square with the Administration's efforts to postpone the employer mandate until after the 2014 elections.
This absolutely nothing to do with the satisfaction survey you keep touting. You either know that and are trying to misdirect, or you don't, which is kind of sad.
   535. spike Posted: April 08, 2014 at 08:12 PM (#4682386)
Being black is a known risk factor for all kinds of things

You don't "choose" to be black, so analogy fail.

Because you (or any business) have no right to know who does or doesn't own a gun.
There's no mention of this in the 2nd. More "originalism". You have to register NFA weapons. You have to register to vote, too.
   536. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 08, 2014 at 08:16 PM (#4682390)
You don't "choose" to be black, so analogy fail.

Equal protection for all races under the law, is a Constitutional right. Likewise, gun ownership is a Constitutional right.

There's no mention of this in the 2nd. More "originalism". You have to register NFA weapons.

You don't need to register long arms. And why should the Gov't be disclosing who owns a pistol to the general public? The Gov't can't publicize who has contagious diseases. Why should it publicize who exercises their Constitutional rights?
   537. bobm Posted: April 08, 2014 at 08:25 PM (#4682396)
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/us/led-by-stanfords-5-top-colleges-acceptance-rates-hit-new-lows.html
   538. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 08, 2014 at 08:30 PM (#4682397)
As far as employer-provided healthcare only being "marginally affected" - that doesn't seem to square with the Administration's efforts to postpone the employer mandate until after the 2014 elections.

This absolutely nothing to do with the satisfaction survey you keep touting. You either know that and are trying to misdirect, or you don't, which is kind of sad.

You were the one that suggested that people happy with their employer-provided healthcare won't be affected by ObamaCare, but the Administration's efforts to push many of ObamaCare's provisions affecting employer-provided healthcare beyond the 2014 election belies that. As does all the ObamaCare polling.
   539. spike Posted: April 08, 2014 at 08:33 PM (#4682401)
Equal protection for all races under the law, is a Constitutional right. Likewise, gun ownership is a Constitutional right.

Not responding to my argument - the risk factor surcharge analogy fails because gun ownership is entirely optional

You don't need to register long arms. And why should the Gov't be disclosing who owns a pistol to the general public?

As to the first part, non-responsive. By inspection the government is allowed to require registration of government defined classes of firearms. As to the second,the government regulates and requires public record keeping of constitutionally protected confidential data all the time, as in HIPAA.
   540. JE (Jason) Posted: April 08, 2014 at 08:53 PM (#4682425)
   541. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: April 08, 2014 at 08:57 PM (#4682431)
And why should the Gov't be disclosing who owns a pistol to the general public?


There's no need for the government to be involved at all. If you want to claim no firearms when you do indeed have some, that's fine. Just know that if there is an incident, and the claims adjuster finds you have made a fraudulent application, your insurance will be voided. I get a break on my hurricane insurance because I have approved shutters. In exchange, I am required to put them up every time I am under a tropical storm warning. If I don't, and suffer damage, my claim can and will be rejected. No one from the sheriff's office comes around making sure my shutters are up.
   542. Shredder Posted: April 08, 2014 at 08:58 PM (#4682432)
You were the one that suggested that people happy with their employer-provided healthcare won't be affected by ObamaCare
That's because they won't be. They will still be covered. It's not a mandate that their coverage be taken away. If you have employer provided health care prior to the mandate taking effect, you will have it after the mandate takes effect. Please explain how someone who is satisfied with their current employer provided coverage will suddenly become dissatisfied with the exact same coverage post-mandate? Unless you're the Hobby Lobby, and you suddenly discovered a fake opposition to coverage of contraception (but not an opposition to making money off it).
   543. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: April 08, 2014 at 08:59 PM (#4682433)
   544. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 08, 2014 at 09:05 PM (#4682439)
Not responding to my argument - the risk factor surcharge analogy fails because gun ownership is entirely optional.

Is there any real data showing that gun owners have higher medical costs? I don't believe there is, but the controversy comes from the effort to force people to disclose whether they own a gun. It's just a form of back door gun control from the those that have been unsuccessful in pushing more overt gun controls.
   545. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 08, 2014 at 09:06 PM (#4682441)
Not politics, but oh, Florida ...
I blame Obamacare.
   546. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 08, 2014 at 09:13 PM (#4682444)
If you have employer provided health care prior to the mandate taking effect, you will have it after the mandate takes effect.

Except your new policy has to comply with ObamaCare - although the Administration's belated effort to allow non-compliant policies to be sold for another year probably came too late for most plans, some may be temporarily spared. Higher costs matter. More restrictive provider networks matter. Saying those who had employer-provided health insurance will still have health insurance misses the whole point. Many people - certainly enough to matter - preferred what they had over what they will get under ObamaCare.
   547. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: April 08, 2014 at 09:15 PM (#4682449)
Is there any real data showing that gun owners have higher medical costs?


So what? If not, then some insurance company will make a bundle by scooping up those customers dissatisfied with their previous carrier who jacked up their rates? Whatever happened to you people and "consenting parties...?"
   548. The Yankee Clapper Posted: April 08, 2014 at 09:30 PM (#4682466)
Is there any real data showing that gun owners have higher medical costs?

So what? If not, then some insurance company will make a bundle by scooping up those customers dissatisfied with their previous carrier who jacked up their rates? Whatever happened to you people and "consenting parties...?"

The exercise of Constitutional rights shouldn't be disadvantaged - or at least the legislature is free to see that they aren't.
   549. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: April 08, 2014 at 09:35 PM (#4682471)
The exercise of Constitutional rights shouldn't be disadvantaged - or at least the legislature is free to see that they aren't.


So if I install a 50,000 watt transmitter on my roof, my insurance company can't say squat? If I hold services for 200 people in my yard twice a week, my rates can't go up?
   550. Morty Causa Posted: April 08, 2014 at 09:39 PM (#4682475)
Has there ever been a time when constitutional rights weren't "interpreted"? Neither your favorite or mine has ever been recognized to have absolute effect. As someone once said, you know this thing called the United States of America is supposed to work.
   551. GregD Posted: April 08, 2014 at 09:45 PM (#4682479)
Because you (or any business) have no right to know who does or doesn't own a gun.
Tell that to the Founders. How could they have gone to their state legislatures and passed all those laws that required people to bring their guns for inspection on militia day? Didn't they understand what was in the Constitution?
   552. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 08, 2014 at 09:50 PM (#4682480)
That's because they won't be. They will still be covered. It's not a mandate that their coverage be taken away. If you have employer provided health care prior to the mandate taking effect, you will have it after the mandate takes effect.

LOL.

You're a bigger Obamacare shill than Zonk or Shipman, and that's saying something.
   553. GregD Posted: April 08, 2014 at 10:09 PM (#4682489)
LOL.

You're a bigger Obamacare shill than Zonk or Shipman, and that's saying something.
With a link from FoxNews no less! Bravo, sir. Bravo.
   554. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 08, 2014 at 10:29 PM (#4682508)
With a link from FoxNews no less! Bravo, sir. Bravo.

Fox News isn't remotely the only outlet reporting that the Obama administration feared massive problems from the employer mandate, which he punted until after the 2014 elections. It was just the first to pop up in a Google search.
   555. JE (Jason) Posted: April 08, 2014 at 10:30 PM (#4682510)
Here is an extended excerpt from Kirsten Powers' most recent USA Today column:

Even for those of us who support same-sex marriage, the virtual manhunt of Mozilla chief Brendan Eich was scary to watch. His heresy was a private donation in support of an anti-gay marriage initiative six years ago. Mob rule enforcing groupthink is as illiberal as it gets, and yet it was liberals demanding uniformity of thought — or else.

Another incident of muzzling those without the proper worldview received less attention. Kickstarter, the nation's biggest crowd-funding site, refused to accept a film about convicted abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell unless descriptions of his crimes were removed.

Kickstarter explained its reasoning for blocking the movie by writing, "We understand your convictions … however … our Community Guidelines outline that we encourage and enforce a culture of respect and consideration, and we ask that that language specifically be modified."

Somehow, making a movie recounting the crimes of a convicted abortion doctor is disrespectful and inconsiderate. Kickstarter would only speak off the record, but its explanations were dissembling and contradictory. That might be because Kickstarter's standards aren't exactly rigorously enforced. An album titled Incest is the Highest Form of Flattery was fine. The movie Die Sluts Die telling "the story of ... sex crazed friends ... murdered in unusual and creative ways," ditto.

What type of movie on late-term abortion do our meddling gatekeepers want? Kickstarter accepted After Tiller, a hagiography of the abortionists who took over when Wichita doctor George Tiller was murdered. The film presumably doesn't belabor the process of late-term abortion, where babies are often stabbed in the neck with scissors and the contents of their skulls suctioned out. One wouldn't want to violate Kickstarter's culture of respect and consideration. Or provide factual information.
   556. GregD Posted: April 08, 2014 at 10:41 PM (#4682528)
I don't think private expressions of politics should be grounds for termination of any job, high or low. (Obviously someone campaigning on the clock is a different case.) I can understand why a very publicly political person could be counter-productive as a CEO for a company that's got a high public profile, but I don't think Eich's donation fits that profile.

I actually don't think "liberals" were demanding uniformity. Most people I know didn't care, including people active in gay rights. But obviously some people cared a lot.

I also favor a robust set of job protections, and I don't understand people who are outraged by Eich but are fine with employers firing lower-level employees for being attractive or pursuing private hobbies.

Ed to add: and obviously it goes without saying, to me, that anyone outraged by Eich's firing but supporting laws that allow employers to fire employees for suspected sexual orientation (legal in 29 states) doesn't care about freedom in any meaningful sense.
   557. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 08, 2014 at 11:02 PM (#4682540)
All Eich's dismissal amounts to is a case of the tables being turned on an outspoken conservative. Boycotts, firings and blackballs for political views and activity have been around since forever, going back to the days of the Hollywood blacklisting (supported by such freedom-lovers as Ronald Reagan), and continuing up to the current time when employees have been fired for union activity. I don't think Eich should have been fired for expressing his views on gay marriage, but this sort of thing isn't exactly a new phenomenon.

Ed to add: and obviously it goes without saying, to me, that anyone outraged by Eich's firing but supporting laws that allow employers to fire employees for suspected sexual orientation (legal in 29 states) doesn't care about freedom in any meaningful sense.

Not to mention the hypocrisy of those who try to block mosques from being built, or who lend support to politicians who block regulatory agency nominees from even being voted upon because of their views.
   558. Shredder Posted: April 08, 2014 at 11:13 PM (#4682545)
Joek's Fox News link certainly put me in my place. Because certainly a potential loss of health care from the mandate would impact the way people feel about their current coverage, which is what the discussion was about. Did Joek used to post as RossCW?
   559. Joe Kehoskie Posted: April 08, 2014 at 11:56 PM (#4682576)
Joek's Fox News link certainly put me in my place. Because certainly a potential loss of health care from the mandate would impact the way people feel about their current coverage, which is what the discussion was about.

Huh? My comment wasn't off-topic in the least.

Yankee Clapper said:

You were the one that suggested that people happy with their employer-provided healthcare won't be affected by ObamaCare

And then you said:

That's because they won't be. They will still be covered. It's not a mandate that their coverage be taken away. If you have employer provided health care prior to the mandate taking effect, you will have it after the mandate takes effect.

And then I replied with a link that says up to 80 million people who have employer-based health insurance could be affected by Obamacare's employer mandate, which massively contradicts your claim/assurance that Obamacare is a non-issue for such people.
   560. OCF Posted: April 09, 2014 at 12:14 AM (#4682584)
Voted today. Municipal election. Polling place might as well have had tumbleweeds blowing through it, and I live on the side of town that tends to vote. After they counted the mail ballots, here are the percentages for the top five mayoral candidates: 27.2%, 21.1%, 18.7%, 15.3%, 13.7%. In a race like that, having a runoff among the top two has a pretty low probability of actually capturing what the electorate really wants.

Maybe now the robocalls and flyers will slow down. The sleaziest thing I got in the mail: it arrived yesterday, the day before the election. It accused one City Council candidate of being a "hired gun" for the medical marijuana industry. It took a picture of him, doctored and darkened it so that at first glance you might think it was a mug shot, and tried as hard as it could to get you to think he was a drug dealer himself although of course they never actually said that. The flyer was sponsored by some organization I never heard of and did not mention any other candidates. Tends to make the target of the hit piece look good, as far as I'm concerned.
   561. steagles Posted: April 09, 2014 at 01:27 AM (#4682614)
And then I replied with a link that says up to 80 million people who have employer-based health insurance could be affected by Obamacare's employer mandate, which massively contradicts your claim/assurance that Obamacare is a non-issue for such people.
speaking of up to 80 million being effected by something, why isn't anyone talking about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide? why is obama not talking about it? what is he hiding?
What are some of the dangers associated with DHMO?
Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:


* Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
* Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
* Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
* DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
* Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
* Contributes to soil erosion.
* Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
* Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
* Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
* Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
* Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
* Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
* Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.
   562. BrianBrianson Posted: April 09, 2014 at 05:27 AM (#4682625)
The Dihydrogen Monoxide joke is played out, partly from overuse, and partly because the name doesn't work. Try the term Hydric Acid instead (which is, of course, the same stuff, but I think sounds scarier anyhow)
   563. bobm Posted: April 09, 2014 at 08:07 AM (#4682640)
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/business/sliver-of-medicare-doctors-get-big-share-of-payouts.html

Much of Medicare spending is concentrated among a small fraction of doctors. About 2 percent of doctors account for about $15 billion in Medicare payments, roughly a quarter of the total, according an analysis of the data by The New York Times. These figures exclude commercial entities like clinical laboratories and ambulance services, which account for $13.5 billion of the $77 billion total. Only a quarter of the doctors are responsible for three-quarters of the spending.
   564. bobm Posted: April 09, 2014 at 08:22 AM (#4682650)
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/business/study-looks-at-earliest-health-law-enrollees.html

People who signed up early for insurance through the new marketplaces were more likely to be prescribed drugs to treat pain, depression and H.I.V. and were less likely to need contraceptives, according to a new study that provides a much-anticipated look at the population that signed up for coverage under the new health care law.

The health of those who enrolled in new coverage is being closely watched because many observers have questioned whether the new marketplaces would attract a large share of sick people, which could lead to higher premiums and ultimately doom the new law.

The study, to be released Wednesday by the major pharmacy-benefits manager Express Scripts, suggests that early enrollees face more serious health problems and are older than those covered by their employers. The study also showed a higher use of specialty drugs, which are often used to treat diseases like cancer and rheumatoid arthritis; the use of such drugs could hint at more costly medical problems.
   565. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: April 09, 2014 at 08:31 AM (#4682655)
I don't expect anyone would be surprised to learn that most of the early ACA adopters are people who no private insurance company would insure at anything short of an outlandish price.
   566.   Posted: April 09, 2014 at 08:40 AM (#4682661)
Who is this Joe Kehoskie character? Has he ever posted about baseball?
   567. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 09, 2014 at 09:02 AM (#4682681)
The health of those who enrolled in new coverage is being closely watched because many observers


because politics.
   568. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 09, 2014 at 09:04 AM (#4682685)
Another incident of muzzling those without the proper worldview received less attention. Kickstarter, the nation's biggest crowd-funding site, refused to accept a film about convicted abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell unless descriptions of his crimes were removed.


Does this mean Regenery has to publish Al Sharpton's next book?
   569. Lassus Posted: April 09, 2014 at 09:05 AM (#4682686)
Who is this Joe Kehoskie character? Has he ever posted about baseball?

In fairness to Joe, yes, he definitely has.
   570. JE (Jason) Posted: April 09, 2014 at 09:45 AM (#4682713)
Does this mean Regenery has to publish Al Sharpton's next book?

When Regnery quits being ideological and goes around touting itself as a beacon of diversity and inclusiveness, then let's talk, ok?
   571. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 09, 2014 at 09:53 AM (#4682724)
When Regnery quits being ideological and goes around touting itself as a beacon of diversity and inclusiveness, then let's talk, ok?


Kickstarter touts itself as a beacon of diversity and inclusiveness? Oh, is this a repeat of that precious rightwing rant about "if you're not inclusive of the bigots, you're a bigot too?!" I do love a good 90's retro theme.

If Regenery has the right to fund only those works that align to their ideological beliefs, so too does Kickstarter have the right to fund only those works that align to their ideological beliefs. If Kickstarter believes a work is contradictory to its beliefs in liberal inclusiveness, they have every right to not fund it. If Hobby Lobby has a right to "religious freedom" with regard to preventative health care for women, so too does Mozilla have a right to "freedom of association" when it comes to people who actively fund anti-civil rights laws. I'm sorry if being hoisted on your own petard gives you a wedgie.
   572. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 09, 2014 at 09:54 AM (#4682725)
   573. JE (Jason) Posted: April 09, 2014 at 10:07 AM (#4682747)
If Regenery has the right to fund only those works that align to their ideological beliefs, so too does Kickstarter have the right to fund only those works that align to their ideological beliefs.

Yes, Sam, Kickstarter talks a good game but can't even tie its spikes properly. If the CEO doesn't want its products depicted accurately because of an ideological bias, fine, just say so and drop the Orwellian prose.
   574. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: April 09, 2014 at 10:19 AM (#4682761)
Does this mean Regenery has to publish Al Sharpton's next book?


If Regenery has the right to fund only those works that align to their ideological beliefs, so too does Kickstarter have the right to fund only those works that align to their ideological beliefs.


When Regnery quits being ideological and goes around touting itself as a beacon of diversity and inclusiveness, then let's talk, ok?

Glad to see at least one person knows the right name of a publishing house that's been around for over 65 years.
   575. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 09, 2014 at 10:24 AM (#4682773)
Yes, Sam, Kickstarter talks a good game but can't even tie its spikes properly.


I'll keep this in mind next time you whinge about Putin in Ukraine. After all, if the US believes in freedom, certainly we must respect Vlad Putin's freedom to take Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.
   576. JE (Jason) Posted: April 09, 2014 at 10:29 AM (#4682777)
I'll keep this in mind next time you whinge about Putin in Ukraine. After all, if the US believes in freedom, certainly we must respect Vlad Putin's freedom to take Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.

I have no idea what this means.
   577. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 09, 2014 at 10:29 AM (#4682779)
Mob rule enforcing groupthink is as illiberal as it gets

Bingo.
   578. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 09, 2014 at 10:40 AM (#4682797)
As does all the ObamaCare polling.


just wanted to see if YC wants to comment on RCP's current Senate Aggregate (no toss ups) which has the Dems retaining the Senate

   579. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 09, 2014 at 10:45 AM (#4682802)
Just got an email from Jason Carter's campaign for GA governor. The Dems are apparently up 5:1 for dollars against Deal's campaign. And generally, money wins. Worth following as a marginal race.
   580. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 09, 2014 at 10:52 AM (#4682811)
Mob rule enforcing groupthink is as illiberal as it gets


What, exactly, is the "mob rule" at play here. That generally indicates a certain kind of violence.
   581. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: April 09, 2014 at 11:21 AM (#4682842)
20 injured in school stabbing

The reactions will be predictable. Gun rights activists will say "See, it's not a gun problem. It's a (society, mental health...) problem." Gun control advocates will claim "See, none were killed and all are expected to survive. if he had a gun many would likely be dead."

I support the latter position unsurprisingly, but I am greatly disturbed by the growing trend of people running amok in our schools with weapons of any sort. Still, if forced to make a choice (at gunpoint!), I'd rather they run amok with a knife.
   582. GregD Posted: April 09, 2014 at 11:23 AM (#4682845)
Mob rule enforcing groupthink is as illiberal as it gets
Firing people for private behaviors irrelevant to their work is as illiberal as it gets, right? I'm against mob rule and groupthink, but let's not forget that there are some much simpler, legal, defended examples of illiberalism out here. Eich and the guy booted off Kickstarter are not the world's only victims.
   583. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 09, 2014 at 11:28 AM (#4682851)

Firing people for private behaviors irrelevant to their work is as illiberal as it gets, right?


Eich wasn't fired. And his positions were certainly relevant to his work.
   584. GregD Posted: April 09, 2014 at 11:49 AM (#4682886)
As I said farther up in the thread, I am commenting on people who are outraged by Eich's treatment but silent on the 29 states where you can fire someone for sexual orientation even if it never comes up at work, and the many states where you can fire people for being too attractive or similarly absurd things.
   585. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 09, 2014 at 12:33 PM (#4682923)
Heck, that Republican congressman fired a woman for having an affair with him!
   586. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 09, 2014 at 12:49 PM (#4682938)
I support the latter position unsurprisingly, but I am greatly disturbed by the growing trend of people running amok in our schools with weapons of any sort. Still, if forced to make a choice (at gunpoint!), I'd rather they run amok with a knife.
There isn't any such "growing trend," though.
   587. spike Posted: April 09, 2014 at 12:52 PM (#4682940)
20 injured in school stabbing

Isn't the dog in the nighttime here that the headline says "injured" instead of "dead" a la Newtown, Columbine, etc.?
   588. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 09, 2014 at 01:03 PM (#4682950)
As I said farther up in the thread, I am commenting on people who are outraged by Eich's treatment but silent on the 29 states where you can fire someone for sexual orientation even if it never comes up at work, and the many states where you can fire people for being too attractive or similarly absurd things.
I know liberals have trouble with this, but there is no contradiction between supporting a company's right to terminate someone at will, while condemning the act of terminating someone for an irrelevant reason.

Eich wasn't fired. And his positions were certainly relevant to his work.
Claiming that Eich was fired is like claiming to believe a politician who resigns to spend more time with his family. And how does the distribution of a web browser relate to gay marriage?

EDIT: I meant "claiming that Eich wasn't fired."
   589. JE (Jason) Posted: April 09, 2014 at 01:04 PM (#4682952)
As I said farther up in the thread, I am commenting on people who are outraged by Eich's treatment but silent on the 29 states where you can fire someone for sexual orientation even if it never comes up at work

Being upset at Mozilla for canning Eich isn't the same as saying what the company did should be outlawed (EDIT: meaning, that's a different discussion).

Public companies should be prohibited from firing anyone based on that person's sexual orientation (EDIT: or privately-held views on sexual orientation). In contrast, smaller, mom-and-pop operations with bona fide religious concerns should be given a little more flexibility.
   590. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: April 09, 2014 at 01:14 PM (#4682960)
Claiming that Eich was fired is like claiming to believe a politician who resigns to spend more time with his family.


I agree.

And how does the distribution of a web browser relate to gay marriage?

'
It is akin to someone who has donated to the KKK being made CEO of Motown Records.
   591. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 09, 2014 at 01:15 PM (#4682962)
just wanted to see if YC wants to comment on RCP's current Senate Aggregate (no toss ups) which has the Dems retaining the Senate
That was sort of misleading (at least to me). Spoiler alert: it has the GOP picking up 5 net seats, which would mean that Democrats would "retain" the Senate in that Biden would be a tiebreaker.
   592. Lassus Posted: April 09, 2014 at 01:16 PM (#4682963)
mom-and-pop operations with bona fide religious concerns should be given a little more flexibility.

Do you have a particular line for bona fide vs. non-bona fide religious concerns?
   593. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 09, 2014 at 01:18 PM (#4682964)
It is akin to someone who has donated to the KKK being made CEO of Motown Records.
Uh, yeah.
   594. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: April 09, 2014 at 01:19 PM (#4682965)
I support the latter position unsurprisingly, but I am greatly disturbed by the growing trend of people running amok in our schools with weapons of any sort. Still, if forced to make a choice (at gunpoint!), I'd rather they run amok with a knife.
There isn't any such "growing trend," though.


Grant Duwe, a criminologist with the Minnesota Department of Corrections who has written a history of mass murders in America, said that while mass shootings rose between the 1960s and the 1990s, they actually dropped in the 2000s. And mass killings actually reached their peak in 1929, according to his data. He estimates that there were 32 in the 1980s, 42 in the 1990s and 26 in the first decade of the century.
   595. JE (Jason) Posted: April 09, 2014 at 01:22 PM (#4682968)
Do you have a particular line for bona fide vs. non-bona fide religious concerns?

I think you can start with IRS-recognized religious organizations whose beliefs on homosexuality predate the OTP thread, Lassus.

FWIW, I dealt with religious freedom issues back in the 90s and early 00s, particularly when it came to the question of serving of kosher food in federal and state prisons.
   596. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 09, 2014 at 01:24 PM (#4682972)
Spoiler alert: it has the GOP picking up 5 net seats, which would mean that Democrats would "retain" the Senate in that Biden would be a tiebreaker.


YC is on record as taking the over on six seats with the "possibility" of 10 in a "wave election." So five and Biden controlling the agenda from his Veep/POTS seat would be a significant fail on his part.
   597. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 09, 2014 at 01:28 PM (#4682978)
I'm in line with Jason on this question, actually. A sole proprietorship or simple business registration should be given more leeway for personal beliefs of the owners than an incorporated entity.
   598. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 09, 2014 at 01:31 PM (#4682984)
YC is on record as taking the over on six seats with the "possibility" of 10 in a "wave election." So five and Biden controlling the agenda from his Veep/POTS seat would be a significant fail on his part.
Ok; having been away for a while, I was not aware of the context of JSLF's question. Yes, 5 would be a big falloff from 10. It's not a big falloff from 6, which is the last working number I had heard.
   599. Accent Shallow Posted: April 09, 2014 at 01:38 PM (#4682992)
Setting aside GOP chances for taking the Senate, gay marriage, groupthink and shaming, anyone hear anything about BBTF and hosting?
   600. JE (Jason) Posted: April 09, 2014 at 01:41 PM (#4682998)
Flip.
Page 6 of 48 pages  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Francis
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogAL WILD CARD GAME 2014 OMNICHATTER
(1125 - 3:35am, Oct 01)
Last: Zach

NewsblogSpector: Stats incredible! Numbers from the 2014 MLB season will amaze you
(34 - 3:03am, Oct 01)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8173 - 2:55am, Oct 01)
Last: baudib

NewsblogThe Economist: The new market inefficiencies
(19 - 2:21am, Oct 01)
Last: David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R)

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 2014 Discussion
(14 - 2:17am, Oct 01)
Last: bjhanke

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(4079 - 2:01am, Oct 01)
Last: Joey Bot

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1958 Ballot
(13 - 1:55am, Oct 01)
Last: neilsen

NewsblogWSJ: Playoff Hateability Index
(15 - 1:45am, Oct 01)
Last: if nature called, ladodger34 would listen

NewsblogBrown: Winners And Losers: MLB Attendance In 2014, Nearly 74 Million Through The Gate
(33 - 11:27pm, Sep 30)
Last: Bhaakon

NewsblogMLB’s Biggest Star Is 40 (And He Just Retired). That Could Be A Problem.
(76 - 11:27pm, Sep 30)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogESPN: Ron Gardenhire out after 13 Seasons with Twins
(42 - 10:49pm, Sep 30)
Last: The District Attorney

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1959 Discussion
(6 - 10:35pm, Sep 30)
Last: MrC

NewsblogThe Calm-Before-The-Storm and Postseason Prediction OMNICHATTER, 2014
(110 - 10:25pm, Sep 30)
Last: JE (Jason)

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(455 - 10:08pm, Sep 30)
Last: The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-30-2014
(19 - 7:51pm, Sep 30)
Last: Leroy Kincaid

Page rendered in 1.0961 seconds
52 querie(s) executed