Which - even accepting that - is free health care.

Bob, #9199: Real insurance is a voluntary arrangement where assets are pooled based on risk. So there is no "free loading" there.

Pity, because you're also always angry.

Your wife likes me that way.

Real insurance is a voluntary arrangement where assets are pooled based on risk. So there is no "free loading" there.

Any social insurance textbook will tell you that participation in a social insurance scheme must be mandatory.

Hehe, still fantasizing about getting a woman worth having (mine), instead of that grunting hambeast you're partnered with?

in California we have to have car insurance in order to own a car so what is the Libertarian viewpoint on that?

Hehe, still fantasizing about getting a woman worth having (mine)

The one who won't let you play softball?

Any social insurance textbook will tell you that participation in a social insurance scheme must be mandatory.

Ray's going to balk at that word "social."

Paying fair market value is the new free, apparently.

As any fair-minded person would. Like with the phrase "social contract," putting the word "social" in front of the word in order to redefine the word modifies the word out of existence. You might as well choose a different word, at that point. Like "social gunpointing."

Somebody check the Ray robot. It seems to be stuck in the argument loop from back in October.

I don't know - how much enjoyment do you get from posting?

//On a related topic, I have to admit, your demonstrably false postings do bring me great mirth.

What is happening is that since a large swathe of people aren't paying fair market value - they are going to be getting insurance for little or no cost, which is the whole freaking point of the system - the system wouldn't have enough money unless everyone who could pay were roped in by fining them in order to get their money.

I will say this once, Ray.

Healthcare, health insurance, and health outcomes do not model rationally to stringent free market idealism. I'm sorry that reality has decided to punch your theory in the face like that, man.

Paying fair market value is the new free, apparently.

Not in the legal and regulatory environment we've set up in the US, no

Listening to "libertarians" shake their tiny fists at the actual world and curse that it doesn't abide by their reality-based opinions never gets old.

Bringing the entire group of folks who were uninsurable as well as the folks who had no access to purchase group insurance in at one time spreads the actuarial risk over a massive pool. I'm sorry the insurance companies will have a harder time selling predatory high premium low coverage policies, but those are hardly "fair market".

Not in any environment. Like national defense and policing, health outcomes are just not something that reasonably and easily models onto standard for-profit free market theory. But Ray can't just come to terms with this disconnect between health outcomes and market ideology, because he's always lived in a world where we pretended they were compatible. I fully believe that if we had lived the last 50 years in a system where military services were outsourced (universally rather than partially) and someone proposed a semi-nationalized model for armed forces, Ray would balk at that too.

Puts all of Joe's "Yesredistrictingisafactor BUT, moving on quickly, Barack Obama had historically weak coattails and a poor performance" posts into mathematical perspective. And since the Congressional map is redrawn by the dominant party every 10 years, and since microtargeting is becoming more and more of a factor, it makes one wonder whether the Democrats can be expected to grab a lot of territory back in 2020, a Presidential year, followed by the Republicans doing the same in 2030, a midterm year, and so forth.

Bringing the entire group of folks who were uninsurable as well as the folks who had no access to purchase group insurance in at one time spreads the actuarial risk over a massive pool.

Access to group insurance and commensurate (significantly) lower rates has been up until now almost entirely a function of getting it from your employer.

ACA will engage those folks previously without such access (self-employed, part time, full time for small biz, etc).

Obama had historically weak coattails, yes. There's really no denying this. As the only president in history to win reelection with a smaller margin of victory than in his initial win, Obama essentially limped to reelection without carrying many, if any, fellow Dems across the finish line.

What is happening is that since a large swathe of people aren't paying fair market value - they are going to be getting insurance for little or no cost, which is the whole freaking point of the system - the system wouldn't have enough money unless everyone who could pay were roped in by fining them in order to get their money.

Why are people lying about this?

Let me break the logjam by freely admitting that under the libertarian premise of "fairness", and under the libertarian concept of "freeloader", then yes, those who will be benefiting by Obamacare's insurance subsidies will indeed be "freeloaders".

Of course the followup question from the non-pure libertarian POV is "So ####### what?"

McCain: ‘Surprised’ By Report That DNI Removed Terrorism References In Rice’s Benghazi Talking Points

Yeah. He gets surprised by a lot of things these days. Like sunrise.

Why on earth should people not in a given group have access to things that membership in said group is a prerequisite to?

Insuring people in groups is cheaper than insuring individuals. Allowing individuals to form a group to purchase insurance provides a market solution that allows them to exploit the power of buying in a group, and the vendor to profit by reduced risk.

Sure. By allowing them to pay less than market value.

No, by allowing them to form a group which presents less risk to the insuror and better rates for the insured.

health outcomes are just not something that reasonably and easily models onto standard for-profit free market theory.

This is an assertion that's pretty easy to test.

That would require an audience in search of factual reality, Ron.

So, someone other than you and your cohorts, then?

That would require an audience in search of factual reality, Ron.

So, someone other than you and your cohorts, then?

House Democrats outperformed House Republicans in 2004 and House Democrats in 1996... House Republicans picked up 12 seats in 1984, but they had an even deeper hole to start with and ended up still further back from a majority than the Democrats were to start this cycle...House Democrats also upped their national share of the vote compared to 2010.

I love these Kehoskian "there's no denying this" statements -- it's the classic blusterific tactic of pretending that conveying absolute certainty in an opinion built on flimsy analysis will forestall any look at the evidence.

Say it and say it and say it, and it still won't make it so. The actual context and data were cited in the vicinity of this strata of this thread.

The 2012 Democrats had the fifth-greatest gain of House seats in a Presidential year since the 1960s. They're still mopping up the final vote totals, but proportional to his margin of victory, Obama "did" the same or better than he did in 2008. Of course, it's a modest feat, considering the incredibly feeble precedent: the average House gain for the winning party was +2 in the previous six elections. Ultimately, you don't know what you're talking about, only for what you're rooting for.

I understand. If you can't make Obama be a loser, at least you can make him feel like a loser.

CNET has learned that Patrick Leahy, the influential Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, has dramatically reshaped his legislation in response to law enforcement concerns. A vote on his bill, which now authorizes warrantless access to Americans' e-mail, is scheduled for next week.

Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies -- including the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Federal Communications Commission -- to access Americans' e-mail, Google Docs files, Facebook wall posts, and Twitter direct messages without a search warrant. It also would give the FBI and Homeland Security more authority, in some circumstances, to gain full access to Internet accounts without notifying either the owner or a judge. (CNET obtained the revised draft from a source involved in the negotiations with Leahy.)

Revised bill highlights:
Grants warrantless access to Americans' electronic correspondence to over 22 federal agencies. Only a subpoena is required, not a search warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause.
Permits state and local law enforcement to warrantlessly access Americans' correspondence stored on systems not offered "to the public," including university networks.
Authorizes any law enforcement agency to access accounts without a warrant -- or subsequent court review -- if they claim "emergency" situations exist.
Says providers "shall notify" law enforcement in advance of any plans to tell their customers that they've been the target of a warrant, order, or subpoena.
Delays notification of customers whose accounts have been accessed from 3 days to "10 business days." This notification can be postponed by up to 360 days.

It's an abrupt departure from Leahy's earlier approach, which required police to obtain a search warrant backed by probable cause before they could read the contents of e-mail or other communications. The Vermont Democrat boasted last year that his bill "provides enhanced privacy protections for American consumers by... requiring that the government obtain a search warrant."

The whole idea of Presidential coattails is essentially bogus, but the more you buy into it, the more your premise fails.

Leahy's rewritten bill would allow more than 22 agencies [...] to access Americans' [...] Facebook wall posts

I'd have expected Ray to argue as DMN has in the past. He honestly doesn't care if there is no observable change in health care outcomes (or even if health care outcomes improve in a socialized model) nor whether there is cost containment (albeit for from perfect) under a socialized model. It's an intrusion into the free market and is therefore wrong regardless of outcome.

It's funny watching the same people who were citing Sam Wang's prediction

And as I've mentioned, prior to 1960 health care expenditures and life expectancy were basically the same in the US and Canada. Now the US spends a great deal more for no obvious gain in health care outcomes.

The "police services are gifts too!" argument makes no sense. Rich people have paid enough income tax to cover the cost of the police services they've received several times over.

The braying jackass caucus lost two members in West and Joe Walsh - but just to show my bipartisan bonafides, I'll say they picked up one with Alan Grayson returning to congress.

Not to mention those who get favorable tax rates on their dividends and capital gains, like (duh) Romney himself.

One of these days I'd love to see how long Ray's job would last if the government decided not to enforce its patent laws.

Sen. Patrick Leahy has abandoned his controversial proposal that would grant government agencies more surveillance power -- including warrantless access to Americans' e-mail accounts -- than they possess under current law.

The Vermont Democrat said today on Twitter that he would "not support such an exception" for warrantless access. The remarks came a few hours after a CNET article was published this morning that disclosed the existence of the measure.

A vote on the proposal in the Senate Judiciary committee, which Leahy chairs, is scheduled for next Thursday. The amendments were due to be glued onto a substitute (PDF) to H.R. 2471, which the House of Representatives already has approved.

Leahy's about-face comes in response to a deluge of criticism today, including the American Civil Liberties Union saying that warrants should be required, and the conservative group FreedomWorks launching a petition to Congress -- with more than 2,300 messages sent so far -- titled: "Tell Congress: Stay Out of My Email!"

Not sure you're the proper authority to be criticizing other people's pre-election predictioneering, JoJo m'boy.

My being wrong about Romney means I can't point out that Sam Wang was wrong about the House for most of the fall?

I recall you were infamously wrong about the Civil Rights Act voting.

This line gets trotted out in every discussion, but the people using it never seem to acknowledge the major differences between the two cohorts. Canada doesn't have a huge population of illegal immigrants that uses its hospitals as walk-in clinics, nor does it have a huge underclass prone to drug use and/or violence. Canadians also drive over 20 percent fewer miles per year than their American counterparts, which results in a lower number of auto accidents and a lower number of auto injuries and deaths in Canada. Canada also ranks far lower when it comes to obesity, with a rate at least 15 percentage points lower as of the latest studies.

Without taking all of the above into account, comparisons of U.S. and Canadian health outcomes and health expenditures are little more than a waste of time.

You being so spectacularly wrong would indicate that you might take some time to consider the failures of your assumptions, which you have not done.

It has little to do with Sam Wang's equally invalid model, which, by the way, no one around here was touting with any degree of earnestness, to my recollection. You're just pretending that people were hyping Wang's model in order to prop up your 'both sides do it' defense of being so completely ####### wrong on the facts.

Man, you make living in America sound like such a bummer. There are some good things about your country. Like baseball!

Maybe you should get Chambers to unskew that data, Joe.

This is an interesting fact because I've been through Canada and there is a WHOLE lot of nothing up there which made me imagine the driving time per person was greater. Where is this factoid from, if I may? My guess is that it has to do with fewer people living in the nothing than in the U.S., plus the smaller population, public transportation, etc., but initially it just seemed off.

No, by allowing them to form a group which presents less risk to the insurer and better rates for the insured.

The U.S. and Canada are both 80/20 urban/rural. I'm guessing the difference is mostly due to Canada having more relatively large urban areas with mass transit, while the U.S. has a lot more smaller cities and a lot more sprawl.

This marks the first time I have typed Sam Wang’s name. Tell me more about faulty assumptions and a failure to understand previous posts.

Translation: Context for me, not for thee.

No, it doesn’t. There’s no pattern to the margins of Presidential wins (or losses) and the accompanying House gains (or losses), and you can’t find one.

Go ahead, try. Give us a ratio: Presidential margin X = House pickup range Y. Thrill us.

Or, save your breath, because you’re wrong and the numbers show it.

Someone tell me if I've got this right.

Sooo... the answer back in the days of rescission as a common practice would be for those dropped from coverage to.... do what exactly?

(2) You don't have to have car insurance to own a car, you have to have car insurance to drive a car on public roads.

Canada also ranks far lower when it comes to obesity, with a rate at least 15 percentage points lower as of the latest studies.

People always have had the right to form such groups.

Poppycock. As an independent contractor or part time employee, there was no feasible way to do so.

ACA is another mechanism for wealth redistribution.

And as I've mentioned, prior to 1960 health care expenditures and life expectancy were basically the same in the US and Canada. Now the US spends a great deal more for no obvious gain in health care outcomes.

Canadians also drive over 20 percent fewer miles per year than their American counterparts...

This is an interesting fact because I've been through Canada and there is a WHOLE lot of nothing up there which made me imagine the driving time per person was greater. Where is this factoid from, if I may? My guess is that it has to do with fewer people living in the nothing than in the U.S., plus the smaller population, public transportation, etc., but initially it just seemed off.

Sure, as long as you include the fact that a previous redistribution in favor of the wealthy has already occurred.

We live in a union-busting country, and one result of that is wages are artificially suppressed.

We live in a union-busting country, and one result of that is wages are artificially suppressed. It's one thing to create nominally legal ways of stealing from low wage workers, but then kick them for not making more money and thereby paying more taxes? C'mon.

We live in a union-busting country, and one result of that is wages are artificially suppressed.

Like any good liberal, you have this exactly backwards; the strength of unions in this country lead to wages and compensation that are artificially inflated.

I'm trying to compare US Census and Transport Canada stats...the conversion between miles and km is tres annoying.

Someone tell me if I've got this right.
US Census lists 1.1 deaths per 100 million vehicles miles
Transport Canada lists 6.6 deaths per 1 billion vehicle kms

Converting 1 billion km to 100 million miles I get that as 1.06 per 100 million vehicle miles in Canada (round to 1.1)

Fun with math!

I did write 'Of course, your view of wealth redistribution largely depends on how well you think the 'free' market distributes wealth in the first place', did I not? #### man, I even put single quotes around the term 'free'.

Leahy's about-face comes in response to a deluge of criticism today, including the American Civil Liberties Union saying that warrants should be required, and the conservative group FreedomWorks launching a petition to Congress -- with more than 2,300 messages sent so far -- titled: "Tell Congress: Stay Out of My Email!"

@9294: a thing of beauty. An association of the empowered like, say, the American Bar Association, that contrives to inflate wages, is as natural as a rock formation.

Btw, I can't wait for you to tell us what the 'natural' price of manual labor is. This should be good.