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

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

OT-P: President Obama Booed After Thanking Boston For Kevin Youkilis « CBS Boston

Political loyalties aren’t as strong as team loyalties.


NOTE: As I discussed in the Off-Topics, Politics, and the Redesign thread, in the redesign I’m making non-baseball content opt-in. Until the redesign is done (about two months), I’m designating one thread each month (similar to the basketball and soccer threads) as Off-Topic Politics (OT-P) and will restrict off-topic political conversations to that thread. Off-topic political comments which appear in other threads will be deleted. Since this thread has been highjacked, I’m designating this thread as the June OT-P thread.

Jim Furtado Posted: June 26, 2012 at 06:52 AM | 1396 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: red sox

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 11 of 14 pages ‹ First  < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 > 
   1001. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 02:30 PM (#4169615)
Any group with more than ten people likely has unpleasant elements.


If I can't identify the element in my group, does that mean it's probably me?
   1002. Srul Itza Posted: June 29, 2012 at 02:30 PM (#4169616)
Since this thread has been highjacked, I’m designating this thread as the June OT-P thread.


Really? You post a story about President Obama being booed, and then you're shocked -- shocked! -- to discover it turned political?



   1003. Tripon Posted: June 29, 2012 at 02:30 PM (#4169618)

Well, not the sole bottom line. For example, part of my bottom line is that it advances the cause of communism and the end of the 2nd Amendment. But certainly a very big part of the bottom line.


How exactly is Obamacare an infringement on the 2nd amendment?
   1004. spike Posted: June 29, 2012 at 02:33 PM (#4169619)
Speaking of chances, 538 has Obama at 65/35 to win.

Just to be clear, that's for November. The "if the election were held today" spread is 75/25 Obama. To me, at least, the internals of the race with respect to what states need to flip in order for Romney to win is going to make it a much bigger hill to climb in reality than what the aggregate popular polling would indicate.
   1005. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 29, 2012 at 02:33 PM (#4169622)
If I can't identify the element in my group, does that mean it's probably me?


Just like poker. If you don't know who the sucker at the table is then you are the sucker at the table.
   1006. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: June 29, 2012 at 02:35 PM (#4169623)
How exactly is Obamacare an infringement on the 2nd amendment?

Didn't you hear? The AFT is going to confiscate all of our guns and use them to collect those taxes.
   1007. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: June 29, 2012 at 02:38 PM (#4169627)
To me, at least, the internals of the race with respect to what states need to flip in order for Romney to win is going to make it a much bigger hill to climb in reality than what the aggregate popular polling would indicate.
For what it's worth, Silver discussed the question of why Obama's currently the favorite despite tight national polling, and he disagrees with you.
One of the confusing aspects of this presidential race so far is that national polls have often shown a race that is nearly tied — or Mr. Romney sometimes leading — while Mr. Obama has more often had the lead in polls of crucial battleground states. Sites that project the presidential outcome based on the state polls have thus seemed to show a tangible advantage for Mr. Obama, while those that look at the trend in national polls seem to imply that the race is too close to call.

Any evaluation of the presidential race needs to reconcile this discrepancy. That America is highly divided along partisan lines does not negate the basic mathematical identity that the whole must equal the sum of the parts.

One hypothesis might be that Mr. Obama enjoys some sort of intrinsic edge in the Electoral College — and that, like Mr. Bush in 2000, he could win the Electoral College while losing the nationwide popular vote.

Our analysis suggests, however, that this is not necessarily the case. The model’s simulations estimate that there is only about a 2 percent chance that Mr. Obama will win Electoral College while losing the popular vote. Meanwhile, there is only about a 3 percent chance that Mr. Romney will do so.

Instead, the disparity between state and national polls probably stems from a more banal factor: it likely results from the different types of polling firms that are active in each of these domains.

The polling firms that have dominated the national polls are Gallup and Rasmussen Reports, each of which release national tracking numbers on a daily basis. These firms have had Republican-leaning “house effects” so far, meaning that they show more favorable results for Mr. Romney than the consensus of polls.

Meanwhile, some pollsters that are more active at the state level, like Public Policy Polling and Marist College, have had Democratic-leaning house effects, giving Mr. Obama better results than the consensus does.
   1008. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: June 29, 2012 at 02:42 PM (#4169633)
The idea isn't to eradicate free-loading, it's to eradicate free-loading by people who don't need to free-load.

Bingo.

The market for health care is unique in that there's essentially a societal compact, engaged in by all, that would-be purchasers of necessary health care will be served even though all parties know they can't pay. It can't be compared to normal markets.

Bingo again, though some people can't even acknowledge the concept of a societal compact that goes beyond police and fire departments.
   1009. Tripon Posted: June 29, 2012 at 02:42 PM (#4169634)
As with any political election, Obama is the favorite because he's the incumbent, and its always harder to unseat the guy in office than to fight for an open seat.
   1010. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 02:44 PM (#4169635)
To appropriate and modify a Brad DeLong bon mot:

1. Nate Silver is always right
2. When you think Nate Silver is wrong, refer to 1.
   1011. spike Posted: June 29, 2012 at 02:50 PM (#4169641)
@1007 - perhaps I was inarticulate, or did not understand your response - I was not saying that Obama would win the EC and lose the pop vote, but that he does have an edge in the swing states, and that this will be very hard for Romney to overcome despite the race "looking" close. I am not seeing anything that contradicts this in your excerpt or the article, and the fact that Silver finds Obama a decisive favorite at this point seems to agree rather than rebut this.
   1012. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 02:55 PM (#4169644)
1011: The point Silver is making is that, due to the house effects in the national polling vs the house effects in the state level polling, the disparity isn't as big as it looks and thus Obama doesn't have as much of an advantage in those states as it seems.

He also makes the related point elsewhere that a 2% shift nationwide changes a lot of outcomes, because they tend to be happen to at least some extent in every state so that what looked like a really nice EC firewall can fall apart in a hurry.
   1013. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 02:57 PM (#4169646)
370 odd posts until I win the meaningless internet bet!
   1014. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: June 29, 2012 at 02:57 PM (#4169648)
he does have an edge in the swing states, and that this will be very hard for Romney to overcome despite the race "looking" close.
The point is that, by the best read of the data, Obama does not have an edge in the swing states which is distinct from his edge in the national popular vote. Obama's edge is not an artifact of the electoral college, but simply a function of him having more supporters nationwide than Romney.

There is a gap between the national polling and the state-by-state polling, but it is not a function of Obama having particular strength in the swing states that isn't fully recorded in the national polling. Rather, it's a function of the house effects of the polling firms which have done the bulk of the national polling and the state-by-state polling, respectively.

You can ignore swing states entirely, right now, and it should not affect your analysis of the election.

EDIT: coke to scott
   1015. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: June 29, 2012 at 02:58 PM (#4169650)
guys, i know the tea party and the gop. i know i am a nobody on the internet but you have to believe me on this one. all the suppositions i have read to date are plain garbage.


This I have no doubt of, Harvey. In fact, we are in agreement, because unlike David and Ray, I actually know the base of the GOP/TP from experience as well. My criticism was about allowing the GOP/TP's misuse of terms to creep into your usage.
   1016. formerly dp Posted: June 29, 2012 at 02:59 PM (#4169652)
can't even acknowledge the concept of a societal compact that goes beyond police and fire departments.

Wait, you got them to agree on those? BTF leftie high-five!

   1017. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: June 29, 2012 at 03:04 PM (#4169659)
can't even acknowledge the concept of a societal compact that goes beyond police and fire departments.

Wait, you got them to agree on those? BTF leftie high-five!


Well, I should've mentioned that they also want the policemen and firemen to pay for their insurance policies out of pocket. No freeloaders around here!
   1018. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: June 29, 2012 at 03:10 PM (#4169665)
look at west virginia which is a dem leaning state but have strong animus toward the president


Deep Appalachia don't like the black guy? Not exactly shocking, Harv.

Appalachia flips one for GOP, the mountain southwest continues to trend toward the Dems.
   1019. Danny Posted: June 29, 2012 at 03:14 PM (#4169666)
The only problem with that comparison is that while the Romney clips show Romney flatly contradicting himself, those Obama clips would be contradicting the justification of the ACA issued by John Roberts. Obama's not only consistently spoken in favor of the mandate since he first introduced the ACA, but he (and Congress) put the mandate into law. Very little inconsistency there.

Whereas Romney opposes the mandate now, but he both championed and signed into law an identical mandate for his own state.

Obama flatly opposed an individual mandate for adults throughout the 2008 election cycle. He used his opposition to the mandate to attack Hillary from the right.

His opportunistic opposition to the mandate probably helped him win the primary, but it also helped cement opposition to the mandate among some liberals and moderates.

The difference between Obama's flip and Romney's flop is that the Republicans don't see any advantage in pointing Obama's out.
   1020. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: June 29, 2012 at 03:19 PM (#4169668)
Obama flatly opposed an individual mandate for adults throughout the 2008 election cycle. He used his opposition to the mandate to attack Hillary from the right.


Yes. Apparently he had to find an argument that Ben Nelson would vote in favor of. It's almost like pragmatism trumped ideology.
   1021. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 03:24 PM (#4169670)
The idea isn't to eradicate free-loading, it's to eradicate free-loading by people who don't need to free-load.

Bingo.


Oh, Obamacare purports to determine who "doesn't need" to freeload?

Does a struggling actor "need" to freeload? He could go out and get a job that doesn't depend so heavily on the good fortune of getting noticed.

Does someone who didn't go to school or learn a skill despite being capable of so doing "need" to freeload? How does Obamacare determine this?

The market for health care is unique in that there's essentially a societal compact, engaged in by all, that would-be purchasers of necessary health care will be served even though all parties know they can't pay. It can't be compared to normal markets.

Bingo again, though some people can't even acknowledge the concept of a societal compact that goes beyond police and fire departments.


You forgot roads, man. Roads.

"Would-be" participants haven't participated in anything. And of course one solution would have been to go in the other direction, and _not_ force A to fund B's "would-be" participation.

   1022. Lassus Posted: June 29, 2012 at 03:28 PM (#4169672)
Does a struggling actor "need" to freeload? He could go out and get a job that doesn't depend so heavily on the good fortune of getting noticed. Does someone who didn't go to school or learn a skill despite being capable of so doing "need" to freeload? How does Obamacare determine this?

You're also forgetting us childless freeriders.
   1023. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 29, 2012 at 03:31 PM (#4169673)
"Would-be" participants haven't participated in anything.

Yes, they have. They've accepted society's guarantee of no-cost emergency room medical care. Not only that, but the guarantee has impacted their commercial decisions.

You aren't adequately considering this, the uniqueness of the health care "market," and the fact that children need health care and can't pay for it.

   1024. The District Attorney Posted: June 29, 2012 at 03:34 PM (#4169676)
Random points:

- First and most importantly, it's "Geddy" Lee, not "Getty."

- Re: broccoli: To me, giving a tax deduction for something is equivalent to taxing you for not doing it. Thus, if the government can effectively tax you for renting an apartment rather than buying a house, being single rather than being married, etc., then I don't see why the government couldn't tax you for not eating broccoli. Other than that, of course, if people do not in fact want to be penalized for not eating broccoli, the government would be voted out of office and the law would then be repealed. But it certainly would not be any more intrusive!

- Re: the mandate being "necessary": You definitely can't have people going for years without insurance and then waltzing in and buying it as soon as they get sick. But there are potentially ways to address that other than a mandate. Couldn't you have something like what most people have with their employer-sponsored private insurance: a certain period during the year during which you can change your coverage? Except that, rather than literally not being able to get into the plan at any other time, you can get into the "health care exchange" plan outside of the window, but it costs you a lot more to do so? I have no clue whether that's a better approach -- for one thing, the ACA approach seems more direct, especially if they just would have said it was a tax to begin with -- but it surely seems like there were alternatives available.

- Trying to beat Romney by turning the Tea Party on him does seem like a hopeless effort. That was the idea behind nominating Palin, right? Try to split the Hillary wing away from the Obama wing. Did not work, to put it mildly; Hillary supporters still knew Obama was more on their side than McCain. The same would happen with the TP and Romney. (And no, I don't think it mattered that the then-unknown Palin happened to turn out to be a particularly polarizing candidate. I really don't think it would have flown anyway.)

Honestly, I'm not sure how you win elections, as the evidence seems to show that there aren't enough "true moderates" to worry about, and yet it's very hard to believe that it's all "turnout" and "ground game". We talked about this a bit in the discussion of the article where Bill James was interviewed about "applying Moneyball to politics"; how much importance can one attach to the "little picture" campaign, vs. the "big picture" campaign (overarching strategy, "images"/"gaffes"/news cycle stuff, etc.), vs. people just vote for the incumbent if they're reasonably happy and they don't if they're not. I'm still not sure... #990 might summarize about where I'm at...

Anyway, this was great.
If you think that 75 years of legal precedent is a "bunch of gibberish and non-sequiturs," then turkey bologna sandwiches eaten by a mustachioed sailor.
   1025. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: June 29, 2012 at 03:34 PM (#4169677)
Yes. Apparently he had to find an argument that Ben Nelson would vote in favor of. It's almost like pragmatism trumped ideology.

What's weird to me is that... people that like Obama know he's a smart guy. A thoughtful guy.
I don't see why he couldn't say, at some point, "I used to think A, and now I think B, and here's why."
Or maybe he's done that on the mandate at some point, I dunno.
   1026. jmurph Posted: June 29, 2012 at 03:36 PM (#4169679)
I asked this the other day and didn't get an answer: this discussion makes me wonder where Snapper has been. Anyone know?
   1027. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 03:36 PM (#4169680)
Yes, they have. They've accepted society's guarantee of no-cost emergency room medical care. Not only that, but the guarantee has impacted their commercial decisions.


They haven't "accepted" it. It was unilaterally given to them. And, yes, if it hadn't been unilaterally given to them perhaps they would have decided to get health insurance. Which is part of the issue here. It's not exactly shocking that people getting something for nothing would decide not to pay for that something.
   1028. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 03:38 PM (#4169681)
I asked this the other day and didn't get an answer: this discussion makes me wonder where Snapper has been. Anyone know?


No. I'm usually in contact with him every few weeks by email for one reason or another, but I haven't heard from him in a couple months.
   1029. formerly dp Posted: June 29, 2012 at 03:39 PM (#4169682)
Does a struggling actor "need" to freeload? He could go out and get a job that doesn't depend so heavily on the good fortune of getting noticed.

Does someone who didn't go to school or learn a skill despite being capable of so doing "need" to freeload? How does Obamacare determine this?


I forgot, it always comes back to how bitter Ray is over his career choice.
   1030. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 29, 2012 at 03:42 PM (#4169684)
They haven't "accepted" it. It was unilaterally given to them.

And by their acquiescence and more, they've accepted it.

It's not exactly shocking that people getting something for nothing would decide not to pay for that something.

So the emergency room should turn aside a nine-year old with a cut arm and let him bleed to death because his parents either didn't purchase or can't afford health insurance?

Silliness generally begets loss of credibility. Society has bestowed the guarantee because it would be barbaric if it didn't. It's silly to suggest that the guarantee be lifted.
   1031. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: June 29, 2012 at 03:47 PM (#4169685)
sugar

regarding turning away the 9 year old there are members of my party who would say 'yes' and i am not completely at odds with that perspective

it is predicated on choice. with choice comes responsibility. if you choose 'x' and there are consequences from choosing 'x' why is some other party deemed 'bad' because they acknowledged and respected the choice of 'x' and acted accordingly

one of the core issues in the country is that many claim to want freedom of choice but then wail at the consequences. so then you have others who say fine we will make the choices for you and we will accept the burden of the consequences and folks wail at that.

   1032. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: June 29, 2012 at 03:50 PM (#4169686)
the only thing that keeps me from total agreemnent is the recognition is that as a country we stink at assessing risk and hence make disasterous choices on matters of grave importance.
   1033. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 03:52 PM (#4169687)
So the emergency room should turn aside a nine-year old with a cut arm and let him bleed to death because his parents either didn't purchase or can't afford health insurance?


I don't recall saying that.

My point is that the "young freeloader" hasn't "accepted" anything. You never offered it to him. You gave it to him.

And telling the people already footing the bill for emergency care that "Since you pay for emergency room care, we're going to force you to pay for insurance-type coverage also" is specious.
   1034. Poulanc Posted: June 29, 2012 at 03:54 PM (#4169688)
I don't recall saying that.



So what should the emergency room do?
   1035. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 03:54 PM (#4169689)
But hey, at least we're now all in agreement that everyone does get emergency care and nobody is "dying in the streets."
   1036. Shredder Posted: June 29, 2012 at 03:56 PM (#4169691)
it is predicated on choice. with choice comes responsibility. if you choose 'x' and there are consequences from choosing 'x' why is some other party deemed 'bad' because they acknowledged and respected the choice of 'x' and acted accordingly
The law has determined that nine year olds don't have the capacity to make decisions of this nature. The nine year didn't choose anything, let alone 'x', yet there are apparently members of your family who think it is fair to let the kid die because his parents were shiftless ########. Count me as one who doesn't hold the same view.
   1037. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: June 29, 2012 at 03:57 PM (#4169692)
shredder

i understand that perspective.
   1038. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 03:59 PM (#4169694)
So what should the emergency room do?


Mercy kill the 9 year olds who have the idiotic parents.
   1039. Danny Posted: June 29, 2012 at 04:10 PM (#4169700)
Yes. Apparently he had to find an argument that Ben Nelson would vote in favor of. It's almost like pragmatism trumped ideology.

You seem to be implying that the mandate was a conservative policy added to gain the support of conservative Democrats. In reality, it was the policy position favored by every serious policy group on the left and every lefty senator. The mandate was in the bill long before Nelson signed on, and Nelson is actually one of the few Dem senators to tentatively support a repeal of the mandate.

Obama's opposition to the mandate was political, not ideological. Just like Romney's opposition to it now.
   1040. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: June 29, 2012 at 04:17 PM (#4169709)
Does a struggling actor "need" to freeload? He could go out and get a job that doesn't depend so heavily on the good fortune of getting noticed.


I forgot, it always comes back to how bitter Ray is over his career choice.

And yet he would have made a hell of a Charlie McCarthy to David's Edgar Bergen.

-------------------------------------------------------

The market for health care is unique in that there's essentially a societal compact, engaged in by all, that would-be purchasers of necessary health care will be served even though all parties know they can't pay. It can't be compared to normal markets.


Bingo again, though some people can't even acknowledge the concept of a societal compact that goes beyond police and fire departments.

You forgot roads, man. Roads.


Sorry, my bad. I just assumed that you wanted to privatize every last street and sidewalk and let the E-Z Pass people take it from there.

   1041. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: June 29, 2012 at 04:21 PM (#4169711)
You seem to be implying that the mandate was a conservative policy added to gain the support of conservative Democrats. In reality, it was the policy position favored by every serious policy group on the left and every lefty senator. The mandate was in the bill long before Nelson signed on, and Nelson is actually one of the few Dem senators to tentatively support a repeal of the mandate.


Nelson's opposition to the mandate was derived from the same magical space the GOP's newfound opposition to a mandate was derived.
   1042. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 29, 2012 at 04:21 PM (#4169712)
I don't recall saying that.

I know you didn't, because you don't really advocate upsetting the societal guarantee. Thus, you've acquiesced to it also.
   1043. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: June 29, 2012 at 04:22 PM (#4169713)
Obama's opposition to the mandate was political, not ideological.


Considering the fact that Obama has shown no clear ideology to speak of, that's not surprising.
   1044. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: June 29, 2012 at 04:24 PM (#4169716)
You seem to be implying that the mandate was a conservative policy added to gain the support of conservative Democrats. In reality, it was the policy position favored by every serious policy group on the left and every lefty senator. The mandate was in the bill long before Nelson signed on, and Nelson is actually one of the few Dem senators to tentatively support a repeal of the mandate.

Obama's opposition to the mandate was political, not ideological. Just like Romney's opposition to it now.


Why does any of this matter?
   1045. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: June 29, 2012 at 04:25 PM (#4169718)
Why does any of this matter?


Conceded.
   1046. Danny Posted: June 29, 2012 at 04:26 PM (#4169720)
What's weird to me is that... people that like Obama know he's a smart guy. A thoughtful guy.
I don't see why he couldn't say, at some point, "I used to think A, and now I think B, and here's why."
Or maybe he's done that on the mandate at some point, I dunno.

Read about it here, culminating in Obama's CBS interview:
“Do you believe that each individual American should be required to have health insurance?”

“I have come to that conclusion,” Obama replied. “During the campaign I was opposed to this idea because my general attitude was the reason people don’t have health insurance is not because they don’t want it, it’s because they can’t afford it. And if you make it affordable, then they’ll come. I am now in favor of some sort of individual mandate as long as there’s a hardship exemption.”

Of course, Candidate Obama had surely read the studies that all showed that, in the absence of a mandate, ~15 million people who could afford health care would choose not to do so.
   1047. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: June 29, 2012 at 04:30 PM (#4169723)
Of course, Candidate Obama had surely read the studies that all showed that, in the absence of a mandate, ~15 million people who could afford health care would choose not to do so.


Wait, are you arguing that Obama campaigned against the mandate from Hillary's *right?* That's not correct. Obama campaigned on public option universal access, from Hillary's left.
   1048. jmurph Posted: June 29, 2012 at 04:34 PM (#4169729)
I asked this the other day and didn't get an answer: this discussion makes me wonder where Snapper has been. Anyone know?


No. I'm usually in contact with him every few weeks by email for one reason or another, but I haven't heard from him in a couple months.


Huh, well I hope he's okay. He's one of the more prolific posters here so it stood out to me that he was sitting this thread out.
   1049. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: June 29, 2012 at 04:46 PM (#4169736)
“Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional.” - Rand Paul


That word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
   1050. CrosbyBird Posted: June 29, 2012 at 04:53 PM (#4169741)
the whole point to Obamacare was, "Oh my god, some people can't afford health insurance, and we need to add these people to the system and make other people pay for them because it's immoral to deny people health insurance and we can't have people going bankrupt or being denied coverage and preventative care and such."

That's a huge oversimplification.

Since we live in a civilized country where we don't let people die of easily treatable medical conditions, and some people cannot or will not pay, the folks who do pay for health care (insured or out-of-pocket) end up paying extra. Similarly, those who cannot or will not pay for preventative care end up replacing cheap checkups with expensive emergency room care.

We already had free riders, and all of the responsible people were bearing the cost of not only those who could not afford insurance, but also those who could afford insurance and chose to gamble. The penalty is simply a way to make those "capable gamblers" assume some of the responsibility of their risk-taking.

Also, some responsible people who hit the negative lottery with serious illness or injury suddenly found that the insurance companies that happily accepted premiums in the past either created obstacles for legitimate claims or dropped the policyholder entirely.

I am not commenting on whether Obamacare is moral or immoral. I'm commenting that the people favoring it should at least be honest as to what it is.

Most people that support Obamacare are pretty clear about what it is. It's the most politically feasible attempt to bring this country closer to a desired state of universal health care.

The free-riding problem really can't be solved unless we're willing to embrace a callousness that the overwhelming majority of people in this country simply will not accept. It wasn't created by Obamacare, and there's a reasonable argument that the policy actually reduces the problem by punishing those who are capable of pulling their weight but choose not to. Those who are legitimately too poor to buy coverage were free riders before Obamacare and remain free riders with Obamacare, but it may well be the case that they're less of a drain on the system with better access to preventative and other non-disaster care, since they'll be consuming far fewer resources by more frequently addressing health issues when they are smaller and easier to manage.
   1051. JL Posted: June 29, 2012 at 04:58 PM (#4169742)
regarding turning away the 9 year old there are members of my party who would say 'yes' and i am not completely at odds with that perspective

it is predicated on choice. with choice comes responsibility. if you choose 'x' and there are consequences from choosing 'x' why is some other party deemed 'bad' because they acknowledged and respected the choice of 'x' and acted accordingly

one of the core issues in the country is that many claim to want freedom of choice but then wail at the consequences. so then you have others who say fine we will make the choices for you and we will accept the burden of the consequences and folks wail at that.


Where did that nine year old make that choice? Because is that is the perspective, then you have to give that nine year old the ability to exercise that choice. That means giving them the right to contract as well as get a job. Heck, there should really be no distinction between that nine year old and an 18 year old.
   1052. zenbitz Posted: June 29, 2012 at 04:59 PM (#4169743)
as a country humans we stink at assessing risk and hence make disasterous choices on matters of grave importance.


Of course, some individuals appear to be good at it. Or are at least lucky.
   1053. Danny Posted: June 29, 2012 at 05:02 PM (#4169744)
Wait, are you arguing that Obama campaigned against the mandate from Hillary's *right?* That's not correct. Obama campaigned on public option universal access, from Hillary's left.

Ugghhh. He had the most conservative health care plan of the big 3 Dems.

Hillary and Edwards both had full public options in their initial plans, while Obama did not until he was later forced into it. While Hillary and Edwards constantly campaigned on their support for the public option, Obama barely mentioned it. Here's Obama in his own words in 2009 on what would have been the biggest cost-saver in the reform package:

It is true that that the Senate version does not have a public option and that has become a source of ideological contention between the left and the right, but I didn't campaign on a public option. I think it is a good idea but as I said on that speech on September 9, it just one small element of a broader reform effort.

Hillary and Edwards both had individual mandates that were favored by every major liberal policy group. Obama, meanwhile, attacked those mandates from the right with Harry and Louise and "the government is going to make you buy something you don't want" fearmongering.

Krugman:
The Obama plan includes a public option for everyone as well — but thereby hangs a tale. You see, when it was first announced, it didn’t: the public option was there only for selected groups — others would have to go with private insurance companies. It was only after several days of hectoring from progressive health care wonks that the Obama people said, in effect, “OK, we’ll make it available to everyone.” I was told that they really hadn’t thought about that — which is amazing, considering how important the public option is. (the Edwards campaign has been clear in stating that it might eventually lead to a single-payer system.)

This was one of the episodes that led health wonks I talk to to conclude that Obama may just not be that committed to universal care.

This gets once again at what I keep trying to tell people: on health care, Obama is consistently running to the right of his rivals.

   1054. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 05:02 PM (#4169745)
That word. I do not think it means what you think it means.


I think he has it correct, since appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Just because someone in a position of authority asserted something does not make it true. If the conclusion is based on bad reasoning, the conclusion may well be incorrect. Had this decision gone the other way 5-4, what was that supposed to prove, exactly?

Did you think Bowers v. Hardwick was decided correctly in 1986?

Even smart people can affirm false notions, and often do. A law "being constitutional" is different from a law "being ruled constitutional."

But yes, for all practical purposes, this horrid health care law must be treated as being constitutional.
   1055. The Good Face Posted: June 29, 2012 at 05:07 PM (#4169747)
as a country humans we stink at assessing risk and hence make disasterous choices on matters of grave importance.


Of course, some individuals appear to be good at it. Or are at least lucky.


True. People in general are pretty lousy at it. Not necessarily a bad thing though. Sometimes crazy risks work out and lead to improvements that benefit the greater population.

And yeah, like any other quality, the ability (or lack thereof) to accurately assess risk is not equitably distributed among people.
   1056. Shredder Posted: June 29, 2012 at 05:14 PM (#4169750)
Just because someone in a position of authority asserted something does not make it true.
Maybe if there are no consequences to the authority's assertion. But that's not the case here. If Paul had said "I disagree with the Court's reasoning and I believe that the authority for the law is not found within the text of the Constitution", then maybe he'd have a point. But it's absolutely the case that the Supreme Court saying a law is Constitutional BY DEFINITION makes that law Constitutional. This isn't theory. As a practical matter the ACA is Constitutional because the Supreme Court said so. It's really not a difficult concept to understand, unless you're a moron like Rand Paul.
A law "being constitutional" is different from a law "being ruled constitutional."
No it's not.
   1057. Tripon Posted: June 29, 2012 at 05:20 PM (#4169752)
Rand Paul is just playing to his base. In that sense, he's just another politician playing the game.
   1058. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: June 29, 2012 at 05:22 PM (#4169753)
@1053 - I stand corrected.
   1059. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: June 29, 2012 at 05:24 PM (#4169754)
Danny, your memory is good and you're convincing in arguing that Hillary and Edwards were much more in line with liberal thinking on health care during the 2008 primary season. You were telling us the same thing back then as well, as (IIRC) a fairly big Hillary supporter.

The question is: What particular relevance does that have today? Obama's been consistent in his support of the mandate since 2009, and whatever backtracking he's done from public option has been in reaction to political mathematics. And while many of us would rather see a single player or public option plan, nearly every faction of the Democratic base supports the ACA as the only practical alternative out there for the foreseeable future.

By contrast, The state that Romney governed actually enacted a law that he fully supported, and which is 180 degrees opposed to his position today. Harvey's right to say that this won't stop the GOP base from voting for him, but it's still not a bad thing to remind voters who may not be aware of the extent of Romney's changing views.

And besides, those Romney videos promoting the Massachusetts mandate are a hoot. The entertainment value alone justifies their use.
   1060. zenbitz Posted: June 29, 2012 at 05:27 PM (#4169756)

It's sort of like being safe or out. If the umpire calls you out -- even if you dropped the ball in the stands -- you ARE out. The call could be reversed, or acknowledged as incorrect according to the rules of MLB (i.e, the Constitution).

But as Ray says, for practical purposes, the ACA is constitutional. Constitutional/Unconstitutional is not the same as Moral/Immoral or Good/Bad.
   1061. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 05:27 PM (#4169757)
I stand corrected.


New handle for you, Sam?
   1062. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: June 29, 2012 at 05:28 PM (#4169759)
But yes, for all practical purposes, this horrid health care law must be treated as being constitutional.

There, that wasn't so hard, was it?

Ray diPerna: I shrunk it!
   1063. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: June 29, 2012 at 05:29 PM (#4169760)
I think he has it correct, since appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Just because someone in a position of authority asserted something does not make it true. If the conclusion is based on bad reasoning, the conclusion may well be incorrect. Had this decision gone the other way 5-4, what was that supposed to prove, exactly?


Well, Ray, if it had gone 5-4 the other way, it would have proved that the law was unconstitutional. Constitutionality isn't a quality like a chemical composition or something. It's a quality entirely dependent upon the rulings of the SCOTUS on the question. It's friggin' tautological. There is not a natural state of being called "constitutional." It's not a Platonic form. It's just 9 guys and girls reading a dusty text and writing up what they think it all means.
   1064. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: June 29, 2012 at 05:36 PM (#4169762)
New handle for you, Sam?


Nah, I'm sticking with this one for a while I think.
   1065. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 05:39 PM (#4169765)
But yes, for all practical purposes, this horrid health care law must be treated as being constitutional.

There, that wasn't so hard, was it?


I said "treated." I didn't say "considered."
   1066. Morty Causa Posted: June 29, 2012 at 05:42 PM (#4169766)
1050:

Nice, thoughtful post.
   1067. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 29, 2012 at 05:49 PM (#4169768)
A law "being constitutional" is different from a law "being ruled constitutional."
No it's not.


Well these is a difference, largely a rhetorical one, but a difference nevertheless.

Personally I think the ACA is both a constitutional law and one which was correctly ruled constitutional.

I do not think it is a great law, or even a good law, but I don't think it's a horrid law, and I think some of the hyperbole coming from its opponents has gone from being silly to being scary...

   1068. Morty Causa Posted: June 29, 2012 at 05:51 PM (#4169769)
How is constitutionality determined?
   1069. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 29, 2012 at 05:52 PM (#4169770)
1050:

Nice, thoughtful post.


ditto
   1070. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: June 29, 2012 at 05:53 PM (#4169773)
If a fascist took over the executive branch and Congress enacted a law saying "Republican government is hereby banned in the United States, and elections suspended indefinitely," that would be an unconsitutional law even if a puppet Supreme Court said otherwise.

That principle obviously doesn't apply here, but there's more to constituionality than five or more Supremes saying so.
   1071. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 29, 2012 at 05:54 PM (#4169774)
By the way, has anyone seen this photo?

sadly it is not really a reaction to yesterday's SCOTUS decision, and I suspect that Boehner was caught just as he was starting to sneeze, but it's still a hoot.
   1072. formerly dp Posted: June 29, 2012 at 05:56 PM (#4169778)
How is constitutionality determined?

The same way True Talent and the Red Sox clinching a 2011 playoff spot are.
   1073. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 05:57 PM (#4169779)
Nice, thoughtful post.


Thank you.
   1074. Guapo Posted: June 29, 2012 at 06:16 PM (#4169783)
Next, let's argue about whether the sky is blue or green. Feel free to invent alternative definitions of blue or green that will best suit your position.
   1075. Morty Causa Posted: June 29, 2012 at 06:18 PM (#4169784)
I think one needs to keep the political concept of constitutionality separate from what we think morally or philosophically wrong. It's not content neutral concept but a moral value neutral one.

Prior to the Civil War and the concomitant amendment(s), was our political state of being constitutional? Or did it become so only when slavery was abolished? Or was that unconstitutional? Notice I'm not saying anything about right and wrong--or even what's the best political philosophical precept that should be extant. There's a tendency to discuss things dear to our heart in terms that make it, well, impossible to discus or not worth discussing
   1076. zenbitz Posted: June 29, 2012 at 06:18 PM (#4169785)
Congress enacted a law saying "Republican government is hereby banned in the United States, and elections suspended indefinitely," that would be an unconsitutional law even if a puppet Supreme Court said otherwise.


Unless congress passed this as an amendment to the constitution. But your argument reduces to "if the constitution was suspended this would not be constitutional".
   1077. Bitter Mouse Posted: June 29, 2012 at 06:31 PM (#4169791)
If a fascist took over the executive branch and Congress enacted a law saying "Republican government is hereby banned in the United States, and elections suspended indefinitely," that would be an unconsitutional law even if a puppet Supreme Court said otherwise.


I have agreed with you most of this part of this thread, but here I think you are wrong. What the SC decides is constitutional is in fact so. Of course as many great man have said sometimes you must fight against an unjust law, and that would in fact be unjust. But I think we are splitting hairs a bit.
   1078. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 29, 2012 at 06:37 PM (#4169794)
I just saw an article that a poll is just out saying 46% agree with SCOTUS and 46% disagree...

while I wouldn't be surprised if a poll taken now came out 46/46, what I don't get is how could a properly random poll have been set up, taken and tabulated so quickly?

   1079. formerly dp Posted: June 29, 2012 at 06:48 PM (#4169799)
Roy Nicholson, Chairman of the Mississippi Tea Party, apparently doesn't think the ACA's valid either:

With its 5-4 ruling upholding Obamacare the US Supreme Court has joined with the Executive and Legislative branches of the federal government in abandoning the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and with that ruling abandoned the People. All of us are now simply chattel of the government to be used and ordered about as they choose.
...
When a gang of criminals subvert legitimate government offices and seize all power to themselves without the real consent of the governed their every act and edict is of itself illegal and is outside the bounds of the Rule of Law. In such cases submission is treason. Treason against the Constitution and the valid legitimate government of the nation to which we have pledged our allegiance for years. To resist by all means that are right in the eyes of God is not rebellion or insurrection, it is patriotic resistance to invasion.

May all of us fall on our faces before the Heavenly Judge, repent of our sins, and humbly cry out to Him for mercy on our country. And, may godly courageous leaders rise up in His wisdom and power to lead us in displacing the criminal invaders from their seats and restore our constitutional republic.
   1080. Kiko Sakata Posted: June 29, 2012 at 06:48 PM (#4169800)
I don't get is how could a properly random poll have been set up, taken and tabulated so quickly?


If the question is phrased generically enough, "Do you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court's decision on 'Obamacare'?" they could have had the poll already written and the sample already selected before the decision was announced. Obviously, you'd have to ask everybody in your sample in one day, but after that, tabulation should be pretty easy (if it's an automated poll, I assume they can set those up to just do the tabulation as they go along, right?). Gallup and Rasmussen do Presidential tracking polls every night and report the results the next day, don't they?
   1081. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 29, 2012 at 06:50 PM (#4169801)
Gallup and Rasmussen do Presidential tracking polls every night and report the results the next day, don't they?


Yes, but their sampling in recent years has started coming of for a lot of criticism...
   1082. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: June 29, 2012 at 06:52 PM (#4169802)
Where is the weeping and wailing? Where is the anger and outrage?


umm Roy, I've been seeing a lot of weeping, wailing, anger and outrage... I don't quite understand it, but there you go
   1083. Lassus Posted: June 29, 2012 at 06:58 PM (#4169803)
Jindal ain't goin' out like that, and is going to circle the wagons!

Seems like just yesterday he was making news with his bizarro Republican response.
   1084. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: June 29, 2012 at 07:06 PM (#4169804)
Roy Nicholson, Chairman of the Mississippi Tea Party, apparently doesn't think the ACA's valid either:

With its 5-4 ruling upholding Obamacare the US Supreme Court has joined with the Executive and Legislative branches of the federal government in abandoning the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and with that ruling abandoned the People. All of us are now simply chattel of the government to be used and ordered about as they choose.
...
When a gang of criminals subvert legitimate government offices and seize all power to themselves without the real consent of the governed their every act and edict is of itself illegal and is outside the bounds of the Rule of Law. In such cases submission is treason. Treason against the Constitution and the valid legitimate government of the nation to which we have pledged our allegiance for years. To resist by all means that are right in the eyes of God is not rebellion or insurrection, it is patriotic resistance to invasion.

May all of us fall on our faces before the Heavenly Judge, repent of our sins, and humbly cry out to Him for mercy on our country. And, may godly courageous leaders rise up in His wisdom and power to lead us in displacing the criminal invaders from their seats and restore our constitutional republic.


Jeez, and I thought George Wallace and Ross Barnett had gone to their rewards. Guess not.
   1085. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 07:14 PM (#4169806)
Re Roy Nicholson's statement quoted above, there's no need to get all "gang of criminals" and "heavenly judge" over this. What happened is the Dems got hold of the executive branch and then had sufficient numbers in the legislative branch to ram an unconstitutional and unpopular law through, with precious little of the "bipartisanship" that both parties often pay lip service to being present. The administration then went and argued the case before the Supreme Court and they prevailed - ever so narrowly and somewhat surprisingly - but they prevailed, wrongly, nevertheless.

They're not "criminals." They may not care much about personal freedom except for sex, but they're not Evil. They won't need to Stand Judgment before any Maker when they leave this green earth. They figured out how to get something done within the system, and they got it done. (And good luck, Republicans, trying to repeal it.) Politics should not be shocking to anyone.
   1086. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: June 29, 2012 at 07:14 PM (#4169807)
Random points:

- First and most importantly, it's "Geddy" Lee, not "Getty."


I'd rather not go back and search, so when were youse all discussing Rush?
   1087. Gonfalon B. Posted: June 29, 2012 at 07:16 PM (#4169808)
May all of us fall on our faces before the Heavenly Judge, repent of our sins, and humbly cry out to Him for mercy on our country. And, may godly courageous leaders rise up in His wisdom and power to lead us in displacing the criminal invaders from their seats and restore our constitutional republic.

In the words of Christ of Nazareth, "Truly, I say unto you that whatsoever you do for the least of My brothers is the same as a direct kick to My balls. Repeal and repent!"
   1088. Dan The Mediocre Posted: June 29, 2012 at 07:16 PM (#4169809)
with precious little of the "bipartisanship" that both parties often pay lip service to


So when the Republicans refused to compromise in any way on the largest part of their 2008 election campaign, they should have walked away?
   1089. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 07:17 PM (#4169810)
I'd rather not go back and search, so when were youse all discussing Rush?


We weren't. The only ones here who seem to care what he says are liberals.
   1090. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 29, 2012 at 07:18 PM (#4169811)
So when the Republicans refused to compromise in any way on the largest part of their 2008 election campaign, they should have walked away?


I don't recall saying that.

My point is that both parties pretend to care about bipartisanship, but they're happy to pass things unilaterally if they can.
   1091. Lassus Posted: June 29, 2012 at 07:20 PM (#4169812)
We weren't. The only ones here who seem to care what he says are liberals.

In the spirit of bipartisanship, I will stand with you against Rush.
   1092. spike Posted: June 29, 2012 at 07:24 PM (#4169814)
Me too. And deliciously, they told Rand Paul to quit using their music in his campaign (2112 is dedicated to "the genius of Ayn Rand").
   1093. formerly dp Posted: June 29, 2012 at 07:28 PM (#4169815)
to ram an unconstitutional and unpopular law through

While you continue to double down on this, why don't you at least try to answer Morty's question posed above:

How is constitutionality determined?



   1094. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: June 29, 2012 at 07:28 PM (#4169816)
If a fascist took over the executive branch and Congress enacted a law saying "Republican government is hereby banned in the United States, and elections suspended indefinitely," that would be an unconsitutional law even if a puppet Supreme Court said otherwise.


Sure it would. You seem to underestimate the power of, well, power.
   1095. STEAGLES is all out of bubblegum Posted: June 29, 2012 at 07:31 PM (#4169817)
If a fascist took over the executive branch and Congress enacted a law saying "Republican government is hereby banned in the United States, and elections suspended indefinitely," that would be an unconsitutional law even if a puppet Supreme Court said otherwise.
isn't that happening right now in michigan?
   1096. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: June 29, 2012 at 07:32 PM (#4169818)
When a gang of criminals subvert legitimate government offices and seize all power to themselves without the real consent of the governed their every act and edict is of itself illegal and is outside the bounds of the Rule of Law. In such cases submission is treason.


When we don't get our way, treason is patriotism, and abiding by the law is treason!

And you people call me names when I point out the fact that the GOP/TP base is just a bunch of rebranded neo-Confederates!
   1097. Randy Jones Posted: June 29, 2012 at 07:37 PM (#4169821)
And you people call me names when I point out the fact that the GOP/TP base is just a bunch of rebranded neo-Confederates!


Nah, they don't have the balls to attempt secession.
   1098. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: June 29, 2012 at 07:38 PM (#4169822)
What happened is the Dems got hold of the executive branch and then had sufficient numbers in the legislative branch to ram an unconstitutional and unpopular law through


Kick and scream all you like. Quote passages from Ayn Rand if you prefer. But that word still doesn't mean what you think it means. I'm pretty sure if you scan the news coverage (non-CNN/FOX editions) from yesterday you'll find that the law was deemed, in fact, constitutional.

Also, hold onto that "unpopular" talking point as long as you can. The law is about to start kicking in, and the popularity of it will begin to climb. Fox anti-ACA propaganda lost a huge heft with yesterday's ruling. (You know, the one where the SCOTUS deemed the law to be constitutional.)
   1099. Rickey! In a van on 95 south... Posted: June 29, 2012 at 07:41 PM (#4169824)
Nah, they don't have the balls to attempt secession.


You can't wage insurrectionist war from those Medicare scooters, man.
   1100. Randy Jones Posted: June 29, 2012 at 07:43 PM (#4169825)
You can't wage insurrectionist war from those Medicare scooters, man.


It worked on South Park!
Page 11 of 14 pages ‹ First  < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Backlasher
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogChase Utley is the hottest hitter in baseball and has a shot at .400
(44 - 6:35pm, Apr 19)
Last: Barry`s_Lazy_Boy

NewsblogNYT: Sandomir: When Swastikas, on Caps, Meant Luck
(10 - 6:34pm, Apr 19)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(344 - 6:30pm, Apr 19)
Last: Darkness and the howling fantods

NewsblogSeidman: Velocity talk angers Papelbon, who cites Halladay
(7 - 6:24pm, Apr 19)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogBryce Harper benched for 'lack of hustle' despite quad injury
(6 - 6:24pm, Apr 19)
Last: KT's Pot Arb

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(149 - 6:21pm, Apr 19)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(1720 - 6:18pm, Apr 19)
Last: Bitter Mouse

NewsblogSCD: Bobby Cox Rookie Card Goes from Common Box to Hall of Fame
(9 - 6:11pm, Apr 19)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight

NewsblogDoug Glanville: I Was Racially Profiled in My Own Driveway
(350 - 6:11pm, Apr 19)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogCesar Cabral tossed from game, from team
(21 - 6:06pm, Apr 19)
Last: Walks Clog Up the Bases

NewsblogGleeman: Mets minor league team is hosting “Seinfeld night”
(159 - 5:51pm, Apr 19)
Last: Joe Bivens, Minor Genius

NewsblogOMNICHATTER FOR APRIL 19, 2014
(55 - 4:39pm, Apr 19)
Last: Rickey! In a van on 95 south...

NewsblogRosenthal: MLB likely to adjust two rules: plays at home & transfer catches
(11 - 3:35pm, Apr 19)
Last: bobm

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread March, 2014
(913 - 3:32pm, Apr 19)
Last: nick swisher hygiene

Newsblogmets.com: Through hitting system, Mets aim to build winner
(6 - 2:36pm, Apr 19)
Last: The District Attorney

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 1.0030 seconds
52 querie(s) executed