User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.6987 seconds
53 querie(s) executed
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.
If I can't identify the element in my group, does that mean it's probably me?
Really? You post a story about President Obama being booed, and then you're shocked -- shocked! -- to discover it turned political?
How exactly is Obamacare an infringement on the 2nd amendment?
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.
Just like poker. If you don't know who the sucker at the table is then you are the sucker at the table.
Didn't you hear? The AFT is going to confiscate all of our guns and use them to collect those taxes.
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.
1. Nate Silver is always right
2. When you think Nate Silver is wrong, refer to 1.
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.
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
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.
Wait, you got them to agree on those? BTF leftie high-five!
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!
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.
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.
Yes. Apparently he had to find an argument that Ben Nelson would vote in favor of. It's almost like pragmatism trumped ideology.
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?
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.
You're also forgetting us childless freeriders.
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So what should the emergency room do?
i understand that perspective.
Mercy kill the 9 year olds who have the idiotic parents.
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.
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
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.
Nelson's opposition to the mandate was derived from the same magical space the GOP's newfound opposition to a mandate was derived.
I know you didn't, because you don't really advocate upsetting the societal guarantee. Thus, you've acquiesced to it also.
Considering the fact that Obama has shown no clear ideology to speak of, that's not surprising.
Obama's opposition to the mandate was political, not ideological. Just like Romney's opposition to it now.
Why does any of this matter?
Conceded.
Read about it here, culminating in Obama's CBS interview:
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.
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.
That word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
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.
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.
Of course, some individuals appear to be good at it. Or are at least lucky.
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
New handle for you, Sam?
There, that wasn't so hard, was it?
Ray diPerna: I shrunk it!
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.
Nah, I'm sticking with this one for a while I think.
I said "treated." I didn't say "considered."
Nice, thoughtful post.
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...
ditto
That principle obviously doesn't apply here, but there's more to constituionality than five or more Supremes saying so.
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.
The same way True Talent and the Red Sox clinching a 2011 playoff spot are.
Thank you.
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
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".
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.
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?
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?
Yes, but their sampling in recent years has started coming of for a lot of criticism...
umm Roy, I've been seeing a lot of weeping, wailing, anger and outrage... I don't quite understand it, but there you go
Seems like just yesterday he was making news with his bizarro Republican response.
Jeez, and I thought George Wallace and Ross Barnett had gone to their rewards. Guess not.
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.
I'd rather not go back and search, so when were youse all discussing Rush?
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!"
So when the Republicans refused to compromise in any way on the largest part of their 2008 election campaign, they should have walked away?
We weren't. The only ones here who seem to care what he says are liberals.
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.
In the spirit of bipartisanship, I will stand with you against Rush.
While you continue to double down on this, why don't you at least try to answer Morty's question posed above:
Sure it would. You seem to underestimate the power of, well, power.
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!
Nah, they don't have the balls to attempt secession.
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.)
You can't wage insurrectionist war from those Medicare scooters, man.
It worked on South Park!
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main