Y2HH

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 03:41 PM) This tactic won't actually prevent anything from happening, right? It's not like the WI or IN state walkouts. Nope...it's just a "show", which is what our government has become...a huge freak show. It's annoying enough when I have to hear about "how hard they wrok", when almost none of them even know what an actual hard days work is. These constant antics on the floor...walking out...etc...it shows how much of a game they think it is. Any of them, republican, democrat, independent...if your job is to read something and vote yes or no based on the facts, then they should do that...not stage mock protests on the tax payers dime. A simple vote of NO, IMO, is more of a protest of something you are against than walking out, only to have to walk back in and vote anyway. It's childs play, and I'm sick of people giving them a pass on it...regardless of what side of the isle they are on.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 03:38 PM) You could make the argument that blocking a vote on Flood Insurance until someone gets his vote on when life begins is acting like a three year old. Walking out of a chamber to protest a vote is called protesting, not being childish. Right...because voting "No", isn't enough of a protest. Give me a break.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 03:36 PM) I am biased to begin with, thankyouverymuch. I know that. So it'd be easier that you just say you feel there is nothing to be found because you don't want anything to be found...instead of pretending as if the "mountains of data" show nothing...when there have been no "mountains of data".

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 03:32 PM) When even National Review is burying the story, because there's little being uncovered from the mountains of data that has already been provided in this investigation - I'm inclined to trust my gut. I think there's precious little to see here. You're inclined to be biased, you mean.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 03:13 PM) Can a mod please change the title of this thread to OBAMACARE MEGATHREAD OBAMA OBAMA CARE CARE I gotta feeling you O'doyls are goin' down...but right now I gotta study.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 03:10 PM) It's widely referred to as "Obamacare" by advocates and denouncers alike. It's better than the catchy slogan "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." Just think of it like everyone calling tissue "Kleenex" Call it ACA then, because that's what it is. To anyone that has any education on the subject whatsoever, would know that what Obama initially proposed (Obamacare), and what they actually passed are two drastically different things. So, by that rational, anyone that continues to call it what it's not, "Obamacare", is an absolute f***ing moron. I don't care what the popular belief is. I thought I made that clear by pointing out the ignorance of the typical Bear fan and the popular and much repeated Bear weather myth?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 02:58 PM) The Republican Alternative To Obamacare Is - More Obamacare? Anyone that still refers to what they passed as Obamacare is on my auto ignore list. It shows they don't know what they're talking about (or don't care) and are fine with regurgitating popular slogans or "nicknames", whether they are deserved or not. It's no different than ignorant Bears fans that continue to perpetuate the "Bear weather" myth, to use a sports analogy on a sports website.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 10:27 AM) I agree they tried to get to clever with it and didnt want to use the ugly "tax" word. And another ruling for the Federal Govt. I think most people would agree Roberts is not the problem, it is some of the other Justices who would entirely rewrite history to somehow make a ruling that they support. I think what is best for everyone is that it is over. Certainty is always better than uncertainty. Exactly. And it's silly. And IMO, it's not a game of semantics when it comes to this. Otherwise precedent would be set so they can collect taxes in a millions of new, previously unthought of ways, without calling them taxes. It's much easier when you see a line item on everything you buy that says "tax", instead of the silliness that would begin to occur if such a bad precedent was set. It'd be just a few short years before you have no idea where your money is going or why it's going there. IMO, Roberts is the only justice on that panel which I believe is actually fair minded versus basing his decisions strictly on his political viewpoints (see the rest of the supreme court for a good example of this). It's why every semi-partisan law automatically goes 4-4 and he's the deciding factor...always.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 10:16 AM) Roberts agreed that it wasn't a Commerce Clause "mandate" but a tax. Yes I know this.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 10:12 AM) Amazingly, I can now say that by some bleeping miracle, both I and a narrow 5-4 majority disagree with this interpretation. Roberts didn't agree with you. And he was the vote that mattered.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 10:11 AM) "Mandate" doesn't appear in the text of the bill. Just stop. Seriously.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 10:07 AM) Just to add for completeness, I still disagree with the concept that this bill opens the doors to "required purchase of a private product", on the grounds that any tax credit can be described as that based on the standard applied in this law. It's one thing if they call it a tax...it's another entirely if they call it a mandate, which is what they originally attempted to do...which was wrong, and IMO, illegal. If it's a tax, that's fine...but using the word mandate is where they went wrong. Edit: Some will say this is semantics...but it's not. Just call a tax a tax instead of playing word games to skirt around the fact you are taxing people for a service.

Not an unexpected outcome, with Robert's upholding as a tax, which is pretty much what I said in my previous post that they'd have to do. Insurance companies can now breathe a sigh of relief, as none of them were looking for this to be struck down, contrary to what a lot of misinformed people thought they wanted. I can't tell you how much money we've spent in the past 2 years making drastic internal changes to make the new ACA work...and if it was struck down, all that money would have been completely wasted.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 24, 2012 -> 06:09 PM) Yes, keep taking money from workers. By dismantling unions and by backstopping the banks. And you know what else we need? Fewer teachers and policemen and firefighters. Clearly the problem is that too many people are on the government teat. That's why corporate profits are falling so rapidly, because the government's taking from them too. Oh wait. Forgot. Opposite. The corporate world is taking money from workers and sucking on that government teat. And the government is allowing it. The government you elected...and will probably try to re-elect.

Without the mandate, the ACA cannot stand as written. You either have to strike down the entire act, uphold all of it, or perform a rewrite and just call it a tax. Without the mandate, as written, you'd effectively bankrupt the entire health insurance industry, and the justices know that. To put it in simple terms, no mandate = wait until your sick or on the way to the hospital to buy insurance...after you leave hospital, cancel it. They cannot reject you for pre-existing conditions, so there is no point in paying for insurance until you need it. That won't just bankrupt the entire insurance industry, it will bankrupt the government programs, too...since suddenly the entire country would be on them all at once.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Jun 24, 2012 -> 02:40 PM) I'm running Kaspersky and it's due for renewal tomorrow. Is that Microsoft prgram worth a damn? Yes, it's worth a damn. It's not only free, but it's very good, and it does both virus/spyware in one. Who knows more about how to defend windows than Microsoft? They've made the thing damn near bulletproof all these years...so I'd trust their newer AV software in a heartbeat.

http://videosift.com/video/Drugs-are-bad-mkay-Head-of-DEA When officials so blatantly dodge questions like this, it annoys the hell out of me. On a side note, Jared is a real life friend of mine, seeing him in congress on these sorts of panels is somewhat surreal to me.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 22, 2012 -> 10:42 AM) On the left side of the article, you can listen to the entire recorded interview with Zimmerman from the night of the shooting. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/us/docum...tml?_r=2&hp Martin was shot through the heart and lung at close range, but Zimmerman claims that Martin said "you got me!" and kept talking after he had been shot and that Zimmerman still had to restrain him on the ground. He may not be lying. Living organisms that live beyond a fatal wound often do and say wonky things when it happens, including seemingly impossible things.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jun 20, 2012 -> 03:44 PM) Enjoying my new laptop so far. Looks good, runs pretty crisply with a few things running, and getting rid of all the bloatware didn't take too long. Any must-have software for Windows 7? Yes. http://www.piriform.com/CCLEANER (Cleans the "crap" files off of your computer and out of your registry, temp files, etc.) and http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows...rity-essentials (Free anti-virus/anti-malware from Microsoft, this is a VERY good program, and it's free.)

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 20, 2012 -> 11:41 AM) Sounds like a good argument for abolishing private health insurance, then. There are good arguments to be heard on both sides of that equation. That said, if they "abolished" private health insurance, you'd probably create a depression overnight by adding about 10 million people to the unemployment line. Good luck with that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 20, 2012 -> 11:14 AM) Jenks, I can't remember the most recent thread we went back-and-forth on eyewitnesses on, but I thought you might be interested in this Frontline episode on the CSI-ization of courtrooms. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/real-csi/ Haven't watched this...but tell me if I get the gist of the show... Modern jurors watch too much f***ing television and think it's real.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 20, 2012 -> 11:36 AM) They attacked insurers by mandating that every American become their customers. I see how easy it is to believe that this has somehow made insurance companies rich, but it hasn't...those gains will be offset by the fact they can no longer cherry pick relatively healthy cliental.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 20, 2012 -> 10:05 AM) It's true, I've never criticized PPACA as a s***ty band-aid before. Instead of playing dumb and pretending that I've been some uncritical supporter of that, do you care to actually talk about the issue? This is merely a continuation of past conversations we've had on this very issue...and nothings changed since. I hold the same opinions I've always held on this matter...it's a broken system, and the "fix" they implemented wasn't a fix at all, it wasn't even a band-aid, as you previously stated...it's worse than that. A band-aid has an actual use when applied properly, such as covering a small cut...but this was akin to putting a bandaid over a hole in someones heart. It accomplished almost nothing. They attacked insurers and left the rest of the battle field untouched. Now, were the insurers abusing some rules? Absolutely, and a few simple fixes could have taken care of that...but meanwhile they still did nothing to fix the root of the problem, and that's the rising cost of care. In addition to creating new laws for insurance companies, they needed to create new laws to control some of the pricing of doctors/hospitals/mal practice insurance (but this isn't as bad as doctors like to make people believe), and drug companies. So, what we have are some new rules to "insure" people, but nothing that controls costs on the back end. With the money they're spending, they could have instituted a program where the government reimburses graduating medical students to help them pay down their loans, and in return, the students that take advantage of the program could owe medical service back to the people, not unlike military service in which they work at dedicated clinics for 4 years (or some other amount of time), in which the care they deliver is ultra low cost or free, and the wage they make is quite low. This could foster a culture of service to the people, while making the profession more affordable for new students to enter.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 20, 2012 -> 10:00 AM) Sometimes. Or going bankrupt. Or not getting preventative care and screenings, leading to illnesses becoming much worse than they might have otherwise been, making them much more difficult to treat, increasing costs and risks. And while it's great that there's some limited access in major metropolitan areas, the same isn't true everywhere. Have you seen the turnouts when groups like Doctors Without Borders hold an annual clinic in Appalachia? http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008...in-borders.html But, but...but...none of this matters anymore...didn't we just reform healthcare and fix everything?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 20, 2012 -> 09:47 AM) ER "health care" is only "health care" for certain limited definitions of health care, which was my point. ER's do not treat illnesses like cancer, HIV, mental illnesses, diabetes or anything else that requires routine check-ups and upkeep medication. Some of this treatment can be covered via Medicaid, but there's limitations on qualifying for that (and funding issues). So, are you claiming that middle class Americans without insurance that have these health issues are simply dying without treatment? It's a yes or no question.