StrangeSox

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:45 PM) Several weeks? The story just broke big about 7 days ago, regardless of it being a month old now. Until the story got big, which is when NBC aired their edited tape, not many people knew about this. Uh, I started this thread over a week ago, and the story was already over a week old at that point. Here's something from March 13th. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/13/t...ref=mostpopular

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:43 PM) I was just looking through the google history of this whole story, and if you look back on the 8th/9th when it broke they were all tailored as if there was proof of racial profiling. It's something along the lines of "Zimmerman told the cops he saw someone suspicious." And then the next sentence is "Trayvon was a black teen." The 911 tapes could have helped him, but by then it was too late and the context of the entire story was "disgruntled racist white man kills saintly black teen for no apparent reason other than his hatred for black people....like all white people." That's a pretty dishonest interpretation of why people are upset and why they believe racism is a factor in this case. The 911 tapes don't disprove that Zimmerman thought he was suspicious based partially on race at all. I'm not sure why you think that they do. I don't think a report on the Today show three days ago fueled any fire, but there's no excuse for it.

Zimmerman has been portrayed as being motivated by race for several weeks now. NBC editing a clip this week did not make people portray Zimmerman as racist three weeks ago. edit: if you haven't seen the unedited call available, you haven't been looking. It's been available since this story first started getting attention. Hell, here's an article from 3/17 that goes over the call: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/16/2697...sset_type=audio

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:34 PM) Until I saw/read that unedited 911 call, I looked at it like Zimmerman was profiling, this changes that. And until seeing this, every story in print also left out the dispatchers question as if they took the NBC version of the 911 call and reported on that, instead of the truth. Two things made Zimmerman appear to be profiling, the NBC edit, combined with something unintelligible that may have been racial. The edit lent more credence to the possible racial slur... The unedited call has been available for quite a while. As far as I know, other networks have not aired similarly edited versions. I've also not seen it edited that way in print, but that doesn't mean it isn't out there. I still don't see how one deceptively edited clip on a show weeks after the story become national is "huge" or really changes anything.

Should the Court overturn a major legislative bill on a minor technicality that doesn't really affect the implementation of the policy?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:27 PM) Yea I kinda disagree. Well it provides Fox with something else to focus on instead of the story itself or any of the issues surrounding it, but other than that, what changes? It's one clip from the Today show this week. This story have been in the national media for a while.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:26 PM) And do you walk around in broad daylight, not raining, with it over your head? But we have a pretty good counter-example on why this profiling is dumb: Trayvon Martin. And besides, Trayvon put his hood up after being stalked by Zimmerman.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:25 PM) It changes the entire narrative about the story. Are you seriously ignoring that? I know for me that was the first thing I thought - he called the police and basically said "hey some black kid is in my neighborhood and he's up to no good." That's not at all what happened. This edited clip aired this Tuesday on one show. This story has been going on for week. It doesn't actually change anything at all.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:21 PM) How many people do you see walking around with a hoodie over their head in good weather? GMAB. It's not proof of someone being a criminal or someone about to commit a crime, but its more suspicious than someone who is not wearing one. Wearing a hoodie is not suspicious.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:19 PM) That is huge, because that line is what set a lot of people off about this. That really did start the whole racial profiling thing. Huge in what way? There's still legitimate injustice to be upset with here, regardless of what NBC did. It doesn't suddenly change the facts of the story in any way since the full 911 tape has been available for a while now. edit: this wasn't what started the whole thing, this edited clip was from this Tuesday:

And no one at the time thought there was a constitutional issue over the issue.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:18 PM) I hate Hannity and Fox News in general, but that's awesome. lol @ Hannity aside, that is pretty awful.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:17 PM) That he made such a big point about wearing a hoodie in solidarity. I'm not suggesting all people that wear hoodies are thugs. I own many. I DO, however, find people that completely ignore the fact that criminals often times use hoodies (because they can hide recognizable features). Wearing a hoodie is not suspicious in and of itself, which is the point. There's nothing ironic about some people who commit crimes wearing hoodies while millions who do not commit crimes also wear hoodies.

lol @ the outrage over selective editing coming from Hannity

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:08 PM) I believe you can reform the health care industry, but I believe that this law may have gone to far to start. In general, American jurisprudence moves slowly. It took 100 years from the Civil War to the Civil Rights movement. But during those 100 years, laws were passed that slowly gave more rights. Thats where I think this law may have gone off the tracks, that they went for to much to quickly. That is why I wonder if a better approach would have been through the privilege route. At the end of the day, it doesnt matter how you get there, it just matters you get to where you want to go. If they called it a tax instead of a penalty with the exact same mechanisms and regulations otherwise, it wouldn't be in court.

What is ironic?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 03:19 PM) No it isnt. The rule could for unborns or for non-adults, that you have 2 years after you turn 18, or 2 years after you complete college, or whatever period you want. This gives everyone the chance to buy insurance. but ultimately, insurers would still be free to turn down people with pre-existing conditions. If you couldn't afford insurance at 18, got cancer at 24 and beat it, you could still face a future with limited or no health insurance options.

You didn't resolve the second issue, one of somebody who currently has no insurance because they're not actually born yet. The solution you came up with above is a one-time shot. The mandate is meant to solve a free-rider problem as well as an actuarial problem since health insurance can no longer be underwritten. Providing a whole mess of exemptions that still allows insurance to be underwritten seems like a much more difficult, complex and ultimately flawed solution than what the mandate does. This also isn't an issue of taxpayer dollars necessarily. This is about the actuarial models of private insurers. I don't think it's fair to say no one is willing to compromise. The PPACA had single-payer stripped out rather quickly, and a fully socialized health care system was never on the table. The end form of PPACA is nearly identical to the Republican Massachusetts plan which was largely patterned on the conservative Heritage Foundation plan from the 90's. In addition to that, while the mantra has been "Repeal and Replace," the actual details of "Replace" have been non-existent. One side simply does not see this as a priority or something that government can or should fix.

Some blogging over at the Incidental Economist (health policy/economics blog) has some recommended reading on the distinction between insurance pools and other goods/services that several of the justices and the SG seemed to miss: http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpres...dy-should-read/ http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpres...-oral-argument/ I think this is an important bit:

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 02:50 PM) But you could easily change the law, to state that everyone in the US has a ____ enrollment period when the law enacts, to get the great rate. After that period the rates go up. It just seems that there are answers to these questions that are practical. I dont understand why we have to keep forcing a square peg into a round space. The problem is that people's insurance is often tied to their job, which is a s***ty system in and of itself. So if they have insurance now but lose their job in 5 years, have a gap in insurance coverage and then develop cancer, they're f***ed. Insurance status and medical status change frequently for people, so an initial enrollment period doesn't help them, especially people who aren't even born yet. The round space is a boondoggle private insurance market.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 02:38 PM) But it's not the Court's role to determine policy for the country. It's their job to interpret the law and decide its constitutionality. This is a legislative problem, not a judicial one. You can't defend Scalia's oral arguments and then say it's not for the Court to determine policy.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 02:40 PM) They COULD, but it would have been pricey. It would either be so costly as to effectively be unavailable or simply unavailable.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 02:41 PM) That is just silly (for congress to set it up that way). There is no question (at least in my mind) that the govt couldnt draft a law stating that insurance companies can not deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions. I believe that would fully be within their power. It's absolutely within their power, and it would also likely bankrupt them. That's why we'll be in for interesting times if the mandate is struck down but the rest of the act is left in place. It's also why the argument for the mandate comes in under N&P, since it is necessary for legitimate, constitutional regulation like the Guaranteed Issue provision.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 02:38 PM) Strangesox, Correct me if im wrong, but isnt the pre-existing condition part entirely unrelated to the mandate part? I believe that the law about pre-existing conditions would be enforceable but for the mandate. Furthermore, couldnt the govt/insurance companies provide some sort of cheaper insurance (like liability insurance for cars), that would at least provide minimum levels of coverage. Or couldnt the govt give insurance and count it as a benefit, such as food stamps, etc. The mandate is necessary in order for insurance companies not to implode under a litany of pre-existing condition applicants that they're now required to take on. If they have to cover patients with pre-existing conditions (without exorbitant rates) but there is no mandate, I can simply wait on buying insurance until I have cancer, then get a policy at the same price as everyone else and stick the insurer with the hundreds of thousands of dollars of costs. The government already provides Medicare and Medicaid. I'm all for expanding those programs to everyone.

I'm unsure of who has the better argument over what to do with the severability between Scalia and Ginsburg. There's a whole boatload of provisions in the bill that are plainly constitutional and don't rely on the mandate while there's a couple (guaranteed issue for example) that clearly do. Should the SCOTUS strike down the entire law if the mandate is found unconstitutional? Excise only the parts that are tied to the mandate, effectively giving them a line-item veto? Remand the whole thing back to Congress to fix?