Jenksismyhero

Hmm... http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/20...hicago-District

Oh no! My Man Card.....

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 02:46 PM) You can't defend Scalia's oral arguments and then say it's not for the Court to determine policy. I don't think I was really defending them more than attempting to explain the method.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 02:31 PM) So you change the law. You cant just box yourself into an untenable position and do nothing about it. The fact is, the US can not continue down this path. You cant continue giving health care for everyone and having a few pay for it. It just wont work, so something has to be done, and I personally dont think we should change the law to prevent people from getting treatment, but maybe that is what have to gives. Because you just cant have it where people are guaranteed treatment and the govt/tax payers end up paying the bills. This just cant last forever. Coverage is only part of the problem, which is why this bill sucked and didn't really address much despite the price tag. Costs are out of control and that has little to do with covering the costs of uninsureds. A private practice that doesn't tailor to anyone but those with insurance still charge an assload for care that's simply not comparative to the price. They do that because they can. I don't want the government stepping in and putting up a list of costs that doctors/hospitals have to follow, but there's got to be some price control measures that can be put in place.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 02:33 PM) Before the PPACA, many people simply couldn't buy insurance due to pre-existing conditions. Private insurance is still prohibitively expensive for millions more, so removing emergency care mandates simply results in the poor losing access to what little medical care they get now. They COULD, but it would have been pricey.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 02:31 PM) That's one of the central arguments over the ability to regulate the "inactivity" of not buying health insurance. The uninsured frequently pass on medical costs to the insured or to the government via emergency care they cannot pay for. Every time there's a medical bankruptcy, we're all paying for it. 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.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 02:23 PM) Right that may be true, but once again I ask, why not take the path of least resistance. Why not call it a privilege and anyone who doesnt want to buy the insurance are specifically excluded from the Emergency Medical Act. Now it is your choice, if you want the ability to be treated, the ability to not be denied treatment, buy the insurance. If you dont care, if you want that personal freedom, dont buy the insurance. Isnt that the easier argument to get what they want, which is more people buying health care? Because I assure you, if people knew that they would not get medical treatment unless they had health insurance, more people would buy health insurance. Also it would reduce costs because those who did not buy insurance would not be able to get health care, which would then mean less costs for the whole. Personally I would prefer if it was universal healthcare or whatever, but you cant always get what you want. But you can't do that because the Hippocratic Oath is pretty much law now.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 02:09 PM) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Med...ctive_Labor_Act Yeah so that's still pretty limited to emergent care, and they still bill you for it. That's not really an obligation to treat without any strings attached. That's just mandating that they can't deny you emergency treatment at the time you need it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 02:01 PM) Hospitals are required to treat you in emergency situations. Not by law though I don't think. That's just an ethical obligation that's turned into the governments promise to repay if the person can't.

LOL. You are hilarious man.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 01:41 PM) You could not simply "keep" the money. You were mandated to invest it in private-market investment vehicles. The medicare privatization schemes are similar. So what new Congressional powers did ACA find, and what powers will striking down ACA limit? There were many theories on the table, from a strictly private investment to the government lock box. But either way, that's at least the government decided to forgive you from a tax. You didn't have to "buy" anything. If the options were to pay the tax or buy a specific private market investment then I would have made the same argument. I want the freedom to investment my money however I please.

Ugh, whatever dude. I hate women so it's fine. I liked this guys response:

That was mandatory either, it was an option - either continue paying SS tax and get SS benefits, or keep your money and be on your own.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 01:14 PM) (the article isn't about what a male is/should be) He's saying "here's how men are and why" and specifically why men "hate" women. I'm saying that's a bunch of bulls***. Men aren't like "that" at all. (1) Men don't think they're "owed" a woman based on terrible 90's movies. If I learned i'm owed a woman because Richard Gere carried his woman out of her place of work IN A f***ING MOVIE, I've also learned that you have to work tirelessly and endlessly to even talk to a woman. So which is it? Can I rightfully demand a BJ from a woman in the street, or do I have to beg and work for it? (2) Omg! men talk about whether women are attractive! How unnatural and evil of them! (and i'll post to a bunch of f***ing internet comments to prove my point!). (3) We don't think with our dicks. He's just perpetuating a stereotype. I love that he cites a bunch of examples of people masturbating in public to prove this point. I've done that 5 times this week! Guess he was right! I have no self-control! (4) We're so concerned about losing our masculinity. As stated before, I'm really terrified of losing my non-existent man card. Hell, the only reason i'm disagreeing with this guys' article is that i'm secretly trying to keep you guys from judging me about it! I'm a man, seriously, I am! Look I drink beer too! (5) And probably the dumbest: we feel powerless with women so we do s***. WE BUILD f***ING SKYSCRAPERS TO GET SOME POON. Yep, i'm 100% certain that's true. Screw the logical aspect of building dense centers of commerce and living space, guys built that s*** to get women to think they're powerful! So f***ing true. I don't find women attractive because of any natural instinct of attraction, or any natural instinct to spread my seed with a partner I find to be a good genetic match. It's because I just can't f***ing stand the fact that she has so much control over me. I don't love my wife for who she is and what she does. I love her because I'm forced to love her because she's so f***ing powerful. OHHHHHH, but Mr. Wong you clever lad, you brought us full circle. Because one asshole took an attractive woman (is that wrong of me to say? genetically acceptable for breeding perhaps?) talking about birth control and made her into a hideous monster in a drawing, that just proves your point. f***ing asinine.

I didn't think I needed to but I was definitely being sarcastic about calling you a pig.

QUOTE (Buehrle>Wood @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 01:05 PM) You have a funny definition of a definitive statement. Anyways, they interviewed him on NBC. I didn't think he sounded too enthusiastic about Illinois and he was shaking his head when they started to ask him about it. It's a long shot for sure, but I don't think it's a closed door. Nunn sounds really interested in Groce and they've got a relationship started there. He's got 5-8 months before Parker decides (if he really does decide this fall) and both Nunn and Parker have said they'd like to play together in college. Hamilton really wants to come to Illinois, so unless Groce just completely f***s that up he'll be in the mix too. Those three guys would be like the next Fab 5, to go along with a couple upperclass guys like Abrams.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 01:01 PM) I'm pretty sure your posts are only reinforcing his point. Yeah because if I don't agree with his view of what a male is/should be i'm just a hater of women!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 12:59 PM) grow a pair Lol, that was intended for Y2HH and his misogynistic joke.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 12:56 PM) Yeah man, what a p****. High fives broseph! If you believe that s*** he talks about, you are a p****.

Ugh, you're such a pig....

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 12:28 PM) Haven't you watched a single sitcom or romantic comedy in your entire life? Men are stupid retarded asshats and women -- unless they are in love -- are smart, intelligent, and awesome. However, if women are in love, they're allowed to be clumsy asshats. I LOVED the fact that he uses those bud light commercials to prove his point that men are afraid of losing their masculinity. Yes, David Wong, who clearly lost his wang years ago, I fear daily....nay, hourly...that I will "lose" my masculinity if I don't "man up" at every possible moment. Such an astute observation of your typical American male! We ALL do that kind of stuff, right? Ugh, seriously, it made me laugh at how stupid it was, and then I got unreasonably angry about the whole thing. (Unfortunately I finished it).

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 28, 2012 -> 08:52 PM) Cracked with another great piece, this time on misogyny in the modern world: http://www.cracked.com/article_19785_5-way...hate-women.html I made it half of the first page before laughing at how ridiculous that is. That guy needs to grow a pair of balls. Jesus. When did being a man become a bad thing?

Ha. Yeah that really messes up this case even more...

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 11:52 AM) I somewhat agree. I think Roberts, Thomas and Kennedy are all thoughtful justices who stick to a very clear, well-grounded philosophy on the law. But then there are the other two. Alito is a windsock, he showed that during his confirmation hearings. And Scalia, as I said earlier, has stopped giving a s*** and just spouts talking points. So I'll stick to my guns about those two. Recently I had to argue a case before the 1st District Appellate Court (state). My partners have done a lot of oral arguments in their careers, so during my prep they were giving me a lot of pointers. One of them was to expect ridiculous off the wall hypotheticals (much like Scalia's broccoli one). The reason why was two fold - (1) the judges know the law better than you do, so they're testing to see if they can move you from your position. They try to get you off your game to see if your position really stands up. (2) entertainment - judges get bored of 5 hours of legal argument. They like to spice things up a bit. I see that a lot in what Scalia does. Yes, he's already got his position on these issues (as does every other judge) before oral arguments begin. So why not have some fun? Poke around and see what you can get the attorneys to say.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 11:27 AM) Supreme Court May Be Most Conservative in Modern History What a s***ty study. Often times the Court is asked to address procedural issues - ones that have nothing to do with conservative/liberal philosophy. I also enjoy the fact that in the 60's there were far more extreme liberals than today's conservatives. The horror!