5 Takeaways From Today's Supreme Court Ruling on Obamacare
5 Takeaways from the Supreme Court's Obamacare Subsidies Ruling in King v. Burwell
Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote the law in order to save it – again.
The law states explicitly and repeatedly that subsidies are only available in exchanges established by a State – and it defines State to mean the 50 states plus the District of Columbia. Roberts decided, essentially, that the phrase "established by a State" actually meant "established by a State OR the federal government."
This resembles the Supreme Court's 2012 Obamacare decision -- also written by Roberts -- which declared that individual mandate was illegal under the Constitution's Commerce Clause, but permissible if reimagined as a tax.
Roberts practically admitted that he believes he has a duty to save the law.
His decision declares that Congress didn't intend adverse effects from its reforms of the health insurance market, and, as a result, demands that the Court "interpret" the law so as not to cause any policy impact. Essentially he's saying that it's the court's duty to prevent any potentially bad thing from happening as a result of the law, regardless of how it's written.
This was not judicial deference.
Roberts opinion is framed as a form of deference to Congress. But what he actually did was take a law that Congress wrote and decide exactly what it meant.
Roberts decision largely preserves the status quo.
At its most basic, this was a decision not to change anything about the way the law works right now. The subsidies will continue. Nothing has to change as a direct result of this ruling.
It paves the way for struggling state-based exchanges to migrate to the federal exchange.
Right now, a lot of the state-run exchanges are having trouble with technology and with funding. Those states now have a clear legal path to join with the federal government's exchange in full or in part
Approx. 1 minute.
Written and hosted by Peter Suderman. Video by Meredith Bragg.
Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for daily content like this.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
6th takeaway:
There's no such thing as rule of law.
(peeks in, realizes most important thing has been said, heads out to the pool)
Holy shit. I looked it up. You're 20 degrees warmer than me. WHAT THE FUCK???
Both inside and outside.
It was 87 in my livingroom today.
I'm really curious what will happen once conservatives truly internalize this lesson. I'm not sure the left realizes just how much they've been shielded from the consequences of being shitlords by the generally lawful nature of their opposition. But the Geneva Conventions only apply to signatories for a reason.
Internalize what? That the Supreme Court has absolutely no interest in doing the dirty work that 'conservatives' don't have the balls to do either (ie repealing Obamacare via repeal of that crappy legislation)? And that lack of balls is gonna lead conservatives into doing something that requires balls?
Nice corpse-fucking.
There never has been such a thing as rule of law. The claims that there are are just kabuki theater.
As an absolute, that's true, but there is still some cultural value that is either more or less evident in a society. When laws are stable, understandable, enforced consistently and fairly, and when those in power abide by them even when it would be to their advantage and preference to do otherwise, we have "rule of law".
BTW, have you tried the new specializations and condi changes that dropped on Tuesday?
Obamacare is too big to fail.
Also take away that people will no longer expect the supreme court to interpret the law as written, if they still did
The scariest point is #2 (which ties in perfectly with #3). Literally half of the point of SCOTUS is to shoot down laws that are unconstitutional. In this case, the law should be struck down simply because NOBODY BOTHERED TO (PROOF)READ THE DAMN THING. It is within SCOTUS' purview to read the letter of a law, force it to be interpreted as written, and doom it if said law was absurd. Roberts should not be setting the precedent that it's ok for SCOTUS to try really super hard to help congress foist ridiculous legislation because they don't want to be seen as the bad guys.
Roberts is basically saying "C'mon guys, stop asking us about this, pleeease? We really, REALLY don't want to interpret laws. I just wanted my name in a history book; is that so much to ask? Don't make me do stuff."
"We're the Supreme Court. You didn't expect us to work, did you? I already worked: getting here. Now it's gravy time."
Scalia worked, anyway.
It didn't need to be shot down it just needed to be enforced which would have eliminated the Federal exchange subsidy.
This was not a technical error. The drafters of ACA intended for it to say what it said. They thought the states would each establish their own "markets" because otherwise their citizens would not enjoy ACA subsidies. The drafters did not anticipate that Republican governors would not play along with this New Federalism ploy since they had always done so in the past.
The fact is that SCOTUS does not care what Congress wrote OR what Congress intended. It only cares what the US political elite wants. Otherwise, the Justices might not get invited to the right cocktail parties. It is that pathetic.
The precedent this decision and some other recent decisions have set is mindboggling. We were in trouble before, but the court is opening the floodgates. ANYTHING GOES is not the basis for a stable or just political system.
As someone mentioned in an earlier thread, this is even worse than "anything goes." It's now "legislature can pass terrible laws that the executive can enforce however it wants and SCOTUS will actually help them rewrite the law in such a way as to get past SCOTUS"... Instead of a 3 branch free-for-all, they're all in collusion. Insanity, I tell you.
Separation of Powers is between States and the Fedgov, not among executive, legislative, and judicial branches.
... Checks and balances (are supposed to) exist between the three branches...
It was a hypothesis. It was wrong.
What? Is this an attempt at humor?
"Separation of Powers" just means that they split up the legislative work....."Good Job Team!"
Questions: what is up with the commentariat's disdain for robby?
And what is a cosmotarian?
Fuck off, Tulpa.
not tulpa m8
I wasn't aware that we were hating Robbie now, either. I assume it's not about Columbiagate.
why the hate for robby m80s?
Like rape, the ideal rate of criticism a Reason writer receives would be "zero"...
...and equally ridiculous to expect.
I have no issue with robby.
Questions: what is up with the commentariat's disdain for robby?
And what is a cosmotarian?
I don't lay claim to the one true definition, but a libertarian that defers to populist/socialist ideals, if only nominally. A libertarian who doesn't want to make enemies. A trendy, cafeteria, or fairweather libertarian...
If someone with a study says, "1 in 5 women was raped." and you disagree by saying "1 in 5 women may've been raped, but that's not what your data shows." as opposed to "You're lying when you say 1 in 5 women were raped because your data shows something different." They're a cosmotarian. They're conceding a point when the point is false, irrelevant, or a lie.
I understand that Robby does it, but his flavor never particularly irritated me.
Ah, left out the more literal definition;
A liberterian who expresses dissent more narrowly so as not to get uninvited from the right cocktail parties.
Gawker hits a new low, criticizes Bristol Palin for not getting an abortion.
"Bristol Palin Makes Great Argument for Abortion in Baby Announcement"
After Palin says 'God is merciful' Gawker responds with this:
"Not so merciful, of course, to suggest that she has any choice in this matter."
But Bristol does have a choice in the matter because abortion is legal. She just made a choice that differs from the choice the average leftist Gawker writer would make because Bristol Palin believes abortion is wrong.
So what this Gawker writer is actually saying is 'everyone who gets pregnant in a situation where I would have an abortion should have an abortion' which seems to have very little to do with 'choice.'
In fairness to Gawker, I think that's just their typical low.
Airheads need jobs too. She is quite the stupid bitch.
Allie Jones: WHAT A CUNT!
Her new blog, maybe?
The left kind of went apeshit on abortion back in the 90s when they started to imply that any abortion that could happen, must happen.
It fits in with the obsession on the left of the world being overpopulated. It's always less people. Other people of course.
I'm sorry, Meredith, but that surname needs to be hidden away in a museum, somewhere. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings, or anything, but I will say that if I were Wal-Mart, I would not be able to stock any on my shelves.
5 Takeaways?
BFYTW
OT
For Lenore Skenazy's files, here is Jane Addams (in 20 Years at Hull House) reminiscing about her innocent childhood games:
"The house at the end of the village in which I was born, and which was my home until I moved to Hull-House, in my earliest childhood had opposite to it?only across the road and then across a little stretch of greensward?two mills belonging to my father; one flour mill...and one sawmill, in which the logs of the native timber were sawed into lumber. The latter offered the great excitement of sitting on a log while it slowly approached the buzzing saw which was cutting it into slabs, and of getting off just in time to escape a sudden and gory death."
http://digital.library.upenn.e.....house.html
So, when I was in high school we learned something about checks and balances and the three branches of government. When did it all coalesce into just one branch and who's doing the checking and balancing?
2001
Yeah, I would agree. First congress was afraid to stand in the presidents way because they preferred that the president take any blame for anything else that might happen rather then them taking it (cowards). Now I think they've just grown comfortable with that role (lazy cowards). And of course the media plays there part nicely as well (lazy boot lickers). SCOTUS I thought was just being deferential and waiting for congress to do their jobs which of course they never did. Now they're just going along to get along (lazy cowards). So now it's basically just a monarchy.
The NSA is keeping the military/corporate industrial complex and ruling class' political opponents in check.
The IRS is keeping the military/corporate industrial complex and ruling class' political opponents in check.
The EPA is keeping the military/corporate industrial complex and ruling class' political opponents in check.
The DOJ is keeping the military/corporate industrial complex and ruling class' political opponents in check.
The [insert federal branch or bureaucracy here] is keeping the military/corporate industrial complex and ruling class' political opponents in check. ETC. You get the idea.
And the blue uniformed Nazi thugs are keeping everyone else in check.
Busta Rhymes got em all in check.
WOO HAH
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmRcGDWP46M
Flip Mode is the squidod.
Make U break yo neck!
Fantastic. Also, Busta is criminally underrated (underrated by whom? Shut up).
Please. There's nothing MIC about Obamacare and entitlements. There's nothing MIC about EPA banning air. There's nothing MIC about minimum wage or income inequality or the rape CRISIS!
What about rape inequality?
*hangs head in shame* You're right. The only thing worse would be a confederate flag.
OT: Sexy golf shots
Golf is a fine sport, but I prefer MMA
Best MMA lesson EVER:)
7th Takeaway
The End of the World
That was pretty funny:)
Watching a Republic die is a depressing thing. I think I would prefer a full collapse then this slow agonizing death of what was once a constitutional Republic.
Our civilization must have reached a peak during the Enlightenment, thats when we had the highest, noblest ideas about government, we had thrown off the shackles of serfdom, and built a Republic based on the rule of Law, not the rule of man, or the rule of the mob, or the rule of enlightened despots, but law.
Now look at us. Our technology is more advanced, but our thinking is far more primitive. Humanity is regressing.
Gotta boil the frog slowly...
Komputers makes us smart. And twitter.
I completely agree with everything you just said.
I am more depressed today than I was the day the ACA was rammed through Congress. At least then I had hope that it would be thrown out by SCOTUS or repealed by a later Congress.
That was before I became cynical. (aka realistic)
I'm the same with this. When Roberts played the penal-tax kabuki last time it seemed like maybe Kennedy and Roberts realized how they'd been played as fools. I thought this time they would have a chance not to repeat the mistake and in fact correct the previous one by letting the language speak for itself instead of literally editing the text in order for it to past constitutional muster.
Clearly their egos are unable to accept the fact that they've been played again, or maybe they do in fact want to watch this whole thing burn to the ground. Either way it's over. There is of course a good argument that this was inevitable/had already started/was destined to fail, but it still sucks nonetheless.
And yet during the enlightenment we had slavery and all other manner of oppressive government. Things haven't necessarily gotten worse. We just have different oxen being gored in new and progressive ways by the same type of sociopaths who have been seeking power for the last 3000 years.
The enlightenment laid the ground work for the abolition of slavery, which had been part of almost all human societies since before recorded history. I'd say that's a pretty major step forward in thinking and morality.
It laid the ground work in the US, but the abolition of slavery was well under way in other parts of the world when we caught up.
Other parts of the Western world, mostly Great Britain. Also all part of Enlightenment era thinking.
Funny, I seem to recall an awful lot of European colonies after 1865. No doubt they were just bringing enlightenment to the ignorant savages though.
Am I the only one on here that doesn't see colonialism as entirely bad thing? Theres a lot parts of the world that could benefit from a little more Westernization.
Few things are entirely bad. That doesn't mean they're not bad. Colonialism was a lot worse than the contemporary violations of liberty in the West that we're talking about.
Some colonialism was distinct improvement for the countries colonized (e.g. most British colonies, maybe the Dutch). Much was not (Belgian, German, probably Spanish and Portuguese).
In the post-colonial period, the former French colonies were much poorer than the former British. Either the Brits got all the good areas first and the French just got the left overs, or the French did a lousy job of developing the areas under their control.
Hong Kong might soon be wishing that it was still colonized.
Well, son, that's the thing. 8,000 miles away, there's a Chinaman thinking that there are a lot parts of the world that could benefit from a little more Sinicization. You want to try to put that genie back in its bottle?
"8,000 miles away, there's a Chinaman thinking that there are a lot parts of the world that could benefit from a little more Sinicization."
That hasn't worked out so well for the indigenous populations in Africa, South America, and South East Asia. It seems that all the much lauded infrastructure the noble Chinese built in Africa (housing/roads/rail).. were built to serve Chinese interests primarily in most cases, and exclusively in others (housing/ports). Their tenuous relationship with mining crews over wages, and replacement by imported Chinese labor, had come to violence on a few occasions. The Brazilians often blame the Chinese for smothering their industrial and economic ambitions in the crib, though Brazil also bears some responsibility as well.
" 8,000 miles away, there's a Chinaman thinking that there are a lot parts of the world that could benefit from a little more Sinicization "
I get the sentiment
And, to be fair, both Chinese and Indians have done their part "colonizing" SE Asia over the last few hundred years
I think the notion that there's only ever been "white" colonists, and that its only ever been to the detriment of the colonized, is too commonly accepted.
I've always been fond of novels and movies which explore the complex dynamics of colonialism / enforced ''civilizing'.
'The Mission' was a good one
Burmese Days is another, imo. I'm trying to remember the quote about dressing for dinner when alone.
The slave trade was abolished in Great Britain about 20-25 years after the end of the enlightenment.
Beat me by a few minutes.
That may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that the time period he's referring to was far was some golden age of freedom and limited government. Yes, a lot of positive concepts came out of that time, but very very major societal problems and violations of fundamental liberties persisted for a very long time. The romanticization of the past can be a really bad thing and is often based on misconceptions. There have been bad SCOTUS decisions and Constitutional violations since this country was founded. In some areas, yes I agree we've moved backwards, but to present a narrative of constant perpetual decline since the 18th or 19th century is just nonsense.
I don't think anyone has any illusions that the Enlightenment was perfect, but back then we had terrible institutions that had existed for all of recorded history that we were moving away from.
Today seems to be the opposite.
"I don't think anyone has any illusions that the Enlightenment was perfect, but back then we had terrible institutions that had existed for all of recorded history that we were moving away from.
Today seems to be the opposite."
The history of liberty in the US and the West in general over the last few hundred years is more of a rollercoaster that usually goes upward than a combination of straight lines or a parabola. We continued making improvements for a long time after the Enlightenment ended, and even just in the last few decades, it hasn't been all bad. We've seen gun control rolled back in some places, various tax cuts, homosexuality isn't a crime anymore and gay people are increasingly less discriminated against, particularly by the government, the draft hasn't been used since Vietnam, some steps forward in the war on drugs (though we have a long way to go). Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying there are not areas where we've regressed or should be concerned about going forward. I'm just saying that reading a bunch of bad news for liberty can cause people to forget or ignore the progress that has been made. There's quite a bit of shit the government did just 50 or 100 years ago that we've made a lot of progress on since then.
I would say on social issues its a mixed bag. See the numerous CPS abuses many highlighted on Reason not to mention idiocy like vaping bans. That weighs against things like Marijuana, guns and a host of other social issues. I would say on balance it has been slightly positive On the other hand economic freedom has been on a steep downhill for about 70 years. Really what this means is on balance the progressives (bless their empty little heads) are winning.
And as a corollary, we all lose more and more freedoms.
Though a note - hard line progressives do not make up a majority or even a large percentage of voters. So while they're certainly the most vocal and direct in their attempts to turn the US into just another authoritarian third world country, the useful idiots who must cast their votes to support this likely outnumber true progressives by more than 4 to 1.
As Lincoln once said (may not be exact), "As a nation of free men, we will either live forever, or die by suicide."
Of course it will take some time to complete this process, but just think of progressives as the Dr. Kevorkian and the patient as the US (though the good Doctor only assisted the willing without use of fraud or any other coercive tactics).
"See the numerous CPS abuses many highlighted on Reason"
Again, shit like that (or worse) has happened for a long time. A lot of egregious violations of liberty related to child rearing or having children happened during the eugenics movement particularly. This really isn't anything new. On economic issues, I agree and disagree. Tax rates are a lot lower than they were in 1945, some aspects of the New Deal have gotten rolled back, Jim Crow (which had a lot of restrictions on economic liberty as well as social liberty) got repealed, etc. Of course you've also seen the Great Society and various new regulatory schemes, so I wouldn't say the trend has been positive overall, but even then it hasn't been one of constant decline.
Really? I don't have that much trouble finding evidence.
If government spending as a % of GDP were the end-all-be-all measure of freedom, you might have a point.
So government taking an ever increasing percentage of the output of its population has no impact on liberty? Remind me what the definition of slavery is again. I'm struggling with that a bit.
Perhaps the number of rules in the federal register has an impact on liberty?
Nah, that's crazy talk.
"So government taking an ever increasing percentage of the output of its population has no impact on liberty?"
Because that's exactly what I said, right? If you don't think government spending is the only relevant measure of freedom, you must think it has no impact on liberty.
"Remind me what the definition of slavery is again. I'm struggling with that a bit."
Yeah, you have it just as bad as a chattel slave living in 1860. Keep telling yourself that.
Government spending is the end-all-be-all measure of government oppression.
Fuck you. Cut spending.
"Government spending is the end-all-be-all measure of government oppression."
Really? A government that spends 25% of GDP is more oppressive than a government that spends 5% but allows legal chattel slavery (along with a host of other oppressive measures)?
"Fuck you. Cut spending."
I'm all in favor of cutting spending. Disagreeing with the notion that government spending is the only relevant measure of freedom doesn't mean one supports massive government spending.
Thanks for recognizing my point. I am not saying no positive ideas came out of the enlightenment. It does have that name for a reason after all but it was in no way a limited government paradise. The abuse was just typically a more local phenomenon. I would even guess had we been wealthier then it might have been quite a bit worse. I suspect a lot of people escaped the eye of government because there was only so much they could do.
Statist idiocy has been a consistent theme in the US forever. Hell pinball machines were illegal in New York up until the freaking 1970's. We have had fucked up government for 300 years it is just more prominently a federal problem lately.
Thats true, but the trend and the thinking was moving away from that. Slavery was an institution that has existed since before recorded history, but it wasn't until the Enlightenment that people started to seriously question the morality of it, and moved to abolish it.
That's true, but I think his point is that a lot of the problems and violations of liberty that predated the Enlightenment persisted for long periods of time, so you can't simply portray that era as some golden age of freedom. Even after slavery was abolished, segregation persisted for 100 years, ethnic cleansing of Native Americans in the west continued until they were completely subjugated, European countries (and to a lesser extent, the US, and eventually Japan for that matter) colonized large portions of the world that they previously hadn't, women and to a lesser extent poor men had limited rights for a long time after that, etc. Even strictly referring to the things you talked about, you're romanticizing the era a lot. There have been bad court decisions and violations of the Constitution since this country was founded (just as two examples from early US history, the Alien & Sedition Acts, and Dred Scott).
How much does the government have to take before it becomes slavery?
According to Sotomayor anything 99% or less is acceptable.
The very worst of humankind seemingly have always been the most drawn to positions of power. And the retarded masses have always been willing to assist them in their reign of terror.
The only cure is to somehow make most humans become a little more than just barely sentient. The public education system is in place to stop that from happening.
Yes indeed you stooooopid mammals have squandered much prosperity. Hopefully we can commence our invasion soon before you start dropping nukes on each other and ruining otherwise quality cattle.
However feel free to continue your trends of fat laziness.
More takeaways
Deep-dish? Prawn toast? WTF?
Oh, it's Britain
And Roberts and the rest of them are all traitorous cunts.
Subpoena coming my way....
i know it's been pointed out before, but i'm continuously amazed how the "rest of them" - the 4 lib hacks - always, always get a free pass for straight-up ignoring the Constitution and/or plain text of the law in favor of their preferred political outcome.
almost all of the divining tea leaves are spent analyzing what Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, Roberts (and sometimes) Scalia will do. the other four are automatic votes for whatever Dems would prefer the law be. and no one ever calls them out for it.
"[...]the other four are automatic votes for whatever Dems would prefer the law be. and no one ever calls them out for it.[...]"
Notice how Shrill's bribe-taking has disappeared from the news? How her destruction of evidence has somehow been forgotten?
(D): The magic symbol!
Oh, it'll come up again. The attack ads just write themselves.
The media doesn't care about the process, just the result. And they are firmly in the tank for the results favored by one political party.
This is the saddest day in my life.
The Supreme Court refused to throw out a law tha provided billions of dollars of subsidies to the working poor based upon one phrase on page 1218 of the law that directly contradicted the wording of the rest of the law and the intention of the people who passed it. When will this judicial overreach ever end?
The intention of the people who passed it was to force the states to do the dirty work of implementing the law, or else watch their people get raked over the coals. It's the same notion as the punitive Medicare measure that the court did strike down as undermining federalism.
They did this because they knew their power was a historical aberration that would be corrected in the next election cycle, and the GOP could repeal any changes made at the federal level. Now, it wasn't really a realistic fear, and shows they don't know the GOP, but still.
Le sigh. I know. Those poor Republicans who refused Medicaid funding for people who were too poor to purchase health care so they wouldn't lose an election are the real victims. They have so much courage.
It just shows they care. Medical outcomes are better with no insurance than they are with Medicaid.
Cite needed
Look it up shitbag, hint *Oregon*
Will this do?
" "Oregon officials randomly assigned thousands of low-income Medicaid applicants ? basically, the most vulnerable portion of the group that would receive coverage under ObamaCare's Medicaid expansion ? either to receive Medicaid coverage, or nothing. Health economists then compared the people who got Medicaid to the people who didn't. The OHIE [Oregon Health Insurance Experiment] is the only randomized, controlled study ever conducted on the effects of having health insurance versus no health insurance."
What did they find? The study concludes: "This randomized, controlled study showed that Medicaid coverage generated no significant improvements in measured physical health outcomes in the first 2 years, but it did increase use of health care services, raise rates of diabetes detection and management, lower rates of depression, and reduce financial strain.""
So we spend $600 billion a year to slightly lessen depression among some poor people. Yippee. I also love that it increased use of health care services, which had no actual impact upon health outcomes. So they used services, it just made no difference to their health.
You see, Irish, we spend too much on health care, but they more we spend on insurance and education the better they must be. It's unassailable logic.
Insurance lowers financial strain. It does not noticeably improve health outcomes. But people willing conflate the terms "health insurance" and "health care"
Expecting someone else to do your work for you again? Well you are a socialist.
LaPar DJ et al., Primary payer status affects mortality for major surgical operations. Annals of Surgery. 2010 Sep; 252(3): 544?51.
Kelz RR et al., Morbidity and mortality of colorectal carcinoma surgery differs by insurance status. Cancer. 2004 Nov; 101(10): 2187?94.
Giacovelli JK et al., Insurance status predicts access to care and outcomes of vascular disease. Journal of Vascular Surgery. 2008 Oct; 48(4): 905?11.
Roetzheim RG et al., Effects of health insurance and race on early detection of cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 1999 Aug; 91(16): 1409?15.
*Irish*
*NotAnotherSkippy*
#REKT
That's probably the last time I'll read comments on YouTube.
Yeah, I read the Discussion in that first paper. There sure are alot of caveats. I wonder why anyone would actually want to be covered under Medicaid if it was such a rotten deal. They must be stupid.
If we think the amount that Medicaid pays doctors is insufficient and we want more doctors to participate in the system to bring up the standard of care I guess we could actually increase the amount that Medicaid pays doctors. But that might cost jobz creatorz a couple of shekels so fuck that.
Wow, some actually enlightenment for a change. Next you'll be dressing yourself.
Der Antisemitismus ist der Sozialismus der dummen Kerle.
Stumbled upon the truth trying to be clever.
"If we think the amount that Medicaid pays doctors is insufficient and we want more doctors to participate in the system to bring up the standard of care I guess we could actually increase the amount that Medicaid pays doctors."
Hmm.. if throwing ~$600 billion down the toilet doesn't lead to any tangible results .. Maybe, we should try ~$6 trillion down the toilet, harder.. and with more feelz this time.. that ought to do it. The genius is in the simplicity..
"But that might cost jobz creatorz a couple of shekels so fuck that."
Cast not Shekel before goyim.. amirite?
I wonder why anyone would actually want to be covered under Medicaid if it was such a rotten deal. They must be stupid.
No one will probably ever read this, but jokes aside, the study didn't say Medicaid had adverse effects. It just made no difference with regards to their health. It undermines the entire premise of Obamacare's 'preventative treatment' approach, and really calls into question the entire leftist narrative of the huddles masses yearning for health insurance and lost without it.
american socialist|6.25.15 @ 8:57PM|#
"Le sigh."
Le conasse.
Just wait. your next saddest day will be when your doctor refuses to accept your Medicaid. But, hey, health insurance is health care!
Unfortunately, the next step will be the government making it law that doctors must accept medicaid/medicare/obummer care patients. Just you wait. We all know that the ACA was the first stepping stone to single player.
I know, I know. We're on a road to the hell that is universal health care coverage. Do they even have stethoscopes in France, I wonder.
France has higher copays than the US. Not that you care because the road to utopia is paved with the bones of the people, but Medicaid is actually no better and in many cases worse than having no health insurance at all.
"I know, I know. We're on a road to the hell that is universal health care coverage. Do they even have stethoscopes in France, I wonder."
Have you ever been to France or do you know anyone who lives there? The reason I ask is because I actually have family in France. When my cousin got sick in America during Christmas, they went to a local clinic in the middle Wisconsin, got in and out quickly, and were back home in 2 hours. My cousin's wife was laughing because her sister lives in France and their local hospital actually isn't open three days a week due to doctor shortages, so if you want to go to the hospital you have to drive two hours to a more distant hospital.
America has great health care access in the middle of rural parts of Wisconsin and other rural areas of this country. Many French villages have no access to local hospitals or, if they do, French unionization rules mean those hospitals aren't open 24/7.
You'd know this if you were actually educated rather than making wild claims about subjects you haven't bothered to research.
"You'd know this if you were actually educated rather than making wild claims about subjects you haven't bothered to research."
Shitstain read the script; he was told the script is correct!
You expect an idiot like that to research anything?
Justice Roberts wrote in his opinion that the script is correct.
Justice Roberts is vexed by his inability to answer the question asked of him, rather than asking.. then answering his own question. He seems to struggle with fundimental literacy, and his apparent inability to grasp basic grade school English. I suspect he is dyslexic, as well as ADHD.. (and possibly Asperger's). In his opinion, the script says something completely different, every time he gazes upon it.. Ritalin might help..
Yay. Libertarian conflates anecdotes with actual evidence. I have to ask... Are you high?
That's funny.. I was looking through these posts, looking for your posted evidence on the superiority of French healthcare to that of the U.S., as a result of forcing their populace to purchase subsidized insurance, and why the healthcare/insurance system of a mostly homogenous nation of ~67million in Europe would have any relevance in the ~320 million strong and diverse U.S. but all I found were these glib musings, bereft of anything beneficial or enlightening.. Help me understand.. as you do..
american socialist|6.25.15 @ 8:45PM|#
"[...]The Supreme Court refused to throw out a law tha provided billions of dollars of subsidies to the working poor[...]"
After jacking up the costs the state then subsidizes the new rates.
And ignorant shitstains such as commie-kid think that's a good idea.
Who said I support obamacare?
Who cares?
You support any waste of taxpayer money.
Why should the "working poor" get subsidized health care?
Because of their inherent nobility?
I used to be a member of the "working poor". Then I worked harder and got raises.
It was never going to be thrown out it just would have ended the subsidies on the Federal exchange.
The Supreme Court DID throw out the law. They upheld the IRS rule which contradicted the law.
Oh gee, another Muslim run sex slave gang in Britain. This time suppressed so as to not affect the elections.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....ction.html
Is this some kind a Pakistani national sport? Kinda like the game in Rambo 3 where they were kinda playing capture the flag while on horseback, but teen rape victims instead of dead goats.
And ISIS is auctioning off women, with the highest value attached to the ones under 10, but let's talk about our terrifying rape-zone campuses and the nasty slavers at the CSA (I imagine that Ebay and Amazon aren't going to be culling Islamic iconography any time soon).
It's ironic that a religion that follows a guy who raped a little girl has a shitload of guys who like to rape little girls in it, but there you go. It's like ra-ey-ain on your wedding day, etc.
yeah but these are all brown people, and every Progressive knows brown people are always victims.
"Is this some kind a Pakistani national sport? Kinda like the game in Rambo 3 where they were kinda playing capture the flag while on horseback, but teen rape victims instead of dead goats."
Pakistan is the most fucked up country on planet Earth. It's worse than Somalia. I actually wrote something about the subject here. Basically, tribal parts of Pakistan have a tribal court system called 'jirga' which are supposedly based on Sharia law but are actually a mixture of Islamic law and ancient tribal customs. These jirga will often trade women into sex slavery to other tribes in order to smooth over tribal feuds and they recently fined a 10 year old boy $7000 for adultery after a 40 year old woman raped him.
I'm not kidding:
"A 10 year old boy recently had an 'affair' (though in more civilized places we would argue he was the victim of statutory rape) with a woman in her late-30s and was subsequently convicted of adultery. What punishment was levied against this victim of child molestation? A $7,000 fine. This sort of fine would be quite hefty in an American context, where the per capita GDP is about $50,000 a year, but in Pakistan it is ruinous, since Pakistan only has a per capita income of about $5,000 per year. So this fine, levied against a 10 year old rape victim, is more than the yearly income of the average Pakistani."
And they have nuclear weapons.
Contemplate that on the Tree of Woe.
"Contemplate that on the Tree of Woe"
Quite possibly my favorite scene from that movie, next to "what is best in life". Thank you.
Irish:
"The Long Divergence: How Islamic Law Held Back the Middle East"
http://www.amazon.com/Long-Div.....divergence
Interesting. I might have to read that.
I do know the issues related to Islamic banking regarding interest rates that really fucked them up. Europe was lucky they had Jews during their period of anti-usury madness, because I don't know what England would have done if they didn't turn to Jewish bankers when the Anglicans were sure usury was horribly sinful.
I read Why Nations Fail and enjoyed it and this seems somewhat similar.
By the way, HM, if you're still around, I've been looking into getting a copy of the Koran so that I can read up on Islam and see what the Koran actually says rather than what it says after it's been passed through pro or anti-Islamic organizations. I have no idea what Koran to buy and you seem to know way more about these kinds of subjects than I would, so are there any translations you know of that are particularly good?
This is very interesting.
Oh, that guy's the author of 'Sailing from Byzantium?' I read that. It was kind of interesting and was about the spread of knowledge from the Byzantine Empire into the West.
Sorry, Irish, I didn't scroll up.
I recommend Muhammad Asad's (born Leopold Weiss!) translation.
Look, British women have real issues to deal with, like accomplished cancer researchers making off color jokes.
It's like this, the general population has all of the power. This is why politicians play the games they do. If politicians could control all of the power, control the population without playing any games, they would
Right now, there's no need to play games, since more than 50% of the population are retarded.
Politicians are not intelligent. They are a relic of the past who have a very strongly driven primal survival urge. And that primal survival urge means stab everyone else in the back before they get a chance to take a big bite out of your own arse when your own back is turned. These primitive luddites rule our world. They have done a spectacular job of dumbing down the population through public programs to keep intelligence from becoming a significant factor in the public debate.
The only question now is how fast we collapse into chaos. Not if, but when.
This is rich...
"Chief Justice Roberts said it would be "charitable" to accuse the authors of "imprecision," and noted that the bill was written in secret and passed with special parliamentary procedures that limited opportunities for input or revision. He said the resulting law "does not reflect the kind of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation.""
Yeah, john, those republicans in congress in 2009-2010 were being super reasonable.
Can we get back to talking about the confederate flag again. I'm way depressed and for my last comment on the matter Gilmore, a libertarian, wanted to call the cops on me. That's way more interesting, I think.
How much is your insurance premium and deductible and how much was it 5 years ago?
Come on, Einstein, I know you can explain to us how this socialism works out for the better of all, you can do it, come on, tell us?
This question piqued my curiousity about my own situation. Five years ago, my premium was about $8000. This year, it's $15000. Thanks, Obama. At least my 60-year-old wife and I get free contraceptives and free pediatric dental care!!
So confident in the law that you had to pass it in order to see what was in it. Is it going to be a little red book again this time or another color?
You're just upset that he called out your precious Democrats on ramming a completely partisan law through without reading it. How do you feel about O'Malley's naked torso attacking Bernie Sanders' (the REAL AmSoc) gun control record?
I think Bernie can take care of himself. Maybe you guys can compare and contrast sanders record on nsa spying, the Iraq war, gay marriage, and abortion with any of the Republicans you'll eventually be hawking as being very, very important for liberty
american socialist|6.25.15 @ 9:29PM|#
"[...]Maybe you guys can compare and contrast sanders record on nsa spying, the Iraq war, gay marriage, and abortion with any of the Republicans you'll eventually be hawking as being very, very important for liberty[...]"
You seem confused, shitstain. Maybe you should find a (R) site to troll.
He doesn't actually think people here support the Iraq War or oppose gay marriage (well....except John and Sarcasmic) or favor NSA spying.
He is a troll. In all likelihood not even a real socialist.
"[...]In all likelihood not even a real socialist.[...]"
I'm fairly persuaded he is; he claims to have bailed on his mortgage and is sensitive enough about it that it's likely true.
And who but a socialist would spread his liabilities to the public and then claim to be owed that by the public.
The vaunted 'New Soviet Man' was to be he who gave of himself for the greater good, but every single one has turned out like shitstain, grabbing and grubbing for anything he can get, using the government guns if required, all the while spouting lies about how socialism is the ideal!
His wife's mortgage. She apparently isn't capable enough to enter into a financial contracts. He has also claimed she is an attorney. You'd think a lawyer would be capable of understanding a very common contract.
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! He had to bail on a mortgage?
Oh man, so American Sociopath is the sort of shithead who ruined his credit based on gross incompetence. Knowing about AS's personal failures makes me so very happy.
Uhh, no thanks. I've been down that road before.
I bet those filthy socons are just wringing their hands in anticipation, for when they find their war back into power.. a malleable SCOTUS will be so inclined to defer the elected legislature and "the spirit" of any poorly written abortion/gay rights/religious/etc. laws they can concoct.. as to avoid the appearance of judicial activism.. War hawks are licking their lips in anticipation of expanding the NDAA/NSA purviews, because the SCOTUS shills will find or invent the words to make it all legal. Cheer them on, AS.. It's truly a wonderful time to be alive..
I'm far more interested in his record on deodorant proliferation.
Why would libertarians be shilling Republicans? You must be new here. Or confused.
Are you dumb fuck confused, dumb fuck new, or both?
american socialist|6.25.15 @ 9:12PM|#
"[...]Yeah, john, those republicans in congress in 2009-2010 were being super reasonable.[...]"
Yeah, shitstain, shame on the opposition party for opposing a truly disastrous piece of work.
Lol oh you mean your comments about blowing up confederate monuments? Need I quote your recent idiotic smug comments how the Woodchipper 6 deserved visits from the kommissar for their seditious remarks?
You're not even smart enough to deserve contempt. You're just pathetic, even at the petty sniping you think passes as wit.
The most important takeaway...Peter has yet to get anything right about Obamacare, and now is reduced to whining and stamping his feet.
The sun will come up tomorrow, Peter.
It's super sad because right-winger feelz.
Indeed. Much emoting going on at Reason today.
Jackand Ace|6.25.15 @ 9:56PM|#
"Indeed. Much emoting going on at Reason today."
And visits from all sorts of lefty imbeciles!
Is health care a right? Why is Obama putting a gun to your head and forcing you to buy a private product in order to exercise your rights?
Why would you deny Obama his signature legacy? Are you a racist?
I must assume you've read the whole thing. Please explain.
I have. It's a comment that goes back years. Peter has hoped it wouldn't get passed, would be ruled unconstitutional, would get repealed (numerous times), would never get technology fixed, would never reduce the uninsured, would increase the rate of health care costs, and more. He's been counting on it. And he has always been wrong.
So now it's whining about Roberts, even though Roberts himself wouldn't have been enough since another conservative justice (Kennedy) also disagreed with Peter today.
It's all that is left...whining.
Much like your thermal fears, Pangloss. Only this one is real.
Oh baby, a triple!
Worship me!
I give you a hamburger.
Cheeseburger.
I give you a hamburger.
Fine.
Jackand Ace|6.25.15 @ 9:43PM|#
"I have. It's a comment that goes back years.
"Peter has hoped it wouldn't get passed, would be ruled unconstitutional, would get repealed (numerous times),"
Yeah, it's a shame lefty assholes like you managed to thwart those hopes.
"would never get technology fixed,"
Which is hasn't
"would never reduce the uninsured,"
Which has yet to be shown, various lies notwithstanding
"would increase the rate of health care costs,"
Which is has.
"And he has always been wrong."
And you have always been a liar; see above.
Jackand Ace|6.25.15 @ 9:22PM|#
"The most important takeaway...Peter has yet to get anything right about Obamacare, and now is reduced to whining and stamping his feet."
The most important takeaway...Jack continues to lie.
You can't blame them.
They got butt hurt over Citizens United. The got butt hurt over Heller. They got butt hurt over Hobby Lobby.
Now, SCOTUS has taken an opportunity to not give them butt-hurt, and they're treating it like great victory. Which is apparently Heritage Foundation health care over single payer.
But, the signature achievement that they didn't really like that much in the first place didn't get completely tossed out due to the ineptitude of the law's drafting, so "Eat that, bitches!"
They need a moment. Let them have it. They need at least some opportunity to quit whining about judicial activism.
Don't ever go to a restaurant with socialists without requesting a separate check.
"Which is apparently Heritage Foundation health care"
Pretty sure you need to check that claim.
Turd continues to flog that, but one of the regular commenters posted a link (and I didn't save it) which showed that the Heritage Foundation proposal was different in either a very great degree or functionally different.
For instance, it was proposed as *insurance*, not (as O-care is) a fund to cover life-style care and meds.
Takeaway: The three conservative judges were being purely partisan as usual. Justice Roberts stepped away from being a partisan for a moment and took the correct, liberal view of the situation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33iz-1Mfus4
/huffpo reader
Vincent Milburn|6.25.15 @ 9:22PM|#
"Takeaway: The three conservative judges were being purely partisan as usual. Justice Roberts stepped away from being a partisan for a moment and took the correct, liberal view of the situation."
Sarc? Stupidity?
see the /
Missed it first read; got it now.
Thx!
Don't forget...Kennedy was a GOP appointee, and he too got it right.
Yeah Joe, your view of what is right is clearly accurate given your long time desire to blow Hugo Chavez. How's Venezuela looking recently, big guy?
They will turn it around.......any day now..........
Because . . . Health care is a right.
So, it is only proper that government put a gun to your head and make you purchase health insurance, so you MUST have that health care right.
If you cannot see how perverse your side's logic is, you need your fucking head examined.
Yeah.. BOOOOOOOOOOOOSH! is the gift that keeps on giving..
I had an interesting conversation today with one of my immigrant co-workers, who asked me to explain why healthcare costs have increased so much since he and his family migrated here a decade ago and why his healthcare plans deductible is so high now. He asked me why this healthcare law has not made things better for him.
I explained to him that the purpose of the law was not to help people like him, who work hard to provide for him and his family, but for him to work even harder to provide things for people who do not want to put out the sort of effort he feels is the right thing to do, and to benefit corrupt politicians and their cronies. I think he completely understood what I told him.
He asked me if there are protests here about this shit. I told him, yes, but our politicians have now managed to make the takers the majority over the makers.
We only have one law now. Let's call it the penaltax law. It's only for the peasants, not the rulers. There are no laws for the rulers. The penaltax law simply states 'all your stuff is belong to us, because FYTW'.
Tell him to wait for the student load bailout. A lot of people believed they were essentially purchasing a title of minor nobility, only to find society can only support so many aristocrats. I think that may have happened to the French at one point, but I vaguely recall they found a way to correct their supply/demand imbalance.
*snicker*
Look, there are going to be a lot of students afraid to have sex in light of the current climate of sexual McCarthyism. Someone will have to step in and help.
McCarthyism even wasn't this bad. Basically, your average college alma mater song has been changed to this.
I'd watch a film called The Student Load Bailout. I'd watch it good and hard.
Anyone who doesn't support Rand for POTUS after proposing his 14.5% flat tax, over the other shit candidates available (even though sentient beings would have already made that decision) are completely retarded luddites.
Just kill yourselves now, retarded luddites, it will save the planet.
Time to stock up on .223. Sanity is on holiday.
[ I refuse to offer any mealy-mouthed disclaimers ]
Yeah, I've been wanting to buy a sig 716 for a while now. Probably shouldn't wait much longer. A reloading set up and maybe some bullet casts as well. While we still can.
Do not put cast lead (/alloy) through that.. Nor bismuth for that matter.. Copper or nickel/steel only.
SCOTUS ain't all bad. Now that we have Elonis v. United States, we can talk about putting Roberts up against the wall and penetrating him with high velocity.......
" we can talk about putting Roberts up against the wall and penetrating him with high velocity "reading for comprehension" books on audio regimen"
ftfy
I see that when libertarians lose--that is, when the president wins something, Obama derangement syndrome apparently being equivalent to libertarianism--they revert to their most paranoid thumb-sucking id state. You people are children.
A SCOTUS bowing to the cynical and amoral shenanigans of rightwing activists who care only about Obama being the devil is not taking the logical course of action. This ruling was obviously reasonable, even if you hate the law.
Translation: "states != states, crazy libertarians!"
Citizens United.
Tony|6.25.15 @ 10:03PM|#
"I see that when libertarians lose--that is, when the president wins something, Obama derangement syndrome apparently being equivalent to libertarianism--they revert to their most paranoid thumb-sucking id state."
I see you and reality are still not real close acquaintances.
Care to tell us what 'thumb-sucking" has been going on, or just admit you're a slimy POS who will lie when it's convenient?
"Lose", "Win" ...TEAM!
Health care is a right and government MUST make you buy health insurance. Government guns are pointed at your head. You WILL get your health.
If health care is a right, why does Obama put a gun to your head and require you to buy health insurance?
The only laws you are OK with are those that literally involve putting guns to people's heads. Shut up.
All laws are guns to people's head you retarded little fuckstick. What the fuck do you think government is? It's men with guns, that's all. Do you think words on a piece of paper are fucking magic?
Even if I accept that premise, which metaphorically is fine, that's the point. Libertarians believe in property rights, courts, and law enforcement. Yet you only talk about social programs as "guns to the head." Your only admissible aspects of government are the ones that require actual guns! In the gurgling toddler-speak of John Stossel, give me a break!
They all require guns dumbass. If I don't buy health insurance am I gonna get a sad face from the IRS, or is someone with a gun going to demand I pay a fine?
No guns will be used at any point, presuming you don't behave like a violent psychopath at some point in the process.
However, what is permissible is shooting a kid veering onto your lawn on his tricycle, if it strikes your fancy.
Consistency!
God, you're a pedestrian pig fucker
"No guns will be used at any point, presuming you don't behave like a violent psychopath at some point in the process."
Really? Ha! well then, what do you suppose these guys do? The IRS knows that tax cheats, and money launderers are dangerous characters, an have prepared themselves appropriately.. just ask them, Tony..
Yep. And you know why, Tony. Because there ain't no such thing as positive rights.
Now, go away and fuck your pig.
Sorry, thought I read "because there ain't no such thing as positive rights leprechauns, who provide police and courts and shooting trespassers for free from his big bucket of gold."
We've had this discussion many times before. Just because you remain a pig fucking moron, does not mean I will indulge your fantasies of a righteous SJW.
Enjoy you pig. Remember - glove up before you boink. It's a scary world.
Tony|6.25.15 @ 11:01PM|#
"Sorry, thought I read "because there ain't no such thing as positive rights leprechauns, who provide police and courts and shooting trespassers for free from his big bucket of gold."
I'll bet your mommy said you were smart!
If so, your mommy is as slimy as you; sorry you weren't aborted. The world would be a better place.
Tony|6.25.15 @ 10:38PM|#
"[...]Yet you only talk about social programs as "guns to the head."[...]"
What a SHAME that someone points out those programs require "guns to the head"!
I'm sure you'd prefer we lie like you do and claim they are "voluntary", but those of us who have some degree of morality REJECT YOUR SLIMY ATTEMPT AT DISHONESTY.
Is that clear, you piece of shit?
If that was true, then I'd be you.
But alas, the dumb-fuck days of my misspent youth are long over. You, however, will always be a dumb fuck proggie with shit for brains.
Wow! And here we all thought Tony was the fascist.
Obama is putting a gun to your head, making you buy health insurance and all the while braying 'health care is a right'.
Obama is the Devil.
Guess we're both drinking heavily, but for different reasons.
You guess wrong, pig fucker.
Tony|6.25.15 @ 10:39PM|#
"Guess we're both drinking heavily, but for different reasons."
Which somewhat explains your posts. Stupidity. Drunkenness. Lefty political bias.
Yep. All explain a diminished mental capacity.
Let's stipulate that SCOTUS is probably correct that the Democrats in Congress who wrote and passed "Affordable Health Care" did intend that subsidies would be available through the federal exchange too. But they, for some reason, wrote the law differently. I think all nine SCOTUS believe they know what the intent was. Why are progressives saying the decision was correct?
The decision should have been "guys, that's what the law says; go back and fix it if that isn't what you meant?" I find it hard to believe a progressive would be similarly pleased if a judge said, "You blew a .05 on the breathalyzer, but I think the legislature intended the drunk limit to be .04, not the .08 the state law currently says. So, guilty, 6 months loss of license,etc. etc. And stop whining about being treated unfairly."
The prog reaction is entirely dependent on the TEAM affiliation of the accused.
Why are progressives saying the decision was correct?
This is a silly question. Have you seen a single shred of evidence that they are actually concerned with the integrity of the system and the rule of law versus just "getting their way" on whatever is the issue at hand?
5 Takeaways
1) It's over
2) It's SO over
3) Buh bye
4) Abandon hope, all ye who enter
5) PROFIT!!!
PS God fucking DAMN bur Tony is stupid. Please stop feeding it. It's almost worse that botox again.
OT - you know how religious people are robotic beings following the programming they get from their leaders, while their opponents are a herd of independent minds, all of them courageously proclaiming what their fellow-independents believe?
Well,
"Expertise in human psychology - effectively "mind manipulation" through advertising, marketing, and other psychologically-based strategies - has made a crucial difference to the same-sex marriage campaign....
"In 2008, psychologists at the University of Leeds reported that "humans flock like sheep and birds". We instinctively want to run where the herd is running, fly where our flock is headed. We all want to be liked, accepted and respected by other people, and this unconsciously steers us towards conforming to the standards and preferences of our social group....
"Research has shown that human brains suffer psychological distress when we believe that our perceptions are somehow different from what is perceived by the group. What's more, the pressure to conform can be so great that people will unconsciously reject their own perception of reality and adopt the perception of the group, even if the group's perception is clearly incorrect....
Only libertarians, being of a small, radically ideological political movement, antagonistic to every other political concept, are independently minded.
And we don't use government guns to make you buy a product against your will.
You are all about guns, force and coercion.
Except the products known as courts and police to protect your lawn flamingos. Except those, because that's OK because you fucking like your fucking lawn plastic.
"Filthiest Person Alive"
Yep, that is true. No lawn flamingos (HOA rules do not permit them). However, I freely accept those restrictions.
W4J, am I getting this right? Self defense, defense of property, and national defense are now somehow evil?
This is what passes for Tony fevered reasoning?
Only on your terms. I'm fine with them.
Yep. Because libertarians are too selfish to spend (tax) for anything else.
I think it's hilarious that the Tony-persona is inadvertently making the an-cap case against minarchism.
I'm consciously making it. Anarchists are consistent in their first principles, unlike libertarians who fatally are not. Anarchists are interesting, but I'd need like a really good drag from a minimum of a gravity bong to bother debating their fantasies.
I'm consciously making it.
When do you have time to bong when you spend so much time in the pig-fuck playpen?
Minarchy is the first step to anarcho-capitalism.
It's all horseshit for children.
If I pulled a John Roberts, I believe Tony is saying, 'hey, if you're willing to pay for government services on courts, cops and defense, then you must be willing to pay for everything else government thinks is a valuable service too. And, if you quibble, we'll use those guns and cops you already paid for against you.
So, shut up and submit.'
"Only libertarians, being of a small, radically ideological political movement, antagonistic to every other political concept, are independently minded."
Sounds like a hell of an endorsement to me.
""Even more shocking, conformity to the group's choices lit up the regions of the mind that are associated with perception. As such, the subjects appear to have unconsciously altered their actual perception of the images, so that their answers did not appear obviously wrong to them. In other words, they came to really see the images as the group saw them, and they were never aware that they were choosing social conformity over reality....
"There is still more. In cases where the subjects chose not to conform to the group, the MRI scan showed activity in areas related to emotion. This suggests that going against the group carries a cost in terms of emotional distress. The implication is that going against the group and sticking to our own beliefs can be very unpleasant....
"If a small "seed group" is successful at convincing some people to join the cause, then a momentum will begin to build. The herd mentality will take over and continue the wave towards complete victory.
"It's not even necessary to make an airtight case for same-sex marriage. In fact, as they jump on the bandwagon, people will end up convincing themselves. A 2014 study showed that people will copy others to the extent of "evaluating personal beliefs when they contradict what others are doing"....
"So at least unconsciously, we are more concerned with making the 'popular' rather than the 'right' decision....
"Shaming instills fear, and this fear is legitimate and well founded. The consequences of going against the group are often very real. For instance, one study showed that a person who was perceived as opposing the group and rejecting all arguments to change his opinion became the least desirable person in the group and was given the least important tasks. Today, many people have begun to feel afraid of being financially and professionally ruined if they do not support the gender ideology agenda.
"The incredible advantage of shame as a weapon is that it often influences people on the level of instincts, not in the conscious mind. In effect, shaming is the modern "Trojan Horse". It gets through the mental walls of our rational and conscious mind, and can wreak havoc not just with our loyalties but even with our actual perceptions of reality.
"Across the divide, the traditional or 'conjugal marriage' side is trying out a completely different tactic. In the spirit of democratic debate practised since ancient times, this side is attempting to appeal to people's reason and common sense. The target of this side is thus the conscious human mind, and the hope is that people will consider the arguments, the pluses and minuses, and that they will freely come to the decision to support the ancient institution of conjugal marriage.
"On this side of the debate, we have learned and visionary scholars like Ryan T. Anderson, Sherif Girgis and Robert George, who are pumping out books and participating in debates, all in an effort to make a solid case that will convince people. Many other conservative speakers and academics are also shouting from the rooftops their rational and convincing arguments for why marriage only makes sense between a man and a woman.
"But notice something remarkable: the proponents of same-sex marriage are not meeting these arguments with replies in kind. Nor do they intend to, because they have discovered that rational discourse is not necessary for the victory of their cause. As [psychologist Joseph] Burgo puts it:
""Would it be better to remove shame from our discourse and try to persuade the legislators in Indiana to our point of view with rational argument? Which one would be a more effective deterrent to behaviors of which we disapprove?
""At the end of the day, perhaps the most we can hope for is to drive bigotry and intolerance into the closet."
"Clear as a bell - if the proponents of traditional marriage can be driven "into the closet" with a campaign of shame, then there is no need for rational discourse anymore."
(from lifesite news)
http://ow.ly/OOKeD
Okay. So how do those tactics (if they have actually been used) differ from the anti-gay tactics used by Christians pretty much throughout all of history?
So, wait, you're saying these tactics are OK, or you're saying I have no standing to criticize them because you believe people like me used those tactics in the past?
The tactics are either good or bad. If they're bad, they're no less bad if "Christians" used them in the past.
So, wait, you're saying these tactics are OK
Why would you claim these tactics are "bad".? Because the are using emotionally manipulation? Why is the logical argument superior in trivial matters such as these? If they are not physically harming anyone, threatening physical harm, or engaging in fraud, why are their tactics bad? Their tactics are effective they are not bad. They peacefully persuade others by understanding people and wonderfully exploiting modern communication technology. Shame is a facet of human nature. People allowing themselves to be cheaply manipulated is on them.
"They peacefully persuade others by understanding people and wonderfully exploiting modern communication technology."
And threatening their opponents' jobs and livelihoods. That part is, I think, fairly key.
And for the noncoercive part of the campaign (not that it be artificially separated from the coercive part) - of course it isn't a *direct* violation of the holy NAP. It's simply using manipulative methods of persuasion to override rational responses.
Which is the same thing progs used to get Obamacare passed. Or tax hikes "for the children." Their *advocacy campaign* used traditional methods of peaceful persuasion - in order to adopt coercive policies.
"trivial matters such as these?"
If government-recognized gay marriage is "trivial," then I expect you will be tolerant of disagreement over such a minor matter, and won't get worked up at people with different views than yours.
So I would presume that you reject the attitude shown by same-sex "marriage" advocates (including some on H&R) that this is the moral equivalent of the crusade against slavery and Jim Crow, and that refusing to let Chad and Eustace file jointly is just like banishing Mr. and Mrs. Loving from Virginia for marrying across racial lines. Or that opponents of this glorious crusade are bigots, enemies of humanity, deserving to be doxed, purged from the civil service, driven out of their jobs, fined, etc.
So I would presume that you reject the attitude shown by same-sex "marriage" advocates (including some on H&R) that this is the moral equivalent of the crusade against slavery and Jim Crow, and that refusing to let Chad and Eustace file jointly is just like banishing Mr. and Mrs. Loving from Virginia for marrying across racial line
You are correct. I think the whole gay marriage thing is silly. I also think it should be left up to the states and I would cast a nay vote if it came to it.
I just admire (respect as a complex achievement) how much and how rapidly they have altered society.
There is also an attempt in your post, while at the same time chastising other practitioners, to shame opponents for the tactics they employ.
"There is also an attempt in your post, while at the same time chastising other practitioners, to shame opponents for the tactics they employ."
OK, you got me bang to rights.
I don't want to encourage heavy drinking, but please note the title of this magazine...and note that many posters pride themselves on applying rationality as opposed to feelz...and certainly as opposed to irrational Sky-Daddy bleevers.
So I thought I'd annoy y'all by switching things around and imputing irrational thought processes to *you.*
I got, say, 3 people to reply to me, so I suppose that by troll standards I was a success.
Ha ha.
And for the noncoercive part of the campaign (not that it be artificially separated from the coercive part) - of course it isn't a *direct* violation of the holy NAP. It's simply using manipulative methods of persuasion to override rational responses.
I understand people have principles and would not violate them for any price. However, why should I give a damn about your principles. Human nature is what it is. There are plenty of people willing to utilize tactics you find distasteful because they only care if the tactics are effective. Your "moral snobbery" tactic seems to be of little value except for the psychic benefits from claiming a logically superior position.
I despise their tactics as well. But the rational position has lost. With the transgender thing it should now be obvious. Either adjust your principles to the new reality or go down with the ship.
"I despise their tactics as well. But the rational position has lost. With the transgender thing it should now be obvious. Either adjust your principles to the new reality or go down with the ship."
Ah, well, so be it.
"(if they have actually been used)"
That's very cute!
Wait, what? He's at Duke now.
The link was to a 2005 story where he was commenting on the Gregory Berns study. At the time Ariely was at MIT.
Ariely said re the Berns study, ''It suggests that information from other people may color our perception at a very deep level.''
Ah, I see. And as much as I like Ariely and his work, it amazes me that he can provide the empirical data to prove the central theses of the Austrian school and still think that the non-existence of a hyper-rational homo economicus is an argument against the invisible hand and the free market.
Then again, look at the views of his peer group. I suspect his perceptions are colored in all of Crayola's 64 colors.
I read some of his stuff, and I was certainly amused at the conclusions he drew from peoples' irrationality - let's have the government force people to be rational! Because individuals with government jobs, who pay no price for bad decisions, are exempt from irrationality and much better qualified to make decisions than the people who bear the consequences of said decisions.
However, he *does* capture some of the irrationality of the human mind, even if he partakes of that irrationality himself.
It's ironic that he doesn't realize that he's an example of the social conformity that he studies.
(6) We need a million woodchipper march.
Do we really need Tony to prove that retarded luddites are retarded luddites? I mean, I was already convinced.
Why are you here, Tony? Can't find a bridge to jump from?
Is everybody sad drunk?!
Why do you assume that everyone thinks the same way you do? Oh, because you're a proglodyte, never mind.
Just sad? You act drunk when you're sad?
Ah, ummm... ok.
Wow this handle change thing is very easy. And no, this joke will never die... Until a certain team lets us down or some nonsense.
It's a penaltax
The ACA seems to be a program to subsidize low income people so they can buy medical insurance. I don't get the very premise of this. I have home owners insurance that covers me if my house catches fire. There is what, a 1% or less chance my house will catch fire during the next 40 years. But there is nearly 100% chance I will get sick and a ?+ chance I will die during that time. You insure yourself against risk, not against the inevitable. If it's the thing to do for government to pay for its citizen's medical care, then just do it. The lefties have better idea with an efficient single payer system, a wealth transfer program, than this bureaucratic mess.
I ask for two things with that. 1) always require a co-payment for non-emergency service. Even if it's $5 bucks just to keep the hypochondriacs at bay. 2) if you value your health over a big screen TV or a vacation you should be able to buy that, jump the queue, and get the extra value you payed for. (No Canadian egalitarianism).
The ACA seems to be a program to subsidize low income people so they can buy medical insurance. I don't get the very premise of this
Well, let me explain it for you very simply.
Our elected politicians and their crony buds want to screw you over to enrich themselves and gain more power over your life.
Is there anything else you need to know?
That was my point, I thought. I meant the ACA's primary beneficiaries are government bureaucrats and K-street insurance companies. Ms. Maple on Elm Street gets what's left. She likes the help, but if the help is to be given (this seems to be a done deal), it could certainly be given more efficiently.
The primary purpose of the ACA is to force people who don't need insurance to buy insurance. The theory is that people who don't consume a lot of healthcare and therefore don't buy insurance will continue to not consume healthcare once they are forced to pay for it whether they use it or not. The excess premiums these people are expected to pay will go toward buying Grandma a new set of hips and Grandpa a new pacemaker, because God knows Grandma and Grandpa won't be paying for it - they're retired. The ACA is being sold as "healthcare for poor people", but all the jiggery-pokery with the insurance exchanges and the subsidies and the rules for insurance policies ought to give anybody who realizes that he gets healthcare from his doctor and not from his insurance agent a clue that this has little to do with providing healthcare and everything to do with shifting the costs of providing healthcare. Too bad that, while I consumed very little healthcare when I paid for very little healthcare, now that I'm paying for a shitload of healthcare I'm damn sure going to consume a shitload of healthcare. Like I said - I'm going in for a sex-change operation just so I can get a hysterectomy.
"Like I said - I'm going in for a sex-change operation just so I can get a hysterectomy."
Set your goals high, and live the dream, JK... I salute you..
if you value your health over a big screen TV or a vacation you should be able to buy that, jump the queue, and get the extra value you payed for.
Conversely, if you don't care more about your healthcare than you do about buying a big screen TV why should anyone else?
GUYS TONY IS NOT A REAL PERSON
He is an obvious troll. He's what I would be if I went over to Raw Story literally just to talk about how the Citizen's United decision gave me a giant erection. That would be troll behavior and that is what Tony is doing.
Ignore him. He's less of a real human than American Sociopath.
I'm here to have quality debate with libertarians. If someone could kindly point me in the direction of any libertarians? All I see are teabagging talk radio hillbillies.
Dude, you're not here to debate. You argue in bad faith and toss ad hominems like bombs. You're basically a bomb thrower.
Tony's here to wildly insult people in the hopes of getting a rise out of them. He's not a serious person and he's very intellectually incurious.
It's not surprising that people here will talk about what books they've read to explain their position on a subject...but Tony never does. That's because Tony is the kind of person who doesn't read much. You can tell by his writing - he's the kind of guy who learned to write and to think by avoiding literature and study as much as possible. He's just not a serious person. He's a narcissist who likes to pretend he's serious because he can make people angry, but if our little semi-literate dweeb couldn't do that, he'd just shrivel up and float away.
By books you mean the same ones that can be numbered on two hands? I've read more books than you and three generations of your spawn ever will. My personal style is to avoid overt references, as I think it's pretentious. But more than most of you I will submit to linking you to reliable sources you will summarily dismiss for no good reason.
And look how he tries to get me to engage him. The desperation is palpable. Since he can't read and doesn't know history and isn't interested in the world around him, he has nothing in his life other than to fight and pretend he's won simply because he's too stupid to realize everyone lost and will continue to lose so long as his side of the political aisle holds sway.
You'll never be happy, Tony. Your entire philosophy is predicated upon misery and anger. Have fun being miserable from now til the day you die, Tony, because it's going to be a blast watching you wail and gnash your teeth trying to get me to engage with your blustering incompetence.
BTW, I answered your Qu'ran translation question up thread, as it took me an hour to notice it! Sorry.
Misery is what everyone here is experiencing because they lost a lost-cause at the supreme court because they were duped by Republican agents with microphones and a camera. I'm miserable only because there's so much stupidity in the world.
I've had fine debates here. It's just that I have to fish a while before I catch anything worth keeping. What am I supposed to do while I'm waiting besides taunt imbeciles? The imbeciles here are saying the same things elected members of Congress are saying on national TV, so it's not totally unconnected to reality.
"I'm here to have quality debate..."
You're a bartender's headache.
How dreadful, a libertarian bartender. I'm here for a vodka and soda dude, save the jiggers for a more precise cocktail.
An airport cocktail lounge is not a bar.
Yeah.. the Bowlerama bar is where it's at..
No, you're not. You're just the progressive-socialist pig-fucking troll from Oklahoma.
Just like your BFF, Bernie from Burlington.
Yes, he is! He's the dumbest person who has ever lived since our species has been called human. Do you really need further proof?
I'm disappointed. I thought in his moment of great triumph he might be inspired to bring something more interesting to the table than his usual mendacity and playground insults.
It's not a triumph though. This is bad policy. We know it's bad policy - Tony doesn't. That doesn't change the fact that we'll all suffer, so in no sense has tony 'triumphed.' He just hasn't realized his loss yet.
That's why I laugh at and mock progressives, but I don't hate them. It rains on the just and unjust alike, and progressives can't change reality by petulantly pretending that they haven't gotten wet. So they're as fucked as anyone. They just have stupidity and ignorance to add to the list of difficulties they'll have to deal with down the line.
I've always told statist that the weapon you use to fuck your political opponents over with will be the same weapon used on you when they get into power.
statists*
I remember going on a date with this girl who called herself a peaceful collectivist anarchist. I kid you the fuck not. Anyway, she believed that the government (the people in her mind) should own the means of production along with getting rid of private property. I asked her if she and her ilk got into power tomorrow what would they do? She responded that she would get rid of private property. I then asked what if you went to someone's property and told them that they have to give it up only for them to tell you to fuck off. What would you do? She responded that she would send the authorities to get his property. I then asked what if he told the authorities to fuck off it's his property? She stopped the conversation because she knew where this was going.
Tony and his ilk believe that they are doing God's work by giving money to the poor and shifting resources to those that needs it most. They then say (whether they believe this or not) that they believe in the best of humanity. In reality though, their whole fucking platform involves force. They don't realize nor care that when you give the power to a group of people to use force to acheive what you believe are good ends, that same power can be used to abuse the system.
Yeah...I'm not sure you understand how this whole "anarchist" thing works, honey.
Of course, the question remains...did you still hit it?
No. I was 20 at the time and didn't know how to keep my mouth shut when it came to politics. I fucking verbally reamed her when she talked about her socialist nonesense. 30 year old Ed would have kept his mouth closed and tried to bang her.
The price we pay for our wisdom.
Sadly. My current girlfriend is a liberal but she's pretty cool. And she also hates the Chicago Teacher's Union with a passion.
Ummm, pics?
If that is your freedom day wish..
Altruists
That girl.... it was Tony, wasn't it Ed?
You know ASW, I had roommate my freshman whose name was also Tony and he was a raving socialist. I wonder if Tony ever lived in Chicago
I took a three-day class there once. He was only technically a roommate, but just for the night.
That girl.... it was Tony, wasn't it Ed?"
Egg? Were you that little fat boy?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hT9yEHOjYjU
"That girl.... it was Tony, wasn't it Ed?"
Well.. she was "Tonya" back then..
Guys, progressivism guarantees the progressive will always be miserable. There have been tons of studies showing progressives are less happy than the general society and that's entirely unsurprising. Their political philosophy is based on seeing themselves as victims even when they're winning.
Progressives are incapable of happiness. They have moments like now, where they're vaguely smug, but in a way that they don't actually seem 'happy' so much as filled with righteous hatred, and then they have moments of defeat, when they cry and wail on twitter and dissolve into puddles of weepy impotence.
It's misery forever and ever for these people, so there's no reason to fight with Tony. His miserable political philosophy is more of a punishment than anything we could inflict on him.
They're not even really winning. Progressives skew young and lower income -- the two groups that are getting humped hardest by Obamacare. It's like a weird variant of the Milgram experiment where you're forced to watch another person shock himself over and over when you get answers wrong.
I just can't read this.
It's like there's a salad spinner of troll shit right in the middle of the chat room, and everyone is taking it right in the face.
STOP SPINNING IT, YOU KNOW WHAT COMES OUT EVERY SINGLE GOD DAMN TIME.
You're right, but then you're going to have a hard time claiming sainthood.
Did you see below? A piece of shit almost hit me, but I ducked just in time!
The conflation of intent and result is a subject that should be examined by someone serious about science, but that would require a 'sociology' dept that hasn't capsized to port.
Already done. It's just people stuck at stage 3 in Kohlberg's stages of moral development model.
BTW, you mentioned that you like maps, as do I. I dropped this link to you a while ago, but I don't know if you saw it.
https://geoguessr.com
Good luck.
Uh, that's not maps, that's 'are you familiar with the locality?'
First one is Europe, say 33*N, starting in the east of France, Lux, Be, Ge on to well, likely not Russia.
Second is fly-over US; thousands of square miles. The hills say south of the moraine, but...
It's different every time you play. The fun is seeing how high you can get your score. The closer the guess, the higher the score.
I play the challenge with my dad sometimes. We've each drawn a few lucky hands.
I can see that; a test of observational skills. Not so much maps.
It does require substantial geographic knowledge, but I can see it's not your thing.
Pl?ya Manhattan.|6.26.15 @ 12:57AM|#
"It does require substantial geographic knowledge, but I can see it's not your thing."
So you missed my comment about 33N euro?
No, I meant the game is not your thing. You don't seem very interested.
I played it for hours when I first discovered it.
I wasn't doubting your abilities.
Pl?ya Manhattan.|6.26.15 @ 1:07AM|#
"No, I meant the game is not your thing. You don't seem very interested.
I played it for hours when I first discovered it."
No intent to beat on you.
Bizz right now is keeping me from amusements, so I grabbed it for future looks.
That's a fucking awesome site, Playa...I've always been into geography and have traveled to both Europe and Asia. I'll be wasting time there in the future.
Sure beats reading comments form cretins like the Tony troll.
*from*
That's very cool. I look at the wires. A rural house with only one thin wire coming from a utilty pole. No way there is an underground electrical hook up there. And a security camera. so there is electricity. Where does it come from? Another look down a rural street with utility poles on both sides. Four wires on one side, only one the other. Why was it necessary to put a new set of poles on the other side of the street for that one wire? That is a very uncooperative place (a bit north of Kazakstan)
I'm so terribly sorry for your loss. Not getting to witness millions of people's healthcare access dissolve away in an instant of pure evil partisan hackery is such a tragedy.
I will not rest until we have uninvented penicillin
Yuck. Check your shoes, bro.
The poor serve no purpose beyond their peak-output phase. Best that they should simply consume tobacco products and speed themselves to an early grave.
Tony|6.26.15 @ 12:03AM|#
"I'm so terribly sorry for your loss. Not getting to witness millions of people's healthcare access dissolve away in an instant of pure evil partisan hackery is such a tragedy."
Tony, I want to make something clear:
Turd, Tony, commie-kid and several other slimy lefties post here, and it seems that they hope the exchanges are, well, 'light-hearted'; I'm reminded of a turd post asking me 'why the hostility?'.
Make no mistake: I am not joking when I compare the lot of you to what collects in the bottom of a port-a-potty.
I despise you. You are the cause of more grief and death to mankind than any 'natural' disaster could ever cause. You are mass murderers or the direct supporters of same. There is no possible way you could be excused from being so; don't bother trying to excuse it.
You think I'm joking when I label you a shitstain or a turd? No, I'm not. Let me add that if the entire lot of you had been aborted, the world would be a better place. Far better. There is no place in a presumed hell hot enough to deliver what you deserve.
Do not presume that I would do other than piss in your mouth if you were drowning and that I would do it cheerfully.
Yes, I despise you.
This ruling declared that it's perfectly constitutional for the executive to implement a law in direct contradiction to it's wording, if they honestly believe that's what Congress really meant for them to do.
This could affect the executive actions on immigration. The law says benefits and status go to group A but not to B. Obama says I'm giving them to B as well. SCOTUS says "Oh well, it would be such a mess to undo!"
This^^^^ The progs are so sure team blue will have a thousand year reign that they fail to see the consequences if their team red opponents get the prize.
Rule of law is now dead. Everyone, despite their team, should fear this, I do. Honestly I will laugh when this shit blows in the prog's faces. That won't make it right from my perspective, but sometimes you get what you wish for and progs could be in for a rude awakening down the road.