ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Night Strike]

Democrat-Republican Nightmare Scenario / Saxi Dream Scenario: What if the court rules the rest of the law can stand absent this one provision? This would be a nightmare scenario for Obama, the Democrats, Republicans and the mega-corporations. It would mean Americans would no longer be encumbered by restrictions on pre-existing conditions, the mega-corporations would be out billions upon billions of dollars without the revenue bonanza of an 8% increase in customer base they and Obama had counted upon.

That sounds nice, but wouldn't that cause health care companies to raise their rates? I thought the idea was to make it more affordable, not less so.

What protections in the legislation, as it was passed, exist to keep that from happening anyway?

Well, the idea is that rates would lower because everybody would have healthcare. The companies could offset the fact that they have to keep and accept sick and old people with the new pool of young, healthy people getting insurance.

You fell for that lie hook, line and sinker. As soon as the law passed (and even before it), companies began raising their rates to counter the losses they'll be forced to take in the future due to not blocking pre-existing conditions and before the artificial rate limiting came into effect.

[InkL0sed]

If there are any adults interested in continuing the confab, please feel free to PM me. When inkL0sed starts preening about the awesome TD he scored during his senior game in HS that's my cue to realize the convo has become a bit too juvenile for my tastes.

Part time bullshit translator reporting for duty.

Sacxless translation: "It was all fun 'n games when I devolved the conversation into juvenile bullshit, but I don't like it when the other boys and girls are juvenile back to me. Waaah. Would somebody hold my hand?"

You attract an interesting rabble, InkL0sed. You should check out Aradhus' other thread where he was chastising TGD for his poor understanding of U.S. tax law. A bit of a Player57832 quality, I think. You two have fun together. Goodnight all.

I'll be sure to have lots of fun

[Aradhus]

If there are any adults interested in continuing the confab, please feel free to PM me. When inkL0sed starts preening about the awesome TD he scored during his senior game in HS that's my cue to realize the convo has become a bit too juvenile for my tastes.

Part time bullshit translator reporting for duty.

Sacxless translation: "It was all fun 'n games when I devolved the conversation into juvenile bullshit, but I don't like it when the other boys and girls are juvenile back to me. Waaah. Would somebody hold my hand?"

You attract an interesting rabble, InkL0sed. You should check out Aradhus' other thread where he was chastising TGD for his poor understanding of U.S. tax law. A bit of a Player57832 quality, I think. You two have fun together. Goodnight all.

Oh yeah, I really chastised TGD on taxes, and I know he felt it..

Also, if pointing out your hypocrisy equates to defending whatever position inklosed was arguing, then I guess I'm guilty as charged. Me and my new best friend will be playing in the sand, you can play with us, but no hand holding, k?

Democrat-Republican Nightmare Scenario / Saxi Dream Scenario: What if the court rules the rest of the law can stand absent this one provision? This would be a nightmare scenario for Obama, the Democrats, Republicans and the mega-corporations. It would mean Americans would no longer be encumbered by restrictions on pre-existing conditions, the mega-corporations would be out billions upon billions of dollars without the revenue bonanza of an 8% increase in customer base they and Obama had counted upon.

That sounds nice, but wouldn't that cause health care companies to raise their rates? I thought the idea was to make it more affordable, not less so.

What protections in the legislation, as it was passed, exist to keep that from happening anyway?

Well, the idea is that rates would lower because everybody would have healthcare. The companies could offset the fact that they have to keep and accept sick and old people with the new pool of young, healthy people getting insurance.

You fell for that lie hook, line and sinker. As soon as the law passed (and even before it), companies began raising their rates to counter the losses they'll be forced to take in the future due to not blocking pre-existing conditions and before the artificial rate limiting came into effect.

Which is why progressives who wanted to tackle the underlying issue with Health care insurance, the increasing cost, wanted a public option.

[spurgistan]

I feel like the thread title needs the addendum "by a federal judge who owns a stake in a anti-HCR lobbying firm." Cuz, you know, Al Gore's got a big house, and shit.

[Night Strike]

I feel like the thread title needs the addendum "by a federal judge who owns a stake in a anti-HCR lobbying firm." Cuz, you know, Al Gore's got a big house, and shit.

Thank you for providing proof of your claim.

[BigBallinStalin]

Hey, saxitoxin, get back in here!

I find your lack of faith in the market forces disturbing. We must keep in mind that certain government regulations (not all however) do hinder market forces from reaching equilibrium. As people themselves set down laws trying to regulate this, we must be aware of their every intention (good or bad), followed by their good and/or bad consequences.

What is your main point of contention or of favor with the ObamaCare?

If you don't want to talk about that, then let me know if you're interested in propounding your ideas on collective ownership. I've got a few questions for that as well.

[spurgistan]

I feel like the thread title needs the addendum "by a federal judge who owns a stake in a anti-HCR lobbying firm." Cuz, you know, Al Gore's got a big house, and shit.

Thank you for providing proof of your claim.

It's not a claim, it's a known fact that he's disclosed in the past.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/3 ... 65240.html

money: UPDATE: Campaign Solutions, Inc. sent over the following statement detailing Hudson's investment in the firm.

Judge Hudson has owned stock in Campaign Solutions going back 13 years to the founding of the company or well before he became a federal judge. Since joining the federal bench, he has fully disclosed his stock ownership in the company. He is a passive investor only, has no knowledge of the day to day operations of the firm, and has never discussed any aspect of the business with any official of the company.

[thegreekdog]

I feel like the thread title needs the addendum "by a federal judge who owns a stake in a anti-HCR lobbying firm." Cuz, you know, Al Gore's got a big house, and shit.

Thank you for providing proof of your claim.

It's not a claim, it's a known fact that he's disclosed in the past.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/3 ... 65240.html

money: UPDATE: Campaign Solutions, Inc. sent over the following statement detailing Hudson's investment in the firm.

Judge Hudson has owned stock in Campaign Solutions going back 13 years to the founding of the company or well before he became a federal judge. Since joining the federal bench, he has fully disclosed his stock ownership in the company. He is a passive investor only, has no knowledge of the day to day operations of the firm, and has never discussed any aspect of the business with any official of the company.

Not to put words on NightStrike's keyboard, but I think what he's saying is that it's a valid argument that Hudson is "biased" if you acknowledge that Gore is "biased."

As a related aside - I can virtually guarantee that if judges use this type of thing to recuse themselves from this type of case (i.e. owning an interest in a health insurance provider = recusal), then every judge in the US is going to have to be recused.

[Aradhus]

If I have empirical proof that smoking stimulates brain development, the fact that I'm being financed by smoking companies, doesn't invalidate my position. It gives us some insight into what your motivations might be, but if an argument is sound, then who finances the messenger should have no bearing on the validity of the argument.

[thegreekdog]

If I have empirical proof that smoking stimulates brain development, the fact that I'm being financed by smoking companies, doesn't invalidate my position. It gives us some insight into what your motivations might be, but if an argument is sound, then who finances the messenger should have no bearing on the validity of the argument.

I don't disagree with this.

[Night Strike]

I feel like the thread title needs the addendum "by a federal judge who owns a stake in a anti-HCR lobbying firm." Cuz, you know, Al Gore's got a big house, and shit.

Thank you for providing proof of your claim.

It's not a claim, it's a known fact that he's disclosed in the past.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/3 ... 65240.html

money: UPDATE: Campaign Solutions, Inc. sent over the following statement detailing Hudson's investment in the firm.

Judge Hudson has owned stock in Campaign Solutions going back 13 years to the founding of the company or well before he became a federal judge. Since joining the federal bench, he has fully disclosed his stock ownership in the company. He is a passive investor only, has no knowledge of the day to day operations of the firm, and has never discussed any aspect of the business with any official of the company.

Not to put words on NightStrike's keyboard, but I think what he's saying is that it's a valid argument that Hudson is "biased" if you acknowledge that Gore is "biased."

No, I was saying that I had not heard this claim and he provided no evidence with the statement, which is what I was asking for. I don't even think this is a huge deal, especially since everything has already been publicized. Of course judges that believe in original intent are going to align themselves with like-minded organizations. And of course those organizations are going to work with political people who have the same beliefs.

[Phatscotty]

I feel like the thread title needs the addendum "by a federal judge who owns a stake in a anti-HCR lobbying firm." Cuz, you know, Al Gore's got a big house, and shit.

Thank you for providing proof of your claim.

It's not a claim, it's a known fact that he's disclosed in the past.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/3 ... 65240.html

money: UPDATE: Campaign Solutions, Inc. sent over the following statement detailing Hudson's investment in the firm.

Judge Hudson has owned stock in Campaign Solutions going back 13 years to the founding of the company or well before he became a federal judge. Since joining the federal bench, he has fully disclosed his stock ownership in the company. He is a passive investor only, has no knowledge of the day to day operations of the firm, and has never discussed any aspect of the business with any official of the company.

huffington post. pff shya kk tss ALL LIES!

[Night Strike]

huffington post. pff shya kk tss ALL LIES!

Had the same thought process when I saw it, and even more when it said "Democratic source".

[Phatscotty]

huffington post. pff shya kk tss ALL LIES!

Had the same thought process when I saw it, and even more when it said "Democratic source".

Just on its face...."liberal source indentifies conservative source!"

[saxitoxin]

Hey, saxitoxin, get back in here!

I find your lack of faith in the market forces disturbing. We must keep in mind that certain government regulations (not all however) do hinder market forces from reaching equilibrium. As people themselves set down laws trying to regulate this, we must be aware of their every intention (good or bad), followed by their good and/or bad consequences.

What is your main point of contention or of favor with the ObamaCare?

If you don't want to talk about that, then let me know if you're interested in propounding your ideas on collective ownership. I've got a few questions for that as well.

OMFG I've said this like so many frackin' times!

*tickle tickle*

*Saxi tickles BBS*

(1) ObamaCare is a corporate giveaway to the big insurance mega-corporations who bankrolled the slug Obama's campaign, such as Aetna and UnitedHealth.

(2) Forcing people, at gunpoint, to become a customer of a for-profit mega-corporation is more repulsive than the snatch of the First Mattress, Mitch Obama, after Fleet Week in Washington.

(3) I don't support any programme by someone who does not believe in accountability and transparency as there will inevitably be hidden terribles behind each. Obama's strident opposition to Freedom of Speech and his maniacal position that Julian Assange should be slaughtered in the streets seem counter to transparency.

(Though I do have no philosophical problem with using statutory power to abolish pre-existing conditions restrictions where they exist, even if they do only impact a small part of the population. I have no problem with the pig vampire-state regulating the behaviour of corporations, as corporations cannot exist independent of the legal framework constructed by the vampire-state. I have a problem with it regulating the behaviour of individuals, though, as life can exist independent of the state. The slug Obama's use of police power to force individuals to turn over their wealth to for-profit corporations is the most sickening display of a corporate-whore politician in western history and Obama will be remembered as the Wall Street Slut, the Jezebel of the Potomac, for all history.)


NO MORE QUESTIONS!

[saxitoxin]

I find your lack of faith in the market forces disturbing. We must keep in mind that certain government regulations (not all however) do hinder market forces from reaching equilibrium. As people themselves set down laws trying to regulate this, we must be aware of their every intention (good or bad), followed by their good and/or bad consequences.

Market forces are already unbalanced because of positive regulation. An example of negative regulation might be a corporations tax or a zoning ordinance. An example of a positive regulation are limited liability laws.

I have no problem with, and theoretically support, the abrogation of all regulations, but it should be inclusive of both positive and negative regulations or there can be no pretense to market equilibrium.

Corporations are the second most wicked thing the mind of man devised. The most evil thing is the government. We must seek to minimize the power of both!

[Metsfanmax]

I have a problem with it regulating the behaviour of individuals, though, as life can exist independent of the state.

You have a problem with the state regulating murder?

[Night Strike]

I have a problem with it regulating the behaviour of individuals, though, as life can exist independent of the state.

You have a problem with the state regulating murder?

Your right to do as you please ends when it affects another person's rights, hence why regulations inhibiting the harm of another individual are a just action of government.

[saxitoxin]

I have a problem with it regulating the behaviour of individuals, though, as life can exist independent of the state.

You have a problem with the state regulating murder?

You'd ask a thief to guard a jewelry store?

[Metsfanmax]

I have a problem with it regulating the behaviour of individuals, though, as life can exist independent of the state.

You have a problem with the state regulating murder?

You'd ask a thief to guard a jewelry store?

Is that an answer? It's a simple question: do you think that individuals should be allowed to murder each other without a penalty from any sovereign body?

[saxitoxin]

I have a problem with it regulating the behaviour of individuals, though, as life can exist independent of the state.

You have a problem with the state regulating murder?

You'd ask a thief to guard a jewelry store?

Is that an answer? It's a simple question: do you think that individuals should be allowed to murder each other without a penalty from any sovereign body?

It's a simple answer: homicide is malum in se.

[InkL0sed]

I have a problem with it regulating the behaviour of individuals, though, as life can exist independent of the state.

You have a problem with the state regulating murder?

You'd ask a thief to guard a jewelry store?

Is that an answer? It's a simple question: do you think that individuals should be allowed to murder each other without a penalty from any sovereign body?

It's a simple answer: homicide is malum in se.

Translation: I'll answer vaguely with Latin, so when people say they don't understand, I can go all OH EXCUSE ME I FORGOT I WAS CONVERSING WITH SUCH IGNORAMUSES WHO CAN'T SEE HOW WHAT I'M SAYING IS SO BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS.

[Metsfanmax]

I have a problem with it regulating the behaviour of individuals, though, as life can exist independent of the state.

You have a problem with the state regulating murder?

You'd ask a thief to guard a jewelry store?

Is that an answer? It's a simple question: do you think that individuals should be allowed to murder each other without a penalty from any sovereign body?

It's a simple answer: homicide is malum in se.

That's no answer at all, unless you think that, in the absence of a state, murder will be punished by little garden gnomes who are horrified when actions are committed that are inherently evil.

[saxitoxin]

That's no answer at all, unless you think that, in the absence of a state, murder will be punished by little garden gnomes who are horrified when actions are committed that are inherently evil.

Like all organizations, a State is first concerned with its own existence. You were instructed by agents of the State - teachers - that law cannot exist outside of the State; that the two are inseparably entangled. That is your frame of reference, one so efficiently ingrained that you cannot imagine anything different in the same way one could not describe space to someone who had never looked up at the sky.

Religious fundamentalism is not dependent on the supernatural. You engage in State-Worship, a form of religious fundamentalism.

I can't deprogram someone unwilling to be deprogrammed. By your words and the way you carry yourself you've indicated you are content with a State-Worship centered life. We should all be happy about something. I'm glad you have found something.

[saxitoxin]

It's a simple answer: homicide is malum in se.

Translation: I'll answer vaguely with Latin, so when people say they don't understand, I can go all OH EXCUSE ME I FORGOT I WAS CONVERSING WITH SUCH IGNORAMUSES WHO CAN'T SEE HOW WHAT I'M SAYING IS SO BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS.

I didn't forget.

In the immortal words of Richard Rorty, we are "going to make your views seem silly rather than discussable."

Because they are. Silly. Not worthy of argument, only of lecture.

These are the watchwords of the international left when confronted by the dullard's zombie-tromp of slavishly mindless State-Worship of the kind being schilled by the Obamite drones in all their consumer, mass-produced, wind-up quality.