RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate

RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

provfivetine -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/28/2012 10:17:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Going by past threads, research has never been his "thing." This is coming from someone who is under the spell of neo-classical synthesis. Also one doesn't get into good schools by "not doing research," especially in research heavy programs. You also have your truly gem moments: supporting SOPA and all... [sm=biggrin.gif]

Musicmystery -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/28/2012 10:21:50 AM)
How's that research coming?

provfivetine -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/28/2012 10:23:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery How's that research coming? What research? Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

Musicmystery -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/28/2012 10:25:51 AM)
So short term memory is an issue for you too.

provfivetine -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/28/2012 10:30:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery So short term memory is an issue for you too. Sigh...

DomKen -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/28/2012 12:54:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: provfivetine quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Old numbers...here are more up to date ones. As reported in the December/January 2012 issue of Money Sense, Canada’s average median citizen's net worth has topped the United states. A Credit Suisse 2011 Global Report found that Canadians are now officially wealthier than Americans. The median net-worth per adult in Canada is $89,014 US, but in America, it's $52,752 US. The median amount represents an individual with a net worth in the middle range relative to the rest of the country. However, if you look at the average net worth per adult in the two countries, you will find very different results. The average net worth of Canadians in general is $245,455 US, and in the United States, the average net worth for citizens is $248,395 US. The reason the average figures are so much higher than the median figures is that the average figures are skewed by the extremely wealthy. The United States has 32% of the world's billionaires, so this fact alone significantly raises the overall net worth of America. http://lsminsurance.ca/life-insurance-canada/2011/12/canadas-net-worth-tops-the-united-states "Average median" is a strange way of measurement. There could be some statistical gimmickry at play here. I'd be interested reading up on this survey's research method (the official survey link is broken, unfortunately). I'm not sure if the US does surveys per-adult median income. Most of those surveys, to my knowledge, calculate median household income. It would be interesting to see other studies, because this doesn't seem right. Average and median are both valid ways of discussing an aggregate group. There is no such thing as 'average median' and the article never claims otherwise.

mnottertail -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/28/2012 1:10:10 PM)
mean, median, mode, ARE all averages. and that term (average) is thoed around quite often.

PatrickG38 -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/28/2012 6:36:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail mean, median, mode, ARE all averages. and that term (average) is thoed around quite often. Not at all. Mean is an average, median is the number an equal number of data points fall above and below and mode is the most common data point.

FatDomDaddy -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/29/2012 4:36:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Chief Justice Roberts is many thing but a fool isn't one. His court is going to punt this for 2+ years by invoking the law saying courts can't litigate on a tax until someone has paid it. Then around 2017 or 2018 SCOTUS will up hold the law if anyone bothers appealing all the way again. Guess again

DaddySatyr -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/31/2012 2:20:41 AM)
~FR~ It's very interesting because a lot of this bill bears a striking resemblence to what Gov. Romney did in Massatwoshits. Apparently, the Mass. constitution wasn't violated by Gov. Romney's mandate (yet more evidence distinguishing that state from New Hampshire). No matter what the court decides, a simple reading of the law and the constitution will prove that President Obama violated the constitution with this legislation. Few will bother to do the reading. I understand that but that just makes it all that much easier for the current tyrant-in-chief to work his voodoo. Peace and comfort, Michael [image]local://upfiles/1271250/8932EE0720FE4BDBA56867B5B891098F.jpg[/image]

mnottertail -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/31/2012 6:00:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PatrickG38 quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail mean, median, mode, ARE all averages. and that term (average) is thoed around quite often. Not at all. Mean is an average, median is the number an equal number of data points fall above and below and mode is the most common data point. Patrick, gotta cavil with you here; averages. mathematical definition: a number that typifies a set of numbers of which it is a function. and those 3 things are typical of the numbers of their named functions. colloquially, The average Joe (related to the average mode). I fall in the middle on this issue (related to the average median)

mnottertail -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/31/2012 6:11:19 AM)
quote: a simple reading of the law and the constitution will prove that President Obama violated the constitution with this legislation. Few will bother to do the reading. Obama signed a bill into law. It is very apparent you need to do some simple reading.

DaddySatyr -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/31/2012 6:15:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Obama signed a bill into law. It is very apparent you need to do some simple reading. President Obama (or his people) crafted the bill. It's why it is referred to the way it is; Obamacare. Peace and comfort, Michael

mnottertail -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/31/2012 6:30:25 AM)
He and his administration absolutely did not. Obama was against the mandate, but if he didnt sign the bill, there would be no bill for another 100 years. The bill was crafted by insurance companies, and now they will take a big fucking on the mandate, and they were clearly unhappy with the size of the fines anyhow. My thought at the outset (I actually agreed with one Willbeurdaddy, the one and only time we have had agreement on anything, that the mandate was unconstitutional, as well as unconscionable). Obama proposed a single payer. Then he got a NO NO NO lets examine this forever, as we have been ignoring this since one Theodore Roosevelt, from the teabaggers and cons. Then he got the democrats in a tizzy to get something to pass, and they took up an old republican piece of shit to get the votes. He walked into a big meeting with congressional heads and other legislators of respective interests (several times) and finally frustratingly said along the lines of, I dont give a fuck what sort of dogshit legislation you pass on healthcare reform but get something passed. Now, we are going to see some of this struck down, but the remnants obviously needs fixing, and it will no longer be swept under the table, this will continue until something is done. I think it is good politics in the adversarial climate. I am hoping for Universal healthcare out of it.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/31/2012 8:22:59 AM)
You are absolutely right. Now he is reaping what he sowed. This bill is pure hubris, but once he lost single payer, it became strictly a power issue for him.. How did we go from single payer to a mandatory insurance requirement? That didn't help anyone but the insurance companies, despite their protestations to the contrary? quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail He and his administration absolutely did not. Obama was against the mandate, but if he didnt sign the bill, there would be no bill for another 100 years. The bill was crafted by insurance companies, and now they will take a big fucking on the mandate, and they were clearly unhappy with the size of the fines anyhow. My thought at the outset (I actually agreed with one Willbeurdaddy, the one and only time we have had agreement on anything, that the mandate was unconstitutional, as well as unconscionable). Obama proposed a single payer. Then he got a NO NO NO lets examine this forever, as we have been ignoring this since one Theodore Roosevelt, from the teabaggers and cons. Then he got the democrats in a tizzy to get something to pass, and they took up an old republican piece of shit to get the votes. He walked into a big meeting with congressional heads and other legislators of respective interests (several times) and finally frustratingly said along the lines of, I dont give a fuck what sort of dogshit legislation you pass on healthcare reform but get something passed. Now, we are going to see some of this struck down, but the remnants obviously needs fixing, and it will no longer be swept under the table, this will continue until something is done. I think it is good politics in the adversarial climate. I am hoping for Universal healthcare out of it.

DaddySatyr -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/31/2012 8:39:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail He and his administration absolutely did not. Obama was against the mandate, The problem with that statement is that he was against the mandate when he was a candidate and Hillbilly Clinton was for it. Since taking the oval office and pushing Obamacare through congress, he has defended the individual mandate several times with the same open-ended question starting his tirade of defense: "If you don't mandate that everyone buy insurance, what's everyone going to do?" The administration has been so duplicitous that Verrilli was arguing that the penalty (to be paid in your taxes) for not buying insurance was a tax so that it could enjoy a "shield law" that prevents citizens from suing the federal government over taxes. The next day, he argued that it wasn't a tax because part of the mandate allows for "special treatment" for some people (exemption from the penalty if they don't purchase insurance). Since Verrilli is the President's attorney and represents the president, I think we can assume that the president is still of two minds when it comes to certain portions of this law. Unfortunately, I believe that the kindest thing the court can do - to the American people and to the law - is to shitcan the whole law and let congress and the failure-in-chief try again. The justices are almost all in unanimous agreement (if you listen to the oral arguments) that if the mandate is struck down the law will fail, anyway. Peace and comfort, Michael

Real0ne -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/31/2012 8:54:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Chief Justice Roberts is many thing but a fool isn't one. His court is going to punt this for 2+ years by invoking the law saying courts can't litigate on a tax until someone has paid it. Then around 2017 or 2018 SCOTUS will up hold the law if anyone bothers appealing all the way again. Guess again however they can rule on the new regs law whatever, but yes that is par for the course when you have corrupt courts.

Real0ne -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/31/2012 8:57:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail He and his administration absolutely did not. Obama was against the mandate, The problem with that statement is that he was against the mandate when he was a candidate and Hillbilly Clinton was for it. Since taking the oval office and pushing Obamacare through congress, he has defended the individual mandate several times with the same open-ended question starting his tirade of defense: "If you don't mandate that everyone buy insurance, what's everyone going to do?" Peace and comfort, Michael and the only reason the gub pushes ANYTHING is if there is MONEY IN IT FOR THEM or their pals.

Real0ne -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/31/2012 9:00:25 AM)
fr I think the gub should have the power to tell us what to buy, when to buy, how much to buy, and where to stick it. I mean after all we all need peanut inspectors up our asses. Think of how that would stimulate the economy! It did for England before the revolution so we have precedent that it works!

mnottertail -> RE: MSNBC: Supreme Court expresses skepticism over constitutionality of health care mandate (3/31/2012 9:08:07 AM)
First DS. So, when the LAW (no longer a bill) was challenged, what did you want him to do as chief executive? Just say fuck it? His administration may argue for or against a Supreme Court challenge, but fuckit I am going to stay out of this and let you guys fight it out is not on the cart. Ever. IamSS. Agreed to some extent, but my cavil is this, Yanno the old quote attributed to Lincoln that I believe was actually said by US Grant, about following it exactly....leaves it still on the table front and center instead of stillborn, like it has been since TR. The administration has been so duplicitous that Verrilli was arguing that the penalty (to be paid in your taxes) for not buying insurance was a tax so that it could enjoy a "shield law" that prevents citizens from suing the federal government over taxes. That arguement has to do with the old 1861 or so ruling that taxing issues cannot be brought to court until you have paid them. There is nothing duplicitous about arguing as he did, it was open and with no hidden agenda. So, when you see that one of your tacks in argument is not going to gain headway and you begin another (but with you they are both inept in that they are exclusive of actual fact or happenstance) you are being duplicitous? Hey, that's on you. Not me, I don't agree with that in the least.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875