Senate The US Politics discussion

Snitches get stitches mother****er.

 

A-HA!!

 

This guy. This, right here, guy.

Also, <3 Adam Smith

 

Okay, I agree that there are people who abuse funds, but proposing punishment for women who become pregnant while receiving assistance, because some people abuse funds isn't helpful, and making sweeping generalizations about people who receive assistance isn't okay. I'm just asking you to think before judging.

 

This is stupid. Look at what you're citing.

You're argument is that the use of the phrase "by the State" is exclusionary. There is no reason to assume that. There's certainly no argument it was anyone's intent, and it's not how "plain English" works either. If, at one point in a document, you grant the ability for one body to act as a complete substitute for another, then one should logically apply that substitution to any and all provisions/powers of the other, except where otherwise specified. Anything less effectively reads the substitution out of the text and ignores a provision of the law, which is the same offense you purport to correct.

It's also worth noting what a zebra we're peddling here. Even if ignoring my counter-point and leaning only on your argument, the only place your argument even conceivably holds water is with a strict constructionist view of the text. But where are we legally obligated to that, or when has it even been a view in favor? Scalia and Thomas both openly scorn it, preferring originalism. By the standard of either original meaning or original intent, one basically has to conclude that President Obama and the Democratic party that voted en masse for the measure intended that tax credits apply to everyone. Any more liberal school of jurisprudence is unlikely to find any problem here in the first place. So why, exactly, should we find your argument persuasive?

 

I dunno, I heard that guy - of his own free will - on half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.

 

lolin at john stuart mill's clown hair, not gonna lie

but i must grant you that "liberal" is one case where i will apologize profusely for my countrymen recklessly "misusing" a word

its really hard not to hulk-out when people say im "liberal" or "a liberal" irl

 

Finally, it's worth noting the naked, unabashed awfulness of conservatives on this issue. If they truly believed that this was only a technical error, it would be easy enough for them to either offer or assent to technical correction of the law that resolved the problem. They are deliberately choosing not to. Instead, they are pursuing a legal strategy whose only possible outcome if successful is the denial of subsidies--and therefore, affordable health insurance--to literally millions of Americans. They no longer have rhetorical space to claim otherwise. The goal of people cheering this ruling is to deprive other citizens of healthcare. Period. I should hope that gives you pause.

 

they know and it doesnt

 

The only place the word actually gets used properly in my view is with the LibDems in the UK. The conservative party here has branded itself Liberal, and whilst it does adhere to the essentials of free market economics and personal freedoms, it's also too socially to the right to be truly liberal.

 

i suppose that's more sensible than using the term to refer to "everything the american religious right isnt a fan of", which is what i object to

for my part, i usually only find myself using the term to refer to liberal consensus politics

 

It should be this wonderful, amazing centrist position that encompasses wealth creation and innovation in the market with an open and inclusive society, a strong welfare tradition, and progressive approaches to taxation, earnings, and innovation. It's not though; it's such a sullied word.

 

Anything interesting happen in June or so far in July?

 

Yes, we all died. Twice. It was a pretty wild Fourth of July weekend.

 

My favorite part is how this is basically that scene at the end of a very eventful episode of a cartoon or sitcom and the missing character walks in and goes "What'd I miss?"

 

My insight gleaned from Movieflanders2k4 and his thread on Assburgers suggests you guys all have autism.

Ghost just got back from India and wants us to ask him how it was.

So disappoint.

 

Elizabeth Warren says yet again that she is not running for President

 

Dude, my hope is that my company's insurance no longer has a $3000 deductible!!!!! I'm not looking to take anything from anyone. That said, if someone is mugged on the street by a guy looking to buy insurance for his family, they are not not taking anything away from the mugger if they chase him down and get back what's rightfully theirs. This is not much more than a street mugging. Painting the assailants as victims doesn't change the facts.

The guy who got mugged wasn't doing anything wrong and was just minding his own business.

 

It's kind of what's happening, Merc.

 

Just to address the "it's just a technical error" argument, here's this latest story revealed yesterday:

Congressional investigators using fake identities were able to obtain taxpayer-subsidized health insurance under President Barack Obama's law, according to testimony to be delivered Wednesday.
The nonpartisanGovernment Accountability Office says its undercover investigators were able to get subsidized health care under fake names in 11 out of 18 attempts. The GAO is still paying premiums for the policies, even as theadministration attempts to verify phony documentation...The Obama administration says six of the GAO's fake online applications were blocked by eligibility checks built into computer systems at HealthCare.gov. But the GAO says its undercover agents found a way around that, and were able to enroll anyway. "We are examining this report carefully and will work with GAO to identify additional strategies to strengthen our verification processes," administration spokesman Aaron Albright said. At least on paper, fraudsters risk prosecution and heavy fines. GAO said its investigators concocted fake identities using invalid Social Security numbers and falsely claiming citizenship or legal residence. In other cases, they made up income figures that would disqualify them from getting subsidies.

http://news.msn.com/us/undercover-probe-finds-health-law-failings]HERE[/url]

The overall problem with the entire ACA is that it was rushed and is full of flaws. And this latest issue is just one out of many. I'm not referring to the rationale behind a universal coverage system. And I'm not talking about repealing the entire law, although as time progresses, that option is beginning to look more and more like the only one that makes sense. But the law is flawed, and the system set up to administer it is broken. And it's not a political party thing. Even among its supporters, how many more articles like this will it take before people on both sides work to fix this? Because if 60% of applications to this are fraudulent, then the poor and uninsured aren't being helped, the government is scammed out of money, and it puts a strain on the entire system. The people who need help aren't getting it and J-Rod's anecdote perpetuates. Add to this the law above were systems that shouldn't be getting subsidies are, and you're talking about billions of dollars of wasted resources that could be put to a better use. This is why there needs to be a system of checks and balances, and why rushing legacy issues are never a good idea.