We don’t know how this hidden gem of evidence skipped the national debate on real identities...

Because it doesn't fit the expected narrative!

No, it's a valid trademark on objects it has been registered to be used on. (I have a bottle of Jack Daniel's brand mustard. I've also seen JD oak for use in BBQs. They don't just make whiskey.)

And, yes, you're correct, no one in their right mind will confuse a book with a fifth.
But it's VERY possible someone will confuse a book unrelated with Jack Daniel's as a book sponsored by Jack Daniel's. Which would be trademark infringement.

So, I'm going with "Yes, you're confused over what the purpose of trademarks is."

http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=85129461
Looks to me like it's a valid trademark.

Maybe you're confused as to what a trademark is?

Saturday, actually.

(I needed a new spinny hard drive and couldn't be arsed to wait the few days. (I wanted to get it installed Sunday before I powered up my PC so I could back up my old spinny drive, and installing hardware during the week sucks cause work.))

"No insurance provider shall deny a person entry into a program based on pre-existing condition."

Insurance companies would LOVE that.
"Thanks for your money. Oh, also? We're cancelling your policy. Tough."

And just because you want something doesn't mean you should get it. Americans wanted to go to war with France over the XYZ Affair, but didn't realize (or didn't care that) doing so would have destroyed the country. Doing what's right sometimes means doing what's unpopular.

"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion." --Edmund Burke

Death panels. Oh that's rich.

You know why no one's polled about the death panels in the bill?
There aren't any.

But you know who DOES have death panels? Private insurance companies. When your claim is denied for a procedure, that's a faceless bureaucrat ruling from a death panel. When you try getting a policy and it is denied because you have an existing condition, that's a faceless bureaucrat ruling from a death panel.

So I'm sick and tired of this death panel crap, because we have them NOW and you don't give shit about them.

And as far as the records? It's not just your business. It's the business of whoever will be treating you in the future.

If you're on medication from doctor A, and you suddenly fall ill and unconscious in location 2, it might be important for doctor B treating you to know about that medication so they don't inadvertently kill you. Or maybe you have a preexisting condition or an allergy and you can't tell anyone because you're in no condition to

Or maybe you're hoping they don't find out about your allergy so you can sue the pants off them if you survive?

Okay, point to the 50% that you didn't want.
And no, you can't say "Well, the mandate's 50% of the bill!!"

Furthermore, this point of yours is very naive and ignorant (and typical of the common voter...)
"A law should be simple, a couple of lines, and be done with it."

How do you make a couple lines cover HEALTH CARE?
This is a complex issue and it demands a complex solution.

It's...well, I guess a car analogy works here. Picture the entire bill as a car. All the pieces need to be made a particular way at a particular time for the car to have a chance to run.

If you design the parts independent of one another, a bolt here, a screw there, a fuse, a hinge, you might end up with a lot of well designed parts, but with no hope of ever putting them together, let alone forming a car, because they were never designed together.

Oh, and if you move the goalposts and say "Well, we just build standards into the parts" you have to codify those standards, which moves away from your "couple lines" statement and ups the complexity by magnitudes.

I think everyone on the right was figuring it would get ruled down so they wouldn't have to worry about actually reading/understanding it.

And if they can't afford it?

Important background information: ERs are required by law to provide basic care to stabilize you. (The actual details are more nuanced, but they won't let you bleed to death on the front step if they can prevent it.)

When someone uninsured goes to an ER, who pays for their care?

The majority of the country didn't want this legislation.

Yeah, funny thing about that.

When people were polled about specific parts OF the bill, with the exception of the mandate, everything had a solid majority of support.
Of course, the mandate is the keystone that pays for the rest of the parts people like.

So, all that really proves is people want the great taste WITH less filling, which isn't how economics works.
It's more of a pudding after meat situation.

Yeah, just because it's been out there for two years, NOW we finally decide to start looking at what's in there? *sigh*

Anyway, your answer: no, as long as your plan covers everything the bill mandates.

I would be shocked if anyone that was so easily offended was watching the show.
Prepare to be shocked:

Orgs. like the Parents Television Council literally watch these shows to BE offended just so they can complain.

Anyone rational goes, "Hmm, I don't think I'll like the content of this show." *changes channel*
PTC goes, "I KNOW I'm going to be offended by this show, let's take detailed notes and send them to the FCC because that's what Jesus would do!"

Yeah, but he's too much a goober to know he should be deeply deeply offended by this, so the vocal minority has to be doubly offended on his behalf!

(On a serious note, I do agree with your point. This seems like the sort of thing that'd just roll off his back. And note we haven't heard HIS side of the story on this, not that it would have ever mattered...)

Because we're all sensitive douchenozzles.

How DARE someone offend my sacrosanct sensibilities! A pox on their houses! A boycott! A Congressional inquiry!!
I shall not rest until my right to not be offended is acknowledged!