sent by Slashdot Message System on Wednesday July 16, 2014 @12:05AM
Arker (91948) has ceased their relationship with you.
I'm guessing this is relating to the discussion that started here, where I dared to point out that Ron Paul is a cult leader of a movement that oppresses the common man.
Amusing that because of slashdot's shitheaded fuzzy math it says it was moderated Insightful 40% of the time and the other two 30% each even though each was done once as of this moment (yes I know that is an ancient bug here but still worth pointing out how epically stupid it is).
In particular, if no insurance company wants to offer a plan that excludes every imaginable type of "contraception", then what would happen? Will Hobby Lobby take them to court to force them to offer a plan that meets their particular belief system?
workers returned to their jobs following a brief strike that was ended when President Barack Obama intervened.
Obama on Saturday granted Republican Gov. Tom Corbettâ(TM)s request to create a presidential emergency board to mediate the contract dispute, forcing the 400 union workers to go back.
What they might have not realized, though, was that the mod bomber didn't move my karma either.
If people want to waste their mod points on my comments, they can certainly do so. If they think that it will change my karma here, they are sadly mistaken.
Apparently, in Arizona, the right to carry weapons wherever one pleases is more important than the right to not be senselessly killed at a young age as a result of some shithead's inability to keep their weapon secured.
Liberals need to prove innocence when accused of wrongdoing
Is this a total waste of time? Of course. Is it a bigger waste of time than launching yet another investigation into Benghazi? Not even remotely. It also costs nowhere near as much money as what republicans have already spent drumming up support for their silly witch hunt.
Hence, if the Senate Democrats want to learn how to waste American time and money on the pursuit of meaningless political points, they need to look across the hall.
This means that in the most favorable - by which I mean most damning possible conclusions from the house committee - situation, the GOP will still be wasting taxpayer time and money when the 2016 election happens. In the - more likely based on what previous investigations have shown - scenario where the committee does not produce something worthy of an impeachment hearing, the GOP will have to face the fact that they wasted millions (if not billions) of taxpayer dollars and a great amount of time on what is clearly a political witch hunt.
Similarly, while conservatives are almost uniformly (and mostly alone) convinced that Obama himself somehow caused the Benghazi attack (presumably as part of his NWO aspirations, by use of his time machine and weather control technology), they also seem convinced of one other thing - that Hillary Clinton will be the democratic nominee for POTUS in 2016. Frankly I am not convinced that she will win the nomination, but that is a different matter. More so I am left to wonder if the GOP fears Clinton so much that they have actually decided to throw the 2016 election in the interest of trying to start framing a better 2020 campaign now.
Not that I expect it to make a difference, as people still seem to get jollies posting videos of themselves saying crap on youtube regardless, but it is good to see that I'm not alone on the matter. I'm just waiting now to see if this hack is running for office and got the shitty idea that way.
For example (from the actual article):
I held the view that as a technical matter, some form of requirement to purchase insurance was needed in a near-universal insurance market to avoid massive instability through âoeadverse selectionâ (insurers avoiding bad risks and healthy people declining coverage). At that time, President Clinton was proposing a universal health care plan, and Heritage and I devised a viable alternative.
My view was shared at the time by many conservative experts, including American Enterprise Institute (AEI) scholars
That rather plainly shows that indeed people in the Heritage Foundation wanted a mandate. Reading on...
the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on âoecatastrophicâ costs â" so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.
Isn't that the same kind of "herd mentality" that they are demonizing the democrats over right now?
Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.
And the supreme court ruled that the mandate in the 2010 bill is, indeed, a tax. The stick analogy does not hold here.
And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the âoemandateâ was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement.
So in other words, the Heritage Foundation acknowledges that the mandate in the Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act of 2010 is a facsimile of what they wanted. They can pretend that they somehow did not have a role in the crafting of this lousy bill, but they cannot show that they have not advocated for what it does.