Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Little more than 2 hours ago, Obamacare was upheld. This blatantly unconstitutional law was passed by activist judges. What they didn't tell you is that now, if you don't get government health care, it's actually a 'tax', medicare and medicaid cut, 500 billion in new taxes just to cover the cost of Obamacare and more than 1 trillion in new spending (yes that's right, you read correctly! That's a lot of money).

Tell me, why should I pay for Johnny's health care? Why should you? Everyone thinks that it's free health care, but there is no such thing as free. Taxes are going to go up, my health insurance where I work is either going to be cut or some covered programs dropped. I hope you enjoy the change you voted for America because officially in my opinion . . . our democracy is dead.

I hear that this new tax cannot be enforced. Is that true?

We have socialism now?

Awesome!

Wait, no, it's just another overreaction...shucks.

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/nrcc-obamacare-taxes-sick-puppies/

Once the Supreme Court approves it the law is Constitutional on account of the Constitution giving them total power in "cases of Law and Equity".

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
I hope you enjoy the change you voted for America because officially in my opinion . . . our democracy is dead.

internally inconsistent

Before it was mandatory that all Americans must buy government health care. Now this 'tax' states that you must buy some form of health care or pay a 'tax' aka a fine of close to $5,000. We have a president who is running around acting like he's king. The justices are on Obama's side so whatever he says it gets done. The only way to get rid of Obamacare is to vote his ass out of office and get the Dems out of the Senate.

It's probably pointless to make an appeal for non-extremist reactions here, huh? I feel like a lot of the backlash was preordained because of the party, and has very little to do with the actual bill. I'm also not biased in this matter. I can separate parties from issues, and didn't really feel strongly about Obamacare one way or another.

Though my favorite bit in all this was the Ned Stark meme popping up with "Brace yourselves. Everyone on Facebook is about to become a Constitutional scholar."

And socialism is very different from what we have now. Our government is a mix of capitalism and socialism, and still errs largely on the side of the former of those. The "Welcome to Socialism" and "RIP Constitution" chants are ignoring the fact that we're dealing with one single aspect of a large, large economic system.

Also, a conservative justice voted for it. So... srug.

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
Before it was mandatory that all Americans must buy government health care. Now this 'tax' states that you must buy some form of health care or pay a 'tax' aka a fine of close to $5,000. We have a president who is running around acting like he's king. The justices are on Obama's side so whatever he says it gets done. The only way to get rid of Obamacare is to vote his ass out of office and get the Dems out of the Senate.

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you.

Edit: This lays out everything in the PPACA quite nicely.

http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/vb8vs/eli5_what_exactly_is_obamacare_and_what_did_it/c530lfx

What economic system? It is broken and don't blame it on Bush. Sure he made bad decisions, but in 3 1/2 years Obama spent 5 trillion. Rather than fix the economy, he wasted time on his lunatic Health Care for a year and half when the economy needed actually stills needs fixing.

Can you answer this question Digi? Do you want to pay for your neighbors kid's health care? I sure as hell don't. I'm not an extremist - it pisses me off that people think that Obama is God's gift to mankind. Look at his policy record.

Also Peach, I don't care what the hell I eat or how many calories a steak or cheeseburger has. It's up to personal responsibility. Would you like someone telling you you're a lush if you have a few drinks here and there? America was based on freedom and limited government. So why should change the very ideals we were founded on?

By the way, love the quote Digi

Read up.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/

Also, it's hard to fix things when Congress goes out of its way to block every single thing he tries proposing, just because they can.

And yeah, actually, I don't mind at all my taxes possibly increasing by a few cents (being as I make well under $200k a year they won't actually go up at all at any point) so that the neighbor's kid can have insurance. I can't think of anything better I'd rather have that money be used for.

Bit of a disconnect there, saying you don't care what you eat and then saying it's all personal responsibility. How is letting people know exactly what is in the food at a restaurant a bad thing? Good lord.

it would be cool if someone edited out the last 3 words of the thread title so that we have a valid topic instead of a non sequitur based tantrum. or not...w/e

Interesting Peach . . . a few cents? Try a hell of a lot more. Do you really think that the money will actually go to Obamacare? Nope. Don't go to left leaning sites where they blindly follow the president. He reminds me of a Sith Lord

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
What economic system? It is broken and don't blame it on Bush. Sure he made bad decisions, but in 3 1/2 years Obama spent 5 trillion. Rather than fix the economy, he wasted time on his lunatic Health Care for a year and half when the economy needed actually stills needs fixing.

Can you answer this question Digi? Do you want to pay for your neighbors kid's health care? I sure as hell don't. I'm not an extremist - it pisses me off that people think that Obama is God's gift to mankind. Look at his policy record.

By the way, love the quote

Well, tone down the rhetoric a bit. I'm actually an economic libertarian (or at least a very conservative fiscal policy if not exactly libertarian).

This is the central tension: we want economic freedom, but in such an advanced society, there's a feeling that we should not leave any in abject poverty and unable to enjoy the same rights and privileges. So we strike a balance between economic freedoms and a state in which we support the more unfortunate. Dems tend to downplay how economic freedom equates to personal freedom, while Republicans tend to downplay how most institutions that we support are in some way benefiting the populace, even if all pay into them. So...it's helping people. It's probably not the only way to do it, or the best, but it's also not a horrible affront to humanity.

On to the bill: The primary objection is to one aspect of a bill that includes several dozen other unobjectionable elements. And the problem is apparent: if you don't require people to have healthcare, but require insurance companies to cover various conditions, the health care industry would go bankrupt in a matter of months. Option 2, force everyone to have health insurance period, much like we pay taxes for firemen or police. Option 3, Don't force them to have insurance, give them the choice, but don't require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions. In option 1, insurance companies go bankrupt. In option 3, the poor suffer because they will rarely be able to receive coverage.

That's a simplified summary, but shows the basic disagreement. What Obamacare is, is basically a modified option 2.

In my ideal system, for example, I'd give people the choice, not force them to pay anything, but would also subsidize the poor to living wage in order to be able to make those decisions more easily. And I'm not entirely sure that my system wouldn't allow exploitation on the part of the insurance companies. As it is, Obama's solution isn't the worst one, and imo improves on what we had.

...

As for your musings on the economy in general - we're very likely to blame whatever side we're not on. it's a complex system, and I don't think we're in a position to say definitively who is responsible (if it can even be attributed primarily to a President).

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
Do you want to pay for your neighbors kid's health care? I sure as hell don't.

you brought this up in another thread, but never replied to people's responses.

Overwhelmingly, it appears you are in the minority on this issue. Most people would heal the sick if they could.

For instance, what would Jesus do?

which one exactly?

Originally posted by Darth Truculent
Interesting Peach . . . a few cents? Try a hell of a lot more. Do you really think that the money will actually go to Obamacare? Nope. Don't go to left leaning sites where they blindly follow the president. He reminds me of a Sith Lord

Taxes will go up by 0.9% only if you make over $200,000 a year, when that goes into effect.

Meaning only about 5% of the nation will see any difference and it will be a tiny amount.

Why not try checking out all of the cited sources in those articles. That, you know, show where the numbers come from. Or, for that matter, try actually reading the articles. The one on spending, for example, straight-out says that they don't think he spent as little as some claim, but also not as much as a lot of the right claims, and their analysis falls between the two.

Originally posted by inimalist
you brought this up in another thread, but never replied to people's responses.

Overwhelmingly, it appears you are in the minority on this issue. Most people would heal the sick if they could.

For instance, what would Jesus do?

My knowledge of the Bible is a bit rusty, but I'm pretty sure Jesus wouldn't care if someone couldn't pay and would say to heal them anyway! Then again, Jesus was a pretty big hippie socialist himself

Originally posted by inimalist
you brought this up in another thread, but never replied to people's responses.

Overwhelmingly, it appears you are in the minority on this issue. Most people would heal the sick if they could.

For instance, what would Jesus do?
My roommate was watching Fox news, and there was a talk segment where they had a quasi-Democrat on who asserted that Republicans give more to charity than Democrats do, but that's only because they have higher church-going rates. His conclusion was that Republicans aren't totally opposed to charity, they just trust the Church to redistribute their money more than they trust the government.

Personally I think distrusting your government to the point of crippling it is silly.

Originally posted by Peach
...
Meaning only about 5% of the nation will see any difference and it will be a tiny amount...

Tiny today -> giant tomorrow. I see this all the time.

tiny today -> giant tomorrow. -> 500ft tall monster rampaging throughout tokyo next week.

baseless rhetoric is fun

Originally posted by Peach
My knowledge of the Bible is a bit rusty, but I'm pretty sure Jesus wouldn't care if someone couldn't pay and would say to heal them anyway! Then again, Jesus was a pretty big hippie socialist himself

well, there are different interpretations on that last part (Koresh legitimately used some more esoteric biblical verse to paint Jesus as a warrior, or Liberation Theology seeing him as a violent revolutionary), but for sure, the idea Jesus would have been like "Oh, you don't have money? well, go beg those rich folk, because I got nothing for you" is nonsense. I'm sure he has a line or two about healing the sick.

The point is more that I know DT is a Christian (unless I'm confusing him with someone else), so I'd like to see him reconcile these two stances. Is it Jesus or Objectivist economics. They are, actually by design, mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
My roommate was watching Fox news, and there was a talk segment where they had a quasi-Democrat on who asserted that Republicans give more to charity than Democrats do, but that's only because they have higher church-going rates. His conclusion was that Republicans aren't totally opposed to charity, they just trust the Church to redistribute their money more than they trust the government.

Personally I think distrusting your government to the point of crippling it is silly.

giving to churches is considered giving to charity?

I hear your point, though, I'm not sure I would give them so much credit. I'm not sure they would be doing so because of some reasoned idea of who is more efficient with money, but more that they are taught that one is good and the other is bad. There are certainly more than enough examples of waste in the church.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
tiny today -> giant tomorrow. -> 500ft tall monster rampaging throughout tokyo next week.

baseless rhetoric is fun

help! I'm falling down the slippery slope!!!

focus4chumps, no rhetoric, fact!

500ft monster in tokyo, fact?

Does this mean I have to pay so poor people can have the basics for a better life?

Don't I do this anyways now?

Originally posted by Robtard
Does this mean I have to pay so poor people can have the basics for a better life?

Don't I do this anyways now?

right, but now you have to pay to keep them from dying, so that you have to continue paying for them to live. i think thats the general gripe.

Originally posted by inimalist
giving to churches is considered giving to charity?

Often, yes, especially since many churches use the money to do charity work.

This is one-way. It will never be reversed. There is no feasible scenario where Romney would have the Senate strength to do so, even if he genuinely had the political will to push through the enormous political war that trying to reverse it would take. I don't see anyone ever having that will. And once it is in for a few years, it will just become a permanent part of the establishment. The only way it will ever be changed is to become more social in nature, not less.

(About darn time too)

The Republicans have lost this one, and in the fullness of time future Republicans will support it.

lol, hopefully most of these are a joke:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Often, yes, especially since many churches use the money to do charity work.

sure, but the church doesn't have to set up a specific charitable organization to collect funds? what would happen in the case of an audit, all church expenditures would be considered "charity", even like, new stained glass windows or other such nonsense?

"**** it, I'm moving to Canada!!!11!!" is a common reaction with Americans when something happens that they disagree with. eg G.W. Bush winning his second term.

Isn't Canada more socialist than the US though? Odd comments, if so.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
This is one-way. It will never be reversed. There is no feasible scenario where Romney would have the Senate strength to do so, even if he genuinely had the political will to push through the enormous political war that trying to reverse it would take. I don't see anyone ever having that will. And once it is in for a few years, it will just become a permanent part of the establishment. The only way it will ever be changed is to become more social in nature, not less.

(About darn time too)

The Republicans have lost this one, and in the fullness of time future Republicans will support it.

I think that a lot of individual Republicans do actually support it, just as most support birth control and very few are actually completely anti-abortion. The GOP itself really does not reflect the views of...well, anyone, other than some politicians.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, hopefully most of these are a joke:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare



sure, but the church doesn't have to set up a specific charitable organization to collect funds? what would happen in the case of an audit, all church expenditures would be considered "charity", even like, new stained glass windows or other such nonsense?

Haha, yeah, I saw that. "Socialized healthcare? I'M MOVING TO CANADA WHERE THEY...wait..."

Originally posted by Peach
I think that a lot of individual Republicans do actually support it, just as most support birth control and very few are actually completely anti-abortion. The GOP itself really does not reflect the views of...well, anyone, other than some politicians.

I am assuming it is still popular sentiment, else Romney's rhetoric against it would not be so strong.

Aside from anything else, I don't think Romney actually has any severe personal issue with it. His opposition is largely tactical.

Romney will say anything so long as it's opposed to what Obama says.

I'm not sure he even has any opinions of his own anymore.

romney has little to nothing to gain by working to repeal it, assuming (god forbid) he's elected. however expect this empty promise to be the theme of his campaign from here on. "saving america from the jaws of communism". its going to get really ugly and really stupid.

Originally posted by Robtard
"**** it, I'm moving to Canada!!!11!!" is a common reaction with Americans when something happens that they disagree with. eg G.W. Bush winning his second term.

Isn't Canada more socialist than the US though? Odd comments, if so.

oh ya, all health insurance in Canada is government run.

We not only pay for our neighbours to get coverage, but for people we have never even met, woooooooooooo!

but ya, that is sort of the point. Canada is essentially a (modestly) functional European socialist nation, with a streak of light conservatism.

Originally posted by inimalist
oh ya, all health insurance in Canada is government run.

We not only pay for our neighbours to get coverage, but for people we have never even met, woooooooooooo!

but ya, that is sort of the point. Canada is essentially a (modestly) functional European socialist nation, with a streak of light conservatism.

Yeah, I had a derp moment.

To be fair, I agree with it being activist judges.

Thankfully this time they went against their usually activism

I'd also just like to point out, that for the second time, after making the argument:



Mr. Truculent has run off when it was unanimous that, at the very least, we don't actually think it is the end of the world to make people healthy.

As an aside, I just want to share a story of things I'm going through with regard to health, maybe to emphasize why I don't think Obamacare even goes far enough to ensure individual coverage.

Back in January of this year, I started having persistent issues with my digestive tract. We initially thought it was celiac, then when that showed up negative, we thought it was some complication with my diabetes, which it turned out not to be. I've had a colonoscopy, and am currently waiting on the results to see if the next step is medication (if I have Crohn's), diet (unlikely, but if it is celiac or something) or surgery. Over the past 6 months I've had numerous appointments with specialists (endocrinologist and gastro), been in constant contact with my GP, had more blood work than I care to think about done, and have had a few meetings with a nutritionist, in addition to some ER visits at night when there was blood in my stool .

The longest waiting period I've had was a month to see my gastro, and that is only because I was lazy and didn't get blood work done as immediately as I could. The longest delays have been because we were trying to figure out (and still are) what is actually wrong, not due to terrible wait-times , I tend to have about a week to wait after booking an appointment. I don't have an actual calculation, but for just the colonoscopy alone, if I were in America, iirc, the cost would have been something like $3000. Even if that were covered by insurance (though, before Obamacare, my preexisting diabetes would have disqualified me from insurance), the frequent appointments with my specialists and nutritionist might not have been, and I can imagine they would be prohibitively expensive.

The only costs I've paid so far have been for the laxative I had to take before my colonoscopy and the taxi home from the ER, well under $100. A single $3000 procedure would literally be too expensive for me to pay, and I don't have good enough credit to get a safe loan from a bank. I don't want to sound like I'm whining, but literally, the last 6 months have been Hell, and this is with constant medical attention. This leads me to believe there are people in America with similar problems, who just have to make due, because they will never afford their care. Or if they do get some treatment, they wont have full access to specialists and a team of people working to make them healthy. I've heard stories from friends about poor diabetics in America, who couldn't get insured, who had to go from clinic to clinic essentially begging for sample insulin packs, so they didn't die.

Like, this is not hyperbole: If I were an American, I would probably already be dead.

Ick, I hope you get everything all figured out. And yeah, I can tell all sorts of fun stories about what it's like to be uninsured. My mom (who is on medicaid) only just last month got surgery that she was supposed to have had done back in October. They kept putting off and refusing to schedule it.

Also, something I missed - DT claimed the fines for not buying insurance will be around $5000.

I'm kinda wondering where that came from, as the numbers I've seen for that say it'll start at $95, go up to about $695 by 2016, and there'll be a cap on what the fine will be.

That's kinda not even close to $5000...

Originally posted by Peach

I'm kinda wondering where that came from

With totally non-biased news outlets like Fox saying: "The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld nearly all of President Obama's health care overhaul, in a landmark ruling that will have sweeping consequences for the economy, the election and America's health care system."

It's easy to see where people can get their 'facts' from.

Faux News? Well, that explains it.

Originally posted by Peach
How is letting people know exactly what is in the food at a restaurant a bad thing? Good lord.

I don't want to but in just felt like speaking about this one point...

Imo that is perfectly fine but people can't blame anyone for choosing to eat unhealthy granted it's not always a choice it's because some people grow up with no money and the $1 menu is cheap I get it. The point is if I want to go out and eat 30,000 burgers(bit of an over exaggeration lol) thats my choice and mine alone so to try and regulate what a person eats is in essence not just unconstitutional but also unethical.




on topic though America was formed because our ancestors wanted to escape England...which the Boston tea party comes to mind...Anyways they came here escaping ridiculous taxation for the sake of freedom. Knowing freedom needed some laws/regulation to ensure people couldn't just go out and murder they formed these laws basically stating that "my freedom ends at the tip of your nose". I bring this up because while I strongly believe people need to have healtcare I disagree how this is being gone about and it seems that dumb taxes is why we ran in the first place....

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Once the Supreme Court approves it the law is Constitutional on account of the Constitution giving them total power in "cases of Law and Equity".

A law that is passed by congress can still be unconstitutional: that's why the system of checks and balances was built into the constitution. That's why the judicial branch exists.

The act of passing a law via congress, however, is constitutional: the law itself may not be.


Edit - I think what you're referring to is an Amendment. The amendments are constitutional changes.

Originally posted by inimalist
Most people would heal the sick if they could.

For instance, what would Jesus do?

haha

This, my friend, is the bane of the American Conservative movement. When your type of objection is framed within the construct of their moral code, "helping those in need" does not seem even remotely as evil as it is being portrayed. 313

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/28/jonathan-kay-a-canadian-perspective-on-americas-ideological-civil-war-over-health-care/

**Tommy Douglas was the politician in Canada who first suggested public health care, and for this he was voted the top Canadian ever by our population

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
I don't want to but in just felt like speaking about this one point...

Imo that is perfectly fine but people can't blame anyone for choosing to eat unhealthy granted it's not always a choice it's because some people grow up with no money and the $1 menu is cheap I get it. The point is if I want to go out and eat 30,000 burgers(bit of an over exaggeration lol) thats my choice and mine alone so to try and regulate what a person eats is in essence not just unconstitutional but also unethical.

But...that's not what they're doing at all. They're required to divulge health information. In no way whatsoever are they regulating what people eat. How is this relevant?

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
on topic though America was formed because our ancestors wanted to escape England...which the Boston tea party comes to mind...Anyways they came here escaping ridiculous taxation for the sake of freedom. Knowing freedom needed some laws/regulation to ensure people couldn't just go out and murder they formed these laws basically stating that "my freedom ends at the tip of your nose". I bring this up because while I strongly believe people need to have healtcare I disagree how this is being gone about and it seems that dumb taxes is why we ran in the first place....

Technically it was taxation without representation, and also had to do with religious and personal freedoms, so it's not perfectly analogous to this. Your point about taxation in general may have some merit, but it seems mired in a tangential point.

I'd be all for a smaller government, for example, even in regards to health care. But within the system we have, this isn't a horrible solution. Flawed, perhaps, but certainly not revolution-metaphor-level bad.

Originally posted by inimalist
**Tommy Douglas was the politician in Canada who first suggested public health care, and for this he was voted the top Canadian ever by our population

That would translate to 5th or 6th most best American. Depending on daily rate fluctuations.

Originally posted by dadudemon
haha

This, my friend, is the bane of the American Conservative movement. When your type of objection is framed within the construct of their moral code, "helping those in need" does not seem even remotely as evil as it is being portrayed. 313

idk, I just see it as really strange

like, I'm no bible expert, but in no interpretation of Jesus that I know (including crazy ones like the Moonies or David Koresh) is his focus not on the less fortunate. I think the one constant everyone can agree on about Jesus is that he went to the sick, the poor, etc, and he helped them because it was the right thing to do, not because of personal gain or anything else.

I get, you know, maybe someone can differentiate in their mind, "well, Jesus said this, but our government needs to do that", but I never see that sophistication from the right. Even... I think it was Walker... after someone pointed out to him that Rand was anti-Christian, back tracked from Objectivism to be like "oh ya, Jesus, hes the man, praise God!", though, his economic bill still wreaks havoc on the lower class.

I mean, I suppose what I am trying to say is, if the ideals of Jesus aren't what we should be using to determine our government policy, I want conservatives to admit that. I want them to explicitly say, "yes, this policy is against what our lord and saviour taught, but he never tried to run a nation of 300 million people". I mean, like, obviously I don't support health care for religious reasons, but for people who we know oppose things like gay marriage for religious reasons, I sort of want to see how they would deal with this.

I'd like to imagine he has a big medal that says "Top Canadian Ever" but he never wears it because he's too humble.

Originally posted by Digi
I'd like to imagine he has a big medal that says "Top Canadian Ever" but he never wears it because he's too humble.

But you know he polishes it every day and stands in front of the mirror naked while wearing it saying "oh, yeah, that's right, eh."

Originally posted by Robtard
But you know he polishes it every day and stands in front of the mirror naked while wearing it.

but never when people can see

Naked polishing just took my mind somewhere else. We're done here.


...so. POLITICS!!!

Originally posted by inimalist
but never when people can see

He might "accidentally" leave the curtains open a bit at times.

Originally posted by Digi

...so. POLITICS!!!

My bad. Continue. America now = socialist evil. Go!

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
I don't want to but in just felt like speaking about this one point...

Imo that is perfectly fine but people can't blame anyone for choosing to eat unhealthy granted it's not always a choice it's because some people grow up with no money and the $1 menu is cheap I get it. The point is if I want to go out and eat 30,000 burgers(bit of an over exaggeration lol) thats my choice and mine alone so to try and regulate what a person eats is in essence not just unconstitutional but also unethical.




on topic though America was formed because our ancestors wanted to escape England...which the Boston tea party comes to mind...Anyways they came here escaping ridiculous taxation for the sake of freedom. Knowing freedom needed some laws/regulation to ensure people couldn't just go out and murder they formed these laws basically stating that "my freedom ends at the tip of your nose". I bring this up because while I strongly believe people need to have healtcare I disagree how this is being gone about and it seems that dumb taxes is why we ran in the first place....

No one's saying "you can't eat this". They're saying "This is what's in this food, so you know what you're eating". There's a huge difference there.

And...no. "Escaping ridiculous taxation" is not why people originally came to America. Part of why we became an independent country was because of taxation without representation, but the original colonists coming here was more because of religious freedom. Fun fact - Puritans that originally came to the US did so because they were extremists that were unhappy with the reforms being made by the Church of England.

Originally posted by Robtard
He might "accidentally" leave the curtains open a bit at times.

hes known to "accidentally" leave it in public places just so they have to announce: "Mr Douglas, Mr Tommy Douglas, your 'best Canadian ever' medal has been returned to the lost and found.... again"

or it will nonchalantly fall out of his coat at dinner parties, and he can be all like "how did that get there, eh?"

Originally posted by Digi
Naked polishing just took my mind somewhere else. We're done here.


...so. POLITICS!!!

...nice, Digi.

GOOD JOB

The more time goes by, the less I find in the Republican platform to agree with.

Agreed. It's a little bit of a shame.

The most lulz-worthy to me is that Romney initially supported something very much like Obamacare and, further, Gingrich also proposed a "mandate-style" health care reform because it was a reaction to - at the time - Hillary's plan (whose details I only vaguely remember). It's glaring proof that a huge amount of this is just strategic posturing.

Which isn't to say it doesn't happen on both sides. It does. But the Right Wing has been taken over by religion and extremists, so I can't endorse much these days.

Originally posted by Peach
...nice, Digi.

GOOD JOB

We still dueling this December?

Originally posted by dadudemon
A law that is passed by congress can still be unconstitutional: that's why the system of checks and balances was built into the constitution. That's why the judicial branch exists.

The act of passing a law via congress, however, is constitutional: the law itself may not be.

The body that decides if a law is constitutional or not is the Supreme Court. It is not the people or Ron Paul or even "The Founding Fathers", it is SCOTUS. They're literally in charge of that kind of thing. Once they say a law is constitutional or unconstitutional it is, until they say it is not.

Originally posted by Digi
But...that's not what they're doing at all. They're required to divulge health information. In no way whatsoever are they regulating what people eat. How is this relevant?

Perhaps he's referring to the law in New York that does restrict what restaurants can serve.

Originally posted by Digi
We still dueling this December?

If I'm still here in Chicago?

Hell yeah evillaugh

A mandate to buy private insurance in a privately run healthcare system is socialism? Anyone who thinks that's socialism is a ****ing moron who needs to be mandated to buy a ****ing dictionary.

Originally posted by Digi
But...that's not what they're doing at all. They're required to divulge health information. In no way whatsoever are they regulating what people eat. How is this relevant?

And I find nothing wrong with the "tell them whats in your food" angle but at the same time lots of people either are not going to care to read it or just simply wont care. Look at hot dogs I think everyone knows whats in a hotdog but they are still a pretty big seller as far as food goes. I attribute this to the mentality of "taste good who give a crap whats in it" It's relevant because well can you tell this wasn't made to target places like Mcdonalds? They can't force them to stop selling unhealthy foods so they hope that it will make them nervous to make their food healthier so people wont go "Ewww Im not eating here anymore" which is very close to regulation.


Originally posted by Digi
Technically it was taxation without representation, and also had to do with religious and personal freedoms, so it's not perfectly analogous to this. Your point about taxation in general may have some merit, but it seems mired in a tangential point.

I'd be all for a smaller government, for example, even in regards to health care. But within the system we have, this isn't a horrible solution. Flawed, perhaps, but certainly not revolution-metaphor-level bad.

You can't tell me that this taxation isn't similar to the negative reinforcement people use on dogs...such as they poop on the couch so you smack them on the nose with the newspaper. Sure they could still do it but they don't want to get smacked on the nose. Just like if you don't get healthcare you get taxed 1% of your salary. Even someone that only makes 30k now has to pay $300 in extra taxes. So my question is if someone can't afford healthcare how can they afford the tax for not having healthcare? We need more then a smaller government we need a less involved government and we need a government that understands it actually holds no power and it is the people that hold the power. But we have a government that says....ok they didn't want my healthcare when it said "you must get health insurance" so lets make it instead get it or get a tax...because it's not like the government doesn't know how much the people hate taxes. As for the revolution metaphor, sure this isn't the same level as bad as The American Revaluation but the point was making punitive taxes under any rule but especially in America is very contradictory to the point of America.

Originally posted by inimalist
idk, I just see it as really strange

like, I'm no bible expert, but in no interpretation of Jesus that I know (including crazy ones like the Moonies or David Koresh) is his focus not on the less fortunate. I think the one constant everyone can agree on about Jesus is that he went to the sick, the poor, etc, and he helped them because it was the right thing to do, not because of personal gain or anything else.

I get, you know, maybe someone can differentiate in their mind, "well, Jesus said this, but our government needs to do that", but I never see that sophistication from the right. Even... I think it was Walker... after someone pointed out to him that Rand was anti-Christian, back tracked from Objectivism to be like "oh ya, Jesus, hes the man, praise God!", though, his economic bill still wreaks havoc on the lower class.

I mean, I suppose what I am trying to say is, if the ideals of Jesus aren't what we should be using to determine our government policy, I want conservatives to admit that. I want them to explicitly say, "yes, this policy is against what our lord and saviour taught, but he never tried to run a nation of 300 million people". I mean, like, obviously I don't support health care for religious reasons, but for people who we know oppose things like gay marriage for religious reasons, I sort of want to see how they would deal with this.

All very good points and your reasoning is sound.

However, there are groups of Christians that can still object to forced charity.

Mormons.


We think that the "Prime Evil" is the removal of "will". The worst thing that can happen is removing the ability to make our own choices concerning morality. This flows, logically, into charity. Charity must be given, not taken. If it is taken, it is not charity. If the Government taxes the people so that it can be redistributed to help those in more need, it is not charity. In fact, it can be considered the opposite: it can be considered evil...depending on the perspective of the person.

Here's why: giving a gift begrudgingly does not make it charitable and it is counted as you still being evil. It should be given willingly and out of love.

So, in a way, some can pay their taxes and it can be considered indirect charity. Some can refuse to pay their taxes and give, directly. I consider both morally equal. But for the latter, only in a perfect world would it substitute for taxes. The world is obviously not perfect. So completely gutting and replacing taxes with direct charity will not work.


There is also a pragmatic and secular reason to oppose "charity via taxes": the inefficiency of the system in place to actually deliver the charity. Tons of administrative overhead, inefficiency of funds distribution, and financial black holes that eat up funds due to failing projects (or something). You also do not get to see the funds delivered or observe the impact or change when it is done at the federal level...meaning...when you turn in your $500 in monthly income taxes, your money does not necessarily end up directly paying for the food that Orphan Annie eats the following week. So there is an apathetic disconnect between paying the taxes and the feeling of genuine charity: contrast that with direct charity where not only your money but your time can have a direct impact on making things better in your community.





If even 20% (arbitrary *sspull) of Americans devoted a significant portion of their income (we'll go with 10% haha) and 2 days out of each month doing voluntary service work: poverty would lose it's sting and there would be a charity surplus. Humans are too selfish to do something like that so we have taxes.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
You can't tell me that this taxation isn't similar to the negative reinforcement people use on dogs...such as they poop on the couch so you smack them on the nose with the newspaper. Sure they could still do it but they don't want to get smacked on the nose. Just like if you don't get healthcare you get taxed 1% of your salary. Even someone that only makes 30k now has to pay $300 in extra taxes. So my question is if someone can't afford healthcare how can they afford the tax for not having healthcare? We need more then a smaller government we need a less involved government and we need a government that understands it actually holds no power and it is the people that hold the power. But we have a government that says....ok they didn't want my healthcare when it said "you must get health insurance" so lets make it instead get it or get a tax...because it's not like the government doesn't know how much the people hate taxes. As for the revolution metaphor, sure this isn't the same level as bad as The American Revaluation but the point was making punitive taxes under any rule but especially in America is very contradictory to the point of America.

What the hell are you even talking about here?

1) The fines will only be if you do not buy insurance and can afford to do so. If you can't afford it, you're not going to be fined. They're also increasing the upper limit at which people can qualify for medicaid to help keep people from falling into this gap of not being able to afford coverage and not being eligible for medicaid. I believe one of the things I saw also said that there will be rebates and credits available to help people afford their coverage.

2) Taxes are only going to be increased on those making over $200k a year. They can afford the .9% increase that it's going to be without any problems.

Also, no, making it so that people know what's in their food is not regulating it in any way, and to say so is completely ridiculous.

Originally posted by Peach
What the hell are you even talking about here?

1) The fines will only be if you do not buy insurance and can afford to do so. If you can't afford it, you're not going to be fined. They're also increasing the upper limit at which people can qualify for medicaid to help keep people from falling into this gap of not being able to afford coverage and not being eligible for medicaid. I believe one of the things I saw also said that there will be rebates and credits available to help people afford their coverage.

2) Taxes are only going to be increased on those making over $200k a year. They can afford the .9% increase that it's going to be without any problems.

Also, no, making it so that people know what's in their food is not regulating it in any way, and to say so is completely ridiculous.

none of what you stated was in what I read about this healthcare reform. So maybe I was misinformed on the topic.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
You can't tell me that this taxation isn't similar to the negative reinforcement people use on dogs...such as they poop on the couch so you smack them on the nose with the newspaper. Sure they could still do it but they don't want to get smacked on the nose.

that is positive reinforcement

EDIT: some people might call it positive punishment, because you are trying to extinguish the behaviour, but hitting is a positive reinforcer.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
none of what you stated was in what I read about this healthcare reform. So maybe I was misinformed on the topic.

Clearly. Where on earth are you getting your info from? Fox News?

Also, this is quite interesting.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/102620/individual-mandate-history-affordable-care-act

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
And I find nothing wrong with the "tell them whats in your food" angle but at the same time lots of people either are not going to care to read it or just simply wont care. Look at hot dogs I think everyone knows whats in a hotdog but they are still a pretty big seller as far as food goes. I attribute this to the mentality of "taste good who give a crap whats in it" It's relevant because well can you tell this wasn't made to target places like Mcdonalds? They can't force them to stop selling unhealthy foods so they hope that it will make them nervous to make their food healthier so people wont go "Ewww Im not eating here anymore" which is very close to regulation.

But...it's not. It's informing the populace. How is more accurate information a bad thing?

The fact that many won't care also isn't a knock on the bill, it's just an observation of society.

Also, btw, changing your product to match the demands of customers isn't governmental control, it's capitalism.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
You can't tell me that this taxation isn't similar to the negative reinforcement people use on dogs...such as they poop on the couch so you smack them on the nose with the newspaper. Sure they could still do it but they don't want to get smacked on the nose. Just like if you don't get healthcare you get taxed 1% of your salary. Even someone that only makes 30k now has to pay $300 in extra taxes. So my question is if someone can't afford healthcare how can they afford the tax for not having healthcare? We need more then a smaller government we need a less involved government and we need a government that understands it actually holds no power and it is the people that hold the power. But we have a government that says....ok they didn't want my healthcare when it said "you must get health insurance" so lets make it instead get it or get a tax...because it's not like the government doesn't know how much the people hate taxes. As for the revolution metaphor, sure this isn't the same level as bad as The American Revaluation but the point was making punitive taxes under any rule but especially in America is very contradictory to the point of America.

You need to read the link Peach posted on page 1 or 2. The bill doesn't work like you think it does.

Also, "the point of America" is quite subjective. One could easily argue that the point is opportunity for all, which they could then argue the bill helps to provide. The fact that you don't like it doesn't automatically make it unAmerican. And no, it's nothing like the American Revolution. The comparison is such absurd hyperbole I can't even quantify it.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
We need more then a smaller government we need a less involved government and we need a government that understands it actually holds no power and it is the people that hold the power.

This sentence made my brain hurt.

Originally posted by Peach
If I'm still here in Chicago?

Hell yeah evillaugh

uhuh

Originally posted by inimalist
that is positive reinforcement

EDIT: some people might call it positive punishment, because you are trying to extinguish the behaviour, but hitting is a positive reinforcer.

....since when is hitting considered a positive thing?

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
....since when is hitting considered a positive thing?

Positive reinforcement/punishment is an action that adds an action/stimulus in response to a certain behaviour (if in order to encourage that behaviour, it's reinforcement, if it's to deter that behaviour then it's punishment). Hitting someone = adding an action = positive punishment.

In other words, words can have different meanings depending on the context.

Originally posted by Digi
uhuh

I applied for a job in Seattle, okay

Originally posted by Digi
But...it's not. It's informing the populace. How is more accurate information a bad thing?

The fact that many won't care also isn't a knock on the bill, it's just an observation of society.

You need to read the link Peach posted on page 1 or 2. The bill doesn't work like you think it does.
information is never a bad thing but like I stated before this is specifically targeting "unhealthy establishments" and instead of doing that why don't they just lower the price for healthy foods a bit

as for my Observation it was meant just as that to point out that these facts are out for a reason and with a public that typically doesn't care the point they are trying to make is pretty...well pointless..

and yes I feel like I very much do need to read this....I will go back a start reading now.

Originally posted by Digi
Also, "the point of America" is quite subjective. One could easily argue that the point is opportunity for all, which they could then argue the bill helps to provide. The fact that you don't like it doesn't automatically make it unAmerican. And no, it's nothing like the American Revolution. The comparison is such absurd hyperbole I can't even quantify it.

so the simple comparison of the tea act is not as stupid as the presupposed tax I was under the impression we had?

as for being unamerican....no simply me not liking it does not make it unamerican but when for example....people are forced into a market and forced to buy is.




Originally posted by Digi
This sentence made my brain hurt.

The government was created to SERVE the people now it's the governments saying if you don't like what we want we do it anyways. We can be held responsible for voting people in that think this way but as everyone knows most people in politics are liars. The point is people get in these "positions of power" and want to abuse it while it is us the people that are suppose to have the power...heck we are even suppose to be allowed to force people out of the government (as long as it is a majority) and bring in new people we find fit.

Originally posted by Peach
Positive reinforcement/punishment is an action that adds an action/stimulus in response to a certain behaviour (if in order to encourage that behaviour, it's reinforcement, if it's to deter that behaviour then it's punishment). Hitting someone = adding an action = positive punishment.

In other words, words can have different meanings depending on the context.



I applied for a job in Seattle, okay

but negative reinforcement is getting someone to do something by way of not so positive reactions

the definition is exactly this

"encouraging desired response using unpleasant stimulus: encouragement of a desired response by giving an unpleasant stimulus when the response is absent, or discouragement of an undesired response by an unpleasant stimulus when the response is present"

and hitting someone or something would be an unpleasant stimulus.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
....since when is hitting considered a positive thing?

you are using "positive" in the wrong sense

in learning theory and specifically conditioning, which you are explicitly referencing, the "positive" and "negative" do not refer to the feelings of the organism, but to the actions of the experimenter or the person conditioning the organism.

So, a positive reinforcer/punishment is one where the conditioner adds something to the organism being conditioned. In the case of reinforcement, this is like a treat or reward, in the case of punishment, this is hitting or a shock.

A negative reinforcer/punishment is one where you take something away from the organism being conditioned. So, for reinforcement, you might stop a loud noise or another unpleasant stimuli, in terms of punishment, it would be taking away a toy or food.

What you described is literally one of the most classic examples of a positive punishment. Conditioning uses these terms to mean what the experimenter is doing to condition an organism, not to represent the experience of the organism itself.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
but negative reinforcement is getting someone to do something by way of not so positive reactions

the definition is exactly this

"encouraging desired response using unpleasant stimulus: encouragement of a desired response by giving an unpleasant stimulus when the response is absent, or discouragement of an undesired response by an unpleasant stimulus when the response is present"

and hitting someone or something would be an unpleasant stimulus.

citation? because, seriously, you can look this up in any intro psych textbook

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
but negative reinforcement is getting someone to do something by way of not so positive reactions

the definition is exactly this

"encouraging desired response using unpleasant stimulus: encouragement of a desired response by giving an unpleasant stimulus when the response is absent, or discouragement of an undesired response by an unpleasant stimulus when the response is present"

and hitting someone or something would be an unpleasant stimulus.

...no, it isn't. Your definition is completely wrong.

Negative reinforcement/punishment is influencing behaviour by removing or taking something away. Positive reinforcement/punishment is influencing behaviour by adding something.

Negative reinforcers are not necessarily something unpleasant, nor are positive reinforcers things that are always pleasant. It's completely and totally different than that.

Originally posted by inimalist
citation? because, seriously, you can look this up in any intro psych textbook

Damn you for beating me to this

And seriously, this is like day 1 Psych 101 stuff. Even wiki has a damn good explanation of it.

Originally posted by Peach
Positive reinforcement/punishment is an action that adds an action/stimulus in response to a certain behaviour (if in order to encourage that behaviour, it's reinforcement, if it's to deter that behaviour then it's punishment). Hitting someone = adding an action = positive punishment.

In other words, words can have different meanings depending on the context.

It isn't always adding an action of the "behavior needs to change" person, right? I thought it was also considered positive reinforcement if it stopped an action.

In other words, I thought the "positive" of the statement refers to adding of an agent/element to the system of the individual to stop a certain behavior. The "positive" is the additional, but "not good", element added by the...let's say parent.


Originally posted by Peach
Negative reinforcement/punishment is influencing behaviour by removing or taking something away. Positive reinforcement/punishment is influencing behaviour by adding something.

Edit -

Oh yes. I see, now. Yeah, that's the way I understand those words, too.

Originally posted by Peach
Damn you for beating me to this

And seriously, this is like day 1 Psych 101 stuff. Even wiki has a damn good explanation of it.

admittedly, it is a tough concept. I taught a section of first year psych this last year, and it is something people really get hung up on.

I found the best way to communicate it was to try and break it down to the fact that "positive" and "negative" are the actions of the experimenter, not about how the organism feels.

Also, reducing it to, literally, "experimenter", "organism", "etc", and not trying to make confusing "real world" scenarios.

well, maybe not a tough concept, just sort of counter-intuitive, especially given how little classic learning theories like these are part of modern psych, outside of animal studies. There is nothing else like this that a student comes across in first year stuff.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It isn't always adding an action of the "behavior needs to change" person, right? I thought it was also considered positive reinforcement if it stopped an action.

In other words, I thought the "positive" of the statement refers to adding of an agent/element to the system of the individual to stop a certain behavior. The "positive" is the additional, but "not good", element added by the...let's say parent.

it can, though to avoid additional confusion, people tend to call things that increase a behaviour a "reinforcer", whereas things that reduce a behaviour a "punishment".

afaik, "reinforcement" can technically be used in either case...

Originally posted by inimalist
admittedly, it is a tough concept. I taught a section of first year psych this last year, and it is something people really get hung up on.

I found the best way to communicate it was to try and break it down to the fact that "positive" and "negative" are the actions of the experimenter, not about how the organism feels.

Also, reducing it to, literally, "experimenter", "organism", "etc", and not trying to make confusing "real world" scenarios.

well, maybe not a tough concept, just sort of counter-intuitive, especially given how little classic learning theories like these are part of modern psych, outside of animal studies. There is nothing else like this that a student comes across in first year stuff.

True. I think when I was taking early psych courses that was the concept that people got stuck on the most, and it's just one of those things where eventually it clicks and you go "ohhhhhhh that makes sense".

The way you explained it is definitely good, though. It's a hard concept to try and explain.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
The government was created to SERVE the people now it's the governments saying if you don't like what we want we do it anyways. We can be held responsible for voting people in that think this way but as everyone knows most people in politics are liars. The point is people get in these "positions of power" and want to abuse it while it is us the people that are suppose to have the power...heck we are even suppose to be allowed to force people out of the government (as long as it is a majority) and bring in new people we find fit.

I was referring to the grammar, spelling, and ridiculous run-on-ness of the sentence, not the content. But ok.

In other news, my current facebook status confuses Obamacare with Kony in what I'm hoping is a just-sincere-enough statement to anger people. I'm hoping for some epic trolling in the next few hours.

Originally posted by Digi
In other news, my current facebook status confuses Obamacare with Kony in what I'm hoping is a just-sincere-enough statement to anger people. I'm hoping for some epic trolling in the next few hours.

... Oh you.

http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/1609/ohyoushow.jpg

Originally posted by Digi
In other news, my current facebook status confuses Obamacare with Kony in what I'm hoping is a just-sincere-enough statement to anger people. I'm hoping for some epic trolling in the next few hours.

What was the exact quote because I would love to plagiarize your status.

Originally posted by Digi
I was referring to the grammar, spelling, and ridiculous run-on-ness of the sentence, not the content. But ok.

ahh makes sense.

Though considering this is a Forum and not any form of important document I hadn't thought to much of it as long as you knew what I was saying.

I will say though I do often get caught up in Run-on sentences due to my excitement while typing/writing. I don't blame you though some people just care more then others. I will put more thought into my grammar when speaking to you if you wish.

Originally posted by dadudemon
What was the exact quote because I would love to plagiarize your status.

"Have you guys seen the story all over the news today? Apparently this Kony guy is a big deal. Now he's violating the US Constitution too!"

The idea is that, they'll be like "Hope this isn't serious..." then I'll follow it up with more ignorance.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
ahh makes sense.

Though considering this is a Forum and not any form of important document I hadn't thought to much of it as long as you knew what I was saying.

I will say though I do often get caught up in Run-on sentences due to my excitement while typing/writing. I don't blame you though some people just care more then others. I will put more thought into my grammar when speaking to you if you wish.

Gracias. If it helps, there's also a fair amount of (admittedly anecdotal) evidence that you're taken more seriously on the internet when you use proper grammar.

I'll say this: FDR was for universal Healthcare, LBJ was for it, and most of the countries that have better overall health statistics than the U.S. have a much more socialized style of healthcare. Besides that, all the whining over socialism invading our country is idiocy. As others mentioned, how do the detractors think that Police, Fire, Public Schools, Libraries, etc function? Everyone pays into it.

Taiwan: EVERYONE pays into healthcare, NO ONE can opt out, much better access to doctors and healthcare than here in the U.S. I can only hope this being upheld moves us closer and closer to a system in which people don't die or suffer from ailments simply because they can't afford coverage. It's messed up as hell that with all the resources available it still comes down to people saying they aren't willing to do what it takes to make sure everyone gets the care he or she needs.

@peach
@inimalist

instead of me quoting you both I will just "speak at you" because that's a lot to quote lol

so what you are saying is that it would be a negative reinforcement if I perhaps hit my dog with a newspaper in order to get it to do something as opposed to stop doing something?

If thats the case couldn't it be argued that I am trying to get my dog to poop outside as opposed to on the couch?

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
@peach
@inimalist

instead of me quoting you both I will just "speak at you" because that's a lot to quote lol

so what you are saying is that it would be a negative reinforcement if I perhaps hit my dog with a newspaper in order to get it to do something as opposed to stop doing something?

If thats the case couldn't it be argued that I am trying to get my dog to poop outside as opposed to on the couch?

No, that is positive punishment.

You are still adding in an action there - the action of hitting the dog.

The positive/negative of it depends solely on what the person doing the reinforcing does.

Wiki article which is pretty good.

Originally posted by Digi
"Have you guys seen the story all over the news today? Apparently this Kony guy is a big deal. Now he's violating the US Constitution too!"

The idea is that, they'll be like "Hope this isn't serious..." then I'll follow it up with more ignorance.

lol

You're such a troll. I do not have the patience to execute such a complicated troll scheme. When I troll my friends, it has to be quick and easy. (Back in the day...we called this a prank. Prank has now become "trolling" for some reason).

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
@peach
@inimalist

instead of me quoting you both I will just "speak at you" because that's a lot to quote lol

so what you are saying is that it would be a negative reinforcement if I perhaps hit my dog with a newspaper in order to get it to do something as opposed to stop doing something?

I know people hate it when I answer for them but...

Now, it is positive punishment: not negative reinforcement.

The agent is adding an action to the system to get a behavior to stop (or to get a behavior to be executed).

In order for it to be negative punishment, the agent would have to remove something from the system such as food. It is only "effective" if the dog responds to the removal of the food.



Hope that makes sense.

Originally posted by Digi
Gracias. If it helps, there's also a fair amount of (admittedly anecdotal) evidence that you're taken more seriously on the internet when you use proper grammar.

no problem! lol

Meh. lol I'm not all that worried about it because I don't take most things on the internet serious.

@peach
@dadudemon

ok I think I get the point. If the dog chews on it's food bowl and you take the bowl away it's negative reinforcement. If you smack it on the nose it's positive. Positive because giving the dog anything (even a smack on the nose) is positive and taking away is negative.

wait...how did we come to training dogs?

If only this law was actual socialism, it would have been much better than what it is now. Still a huge improvement over the immoral and embarrassingly dated and selfish way it used to be, though.

When I saw this on the news I started singing O Canada.

Originally posted by BackFire
If only this law was actual socialism, it would have been much better than what it is now. Still a huge improvement over the immoral and embarrassingly dated and selfish way it used to be, though.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, look at Backfire dropping some truth!!!

Wow, "the way it used to be" hahah, what a sheep. Yeah The fading American dream is fading ever faster, right in front of our eyes. This guy, Backfire, has the gull to stand up and support obamaCOMMUNISM. Communism RULES !!!communism RULES, Sieg HEIL OBAMA...SEIG HEIL OBAMA!!!...say it with me know, kitties...., I pledge allegience To the flag For which it stood, And the third Reich for which it now stands. HEIL BAMA!!

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Wow, "the way it used to be" hahah, what a sheep. Yeah The fading American dream is fading ever faster, right in front of our eyes. This guy, Backfire, has the gull to stand up and support obamaCOMMUNISM. Communism RULES !!!communism RULES, Sieg HEIL OBAMA...SEIG HEIL OBAMA!!!...say it with me know, kitties...., I pledge allegience To the flag For which it stood, And the third Reich for which it now stands. HEIL BAMA!!

lol


Originally posted by BackFire
Still a huge improvement over the immoral and embarrassingly dated and selfish way it used to be, though.


I don't know if it is really an improvement at all. I wanted a system that was similar to France's. Obviously we'd have to cut the military budget in half and raise taxes to do that...but it would be an actual "major" improvement over the system we have now.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Wow, "the way it used to be" hahah, what a sheep. Yeah The fading American dream is fading ever faster, right in front of our eyes. This guy, Backfire, has the gull to stand up and support obamaCOMMUNISM. Communism RULES !!!communism RULES, Sieg HEIL OBAMA...SEIG HEIL OBAMA!!!...say it with me know, kitties...., I pledge allegience To the flag For which it stood, And the third Reich for which it now stands. HEIL BAMA!!

Wait... Communism AND the Third Reich?

It's the Comminazis! Somebody call McBain!

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
ok I think I get the point. If the dog chews on it's food bowl and you take the bowl away it's negative reinforcement. If you smack it on the nose it's positive. Positive because giving the dog anything (even a smack on the nose) is positive and taking away is negative. If I may...

First of all: "reinforcement" and "punishment" are determined after the fact, ie, after measurable effects on behavior occur. Strictly speaking, we won't know what a consequence will be until we first see what it does to the behavior.

Reinforcement - in either positive or negative form - always increases the frequency of a target behavior. Positive reinforcement is adding something which increases frequency; negative reinforcement is removing something which increases frequency.

Punishment - either positive or negative - always decreases the frequency of a behavior. Positive punishment adds something which decreases frequency; negative punishment removes something which decreases frequency.

Accordingly: smacking Fido on the nose when he chews his food bowl can be considered a positive punishment IF this consequence of addition actually decreases Fido's bowl-chewing behavior. Chew -> Smack -> Less chewing.

Taking his bowl away: it can be considered a negative punishment IF Fido chews less on the bowl. Chew -> Bowl away -> Less chewing when bowl is returned (obviously if the bowl isn't returned, we can't determine any behavioral change).

That said: for the most part, I'm glad Obamacare was held as constitutional. I would not mind a higher co-payment if this means those less fortunate than I can now have medical insurance. Plus, it also means my daughter can now stay under my plan until she's 26. That's piece of mind for me, my wife, and my child.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
If thats the case couldn't it be argued that I am trying to get my dog to poop outside as opposed to on the couch?

not if you are hitting it for pooping on the couch.

This is actually why punishment is much less effective than reward, as the dog will generally only learn "don't poop on X", and might not generalize to other furniture, but, if you reward it for pooping outside, it will only want to do that.

Originally posted by Mindship
"reinforcement" and "punishment" are determined after the fact, ie, after measurable effects on behavior occur. Strictly speaking, we won't know what a consequence will be until we first see what it does to the behavior.

I get where you are coming from, I'm not so sure I agree, though. I think you might be talking more about the efficacy of tying the unconditioned stimuli and unconditioned response.

Something like food is a biological reinforcer. If an organism didn't increase a behaviour in response to a food reward, we would consider this to be an abnormal organism, not a fault in the use of food as an reinforcer.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Wow, "the way it used to be" hahah, what a sheep. Yeah The fading American dream is fading ever faster, right in front of our eyes. This guy, Backfire, has the gull to stand up and support obamaCOMMUNISM. Communism RULES !!!communism RULES, Sieg HEIL OBAMA...SEIG HEIL OBAMA!!!...say it with me know, kitties...., I pledge allegience To the flag For which it stood, And the third Reich for which it now stands. HEIL BAMA!!

So, tell me.

Have you ever even glanced in the direction of a history book at any point in your life?

Oh my God.

If "this" is communist, some of you would literraly shit their pants off in Canada.

This is a social measure, sure, but what's the problem? How much of a heartless mother****er can you be to oppose this law?
My wish for you now is that you can experience a free healthcare system.

Originally posted by inimalist
I get where you are coming from, I'm not so sure I agree, though. I think you might be talking more about the efficacy of tying the unconditioned stimuli and unconditioned response.

Something like food is a biological reinforcer. If an organism didn't increase a behaviour in response to a food reward, we would consider this to be an abnormal organism, not a fault in the use of food as an reinforcer. I hear ya. If food - a "primary reinforcer" - did not increase a target behavior, then yes, we would be inclined to consider the state and welfare of the organism as "off," since something that "typically works" didn't. However, as a strict definition of reinforcement goes, food - in this instance - would not be considered one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/health-care-ruling-may-secure-obamas-place-in-history.html

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't know if it is really an improvement at all. I wanted a system that was similar to France's. Obviously we'd have to cut the military budget in half and raise taxes to do that...but it would be an actual "major" improvement over the system we have now.

Why would you have to cut your military budget in half?

Don't France pay a lot less per capita on health care than you do?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why would you have to cut your military budget in half?


Why would you not? Obsiously, a country like the USA probably needs more investing than any other country on Earth, but My God, look at that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

Well, I'm all for the US cutting some military expenditure. I just think you might not have to cut it that dramatically, if at all, to swing a universal health care.

Is there a reason why per capita spending has to be much more in the US? (overall spending, fair enough)

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I'm all for the US cutting some military expenditure. I just think you might not have to cut it that dramatically, if at all, to swing a universal health care.


cheers

@mindship
@inimalist

I think I get what you are saying...or at least it's clicking better then before!

It's an interesting concept.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Why would you have to cut your military budget in half?

To pay for the level of service they have, it would cost tons and tons of money that we are currently not spending. Even cutting the military budget in half would not shore up the difference. If we want to provide France's level of medical service, we'd have to also increase taxes.

We have more people, higher base medical costs, and a higher standard of living. That all equates to higher costs.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Don't France pay a lot less per capita on health care than you do?

The last I checked it was a bit over $1000 more, per person. But what we pay out of pocket, per person, is not equating to as high of service as France's despite us paying more (but I did outline areas for which we have more costs). This is my major beef with the American medical system.

Yeah, part of the system in the countries that have better health coverage is the setting of price controls in some form or another.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
@mindship
@inimalist

I think I get what you are saying...or at least it's clicking better then before!

cool

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
It's an interesting concept.

to be fair, I loathe classical learning theory

Originally posted by Bouboumaster
Why would you not? Obsiously, a country like the USA probably needs more investing than any other country on Earth, but My God, look at that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

canada spends more on its military than turkey?

diminishing returns much?

But less of our GDP.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
But less of our GDP.

its got to be all the money we sink into failed projects...



http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=1094

Originally posted by dadudemon
To pay for the level of service they have, it would cost tons and tons of money that we are currently not spending. Even cutting the military budget in half would not shore up the difference. If we want to provide France's level of medical service, we'd have to also increase taxes.

We have more people, higher base medical costs, and a higher standard of living. That all equates to higher costs.

But you would be eliminating a lot of the cost of health care you have right now. Both pharma industries and doctors would be taking a (well deserved) cut.


Originally posted by dadudemon
The last I checked it was a bit over $1000 more, per person. But what we pay out of pocket, per person, is not equating to as high of service as France's despite us paying more (but I did outline areas for which we have more costs). This is my major beef with the American medical system.

If this is to be believe in 2009 it's $4000. To put that in perspective it is more than DOUBLE what France pays (by total expenditure of GDP it is 47% more.

The data seems to be from 2009, but as far as I know health care cost hasn't decreased under Obama, at least not significantly.

It seems to me that if you were to implement a Health Care system on par with Germany, England or France you would most likely actually save money. At any rate I don't see any reason why cost would increase by half the military spending.

You'd have to reroute the current private spending into taxation of course, the money has to come from somewhere.

Originally posted by inimalist
canada spends more on its military than turkey?

diminishing returns much?

Gotta keep Ontario contained.

Canada is several times the size of Turkey, as well.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Gotta keep Ontario contained.

Canada is several times the size of Turkey, as well.

In other news the flags are kinda similar though.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Gotta keep Ontario contained.

Canada is several times the size of Turkey, as well.

we really don't have to patrol it though. For instance, I believe the entire border with America is unguarded.

I'd be interested in the numbers when we aren't in Afghanistan though

Originally posted by inimalist
we really don't have to patrol it though. For instance, I believe the entire border with America is unguarded.

I'd be interested in the numbers when we aren't in Afghanistan though

But can't you also see russia from your house?

Originally posted by inimalist
canada spends more on its military than turkey?

diminishing returns much?

Man, I never say that I'm all in with Canada's military budget. The F-35 fiasco is a joke.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But can't you also see russia from your house?

We already beat their ass on the ice, it's enough for us.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But you would be eliminating a lot of the cost of health care you have right now. Both pharma industries and doctors would be taking a (well deserved) cut.

Noticing those benefits will take 5-10 years to realize. Even then, we still will not lower our costs, per person, to France's level, any time soon.




Originally posted by Bardock42
If this is to be believe in 2009 it's $4000. To put that in perspective it is more than DOUBLE what France pays (by total expenditure of GDP it is 47% more.

The number I am referring to is something like...what the government spends, not the total or whatever.

Originally posted by Bardock42
At any rate I don't see any reason why cost would increase by half the military spending.

Well, we could not implement systems like that and spend the same ratios for several reasons:

We have more people, our standard of living is higher, and higher base medical costs (which will take decades to finally level out).

Originally posted by Bardock42
You'd have to reroute the current private spending into taxation of course, the money has to come from somewhere.

The rich.

Yeah...the rich. mwhahahahahaaaaa

Originally posted by inimalist
For instance, I believe the entire border with America is unguarded.

Myth.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Myth.

I mean beyond the border guards. Like, "undefended" I should say.

Originally posted by Bardock42
But can't you also see russia from your house?

its like 4000 km from my house...

Originally posted by Bouboumaster
Man, I never say that I'm all in with Canada's military budget. The F-35 fiasco is a joke.

the plane that has no practical use for our military, wont work in the arctic and that we have no idea about the overall cost of...

If you look at the link I gave Lord Lucien, it describes 5-6 other projects that are essentially in the exact same place. We are trying to acquire a bunch of new equipment, and all of it is bogged down with delays and problems.

Originally posted by inimalist
I mean beyond the border guards. Like, "undefended" I should say.

There are Canadians civilians who sit in lawchairs along the border to catch American college students trying to cross the border, or so I hear.

Originally posted by inimalist
its like 4000 km from my house... You're practically a Communist.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Noticing those benefits will take 5-10 years to realize. Even then, we still will not lower our costs, per person, to France's level, any time soon.






The number I am referring to is something like...what the government spends, not the total or whatever.



Well, we could not implement systems like that and spend the same ratios for several reasons:

We have more people, our standard of living is higher, and higher base medical costs (which will take decades to finally level out).



The rich.

Yeah...the rich. mwhahahahahaaaaa

I reject your assessment of the situation!

how is it unconstitutional?

especially when compared to Taxes in general. >_>

Dunno much about politics. Doesn't this force you to buy health care though? That's kinda not cool.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Dunno much about politics. Doesn't this force you to buy health care though? That's kinda not cool.

afaik it forces you to buy insurance if you can afford it.

And offers credits and rebates to help people pay for it.

Also, considering the fact that insurance companies are now capped on how much money goes towards overhead expenses and profits (80% must go towards paying for medical care), rates won't go up since companies can't price-gouge us.

You are exempt from having to pay for health insurance if the amount of money it would take to pay for it is more than ten percent of your total monthly income, or something like that.

Originally posted by inimalist
its like 4000 km from my house...



the plane that has no practical use for our military, wont work in the arctic and that we have no idea about the overall cost of...

If you look at the link I gave Lord Lucien, it describes 5-6 other projects that are essentially in the exact same place. We are trying to acquire a bunch of new equipment, and all of it is bogged down with delays and problems.

And I totally agree with that.

If I was the PM, I'd cut in that shit. Why investing in military when our neighbor is the USA? And anyway, who the heck want to attack Canada? It doesn't make sense.

Originally posted by Bouboumaster
And I totally agree with that.

If I was the PM, I'd cut in that shit. Why investing in military when our neighbor is the USA? And anyway, who the heck want to attack Canada? It doesn't make sense.
The USA, to get at all that juicy healthcare.

Hey, who wouldn't want to get a hold of the Best System On The Planet, from the Best Country On The Planet?

Originally posted by Peach
Hey, who wouldn't want to get a hold of the Best System On The Planet, from the Best Country On The Planet?

God bless the US and A.

Originally posted by Peach
So, tell me.

Have you ever even glanced in the direction of a history book at any point in your life?

Tell me, do you have eyeballs in your head? Wait, nevermind, im sorry, i thought you were a free thinking person. I'll never make that mistake again. As to what history do you, want me to educate you on, darling? Yes, social sciences, American history and World history. Do you not see the tyranny that Big BAMA is getting away with and how it so closely mirrors hitlers rise to power? If not, you need to go back to skewl lady and relearn your A B C's. Have i ever glanced at a history book..,

Originally posted by Bouboumaster
Oh my God.

If "this" is communist, some of you would literraly shit their pants off in Canada.

This is a social measure, sure, but what's the problem? How much of a heartless mother****er can you be to oppose this law?
My wish for you now is that you can experience a free healthcare system.


heartless? Hospitals never turned people away, that is why health insurance was so goddamn much to begin with because of all the bills the hospitals had to eat, not to mention the lawsuits of a sue crazy culture. This is one tiny step, the Gomment forces you to have health insurance or youre fined. What if you cant afford it my friend? The fines are frackin astronomical. It doesn't matter, the East is rising and there is nothing we can do because people with the mentality like you plague this country.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
What if you cant afford it my friend?

I cannot really afford it, now...but I still have it. The amount of money I have paid into insurance over the last 10 years is astounding. If I would have just pocketed that money and put it into a savings account (or bonds), I would have tons of money (even if I include the amount of money that the medical services, without insurance, would have cost). I could dip into that account to pay for all medical expenses and still have tons and tons of money left over.



But the insurance system counts on money from people like me. People that do not use medical services very often.

"But it's a safety net, just in case, man!"

I know, I know.




I have the same complaint about my homeowner's insurance and my car insurance.



0 Car insurance claims over 12 years.

1 Home owner's insurance claim over 2.5 years (and I ended up paying the majority of the bill...if I could have paid the amount of money I was paying to the insurance company, for 2.5 years, into my own account, I could have paid for all of my house repairs and still had thousands of dollars left over...it feels like a giant scam. It did NOT save me money and they were NOT there when I needed them. It does NOT provide me a "peace of mind".

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
What if you cant afford it my friend? Then you're exempt, you don't have to get health insurance NOR do you have to pay a fee.

The figures IIRC are something like, if it costs you more than ten percent of your monthly income to buy health insurance, you're exempt from having to pay any money at all. If you make less than $93,000 a year than you're exempt from having to pay anything at all. If you WANT health insurance but you can't afford it, the government will subsidize the costs for you so that you can afford it.

This is what Lana means by telling you to read a book. You're vehemently against something that you don't even understand. How can you hate something so much when you don't even know how it works?

edit- It's 8%, if it costs more than 8% of your monthly income then you don't have to pay. That means that the huuuuge majority of people in the country don't have to get health care and they won't be charged for not having any.

This basically only punishes the wealthy. If you're making 200,000 a year and you don't want to pay 150 bucks a month for health care, then **** you. You're getting fined.

You're getting fined 95 dollars.

95 dollars.

Quit bitching.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Then you're exempt, you don't have to get health insurance NOR do you have to pay a fee.

You did not directly address what his question asked.


What you're talking about is the poverty level: anyone less than 4x the poverty level will obtain an exemption of some kind. At less than poverty level, you're exempt, entirely. BUT!...you can be exempt on religious grounds, too!


But there is the set of people that still cannot afford Obamacare but are greater than 4x the poverty level: pretty much every middle class American that does not have insurance, currently.

Why? Because very few people can afford to increase their monthly/yearly costs by hundreds of dollars a month.

I found the Obamacare chart premiums on the internets some where (I could not find it, again, with 30 seconds of google searching so I gave up) and it is very generous. I will benefit from Obamacare as my premium costs will decrease because I have a family of 4. Yippie!




Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
The figures IIRC are something like, if it costs you more than ten percent of your monthly income to buy health insurance, you're exempt from having to pay any money at all. If you make less than $93,000 a year than you're exempt from having to pay anything at all. If you WANT health insurance but you can't afford it, the government will subsidize the costs for you so that you can afford it.

It's a function of the Federal Poverty Level and family size.

If you make less than 4x the FPL, your out of pocket insurance premium costs cannot exceed something like $8400.


That chart I was talking about shows the schedule of premium costs (But, since it is a direct function of FPL; those numbers will change).

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
This is what Lana means by telling you to read a book.

Reading a book will not help him figure out what is going on with this legislation, necessary. Unless a book has been written on "Obamacare"?

I think her comment was more about his references, direct and indirect, towards the historical significance and implications of this legislation. I believe she feels his commentary was one of malformed historical parallels (basically, she's saying he is associating things that do not need to be associated).

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
You're vehemently against something that you don't even understand. How can you hate something so much when you don't even know how it works?

Well, as I pointed out, many people will not be able to afford the penalties or insurance, currently. So it is not as though he doesn't understand it. He does understand it at least partially.

The title should have said "Welcome to COMMUNISM!" That would have sounded way more alarmist and hysterical.

Originally posted by Darth Truculent

Can you answer this question Digi? Do you want to pay for your neighbors kid's health care? I sure as hell don't. I'm not an extremist - it pisses me off

Miss the point some more.

Id gladly accept a 3% tax rise if it meant ALL CHILDREN in the country got free healthcare. You probably wont even notice the difference in your pay packet, lets be honest its small change for the average joe. I think its americas first stepin the right direction, because there is NOTHING right about a family having to sell their house because of a child having some sort of health problem, for example.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Tell me, do you have eyeballs in your head? Wait, nevermind, im sorry, i thought you were a free thinking person. I'll never make that mistake again. As to what history do you, want me to educate you on, darling? Yes, social sciences, American history and World history. Do you not see the tyranny that Big BAMA is getting away with and how it so closely mirrors hitlers rise to power? If not, you need to go back to skewl lady and relearn your A B C's. Have i ever glanced at a history book..,

You are comparing a policy that just barely skates the line of socialist policy with the rise of Hitler. That is not a comparison that makes any sense whatsoever and makes me wonder where you got your knowledge of both history and political systems because they are completely and totally wrong. For starters, the Nazi party in Germany was very much against communism and socialism, and was essentially fascist - about as opposite as you can get. Calling someone a "nazi commie" is about as nonsensical an insult as you can possibly get.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
heartless? Hospitals never turned people away, that is why health insurance was so goddamn much to begin with because of all the bills the hospitals had to eat, not to mention the lawsuits of a sue crazy culture. This is one tiny step, the Gomment forces you to have health insurance or youre fined. What if you cant afford it my friend? The fines are frackin astronomical. It doesn't matter, the East is rising and there is nothing we can do because people with the mentality like you plague this country.

Hospitals turn people away all the time if they can't pay. Not every hospital is required to take people regardless of their ability to pay, nor does every hospital even accept Medicaid for those that have it.

If you can't afford it, you don't have to get it and you won't be fined. You'll either be eligible for Medicaid or the government will help subsidize the cost for you to be able to get coverage. And honestly? Most people who can afford it will have insurance already as it is. For the most part, this just makes it easier for lower income people to be able to get health coverage, instead of having to spend their lives indebted in case they fall ill or get injured - which is something that you really have no control over.

Oh, and yeah. Astronomical fees. $95 is such a huge amount. Oh, wait, it's not. Even where they're currently scheduled to top out - $695 in 2014 - is really not that much. It's certainly far less than most people would pay for health coverage for a year. It's less than what I paid on my old plan, and significantly less than what I'll be paying on my new one, and I have cheap insurance through work for a single person!



If you're making four times the poverty level...then yeah, chances are likely you can afford it. For a family of four, that's $92,000. Even for a single person that's about $44k. Those aren't small amounts of money.

Most middle-class families who do not have coverage don't because of other reasons - generally pre-existing conditions making it so they're denied coverage entirely or cannot afford the jacked-up prices companies want to charge. As discrimination for pre-existing conditions is no longer allowed, this will no longer be an issue.

Originally posted by Juk3n
Miss the point some more.

Id gladly accept a 3% tax rise if it meant ALL CHILDREN in the country got free healthcare. You probably wont even notice the difference in your pay packet, lets be honest its small change for the average joe. I think its americas first stepin the right direction, because there is NOTHING right about a family having to sell their house because of a child having some sort of health problem, for example.

I agree with this, whole-heartedly. Health care should be a right for everyone, not a privilege.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Tell me, do you have eyeballs in your head? Wait, nevermind, im sorry, i thought you were a free thinking person. I'll never make that mistake again. As to what history do you, want me to educate you on, darling? Yes, social sciences, American history and World history. Do you not see the tyranny that Big BAMA is getting away with and how it so closely mirrors hitlers rise to power? If not, you need to go back to skewl lady and relearn your A B C's. Have i ever glanced at a history book..,

i like how those smilies accent your baseless and silly pontification.