I’m not really sure what’s going on here, but it’s pretty clear that Bricker’s 1000:1 odds only applied to events in the past. That is to say, it was a tongue-in-cheek wager that he’d be guaranteed to win.
He’s expressed no such surety towards any events which have not happened yet, and presumably the 1000:1 odds don’t apply to those. In fact, he said as much.
So he may very well be willing to bet you about the behavior of the boards after this supreme court decision, but I don’t see anything in his statements which suggest he’d be willing to do so at those ridiculous odds…
My mistake. Yes, I see – you were clear about that, and I misunderstood you.
My bad.
So, let’s explore how well you understood THAT prediction:
And what I said:
It’s true that I said “you will all…”
That doesn’t translate to “everyone on the SDMB,” does it? At most, I could be understood to be speaking to everyone reading this thread.
But I am going to decline the offer to bet on this proposition, because you yourself can ensure a win for yourself by remaining silent.
Decline. Because I was speaking hyperbolically, because your restatement of what I said was not what I said, because I don’t have a million dollars to comfortably lose, and because even if my prediction were otherwise completely accurate – which it’s not, being hyperbole – you could frustrate it by dampening your desire to say those things in order to win.
But let me point out something: offering a bet and defined terms forced me to back of from my own hyperbole and acknowledge its existence… the very benefit I claim wagering produces.
…aaaaaand you missed my point. You came close, but in the end, you whiffed.
It’s unbelievably frustrating to deal with you sometimes, and others, it’s almost as frustrating to just watch you. This was a case of the latter, for me. I knew it would be for naught, but I spoke up anyway.
Sorry, I’m late to the party. Can someone give me a recap and tell me if Bricker has taken a stance on this yet (as in he thinks the subsidy should or should not apply to federal exchange beneficiaries)?
BTW, these lawsuits are bullshit. The intent of the law is either that all exchanges get this subsidy or the law was attempting to force states to create their own exchanges by withholding subsidies if the insurance was purchased through the federal exchange. I don’t see how any reasonable person could reach the conclusion that the federal government wanted to punish beneficiaries that were forced to go through the federal exchange because their state government was full of assholes, incompetents or just folks who thought the federal exchange would be better than anything they could come up with.
And the result of your interpretation is that some people will not have access to affordable health insurance which totally contradicts the fundamental purpose of the Act! How, other than with a myopic devotion to a legalistic reading of the law does that make any sense?
It was a terrible decision. To argue “corporations are persons” and “persons can be substantially burdened religiously” therefore “corporations can be substantially burdened religiously” is to twist the rules of logic and completely ignore the reason the concept of the corporation was created (i.e., to create an entity separate from, and not merely an extension, of its owners)
Well, I daresay it was unfortunate that the RFRA was not explicitly limited to natural persons and non-profit religion-based corporations, and that something that would plausibly and promptly be corrected if the House Republicans weren’t playing their brinkmanship games.
They don’t seem to realize that the point of brinkmanship is to get closer to the edge than the other guy will dare, and not to be eager to jump off the cliff.
Actually, I’m pretty sure the SHOP exchanges are eligible for subsidies, just not the same subsidy mentioned in the part of the statute being interpreted in Halbig. See: Tools and calculators to help you apply
In any event, are the SHOP exchanges expressly referenced in that statutory section on reporting like the federal exchanges are? Hint: No.
But…but…the fundamental purpose of the RFRA was to extend broad, maximum protections!
See, it seems like you aren’t willing to accept the courts’ use of the “fundamental purpose” of the law when you don’t like the law, but you are when you do. That seems dishonest to me.
He was. He was riffing on Perry the Playtus, the fun-loving monotreme who is the pet of Phineas and Ferb and has a secret identity as Agent P, an operative for the OWCA.
Good luck with that. I recommend stocking lots of whatever booze you turn to in times of trouble for the night of November 8th, 2016. If you consume enough, it will hurt less.