I admire the tenacity of republicans

[Bricker]

@GIGObuster

Again, as a whole, it’s obvious that the law treats state and federal exchanges equally.

So, then, why not pick up an easy $100? Since it’s obvious.

It’s not obvious to me, by the way. The state and feral exchanges are authorized by two completely different sections of the law, and the subsidies are only authorized for the state ones. That seems… obvious… in the other direction. That’s why I am willing to bet, see. You also think your position is obvious, but aren’t actually willing to support your supposed certainty with anything material.

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

I expect to win. The purpose of the bet is to force you to realistically assess your predictions.

Why do you think I don’t care?

I have an accurate prediction about the future. You have an inaccurate one.

That’s all. Do you think my ability to correctly predict the outcome of this suit has any relevance to my feelings about your personal situation?

Piffle, I do respect your expertise and that is why I investigate the context and what other experts are telling us, based on what I founf your opinion here is very underwelming.

And still insulting, you really thought $100 paid once was comparable to almost $300 a month? (Just what I would had to pay if the ACA was not there)

@Bricker

Would it be more human to join you in predicting success when I know that’s not what will happen?

I already concluded you lost your bet to gain humanity, it would be just more sensible and just prediction. On many occasions where it is clear that very silly reasons are being used by the right to make these cases, I have to go for what the experts and analysts of sources that were right before are telling me. (Like with the ICE case and others MediaMatters and others they consult have been very accurate.)

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

So, then, why not pick up an easy $100? Since it’s obvious.

Because it is obvious that you don’t care what will happen to me and others if the law is defeated.

@Bricker

It’s not obvious to me, by the way. The state and feral exchanges are authorized by two completely different sections of the law, and the subsidies are only authorized for the state ones. That seems… obvious… in the other direction. That’s why I am willing to bet, see. You also think your position is obvious, but aren’t actually willing to support your supposed certainty with anything material.

Again, you are still not getting how insulting and personal this is. It is clear that you will be happy with me and millions not getting any needed care (it is just a bet to you). Don’t have enough spare money when I have to care for family too.

[Bricker]

@GIGObuster

Piffle, I do respect your expertise and that is why I investigate the context and what other experts are telling us, based on what I founf your opinion here is very underwelming.

And still insulting, you really thought $100 paid once was comparable to almost $300 a month? (Just what I would had to pay if the ACA was not there)

I have no idea what relevance the $300 figure has. I offered to bet you $100. That figure has nothing to do with any costs you may, or may not, experience after the suit succeeds.

I already concluded you lost your bet to gain humanity, it would be just more sensible and just prediction. On many occasions where it is clear that very silly reasons are being used by the right to make these cases, I have to go for what the experts and analysts of sources that were right before are telling me. (Like with the ICE case and others MediaMatters and others they consult have been very accurate.)

Great. Then take the bet.

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

I have no idea what relevance the $300 figure has. I offered to bet you $100. That figure has nothing to do with any costs you may, or may not, experience after the suit succeeds.

And thank you for offering even more evidence of your lack of humanity for all to see. Of course your bet has nothing to do with it, so the bet is the only thing your brain can understand about what it is at stake.

@Bricker

Great. Then take the bet.

I already noticed that you already won your bet to show less humanity.

[Bricker]

@GIGObuster

Because it is obvious that you don’t care what will happen to me and others if the law is defeated.

I do care, and I am sorry you placed your hopes on a poorly drafted law. But good wishes won’t transform the law into a well-drafted law. And this particular aspect of drafting is fatal to subsidies on federal exchanges. The law doesn’t permit them.

Again, you are still not getting how insulting and personal this is. It is clear that you will be happy with me and millions not getting any needed care (it is just a bet to you). Don’t have enough spare money when I have to care for family too.

But you said you were going to win! Why would you need any spare money?

In fact, the extra $100 I had to pay if I lost to you should help you. Right?

[Bricker]

@GIGObuster

And thank you for offering even more evidence of your lack of humanity for all to see. Of course your bet has nothing to do with it, so the bet is the only thing your brain can understand about what it is at stake.
I already noticed that you already won your bet to show less humanity.

So… No human could possibly do anything here except tell you not to worry, the law will be upheld?

No human could read the plain language of the law and point out there was a gap in how the law was drafted? Showing you this fact is, per se, inhuman?

Wow. That seems like a low standard for “inhuman.”

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

I have an accurate prediction about the future.

Barring the advent of time travel or precognition, there’s no such thing. Your prediction may be probable, even effectively certain, but it can’t be “accurate” until there’s something to compare it to, i.e. when the future has become the present.

[Terr]

BTW - when does the session end for U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit? That is, when is the latest the decision may be published?

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

I do care, and I am sorry you placed your hopes on a poorly drafted law. But good wishes won’t transform the law into a well-drafted law. And this particular aspect of drafting is fatal to subsidies on federal exchanges. The law doesn’t permit them.

:rolleyes:

I’m on the record of reporting that I do think this was not a very good law, but since before I could not see a doctor I consider what I have now a good factual result, not a wish.

@Bricker

But you said you were going to win! Why would you need any spare money?

In fact, the extra $100 I had to pay if I lost to you should help you. Right?

Lets see if this goes through your thick skull:

I do not bet with issues like this one. It is fortunate that right now I have no life threatening issue, but late in the past year I did have one, and no health insurance. Once again, I see what the ACA is offering me as an improvement. And until I see the real unicorn of a Republican plan that will be voted soon, this will do for the time being.

For many others out there this is a life and death issue. The old system was irrational, the ACA is a plan with problems. But until I see the Republicans give options instead of voting for the 100th time to defeat the law I will not ever recommend any family member to vote for any Republican.

[Bricker]

@Bryan_Ekers

Barring the advent of time travel or precognition, there’s no such thing. Your prediction may be probable, even effectively certain, but it can’t be “accurate” until there’s something to compare it to, i.e. when the future has become the present.

I know. I was writing that so when I quote it after the final decision, my certainty will be apparent.

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

So… No human could possibly do anything here except tell you not to worry, the law will be upheld?

Can you point at the Republicans that are voting to improve the law, not to defeat it?

@Bricker

No human could read the plain language of the law and point out there was a gap in how the law was drafted? Showing you this fact is, per se, inhuman?

A Red Herring is a fish.

@Bricker

Wow. That seems like a low standard for “inhuman.”

And that is not a fish, but an obtuse person saying that, when you ignore the harmful results and everything is just a bet, it is really silly to claim any modicum of humanity.

[Bricker]

@GIGObuster

Can you point at the Republicans that are voting to improve the law, not to defeat it?
A Red Herring is a fish.
And that is not a fish, but an obtuse person saying that, when you ignore the harmful results and everything is just a bet, it is really silly to claim any modicum of humanity.

I really have no clue what you’re babbling about. I am not responsible for the law, or it’s flaws. “Everything” is not a bet. But here, in this instance, you have made a confident-sounding prediction of faith in the experts you quoted.

I disagree with you, and those experts.

I suspect you are claiming agreement with those experts because they are saying what you want to hear, rather than because you think they are correct.

A bet is a good way to force you to assess your confidence in the prediction you’ve made.

You don’t want to bet, and I certainly don’t blame you for that: it’s a very prudent decision.

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

I really have no clue what you’re babbling about. I am not responsible for the law, or it’s flaws. “Everything” is not a bet. But here, in this instance, you have made a confident-sounding prediction of faith in the experts you quoted.

I disagree with you, and those experts.

That is OK, it sound human so far.

@Bricker

I suspect you are claiming agreement with those experts because they are saying what you want to hear, rather than because you think they are correct.

A bet is a good way to force you to assess your confidence in the prediction you’ve made.

Not unless you take into account the real cost. This is an issue that is very unethical to bet about and you are still just piling up on the evidence that you did bet your humanity before and lost it really bad.

@Bricker

You don’t want to bet, and I certainly don’t blame you for that: it’s a very prudent decision.

And there goes the inhuman. I already said why I’m not betting, you ignore it, just as you ignore the the harm that many others will get. Your talk and bets are very insulting but cheap to make.

[Bryan_Ekers]

If anyone’s interested, I can cite that time Bricker said “I bet” on something, I said “okay”, and he backpedaled so fast he practically stripped gears.

[GIGObuster]

@Bryan_Ekers

If anyone’s interested, I can cite that time Bricker said “I bet” on something, I said “okay”, and he backpedaled so fast he practically stripped gears.

I think I remember that one, what Bricker forgets is that I’m already aware how his bets are just “taking refuge in squid-ink clouds of deconstructive verbal obfuscation” (Tip to the hat to Kimstu)

This a pit of the ones that are supporting the idea that the intent of a law is defeated regularly by technicallities.

But that is a cartoon view of what has happened before and was was reported.

Here is more from the MediaMatters research:

The case, Halbig v. Burwell, rests on how the court system interprets a poorly-worded sentence in the Affordable Care Act.

Section 1311 of the law says the federal government will give subsidies to eligible consumers who buy insurance from an exchange “established by the State.” The Halbig suit – and three other similar cases – argue that, consequently, subsidies aren’t available to customers in the 34 Obamacare exchanges that were established by the federal government.

Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, and Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University School of Law first made the case against the subsidies, arguing that Congress wanted the subsidies to serve as a reward for states that established their own exchanges. Obamacare’s “congressional sponsors created incentives for states to implement much of the law and reasonably expected that states would do so,” they wrote.

**However, there’s no need to guess congressional intent given the law was passed by Congress four years ago. In fact, seven high-ranking Democrats who helped craft Obamacare, as well as dozens of state lawmakers, filed a brief in the case to explain the true intent of the law.

“The purpose of the tax credit provision was to facilitate access to affordable insurance through the Exchanges – not, as Appellants would have it, to incentivize the establishment of state Exchanges above all else, and certainly not to thwart Congress’s fundamental purpose of making insurance affordable for all Americans,” they wrote.** [CBSNews.com, 7/8/14]

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@Bryan_Ekers

If anyone’s interested, I can cite that time Bricker said “I bet” on something, I said “okay”, and he backpedaled so fast he practically stripped gears.

I’m interested, so long as it doesn’t mention global warming.

[GIGObuster]

@Aji_de_Gallina

I’m interested, so long as it doesn’t mention global warming.

Now **that **is a very prudent decision.

[Bricker]

@Aji_de_Gallina

I’m interested, so long as it doesn’t mention global warming.

I am interested.

And here I am, saying “I bet,” so what a great chance to show me up!

[Bricker]

@GIGObuster

This is an issue that is very unethical to bet about and you are still just piling up on the evidence that you did bet your humanity before and lost it really bad.

Why is this issue unethical to bet about?