I admire the tenacity of republicans

The BBQ Pit
141

That’s possible. I’m sure if George Soros were posting here, he wouldn’t quail at losing $100. But he WOULD quail at being part of the narrative that George Soros lost $100 bet on the issue. See?

That’s a benefit as well, yes. You cushion liberal predictions, applying no penalty when they’re wrong, and that makes the board an echo chamber for liberal expectations. I aim to force a recognition of the difference between a genuine prediction and one offered up because there’s no downside for failure.

142

There have also been $2 bets, yes? You don’t need to be George Soros to fail at that quail. (Ha. I kill me.) Either way, you seem to think anyone is keeping track of these narratives. I remain unsure.

But are you agreed that we can retire the idea that betting is a reliable indicator of confidence?

Personally, I prefer to let an argument stand or die on its merits. I care fuck all about the hurting the loser beyond the ending of his argument. But I’m crazy that way.

143

I get that you have a particular ideological take on this, but what if it turns out that government health insurance is actually better for the country - longer lifespans, lower infant mortality, better job mobility… or is it “handout = bad!” regardless?

144

Not in the least. Even the loss of a $2 is symbolically powerful. It’s a certain, clear statement of “I lost.”

Yes, but that sorts of implicitly assumes that there is genuine interest in the merits.

In this very thread, began by a poster who disliked this lawsuit so much he was moved to post about how terrible it is, but knew fuck-all about what the suit actually claims, I have been repeatedly told my opinions about how the suit’s merits are lacking marks me as subhuman.

145

First, the system today is not “government health insurance”. It is private health insurance. With government handouts.

And as for your question - the end doesn’t justify the means.

146

You are never more boring than when you talk about betting, and I do not say that lightly.

147

I find that people who say they don’t mind helping the needy actually do mind helping the needy. If subsidizing the insurance premiums for some people ends up being a net savings for the government as opposed to picking up the tab for the uninsured when they wind up in the ER, there is no logical reason to oppose it.

148

Several comments:
(1) if you made a bet with someone, and loser was to put a phrase in his sig, and he lost, and he (apparently) put the phrase in his sig but then just isn’t displaying his sig, then that is weaselly of him… but, ironically, that’s precisely the kind of legal parsing that you’re applauding in this thread. If you made a poorly worded bet with him which allowed him to change his sig and not display it, why, of course he would take advantage of that poor wording and exploit the loophole. It’s almost like there’s a parallel there of some sort to this current thread!

(2) There was an earlier exchange in which someone (I’ve lost track of who) claimed that this was an unethical or inappropriate topic for betting, and you asked why, and I don’t think anyone answered. And, at least from my perspective, it’s unethical for the same reason that it would be unethical to place bets about whether someone about to get the electric chair will soil himself or not, or an over-under on the number of Palestinians who will be killed by Israeli rockets next week. Given that this law potentially saves actual human lives (by providing medical care to those who don’t currently have it), betting on it has a strong tinge of bloodsport, of betting on human lives, of gladiatorial combat, of rich guys paying bums to fight each other to the death, etc. That’s why it seems tacky to me, particularly if you are offering to bet someone who is potentially directly affected by the lawsuit. (However, unlike many people in this thread, I have absolutely zero problem with you generally expressing your confidence via offering monetary bets, and I understand your motivation for doing so.)

(3) More generally, I think there’s an interesting question about what to do when a law is “written poorly”. I think we all agree that there are possible “typos” that are so minor that they should be immediately overlooked… you can get some pretty weird laws by misplacing a comma or reversing “no” to “on”, or putting the decimal point in what is clearly and comically the wrong place. At the same time, legislators certainly shouldn’t be allowed to say “oh, hey, remember that law we passed last week which established a 6% tax? Well, that was a typo, we mean’t 16%, that’s what we really thought we meant, pinky swear”.

I think this case is somewhere in between those two examples. Given my general lack of precise legal knowledge, I wouldn’t find it prima facie outrageous either for the courts to decide “the context, and the historical record, makes it clear that this section refers to all exchanges”, or “well, the law says what the law says, we have to follow the text”. However, something that I think ought to carry a LOT of weight is whether the record of the debate on the law indicates that everyone, both for and against, agreed with what the law meant. If there’s a law banning the import of apples (the fruit), and people debate it a lot, and all the debate is about the benefit of that particular fruit, and the law is passed, and later someone noticed that the person who was getting the scientific names for the apples messed up and in stead of banning the 5 known varietals of apples, it bans 4 of those 5 plus one varietal of figs… that’s a situation where I think the court should rule that the law is clearly intended to be banning apples, not 4/5s of apples and 1/7th of figs.
In any case, I do find the behavior of many Republicans, in context, to be pretty abhorrent, given my absolute certainty that what motivates the vast majority of them is not actual philosophical objection to Obamacare (given that it was a Republican idea to begin with), or a passionate believe in the importance of really precisely worded laws (because most of them, although possibly not you, would be humming precisely the opposite tune if the law with a flaw in its wording was one they supported), but simply a desire to make Obama fail, with very little caring that their actions actually hurt real people. However, fortunately or not, THAT certainty of mine is one that it’s hard to bet about.

149

No problem! I hope it helps.

150

Regardless of any parallels, accurate or not, “They started it!” is not an absolving argument. I realise that’s not what you’re saying here, and that you agree it’s weaselly, but I don’t think it’s an “of course he would take advantage of that” situation.

151

You know what else is a handout? Public education. You know what else is a handout? A public police force. Also, roads. Also, the fact that the food you eat has passed a variety of standards of cleanliness.

There may be a good argument against public healthcare, but “OMG it’s a handout, that will lead to everyone being weak willed and dependent on the government teat” is ridiculous, because there have been similar “handouts” in many aspects of American life for decades if not centuries.

Instead, if you’re honest, the argument should be framed thusly “In the traditional American economic/political/social fabric, there have traditionally been some areas (police and fire) that were fully socialized, some (education) that were socialized with private options available, and some (the general economy) that were generally free market with some regulation… all three of those approaches have an honorable and useful history. Healthcare (aside from veterans, old people, and poor people) has traditionally been in the third category. Might it be better off in one of the other two? To figure that out, we might actually calmly debate the various factors that make things fit into the various categories, and look at the experiences of other first world nations”.

152

You bet that the suit succeeds. If it does, in fact, succeed, that is a certain, clear statement that you won and they lost. The financial component is unnecessary. You just wish to hurt the loser beyond the ability to point to the decision and say “See, I was right and you were wrong.” Whether that hurt is narrative, financial or symbolic is irrelevant to my point. An indication of confidence is unreliable.

153

If I made a bet with Bricker and lost, I’d like to think that I would not look for a way to weasel out of the intended consequence… “oh, you forgot to specify US dollars, here’s $100 Zimbabwean, worth 0.000004 cents”, or whatever. I think doing so would be unethical and shameful.

That said, I appreciate the irony that someone lost a bet with Bricker and is following the “letter of law” in fulfilling the bet, particularly in the context of this thread, and I’d like to think that at some level he or she is doing so as a subtle meta-protest as opposed to simply being a douche.

154

Yes there is. Addicting people to government handouts is evil. You may not consider that opinion “logical”. I do.

There are all kinds of things you can do that would be a “net savings” that I would oppose. In fact, there are all kinds of things you can do that would be a “net savings” that YOU would oppose. “Net savings” is not something that excuses doing unpalatable things.

155

No, no and no. All those are government services. A handout is, literally, money that is handed out. Unearned. Services can be argued about. Handouts corrupt.

156

This is nonsense. “Handout” implies it is given with no restrictions and with no purpose. If subsidies for health care are “handouts”, then so is the housing and subsistence allowances (BAH and BAS) given to soldiers and sailors.

157

So let the poor people die? What is your solution? Just shouting NO HANDOUTS is not a solution. How do you suggest poor people get health care? Saying that they cannot have it is not a solution either. The law says they will get it, so how do you suggest it gets paid for?

If you have no suggestion, then you aren’t really bringing anything to the debate aside from the equivalent of holding your breath and stomping your feet.

158

No. Handout implies it is money handed out, unearned, from the government to the recipient.

There is a difference between job benefits and handouts. One is earned. The other isn’t.

159

Not to be too flip, but that’s exactly what a lot of modern-day jurisprudence is.

160

Just a couple of questions, Terr. Do you buy your kids clothes? Do you give them presents? Do you feed and house them?

How did they earn this largesse?