Stupid Democratic Idea of the Day

[Bricker]

@elucidator

Would you mind, terribly? Your Mom already left for the day and your sister isn’t due for another half hour.

Fine. But I’m NOT shaking it.

[Fear_Itself]

@Bricker

It seems to me that almost ANY number above zero makes Obama’s assurance false.

Every employer who drops insurance coverage is an endorsement for Obamacare.

Employers offer health insurance for one reason, and one reason only; to attract and retain quality employees. If Obamacare is not superior or at least equivalent to the coverage offered by employers, valued employees will see it as a reduction in benefits, and seek an employer who provides a better offer.

When employers decide to withdraw coverage, do you think they do it with the certain knowledge that it will either drive away valued employees, or that employees will find Obamacare superior or equivalent to employer based insurance?

[elucidator]

@Bricker

Fine. But I’m NOT shaking it.

+1. Let’s pick on Vinny.

[elucidator]

He’s gonna be hungry before you get home, can you stop at Piggly Wiggly and get more fish heads?

[elucidator]

As for skepticism about this marvelous new study, our team over at Daily Kos have some questions to ask:

Swampland: Be skeptical of McKinsey employer insurance study

Most prominent, to my feeble intellect, is the question of “educating” the respondent. Why is it needful to “educate” someone who’s response is solicited? It raises a question mark, like the question mark at the end of “WTF?”. According to this, the question of “educating” the respondent before marking their response went unanswered.

Of course, this does rather smack of the old “push-pull” polling: “Does you opinion of Senator Snodgrass change when you hear about his addiction to hamster porn?” I suppose there is a perfectly sensible explanation, and they simply refuse to besmirch themselves responding to somebody from Daily Kos. Perhaps if someone like** Bricker**, with the requisite credentials, were to ask for an explanation, a perfectly sensible answer would be forthcoming, one that emphasizes the entirely impartial mindset of the enterprise.

At the moment, of course, all we have is a refusal to answer. Some of us darkly suspicious people find that, well, suspicious.

[elucidator]

More on the validity of the aforementioned study, from our good friends at Talking Points Memo: Category: DC - TPM – Talking Points Memo

[Hunter_Hawk]

Okay, for the sake of fairness here’s an actual stupid Democratic idea: Tennessee bans offensive images on the Internet.

@Ars Technica

A new Tennessee law makes it a crime to “transmit or display an image” online that is likely to “frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress” to someone who sees it. Violations can get you almost a year in jail time or up to $2500 in fines.

The new legislation adds images to the list of communications that can trigger criminal liability. But for image postings, the “emotionally distressed” individual need not be the intended recipient. Anyone who sees the image is a potential victim. If a court decides you “should have known” that an image you posted would be upsetting to someone who sees it, you could face months in prison and thousands of dollars in fines.

If you think that sounds unconstitutional, you’re not alone. In a blog post, constitutional scholar Eugene Volokh points out just how broad the legislation is. The law doesn’t require that the picture be of the “victim,” nor would the government need to prove that you intended the image to be distressing. Volokh points out that a wide variety of images, “pictures of Mohammed, or blasphemous jokes about Jesus Christ, or harsh cartoon insults of some political group,” could “cause emotional distress to a similarly situated person of reasonable sensibilities,” triggering liability. He calls the bill “pretty clearly unconstitutional.”

Tenn. law bans posting images that “cause emotional distress”

A link to the actual bill is below. The prime sponsor is a Democrat. (It was clearly intended as an anti-harassment/stalking measure, but the sponsors apparently didn’t consider the implications.)

Tennessee General Assembly Legislation

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

OK, yes, that is stupid.

[Kobal2]

'bout time Rickrolling was made illegal. Fucking 4chan !

[Revtim]

Great, now when I visit Tennessee, I’ll have to have a friend call me and elaborately describe tubgirl when I beat off.

[Knorf]

That Tennessee example is definitely fucking stupid.

[pikey_pete]

ooooh, stupid democrat thread…soooooothe score is 1 to … ahh fuck it, I lost count.

[elucidator]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/multiple-sources-throw-controversial-mckinsey-health-care-study-under-the-bus.php?ref=fpblg

Controversial McKinsey Health Care Study Creates Major Dissent At Firm

From our good friends at Talking Points Memo, a bit more trouble about that study offered by Bricker upthread. Not looking so good.

[bup]

What the Democratic machine has learned from Republican machine lies over the past ten years - we should lie too!

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@elucidator

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/multiple-sources-throw-controversial-mckinsey-health-care-study-under-the-bus.php?ref=fpblg

Controversial McKinsey Health Care Study Creates Major Dissent At Firm

From our good friends at Talking Points Memo, a bit more trouble about that study offered by Bricker upthread. Not looking so good.

“This particular survey wasn’t designed in away that would allow it to be peer review published or cited academically,” said one source familiar with the controversy.

I think that is a euphemism for “This study was a pile of crap that was designed to get the particular result we wanted.”

[elucidator]

I’m sure Bricker could clarify this, but he seems to have wandered off somewhere…

[elucidator]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/dems-intensify-pressure-on-mckinsey-to-cough-up-study-methodology/2011/03/03/AGWY9yUH_blog.html

Dems intensify pressure on McKinsey to cough up study methodology

The plot has thickened yet again in what Paul Krugman has called The Case of the Mystery Study.

Congressional Democrats have intensified the behind the scenes pressure on McKinsey and Company to release the methodology of their study finding that large numbers of businesses plan to drop insurance for their employees because of the Affordable Care Act, I’m told. But the company is still refusing to reveal key details about the study’s methodology, which has made it impossible to verify the study’s accuracy or integrity.

House Dems have privately pushed McKinsey to explain why McKinsey can’t release the information, given that McKinsey has confirmed to them that it did not do the study for any outside client. McKinsey did the study for its own purposes, the company informed Democrats.

But in a bizarre development, the firm has continued to tell them that the information was proprietary and that it won’t be released, I’m told.

This has Dems asking why the firm won’t release the study’s methodology, given that there’s no outside client who paid for the study and is demanding that it remain confidential. As the White House points out, its findings are at odds with other studies conducted by independent organizations…

[Fear_Itself]

@elucidator

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/dems-intensify-pressure-on-mckinsey-to-cough-up-study-methodology/2011/03/03/AGWY9yUH_blog.html

Dems intensify pressure on McKinsey to cough up study methodology

How gauche of you to gloat over this news. The appropriate venue is a new thread in Great Debates, where you announce, "I was right in my analysis. Discuss. " That’s how a gentleman does it.

[SirRay]

@bup

What the Democratic machine has learned from Republican machine lies over the past ten years - we should lie too!

Lying, hmmm.
Actually, our good buddies at FactCheck seem to be the one distorting reality in that review:

@FactCheck.org

The robocalls, paid for by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, claim the GOP plan “actually increases the debt by almost $2 trillion.” That’s misleading. It’s true that the GOP proposes an increase of $1.91 trillion next fiscal year, compared with where it stands now. But that’s smaller than the $2.15 trillion increase projected under Obama’s budget.

Did the DCCC claim that the original Obama budget proposal saves more than the Ryan budget? No.
Is 1.91Trillon almost $2Trillion?
Yes.
FactCheck FAIL

@FactCheck.org

The calls falsely claim that “Medicare will end” under the GOP plan. As we have written before, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says the plan would require future beneficiaries now younger than 55 to pay more than they typically would under traditional Medicare. It’s accurate to say the GOP plan would alter Medicare profoundly, but it’s false to claim that Medicare would cease to exist.

You know, was the 2006 LifeSunday Newspaper Supplement the same as the 1940 Life Magazine?
No, but they shared the same name.
Was the 1980 Ford Thunderbird the same as the 1956 Ford Thunderbird?
No, but they shared the same name.
Is a Single Payer Health system which covers 85% or more of senior’s health costs, has low administration costs, and good bargining power with medical providers the same as a voucher system of having the most expensive health care users buying Private insurance, the plan relying on having the voucher cover less and less of the insured health care cost as time goes on to reduce cost?
No, but they share…
FactCheck triple word score FAIL!

[elucidator]

Which is very, very odd. FactCheck has done such excellent work in the past, I am at a loss to understand how they could have screwed the pooch with such thoroughness.