• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT2| Worth 77% of OT1

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chichikov

Member
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...g-will-pick-obamas-intelligence-review-panel/

Makes Obama's press conference look even worse. This is why people don't trust you.
Misled my ass, the man lied to congress, repeatedly, people usually go to jail when they do it.
Id appreciate some logical-thinking poligaffers to bless the hyperloop thread.

I smell fact-hating libertarians swarming soon.
Fuck that, I've learned nothing good can come out of debating train (or train like) things in the OT.
You get piled with data and sheeeeeeeit, and after a while researching population density and fuel efficiency get fucking boring.

Fuck the haters, I like trains because they're awesome, choooooo chooooooo!
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
You know, there are places on the internet where you can legally pay a small fee to watch a movie without even getting up from your seat, even something like Groundhog Day or Dr. Strangelove!

Which is basically what I do whenever somebody gives me an iTunes gift card.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
LotR is a bit weird but I guess I could see it. I thought SL was shown in like history class for the past decade or longer so that one is a bit surprising, but on one's own I can see a young person not wanting to see that.

Oh, funny story about this one. We actually DID see Schindler's List back in 8th grade, but unfortunately, I was sick for like two days so I wound up missing pretty much everything except the last 10 minutes (which is a blur right now).

You know, there are places on the internet where you can legally pay a small fee to watch a movie without even getting up from your seat, even something like Groundhog Day or Dr. Strangelove!

Do these places accept food stamps?
 
That's fair, I picked The Wire mainly because I didn't want to pick another fight about another show.
I just think Breaking Bad is well made pulp and more of a guilty pleasure than something profound.

I'm not sure why pulp has to be a guilty pleasure. And besides, that's reserved for things you are supposed to be embarassed about. For instance, if you watched Real Housewives that would qualify as a guilty pleasure (and a reason I could never be your friend!).

Pulp or not, BB is my favorite TV show currently running right now (though I am not watching anything currently running on HBO). Great acting, writing, direction etc.

I know you got the hots for skysky, we crossed horns about it before, but did you also like that stupid fly episode?

I'm pretty surprised by people who don't like the Fly episode. I loved it. I thought it was a pivotal episode for Walt. Not sure what makes the episode stupid, at all.

edit: as for hots, not so much for sky-sky. Not a big blonde fan. I just find criticisms of her weird because she's the most typical suburban wife you'd find and I do think people calling her a bitch are ridiculous.

Oh, funny story about this one. We actually DID see Schindler's List back in 8th grade, but unfortunately, I was sick for like two days so I wound up missing pretty much everything except the last 10 minutes (which is a blur right now).

Ah, that makes sense. It is definitely a movie you should see but of course it's not for any old time (unless you're jerry seinfeld, of course).
 
Someone having not seen Groundhog day makes me feel VERY old. Please at least have seen Top Gun and/or The Goonies.

I have not seen Top Gun and only a little bit of the goonies. And I am probably older than you.

I've seen Groundhog Day a bazillion times though, including opening weekend.
 
Dax, look at this list and post back what you have not seen: http://www.imdb.com/chart/top. You can just list the numbers.

Edit: Or can you tell me what the most watched television season finale was and have you seen it?
Of the top ten, I haven't seen 1 - 5, 7, 8, and 10.
This is a problem, Dax. A very big problem.

What is going on in this thread I'm perming anyone who hasn't seen Groundhog Day by the end of the month.
Hm. See Groundhog Day or get permed. Touch choice...
We could always treat Dax like Donnie till she watches that movie.

Edit: Should I put this up for motion. Maybe we should make our own bylaws now that we are in the community section.
Bylaws?!
 
Not to pile on, but you're in college and no one randomly forced you to watch Fight Club? That just seems weird. Kids today.
I only hang with girls and none of them are huge fans of the film or have never seen it. Movie's always seemed kind of "eh" to me anyway.
Dax I think You've been watching too much Star Trek.

Branch out!
I am branched out enough, thank you. :)

Also: PPP did another poll of NC. They say the #1 winner of the legislative session is Kay "Almost certain to lose" Hagan.
The biggest winner coming out of the North Carolina legislative session might be Kay Hagan. She leads her two most likely Republican opponents, Thom Tillis and Phil Berger, by 8 points each at 47/39.

Beyond that though it's clear that the actions of the General Assembly this year make voters hesitant to give either of their legislative leaders a promotion. 49% of voters say they're less likely to support the Speaker of the House for the Senate because of what happened during this session to only 19% who are more likely to. And 41% are less likely to support the President Pro Tem of the State Senate for the US Senate, to 18% who are more likely to.​

Speaking of Kay Hagan, she sent a letter to Holder asking the DoJ to sue NC over the law.
 

remist

Member
What do you guys think about Rand hitting Obama on the ACA delays. Does Obama have the authority to delay implementation of laws passed by congress?
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
What do you guys think about Rand hitting Obama on the ACA delays. Does Obama have the authority to delay implementation of laws passed by congress?

He's being dumb, what else is new? If it takes longer to implement a law than was previously thought then it takes longer. The only reason he is complaining is because he wants it to fail. So yea, he's being dumb.
 

remist

Member
He's being dumb, what else is new? If it takes longer to implement a law than was previously thought then it takes longer. The only reason he is complaining is because he wants it to fail. So yea, he's being dumb.

There's no time constraint on the government's side. It might be good policy for consumer cost controls to be delayed, but does the administration have the legal authority to do it?
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
There's no time constraint on the government's side. It might be good policy for consumer cost controls to be delayed, but does the administration have the legal authority to do it?

Where's the rule saying they can't? You can't just make an accusation like that without actual proof. If there's a rule saying that they can't delay policy implementation, lets see it. I didn't see the interview so maybe he displayed it. If he did then point to it. So far all I get from this argument is "nuh uh, you can't do that" without any reason as to why.

Congress writes the laws, but the executive is in charge of implementing and executing them.
 
Where's the rule saying they can't? You can't just make an accusation like that without actual proof. If there's a rule saying that they can't delay policy implementation, lets see it. I didn't see the interview so maybe he displayed it. If he did then point to it. So far all I get from this argument is "nuh uh, you can't do that" without any reason as to why.

Congress writes the laws, but the executive is in charge of implementing and executing them.

The interesting thing to me is how this will influence future administrations. For instance what other parts of the law could be delayed or even cancelled by the next administration.

Ultimately I think the employer mandate is bad policy and I'm glad it's being tinkered with. I get the impression republicans expected it to be a disaster, and now that it's delayed they can't whine as hard about it.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
The interesting thing to me is how this will influence future administrations. For instance what other parts of the law could be delayed or even cancelled by the next administration.

Ultimately I think the employer mandate is bad policy and I'm glad it's being tinkered with. I get the impression republicans expected it to be a disaster, and now that it's delayed they can't whine as hard about it.

This isn't the first time an administration has done this sort of thing though (I don't have an exact number, but articles I've read on the issue reference other administrations doing the similar things).

There is a method through which it could be forced to be implemented and get rid of the delay. That said you'd have to prove standing in a court of law (that the delay is actively harming you) and no one complaining about it is actually able to do so.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
Where's the rule saying they can't? You can't just make an accusation like that without actual proof. If there's a rule saying that they can't delay policy implementation, lets see it. I didn't see the interview so maybe he displayed it. If he did then point to it. So far all I get from this argument is "nuh uh, you can't do that" without any reason as to why.

Congress writes the laws, but the executive is in charge of implementing and executing them.


http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf
SEC. 4980H. SHARED RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYERS REGARDING
HEALTH COVERAGE. (Page 138)
EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this section
shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2013.

So it is written directly into the law passed by congress, though I don't know what the enforcement is supposed to be.

On a side note, the PPACA is surprisingly short and easy to read. Just had to look up the employer mandate section in the table of contents and scan the 4 small pages of that section to find the date. I was wrong to believe claims that the bill was too huge and convoluted.
 

remist

Member
Where's the rule saying they can't? You can't just make an accusation like that without actual proof. If there's a rule saying that they can't delay policy implementation, lets see it. I didn't see the interview so maybe he displayed it. If he did then point to it. So far all I get from this argument is "nuh uh, you can't do that" without any reason as to why.

Congress writes the laws, but the executive is in charge of implementing and executing them.

Well the first thing that came to mind was Article 2 of the constitution, Obama has a "duty, not a discretionary power" to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

But after some googling it looks like the courts have given the executive pretty broad discretion as long as the delays are not unreasonable. So it seems I answered my own question. He does have the legal authority. Probably should have done a little more research before I asked.

This post lays it out pretty clearly.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590enr/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590enr.pdf
SEC. 4980H. SHARED RESPONSIBILITY FOR EMPLOYERS REGARDING
HEALTH COVERAGE. (Page 138)


So it is written directly into the law passed by congress, though I don't know what the enforcement is supposed to be.

On a side note, the PPACA is surprisingly short and easy to read. Just had to look up the employer mandate section in the table of contents and scan the 4 small pages of that section to find the date. I was wrong to believe claims that the bill was too huge and convoluted.

That doesn't really prove his point though. The executive is in charge of implementing laws. I was more referring to a rule that prevents delays in said implementation, that's just the original date. It says nothing about a preventing delay.

As my previous post said, this isn't the first time implementation of a law has been delayed by an administration (like I said I can't find you an exact law but everything I've read references other delays), so there is precedence there. And there is a way to force implementation should the delay be found to be harming anyone.

Complaints that the law was too long and complicated were always bunk by those that actually looked through the thing. It was always just another talking point.

Well the first thing that came to mind was Article 2 of the constitution, Obama has a "duty, not a discretionary power" to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

But after some googling it looks like the courts have given the executive pretty broad discretion as long as the delays are not unreasonable. So it seems I answered my own question. He does have the legal authority. Probably should have done a little more research before I asked.

This lays it out pretty clearly.

As long as the delays aren't unreasonable or actively harming anyone (like delaying something like the Civil Rights Act would) is the rule I believe.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Completely random question, but this is something that I've been wondering about for a long time. How do you buy debt, exactly? Like how does that concept work? Could never wrap my head around that.
 
PopDist.gif
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Completely random question, but this is something that I've been wondering about for a long time. How do you buy debt, exactly? Like how does that concept work? Could never wrap my head around that.

Bonds I believe. If you buy a bond you buy debt in the nation that sold it to you.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
Bonds I believe. If you buy a bond you buy debt in the nation that sold it to you.

Right, I get that you can get bonds, but my question is just from a fundamental perspective. I mean, I get why you would buy most things, but why would a person or entity want to buy debt?
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Right, I get that you can get bonds, but my question is just from a fundamental perspective. I mean, I get why you would buy most things, but why would a person or entity want to buy debt?

You get interest. I cashed in a $1000 bond a few years back and got $1500 for it. They're a safe long term investment, especially US bonds.
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
I would be fine if the employer mandate was never implemented. Puts more people into the exchanges making them more effective. Also further decoupled healthcare from employment rather than helping to entrench it.
 
Right, I get that you can get bonds, but my question is just from a fundamental perspective. I mean, I get why you would buy most things, but why would a person or entity want to buy debt?

It's another hedge against inflation.

Gov't securities are considered risk-free. That means there's no risk of not being paid your interest and principle so you get more money back over time to try to fight inflation.

Buying non-gov't bonds is a bet not unlike buying a stock. You buy a stock if you think the stock price will go up. Well, you buy a bond for a couple reasons. Either you are betting inflation is lower than expected and therefore will be paid at a higher rate or you are a company is offering you a great return on your money.

If a company offers you 6% per year for 10 years, that's pretty good. Of course there's risk involved as they could default and the higher the interest, the higher the risk associated.

You get interest. I cashed in a $1000 bond a few years back and got $1500 for it. They're a safe long term investment, especially US bonds.

Let's clarify here that governement bonds are a safe investment. Don't forget the junk bonds of the 1980s. Bonds can be just as risky as anything else. Especially the derivatives that came about in the mid 2000s (which is also debt).
 
I would be fine if the employer mandate was never implemented. Puts more people into the exchanges making them more effective. Also further decoupled healthcare from employment rather than helping to entrench it.

Yup, fuck the employer mandate. Gotta get insurance decoupled from employment.

Speaking of, I have a related question about the exchanges, to anyone who can answer. Is it only available to people whose employers do not offer health insurance? Can I choose not to take my employer's offered insurance and go on the exchange instead?
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
That doesn't really prove his point though. The executive is in charge of implementing laws. I was more referring to a rule that prevents delays in said implementation, that's just the original date. It says nothing about a preventing delay.

As my previous post said, this isn't the first time implementation of a law has been delayed by an administration (like I said I can't find you an exact law but everything I've read references other delays), so there is precedence there. And there is a way to force implementation should the delay be found to be harming anyone.

Complaints that the law was too long and complicated were always bunk by those that actually looked through the thing. It was always just another talking point.



As long as the delays aren't unreasonable or actively harming anyone (like delaying something like the Civil Rights Act would) is the rule I believe.

Oh ok then. They may still have a point if they're saying the delay is solely for election season purposes, as that would be unreasonable, but it's basically always election season so that argument never held ground for me.

Same at local level I assume? Like what happens if the Colorado government decides to say "oops, we're going to have to delay implementation of business licences to sell marijuana" even though the date of Dec 31 2013 is in the bill we passed. Given how much they've tried to get out of doing it already, I wouldn't put it past them.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
It's another hedge against inflation.

Gov't securities are considered risk-free. That means there's no risk of not being paid your interest and principle so you get more money back over time to try to fight inflation.

Buying non-gov't bonds is a bet not unlike buying a stock. You buy a stock if you think the stock price will go up. Well, you buy a bond for a couple reasons. Either you are betting inflation is lower than expected and therefore will be paid at a higher rate or you are a company is offering you a great return on your money.

If a company offers you 6% per year for 10 years, that's pretty good. Of course there's risk involved as they could default and the higher the interest, the higher the risk associated.



Let's clarify here that governement bonds are a safe investment. Don't forget the junk bonds of the 1980s. Bonds can be just as risky as anything else. Especially the derivatives that came about in the mid 2000s (which is also debt).

You're right. Government bonds are safe. Those are what I was referring too.

Oh ok then. They may still have a point if they're saying the delay is solely for election season purposes, as that would be unreasonable, but it's basically always election season so that argument never held ground for me.

Same at local level I assume? Like what happens if the Colorado government decides to say "oops, we're going to have to delay implementation of business licences to sell marijuana" even though the date of Dec 31 2013 is in the bill we passed. Given how much they've tried to get out of doing it already, I wouldn't put it past them.

I'm not sure about the local level. I just know that's how it works at the federal. I assume it could be the same, but like I said there is a mechanism to force implementation should it become needed.
 
Heard the lifetime insurance caps have been delayed as well; apparently it was decided in February but is making news today. Ouch.

Only for some, not all:

Q2: Who must comply with the annual limitation on out-of-pocket maximums under PHS Act section 2707(b)?

As stated in the preamble to the HHS final regulation on standards related to essential health benefits, the Departments read PHS Act section 2707(b) as requiring all non-grandfathered group health plans to comply with the annual limitation on out-of-pocket maximums described in section 1302(c)(1) of the Affordable Care Act.[3]

The Departments recognize that plans may utilize multiple service providers to help administer benefits (such as one third-party administrator for major medical coverage, a separate pharmacy benefit manager, and a separate managed behavioral health organization). Separate plan service providers may impose different levels of out-of-pocket limitations and may utilize different methods for crediting participants' expenses against any out-of-pocket maximums. These processes will need to be coordinated under section 1302(c)(1), which may require new regular communications between service providers.

The Departments have determined that, only for the first plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2014, where a group health plan or group health insurance issuer utilizes more than one service provider to administer benefits that are subject to the annual limitation on out-of-pocket maximums under section 2707(a) or 2707(b), the Departments will consider the annual limitation on out-of-pocket maximums to be satisfied if both of the following conditions are satisfied:

a. The plan complies with the requirements with respect to its major medical coverage (excluding, for example, prescription drug coverage and pediatric dental coverage); and

b. To the extent the plan or any health insurance coverage includes an out-of-pocket maximum on coverage that does not consist solely of major medical coverage (for example, if a separate out-of-pocket maximum applies with respect to prescription drug coverage), such out-of-pocket maximum does not exceed the dollar amounts set forth in section 1302(c)(1).

The Departments note, however, that existing regulations implementing Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA)[4] prohibit a group health plan (or health insurance coverage offered in connection with a group health plan) from applying a cumulative financial requirement or treatment limitation, such as an out-of-pocket maximum, to mental health or substance use disorder benefits that accumulates separately from any such cumulative financial requirement or treatment limitation established for medical/surgical benefits. Accordingly, under MHPAEA, plans and issuers are prohibited from imposing an annual out-of-pocket maximum on all medical/surgical benefits and a separate annual out-of-pocket maximum on all mental health and substance use disorder benefits.
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
Yup, fuck the employer mandate. Gotta get insurance decoupled from employment.

Speaking of, I have a related question about the exchanges, to anyone who can answer. Is it only available to people whose employers do not offer health insurance? Can I choose not to take my employer's offered insurance and go on the exchange instead?
I believe officially no. It seems this may rely on the honor system however so it may be an option. Just be careful because many employers who do offer coverage may not be willing to pay you in wages what ever their portion of coverage is if you opt out. Something else I would like to see changed.

Edit: another thing I would like to see is a transition away from tax credits on health care, another existing advantage of employer based insurance is you are paying with pre tax dollars. When you are out on your own you may be eligible for credits but you have to itemize and keep judicious track of all your expenditures. I would like to see the exchange subsidies be available for everyone, even high earners in place of credits so the benefit is realized immediately instead of at tax time and only for some. I don't think I am articulating this idea well here however. I'll type done more later when not on my phone.
 

Link

The Autumn Wind
I believe officially no. It seems this may rely on the honor system however so it may be an option. Just be careful because many employers who do offer coverage may not be willing to pay you in wages what ever their portion of coverage is if you opt out. Something else I would like to see changed.
My question is the opposite. Since a lot of people that didn't choose to get health insurance through work will now have to, will this have any effect to lower the coverage costs for employees of large companies?
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
You get interest. I cashed in a $1000 bond a few years back and got $1500 for it. They're a safe long term investment, especially US bonds.

It's another hedge against inflation.

Gov't securities are considered risk-free. That means there's no risk of not being paid your interest and principle so you get more money back over time to try to fight inflation.

Buying non-gov't bonds is a bet not unlike buying a stock. You buy a stock if you think the stock price will go up. Well, you buy a bond for a couple reasons. Either you are betting inflation is lower than expected and therefore will be paid at a higher rate or you are a company is offering you a great return on your money.

If a company offers you 6% per year for 10 years, that's pretty good. Of course there's risk involved as they could default and the higher the interest, the higher the risk associated.



Let's clarify here that governement bonds are a safe investment. Don't forget the junk bonds of the 1980s. Bonds can be just as risky as anything else. Especially the derivatives that came about in the mid 2000s (which is also debt).

When you buy a bond, you're loaning the government money, which is the same thing as buying debt?
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
My question is the opposite. Since a lot of people that didn't choose to get health insurance through work will now have to, will this have any effect to lower the coverage costs for employees of large companies?

Well, I suppose theoretically it could give them more bargaining power when dealing with insurers.

When you buy a bond, you're loaning the government money, which is the same thing as buying debt?

Pretty much.
 
When you buy a bond, you're loaning the government money, which is the same thing as buying debt?

yes. "buying debt" means you own a promissory note that says someone owes you money by x terms.

I sort of get what you are trying to be specific about, I think you're refering to people buying established debt. For example, buying mortgage backed securities. And people buy gov't bonds on the secondary market all the time.

The process is the same, though. Whether you are the initial loaner or buying it off someone else doesn't change anything. At least with normal debt. When they package debt like in derivatives, there may be a loss of information (or falsification) as what happened in the subprime bust.
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
My question is the opposite. Since a lot of people that didn't choose to get health insurance through work will now have to, will this have any effect to lower the coverage costs for employees of large companies?
My guess is no since those large companies are already leveraging their size in buying already. People turning down insurance from companies are also likely to already be insured through a spouse etc.

I don't imagine there are a lot of people turning down employer sponsored plans in lieu of nothing (unless the get a full cash equiv payout)
 
When you buy a bond, you're loaning the government money, which is the same thing as buying debt?

Governments with modern fiat currencies are special entities. When you buy a bond, you aren't really loaning the government money, because (1) the government doesn't need to borrow money and (2) there is no risk of losing your money. All you are doing is using the government as a savings account. And, conversely, all the government is doing is operating as a bank for your benefit. This is why the government's decision to sell bonds is really nothing more than a benefits program for people with discretionary income to save.

The reason you would buy non-government debt is for an income stream and eventual profit (receiving more in payment than you paid to purchase the debt). But there is risk that you will lose money. The reason mortgage debt was being split up, packaged together with other mortgage debts, and sold as a unit was allegedly to minimize the risk from default on any individual debt. Then places like AIG started offering insurance on those debt packages to those who purchased them. In AIG's case, they offered more insurance than they could ever hope to pay out in the case of massive defaults (i.e., it committed fraud). And then there were massive defaults resulting in the bankruptcy of AIG.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom