Chief Justice Roberts saves Obamacare!

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I have LOTS of contacts at both DHS and Treasury, and I'm pretty sure somebody here can provide me with Ben's real name. Just putting that out there. Carry on.

[-Jrabbit]

Ben's real name = not a mystery.

Right, Sean?

[MRT144]

We don't need to name and shame here. We can't just point to the article he claim he authored

[The Mad Monk]

Can somebody remind me what the penalty amount is for not buying insurance? To make things simple, assume there is no hardship.

[kentonio]

Hey dip****, you seem to have avoided my question.

Please explain how providing private industry with a guaranteed supply of customers for ever is going to drive them all out of business, and please especially explain why the insurance companies were actively lobbying for something that would make them go bust.

[MRT144]

Can somebody remind me what the penalty amount is for not buying insurance? To make things simple, assume there is no hardship.

Beginning in 2014, the cost of not purchasing health insurance for a family of four will be $285 or 1 percent of income, whichever is greater. By 2016, this penalty rises to $2,085 or 2.5 percent of income.

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/...ional-now-what

[The Mad Monk]

Beginning in 2014, the cost of not purchasing health insurance for a family of four will be $285 or 1 percent of income, whichever is greater. By 2016, this penalty rises to $2,085 or 2.5 percent of income

Good Lord. Is there any health insurance out there anywhere near that cheap?

[Ben Kenobi]

WTF are you even talking about??? All I was saying is that Jesus wants you to pay (Render unto Caesar the things that are Casear's...). As any Bible scholar knows, He was a big and early supporter of separating church and state. I believe everyone else who read my post understands that.

The state was collecting a toll for travel. Does this state collect a toll for abortion? Am I going to go down the road and find myself paying a toll to support abortion?

[Ben Kenobi]

Hey dip****, you seem to have avoided my question.

That's Sir Dip**** to you.

And no, I was off enjoying my afternoon- buckwheat.

[Ben Kenobi]

We can't just point to the article he claim he authored

Sure you can. Got anymore **** you want to spout?

http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=1727&start=4

SAFETY IN NUMBERS: HOW SOLID ARE THE STATISTICS

Lies, damn lies and statistics. That was Mark Twain's catalogue of untruths. But what about polling? Take, as an example, the widely reported May 11 SES poll that measured the Conservative party's climbing popularity against the Liberals. It's "accurate to within 3.2 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20." Does that mean it's accurate or not? And what about the birth statistics analyzed by the Western Standard? Since the data was culled from the federal census, we're also dealing with poll results. Is our report accurate?



Let's start with the SES poll. The first number is the margin of error in the popularity numbers--they could be 3.2 per cent higher, or lower, than the poll's estimate. The more people polled, the smaller the margin. The second number, the standard deviation, reflects the probability that a data point could be there by chance. One time out of 20, the SES will produce a poll that's a blooper. Picture a bell curve, with all the results of a survey indicated by points along the bottom. If the average (the mean) is the line in the middle of the bell, then the numbers closest to the average (within one standard deviation) are part of the biggest chunk of the bell, meaning they have a greater chance of being entirely random. The points out on either end of the curve, far away from the middle, where the bell shape is at its smallest, are less likely to be the result of chance.

So, when it comes to analyzing the data of male-to-female births, the number of total births within the measured communities happen to be in the thousands--that's the sample size. Therefore, the margin of error in the 2001 census is no greater than 0.06 per cent for the smallest sample. That's miles better than you'll find with most polls.

As for the chance that the aberrant boy-girl ratios occurred randomly--as reflected by the standard deviation--that's extremely unlikely. In Coquitlam, B.C., where the boy to girl ratio in 2003 was 112 boys for every 100 girls (expressed as 1.12), the point is three standard deviations from the average. So, the probability that this statistic occurred by chance is less than 0.1 per cent. In B.C., there was also a cluster of four communities--Surrey, Abbotsford, North Vancouver and Richmond--that, in 2001, all showed 107 boys to 100 girls. While there is a one in three chance that one of those four points occurred randomly, the chance that they are all random is 1.2 per cent. Statistically speaking, there's no such thing as a perfectly accurate poll. But these statistics are pretty darn close.


--Sean Ollech

[Ben Kenobi]

Nothing you post or say ever stands for itself because it's so contrary to what you think you're communicating.

Communication is a two way street. It requires a talker and a listener. If the listener doesn't understand what is being said, then communication can't happen.

[Ben Kenobi]

I have LOTS of contacts at both DHS and Treasury, and I'm pretty sure somebody here can provide me with Ben's real name. Just putting that out there. Carry on.

Good to know we have people willing to make idle threats.

[giblets]

Communication is a two way street. It requires a talker and a listener. If the listener doesn't understand what is being said, then communication can't happen.

REALLY? And if the listener doesn't understand what is being said, whose fault is that? Who is the one who chose the words?

[Wiglaf]

http://affordablecarecat.com/

[DaShi]

Dammit! Never a Thanks when you need one. You need to post these later, Wiggy.