Chief Justice Roberts saves Obamacare!

[Ben Kenobi]

Please explain grade point averages to me since I am high on stupid pills.

Christ, you really are this stupid.

Ok, 37 pornstars in your company did a dong survey for esquire.

14 had dongs of 5 inches "MRT", 18 had dongs of 6 inches "Average" and 5 had dongs of 7 inches. "Long dong"

(which also incidentally explains why they hired you).

If I assign weighted averages, does it matter if I say the 7 inch dong merits a 1, and a 5 inch dong merits a 3?

Actually, it doesn't matter at all. I get the same answer. Assigning 1, 2, or 3 does not change the answer.

Try one.

14(1) + 18(2) + 5(3) = 65. 65/37. 1.75

Doing it the other way gives us:

5(1) + 18(2) + 14(3) = 83/37 2.24

Now here's the tricky part.

2.24 is closer to 6 inch dongs than 5 inch dongs in measure 2, and 1.75 is closer to 6 inch dongs than 5 inch dongs by the exact same proportion in measure 1.

It doesn't matter what number you assign them - 1,2,3 works the exact same way as 3,2,1, so long as you are consistant all the way through.

Which means that the dong score esquire assigns your company is 'average'.

Goddamn.

[Ben Kenobi]

Seems like rationing has a better societal effect. 1 person having sex 12 times vs. 6 people having sex 2 times.

And you have your answer as to why rationing is inevitable so long as some people are getting more healthcare than they pay for. (actually, anytime you disassociate the cost from the usage, you'll see this behaviour).

[MRT144]

Christ, you really are this stupid.

Ok, 37 pornstars in your company did a dong survey for esquire.

14 had dongs of 5 inches, 18 had dongs of 6 inches and 5 had dongs of 7 inches.

(which also incidentally explains why they hired you).

If I assign weighted averages, does it matter if I say the 7 inch dong merits a 1, and a 5 inch dong merits a 3?

Actually, it doesn't matter at all. I get the same answer. Assigning 1, 2, or 3 does not change the answer.

Try one.

14(1) + 18(2) + 5(3) = 65. 65/37. 1.75

Doing it the other way gives us:

5(1) + 18(2) + 14(3) = 83/37 2.24

Now here's the tricky part.

2.24 is closer to 6 inch dongs than 5 inch dongs in measure 2, and 1.75 is closer to 6 inch dongs than 5 inch dongs by the exact same proportion in measure 1.

It doesn't matter what number you assign them - 1,2,3 works the exact same way as 3,2,1, so long as you are consistant all the way through.

Goddamn.

Then why pray tell, did you use GPA as an example, then you used weighted averages in a way for GPA that no one ever does. If you can't make an analogy that conforms with societal schema then don't.

[MRT144]

And you have your answer as to why rationing is inevitable so long as some people are getting more healthcare than they pay for. (actually, anytime you disassociate the cost from the usage, you'll see this behaviour).

So why are you against better societal outcomes?

You oppose rationing based on dogmatic opposition to rationing?

[giblets]

Using weighted averages to find a median?

[giblets]

So why are you against better societal outcomes?

You oppose rationing based on dogmatic opposition to rationing?

I'm not necessarily against rationing, but there is no causal link between making everyone buy insurance and rationing. While Ben seems to think there is, for mysterious reasons, because apparently any government intervention in health care automatically transforms you into Canada. (Just to clarify: The Canada of the Beniverse, of course. Not the Canada of the real world. )

[MRT144]

I'm not necessarily against rationing, but there is no causal link between making everyone buy insurance and rationing.

My thinking is, if he can't even defend against the worst case scenario which is apparently rationing, it's all gravy from there.

[Ben Kenobi]

Using weighted averages to find a median?

To demonstrate how the concept works? Absolutely. You understand now that the 1,2,3 are completely arbitrary?

[Ben Kenobi]

So why are you against better societal outcomes?

I'm taking a third option. I believe that user pays is the way to go to get the best overall outcome. Rationing is bad because it results in less coverage rather than more.

You oppose rationing based on dogmatic opposition to rationing?

There's a better way to do things, and that's to leave it up to the market and to charity to cover things that the market does not. People are willing to help each other out if they believe the expenses and the situation is legitimate.

[Ben Kenobi]

Then why pray tell, did you use GPA as an example, then you used weighted averages in a way for GPA that no one ever does. If you can't make an analogy that conforms with societal schema then don't.

You need to look at how they calculate GPA again.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm not necessarily against rationing, but there is no causal link between making everyone buy insurance and rationing. While Ben seems to think there is, for mysterious reasons, because apparently any government intervention in health care automatically transforms you into Canada. (Just to clarify: The Canada of the Beniverse, of course. Not the Canada of the real world. )

Once again, you misrepresent the argument.

Forcing everyone to pay for Obamacare, means that the healthy are subsidizing the sick.

If the sick are using more health care than they pay for, this will trigger rationing.

Ergo, forcing everyone to pay for Obamacare results in health care rationing.

Simple logic.

[giblets]

To demonstrate how the concept works? Absolutely. You understand now that the 1,2,3 are completely arbitrary?

Yes. You could have also picked 1, 2 and 100. Either way the number you end up with is useless. You don't need to pick any arbitrary numbers to find that the median grade is a B, and you would have to be pretty dumb to think 'C' should get more points than 'A' in an actual GPA calculation. Also, you'd have to be pretty dumb to think GPA's of 1.75 and 2.24 are not significantly different from one another. When you were in university would you have not cared whether you had a GPA of 1.75 or 2.24?

[MRT144]

You need to look at how they calculate GPA again.

I understand how GPA is calculated based on weighting A as the highest and F as the lowest. And then you came in here using values that aren't analogous to that at all saying "Let's use GPA as an example" and couldn't understand why we're all laughing at you.

[giblets]

Once again, you misrepresent the argument.

Forcing everyone to pay for Obamacare, means that the healthy are subsidizing the sick.

If the sick are using more health care than they pay for, this will trigger rationing.

Ergo, forcing everyone to pay for Obamacare results in health care rationing.

Simple logic.

No, a few people using more healthcare than they pay for does not trigger rationing. In any insurance scheme someone is going to use more than they pay for.

[The Mad Monk]

Here's the thing, if I understand things correctly: because Roberts used the "tax" route, the AIA (Anti Injunction Act) applies. If AIA applies, Obamacare hasn't been upheld, it's been punted. The law is open to another challenge as soon as the penalty is first levied on anybody. this is why the other four justices wrote their won opinion and were upset that the Commerce Clause wasn't invoked. This is happening again in two years.