|
OneEightHundred posted:Sure, but you can distribute the library binary anyway. What they want to prevent is distributing a non-GPL program that links to it, on the grounds that it's a derivative work. If APIs aren't copyrightable, then the program isn't a derivative work any more. Yes and no. Remember that the GPL's provisions also relate to binary distributions. So you could no longer use section 5 or 6 to compel GPL licensing of the product solely on the basis that it CAN link to a GPL library, but you can still presumably compel GPL licensing of the primary software under section 6 if the binary distribution includes the GPL library as part of the distribution. EDIT: Also the ABI thing yeah. But that might not be a winning case.
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 15:08 |
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:On top of all that are the 30-50 percent increases that many insurers have been proposing for 2016; Don't they do that every year? Just on the off chance no one's paying attention and it goes through?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Just like tuition. And regulated utilities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
duz posted:Don't they do that every year? Just on the off chance no one's paying attention and it goes through? This is the first year they've proposed increases for the following year based on a full year's claims (2014). Although many states will reject those increases, other states (CA, IL) don't have the power to reject the increases, and the ACA only calls for a strongly worded letter from the federal regulators. Turns out that folks enrolled in individual plans and staying in them are sick and actually using the insurance, and are not the "young invincibles" that the feds tried to guilt into buying overpriced + undercoveraged plans and whom the insurers were counting on to spread the risk in their pools.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Then you'd need to answer whether ABIs are copyright able which is almost certainly yes. Nevermind that many languages handle ABI implementation in the execution environment rather than the program. ComradeCosmobot posted:Yes and no. Remember that the GPL's provisions also relate to binary distributions. So you could no longer use section 5 or 6 to compel GPL licensing of the product solely on the basis that it CAN link to a GPL library, but you can still presumably compel GPL licensing of the primary software under section 6 if the binary distribution includes the GPL library as part of the distribution. It currently relies on the linking program falling under the section 0 definition of "covered work" by being "based on" the library, and "based on" is defined as using part of the work in a way that requires copyright permission. If implementing the API doesn't require copyright permission... well... OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Jun 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
I wonder what's up with the Kerry decision about Jerusalem becoming part of the EU or whatever. I hope we get more chapter 7 versus 11 decisions this year too. I'll check scotusblog tomorrow and see if any are in the hopper!
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:You've got a point about what people have (subsidies) vs. what they never had (expanded Medicaid), but I don't think compliance will mean merely branding a state page pointing to healthcare.gov as fulfilling the requirement if King prevails. And that isn't even getting to the formerly blue states like IL that lost the governor's election in 2014, or states whose legislatures flipped from blue to red, like NV and MN. Plus, the money that the feds gave the states to start the exchanges has dried up now; it would take a (new) act of Congress to fund any transition, which I'm pretty sure would be DOA. Yea the idea that people like obamcare so much they will go to the streets if they lose it is complete nonsense. I've never really understood where the idea the billis super popular comes from, surveys indicate more people say it has hurt them than helped! More oppose than support it, and on and on. evilweasel posted:Subsidies are for middle-class: poors are actually poo poo out of luck thanks to the medicare hole opened by the Supreme Court. And the people who are going to be furious are the people currently getting the subsidies, who certainly are not going to be cheering the fiscal restraint at taking things away from them. That's the issue for Republicans, there are a large number of people who will be very aware they are now significantly worse off, and it's going to be much easier to convince them it's the Republicans fault because (1) it is and (2) the reason it's the Republicans fault is pretty dang simple ('they could fix this in five minutes, but they refuse' vs. 'well [complicated bullshit] so really, it's all the Democrats fault'). Polling has not meaningfully differed pre and post implementation of the subsides, so it's doubtful the subsidies are actually doing anything. Again, twice as many people want to repeal the law than keep it. The law simply is not very popular and never was; the idea that there's going to be this uproar against republicans is not supported by the data. Source: http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
To be fair, very few of those polls show twice as many people wanting to repeal the law rather than allow it to stand as is. (Although there hasn't been a poll showing 50 percent or more voters supporting the ACA since it was passed in 2010.) But I agree that the Dem spin (and that's what it is: spin) of people taking to the streets if 6 million lose their subsidies is ludicrous, given that even with the subsidies many people can't afford coverage or utilization of their mandatory insurance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
tsa posted:Polling has not meaningfully differed pre and post implementation of the subsides, so it's doubtful the subsidies are actually doing anything. Again, twice as many people want to repeal the law than keep it. The law simply is not very popular and never was; the idea that there's going to be this uproar against republicans is not supported by the data. The argument isn't that people love the ACA and will be pissed if it's hosed with. The argument is that people will be pissed if suddenly more money is coming out of their pocket because the subsidies are gone and Congress won't fix the problem. Hell, if people hate the ACA and suddenly have to pay more for it, they're probably going to be even more pissed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
Gyges posted:The argument isn't that people love the ACA and will be pissed if it's hosed with. The argument is that people will be pissed if suddenly more money is coming out of their pocket because the subsidies are gone and Congress won't fix the problem. Hell, if people hate the ACA and suddenly have to pay more for it, they're probably going to be even more pissed. Yah, but who are they going to blame: the party that imperfectly wrote the law or the party that refused to fix it? I think any political effect would be nominal, given the geographic spread of the 6 million receiving the subsidies. eta: And the overall unpopularity of the law at large will work against the Dems if King prevails. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Jun 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
The only states where people get hurt are Republican controlled though. Any backlash at elected officials can only hit Republicans, that's why they're suddenly talking about extending the hated Obamacare until after the elections.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
It's also "Obamacare" that's unpopular, not any of the actual sections of the law. Except maybe the insurance requirement, but that's to be expected with how many people hate being told what to do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The only states where people get hurt are Republican controlled though. Any backlash at elected officials can only hit Republicans, that's why they're suddenly talking about extending the hated Obamacare until after the elections. That's not true; something like 38 states out of 50 are currently using healthcare.gov, and blue states like HI & OR have had such hosed-up experiences with their own marketplaces that they're turning to healthcare.gov, or already have. Other states that were formerly blue, like IL, never had their own exchanges to begin with. But if there *is* any blowback for the GOP, it would happen at the state level, since that was where the decision was made to reject state-based exchanges. And if, as I think will be the case if King prevails, the Congressional GOP offers an extension of subsidies in exchange for gutting the mandate (the part of the law that everyone hates the most), then the ball would be in the Dems' court, as I said.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
Is there any reasonably possible King opinion that would forbid states that want the subsidies to just pass a resolution saying "We hereby establish a state exchange and it's healthcare.gov and the feds can run it that's fine". That seems like a ridiculous prediction, that the court would rule that states aren't even allowed to establish an exchange but let the federal government run it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
tsa posted:Again, twice as many people want to repeal the law than keep it. The law simply is not very popular and never was; the idea that there's going to be this uproar against republicans is not supported by the data. Basically, people are kinda clueless about it and focus on the name. Sources: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/01/healthcare-obamacare-affordable-care-act http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE85N01M20120625?irpc=932 http://www.politicususa.com/2014/05/12/plurality-kentuckians-obamacare-long-called-kynect.html http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/8285-F.pdf
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
tsa posted:Yea the idea that people like obamcare so much they will go to the streets if they lose it is complete nonsense. I've never really understood where the idea the billis super popular comes from, surveys indicate more people say it has hurt them than helped! More oppose than support it, and on and on. Did you post the wrong link or something, because that has a bunch of polls showing people do not want to repeal it. I'm not sure how you could look at those polls and get 'people overwhelmingly hate the ACA' from it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
Maarek posted:Did you post the wrong link or something, because that has a bunch of polls showing people do not want to repeal it. I'm not sure how you could look at those polls and get 'people overwhelmingly hate the ACA' from it. There was that one time where it was 51-38, and if you assume that all of the 100% "unsure/no answer" responses would have gone for repeal, that would make it 62-38, which is totally very close indeed to being 2:1 in favor of repeal if you don't know what numbers are. I find it hilarious that tsa is trying to claim that "more people say it has hurt them" when there was the whole fiasco with Cathy McMorris Rodgers asking for horror stories, getting over 10,000 replies, overwhelmingly pro-ACA, and then only reporting on the negative ones posted to the form she linked to. There are life forms with ganglion clusters that are capable of discerning that the anti-ACA story is largely a myth by this point, that the "overwhelming negative response" is minuscule compared to the number of stories of people who were helped by the ACA (or, like mine, who would have been helped if not for living in a Medicaid-rejecting state), and yet somehow there are still human beings that cannot make this simple distinction with their supposedly superior brain power.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 08:41
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:The library binary is still copyrighted and can only be linked against with an appropriate license. It can only be statically linked against, yes, but a dynamically linked application doesn't actually contain library code in any form (unless you think the api is copyrightable). Library code can only be argued to actually have been copied once it's run on a person's machine, but the copying is ordered by the person who runs the program. The gpl allows non-gpl programs to use gpl code as long as they're not distributed as such.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 09:47
|
|
|
Condiv posted:It can only be statically linked against, yes, but a dynamically linked application doesn't actually contain library code in any form (unless you think the api is copyrightable). Library code can only be argued to actually have been copied once it's run on a person's machine, but the copying is ordered by the person who runs the program. The gpl allows non-gpl programs to use gpl code as long as they're not distributed as such. Contributory and induced infringement. The user created the copy, but the author is indirectly responsible for the act of infringement. (This is entirely aside from whether the GPL authorizes the situation - it's quite clearly something that invokes copyright entirely aside from the API issue.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 09:55
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Yah, but who are they going to blame: the party that imperfectly wrote the law or the party that refused to fix it? I agree that the effect is likely to be milder. But it's more likely to be negative for Republicans than Democrats. Congress isn't going to be able to restrain themselves with the poisoned pill portion of their "fix" and certainly won't get an actual alternative to the table. Which makes the narrative the Republican refusal to fix one sentence. Of course that's just the nation narrative leading up to the election. Almost none of the red states where have been fighting the ACA are either going to do anything or feel any state level repercussions.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 11:15
|
|
|
If the court guts any part of ACA the democrats will take the blame. It doesn't matter if it's the GOP's fault. Right now there is a politically disengaged public that associates any complaints they have about healthcare with democrats. Imagine how the media will spin an anti-ACA decision: Obama loses and now some people's premiums are rising. Do you think the general public has the attention span to parse out whose fault it is?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 13:00
|
|
|
Part of me has faith in Roberts that he understands he is building a legacy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 13:08
|
|
|
Jitzu_the_Monk posted:If the court guts any part of ACA the democrats will take the blame. It doesn't matter if it's the GOP's fault. Right now there is a politically disengaged public that associates any complaints they have about healthcare with democrats. Not the person who lost.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 13:15
|
|
|
tsa posted:
Bolding sentences that are completely wrong is pretty swag.  How do you get, from 2% more people supporting the law than wanting it repealed, that twice as many people want to repeal the law as keep it? Wouldn't common sense alone tell you that was really unlikely to be true, and make you reconsider saying something like that, even if you didn't bother to look at your actual link? Willa Rogers posted:
That's not how politics work in America--people blame the national party for state actions as well. if the GOP does offer an extension of the subsidies in return for gutting the mandate, the CBO can score that as costing enormous amounts of money. Really, really huge amounts vs. subsidies and the mandate. Does it ever bother you that your talking points on ACA are indistinguishable from Republican ones, except that once in awhile you wring your hands and say that you'd like single-payer? Obdicut fucked around with this message at 13:29 on Jun 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 13:24
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Does it ever bother you that your talking points on ACA are indistinguishable from Republican ones, except that once in awhile you wring your hands and say that you'd like single-payer? I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that. I know Willa wants UHC, and most of the criticisms of PPACA come from the left, but whoa every once in a while they loop back around to the right and it's like I'm reading Sean Hannity or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 13:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that. I know Willa wants UHC, and most of the criticisms of PPACA come from the left, but whoa every once in a while they loop back around to the right and it's like I'm reading Sean Hannity or something. It kind of reminds me of a friend of mine who constantly criticizes public schools and the lack of focus of the Democrats on solving the problem--because he wants to reform the public school system, make it a hell of a lot better, and support teachers vs. administrators. What he doesn't get, and what Willa either doesn't get or gets but can't swallow bile fast enough to overcome, is that if you pair virulent criticism with "What should happen" every once in awhile, what you're really doing is providing the side that is opposing you ammunition. If Willa spent the amount of time advocating for single-payer rather than attacking the ACA and the Democrats, it might move the needle a little bit towards single-payer. That's what we can hope for as individuals involved in politics: to have a small effect, possibly, if things go right. By pairing criticism of the ACA with criticism of democrats, and by positing a politically unobtainable fix to the problem, all Willa actually achieves is to poison people's minds against government-managed health insurance a bit more, and make it slightly more likely that Republicans will gain more political power and drive us farther from the chance of single-payer. I get the frustration and the pain of not being able to bring about sweeping change as an individual, but to me the refusal to look at how politics actually works, and above that how communication actually works, makes people like Willa and my friend just seem incredibly vain and self-absorbed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 13:56
|
|
|
Jitzu_the_Monk posted:Right now there is a politically disengaged public that associates any complaints they have about healthcare with democrats. Not really, no.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Part of me has faith in Roberts that he understands he is building a legacy. I do think he's at least concerned about the image after CU that the court was viewed as doing the dirty work for the Republican Party. I think that could play into the decision to uphold in King v Burwell because it would be portrayed by the dems as Roberts et al doing for the Republicans what they couldn't do vis electoral politics. (Which, lets be fair, it would be.) I'd also like to note that all the hand wringing about "but but people HATE OBAMACUR" doesn't really make a whole lot of sense because it forgets that people like the parts that benefit them and without subsidies, the whole law caves in on itself. So, no more 26 year olds still on their parents insurance, welcome back pre-existing conditions, etc etc. And you can stop entertaining the fantasy that Republicans would ever, everrrrrrr be able to work out a fix before the 2016 elections. They won't and can't and it will be a huge disaster that the Democrat Party would, if competent, roll to victory on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:*condescending lecture and meta fiction instead of rebutting actual arguments* My point was that the liberal wet dreams about a SCOTUS ruling in favor of King resulting in some massive political victory are nothing more than spin---spin that's even more ludicrous given the Dems' prediction for the last several years that the ACA would be such a boon to their party that they would retake the House in 2014 (instead of losing the Senate, too). Look: no matter what the spin says, it's just not a massively popular law (nor is it massively unpopular at this point in time). One can torture the stats by pulling out things like "how many people favor guaranteed issue?" in isolation, without acknowledging that only 1 percent of the previously uninsured had been denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions, and one can ignore that the "bend in the cost curve" is almost entirely at the expense of huge costs to consumers, but the fact is that most people don't think it's been that wonderful to mandate private insurance without cost controls and with higher out-of-pocket costs than they've ever had before. In any case, we'll know in a matter of weeks (1) what the ruling will be; (2) whether there's a feasible fix if SCOTUS decides in favor of King; and (3) the polling for any resulting scenarios. Until then, dream on, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:it will be a huge disaster that the Democrat Party would, if competent Let me stop you right there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
There's not a feasible fix because the GOP has spent a lot of time and effort making Obamacare as radioactive as possible. Any republican who is perceived to be working on fixing it instead of breaking it will be risking a primary.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:Let me stop you right there. Yeah, there is no Democrat party.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:My point was that the liberal wet dreams about a SCOTUS ruling in favor of King resulting in some massive political victory are nothing more than spin---spin that's even more ludicrous given the Dems' prediction for the last several years that the ACA would be such a boon to their party that they would retake the House in 2014 (instead of losing the Senate, too). Your point is wrong, and generally relies on ignoring the actual arguments (because again, your point is wrong). The argument does not rely on Obamacare itself being popular: it relies on people not liking it when something's taken away from them. That this isn't a 'liberal wet dream' is obvious beyond dispute when you have one of the nuttier House Republican caucuses - and nutty for a House Republican is saying a lot - has managed to face reality enough that they are considering extending the subsidies. I mean, it doesn't really matter what poison pill they're tacking on for that part: they are seriously contemplating affirmatively voting to extend part of Obamacare. These are the same people who couldn't manage to pass a budget with known poison pills that would never become law because it wouldn't defund Obamacare enough. You don't actually address any of those arguments, because your point is wrong and you don't have any response to them. Instead, you simply reach for your latest rebranded Republican talking point and start using that instead, even though it has no actual relationship to the cause and effect being discussed. Zeroisanumber posted:There's not a feasible fix because the GOP has spent a lot of time and effort making Obamacare as radioactive as possible. Any republican who is perceived to be working on fixing it instead of breaking it will be risking a primary. See, you think that, but even the Freedom Caucus (and again, this has people like Amash who were one of the anti-Boehner 'suicide caucus', and Brat, the guy who primaried Cantor) is starting to consider "fixes" instead of repeal repeal repeal if King forces the situation. Republicans have always understood once people are actually getting their insurance through Obamacare, repealing it becomes much dicier - that was why they pulled out all the stops to try to kill it before implementation. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Jun 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:You've got a point about what people have (subsidies) vs. what they never had (expanded Medicaid), but I don't think compliance will mean merely branding a state page pointing to healthcare.gov as fulfilling the requirement if King prevails. And that isn't even getting to the formerly blue states like IL that lost the governor's election in 2014, or states whose legislatures flipped from blue to red, like NV and MN. Plus, the money that the feds gave the states to start the exchanges has dried up now; it would take a (new) act of Congress to fund any transition, which I'm pretty sure would be DOA. Can you link to some quotes by Dems about out of pocket costs? Interested to see what they're saying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:There's not a feasible fix because the GOP has spent a lot of time and effort making Obamacare as radioactive as possible. Any republican who is perceived to be working on fixing it instead of breaking it will be risking a primary. Not really, though, because presumably any GOP fix to Obamacare would involve getting rid of the aspects of it that make it unpopular on the right. And also because they probably would talk about it in terms of 'fixing healthcare', not 'fixing Obamacare'. I don't think that's a particularly difficult message to get across. No one's going to primary a Republican for offering a bill to fix Obamacare that also happens to be an insurance industry wet dream. Republicans might be crazy and wrong but they're not, you know, total idiots, especially when it comes to messaging. None of this really has anything to do with the Supreme Court though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Their "fix" would be quietly scrapped and Democrats would take the blame because the public is full of ignorant or actively malicious people and the party is unable to effectively message because the GOP gets all the money and messaging power they want as long as they keep funneling money upward.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Can you link to some quotes by Dems about out of pocket costs? Interested to see what they're saying. Sure: http://www.stltoday.com/news/nation...f44b351e73.html The study that triggered their moving on the issue: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2015/may/problem-of-underinsurance It's good that Dems are finally acknowledging the ACA's shortfalls, because it means that they're no longer tonedeaf to people's concerns, and that they're critiquing the law from the left, rather than narrowing the discourse to such an extent that all critics are labeled as anti-Obama conservatives. It's good for Dems politically to abandon Reaganesque rhetoric about "freeloaders" and "young invincibles" and face up to the fact that 20-somethings are not joining plans that require $10k/year out-of-pocket costs, including premiums, deductibles and co-pays, because insurers are now saying that the pools they have are skewed to the sick, which will result in higher costs for all. But that's more suited for the PPACA thread than the SCOTUS thread. As I said, we'll find out soon enough what the ruling is, the proposed solutions if King prevails, and then any subsequent political fallout or lack thereof. A month from now we'll know if the ACA stands as is, or not, and whether the ruling causes political earthquakes, or not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
An Angry Bug posted:Their "fix" would be quietly scrapped and Democrats would take the blame because the public is full of ignorant or actively malicious people and the party is unable to effectively message because the GOP gets all the money and messaging power they want as long as they keep funneling money upward. This is the same logic that said the democrats would take blame for a government shutdown.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:My point was that the liberal wet dreams about a SCOTUS ruling in favor of King resulting in some massive political victory are nothing more than spin---spin that's even more ludicrous given the Dems' prediction for the last several years that the ACA would be such a boon to their party that they would retake the House in 2014 (instead of losing the Senate, too). Yes, I've heard a lot of Republicans saying the same thing, mocking the Democrats over this and triumping over how little flack they've faced from their opposition to the ACA--helped along by people like you, who have been willing to savage it from the left without actually helping to promote the cause of single-payer one bit. quote:Look: no matter what the spin says, it's just not a massively popular law (nor is it massively unpopular at this point in time). One can torture the stats by pulling out things like "how many people favor guaranteed issue?" in isolation, without acknowledging that only 1 percent of the previously uninsured had been denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions, and one can ignore that the "bend in the cost curve" is almost entirely at the expense of huge costs to consumers, but the fact is that most people don't think it's been that wonderful to mandate private insurance without cost controls and with higher out-of-pocket costs than they've ever had before. Yes, I have heard these talking points from the republicans already. Why do you feel the need to repeat them and carry their water? quote:In any case, we'll know in a matter of weeks (1) what the ruling will be; (2) whether there's a feasible fix if SCOTUS decides in favor of King; and (3) the polling for any resulting scenarios. Until then, dream on, I guess. Care to engage with what I actually said, like a human being, or are you simply a talking-point-parrot?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 15:08 |
|
|
Willa Rogers was doing the same thing over in the PPACA thread, to similar mockery. I think he's hoping he had a disjoint audience set.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 18:49
|
|
