Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Healthcare Reform Act Prediction Market

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the spin-the-wheel-and-get-a-heal dept.

Businesses 185

An anonymous reader writes "The Wisconsin School of Business is running a prediction market study on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on the Healthcare Reform Act. By participating you will not only be helping university students, you will also get to express your opinion and compete with others to show that you have the most accurate prediction."

cancel ×

185 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Sooo... basically, nothing. (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39566867)

By participating you will not only be helping university students, you will also get to express your opinion and compete with others to show that you have the most accurate prediction."

So basically, participating gets me bragging rights. But who would I brag to? In any case, I think this study is a simple 'wisdom of the crowds' experiment and they should just come out and say it. "helping university students" is a poor reason to participate. Most places when they do a "count the number of pennies in the jar" game, offer to give the jar to the person with the closest answer. So... where's the jar?

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (4, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#39566985)

Most places when they do a "count the number of pennies in the jar" game, offer to give the jar to the person with the closest answer. So... where's the jar?

Um... the Supreme Court? Guess correctly and you can take home your very own Justice!

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (0)

rhook (943951) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567105)

It would be a better deal if they let you fire an activist Justice.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (4, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567163)

There is no such thing.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (4, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567251)

Of course there is: An activist judge is a judge that makes a ruling which creates a precedent I don't like.

It was "Judicial Activism" when the court ruled that the 14th Amendment applied to Teh Gays, and it'll be the same if they rule that the Commerce Clause can't be used to justify literally anything.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (2)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567487)

When someone cries judicial activism about the court ruling with the constitution it's whining.

When a judge writes laws from the bench it's judicial activism.

You will usually hear cries of judicial activism when the supCt rules against someones sacred cow. The 14th is a good example. It freed everyone from some state tyranny not just them Negroes and boy does it still burn some.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39567963)

When someone cries judicial activism about the court ruling with the constitution it's whining.

What I predict is that the SCOTUS will ignore the fact that the question before them is "is mandating that people buy a product constitutional?" and void the entire act, despite the fact that several parts of it have already gone into effect without the mandate and those parts are doing just fine and would continue to do fine with or without the mandate.

Republicans will cheer for this, despite the fact that they looked the other way every other time the SCOTUS has used some weaselly "jurisprudence" excuse like whining about standing (because destroying the Constitution doesn't injure me one bit) or declaring an issue moot to avoid making a hard decision like "what to do about an american citizen held by the Bush administration without charge for two years" or "what to do when the Bush administration steals the evidence of warrantless wiretapping of American citizens after it has been presented to the court".

The saddest thing is that the entire law was the wrong answer to the wrong problem. The right answer to the wrong problem would have been repealing that law that says the ERs have to treat all comers regardless of ability to pay, then everyone will be lining up for insurance or dying in a ditch. The right problem is why the fuck I need insurance to not go bankrupt if I break my arm. And no, the answer to that one isn't tort reform [newyorker.com] (seriously, read the article if you think it is.) I don't know what it is, but nobody on either side of the aisle is even bothering to look.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#39568235)

Getting rid of haveing ERs have to treat all comers regardless of ability to pay will not help the people to sick to get insurance or people with insurance that get sick and get dropped or the insurance comes up a BS way to get out paying. Also it may even lead to people going to jail just to get to a ER.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (1)

philip.paradis (2580427) | more than 2 years ago | (#39568001)

Man, I've gotta say, you may have labelled me as a "foe" here, but holy crap I agree with you 100% here. Speaking as someone who considers himself a "moderate leaning Libertarian" (yeah, I know, it's hard to pin any such things down, it's always case by case) in many areas, I've taken a lot of crap from various associates for agreeing with the kind of position you just outlined. Oh well, I'll keep taking the crap whenever it's offered, and rebutting their arguments that make zero sense on a national scale.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567527)

Yeah, but look what they have gotten away with thus far. No way they'll ever actually roll back that Commerce Clause interpretation. It's the equivalent of asking them if they want to be political scapegoats for the rest of their lives.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567663)

They rolled back the commerce clause when they nullified the Gun Ban in "school zones" by telling Congress they stretched the definition of commerce too far. They also rolled it back some when they said Congress can not force states to create storage facilities to dispose of nuclear fuel.

If James Madison (author) and the rest of them had intended the Congress to have power to regulate all commerce, then he would have written that in the document. But instead he specifically carved-out an exemption: commerce among the states. That means commerce inside the states is the purview of the People and their State legislature. Exclusively. (Which is why unpasteurized milk is legal inside the state border, but you can't ship it among other states... the Congress, via the FDA, outlawed it.)

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (4, Insightful)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567753)

They rolled back the commerce clause when they nullified the Gun Ban in "school zones" by telling Congress they stretched the definition of commerce too far. They also rolled it back some when they said Congress can not force states to create storage facilities to dispose of nuclear fuel.

And then they went and blew whatever gains they had made by declaring that pot grown in your own backyard for your own personal use is interstate commerce.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (4, Insightful)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567585)

Of course there is: An activist judge is a judge that makes a ruling which creates a precedent I don't like.

Funny, but no. An activist judge is one that makes a ruling which creates a precedent which conflicts with prior rulings regarding the same laws at the same or higher level within the judiciary. In other words, one who rewrites well-established precedents.

Sometimes activism is a good thing; the older precedent may well be flawed. However, it is not something to be undertaken lightly. It creates uncertainty and undermines the accumulated legitimacy of the court, as the conflict implies that at least one of the rulings—and any others based on it—was in error.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567781)

Law is higher than court precedents. Laws are passed by the People through their duly-elected representatives/delegates/senators. If a judge (or group of judges in appeal or supreme courts) thinks the law says ABC, then he should rule ABC, even if former precedents said XYZ. We are a republic where the Law is the ruler above all else.

BTW I think the Supreme Court's questions about what ELSE Congress could mandate, like purchasing solar panels on roofs, or hybrid cars, or Bluray players (to support the music business & discourage piracy), and on and on..... indicate they are against the idea.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (1)

tomhath (637240) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567847)

If a judge (or group of judges in appeal or supreme courts) thinks the law says ABC, then he should rule ABC

Nope. If the law should never have been passed in the first place the court should strike it down. Checks and balances, you can look it up.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (1)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 2 years ago | (#39568219)

Law is higher than court precedents. Laws are passed by the People through their duly-elected representatives/delegates/senators. If a judge (or group of judges in appeal or supreme courts) thinks the law says ABC, then he should rule ABC, even if former precedents said XYZ. We are a republic where the Law is the ruler above all else.

I'm not disputing any of that at this point, though the relationship between the civil law and the will of the People is problematical at best. However, people depend on the stability of the law, including its interpretation. The inertia of precedent aids that stability. Reinterpreting the law and overturning precedent amounts to declaring that the prior rulings were flawed, a claim which requires substantial public justification.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (-1, Troll)

Nimey (114278) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567767)

More precisely "judicial activism" is when a judge makes a ruling that a far-right Republican doesn't like. They're the ones who invented the term during Bush the Lesser's first administration, you might recall.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567507)

Hmm. How about an option-> fire 2 Justices, or add 1 of your own.

Should make it entertaining.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39567937)

Actually this may not be a bad option. The nine member make up of SCOTUS is not set in stone, nor even in the Constitution.
"The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.", U.S. Constitution.
In other words the make up of the supreme Court and the U.S. Court system is at the pleasure of Congress.
Could be reduced to 7 members or increased to as many as Congress so decides.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39568225)

Can't be reduced, you can't fire them. You could decide not to replace one the retires or dies. The more likely aspect is to load the court with more members that are pawns; the president has used that threat before.

Right now, though, it would be political suicide. The supreme court is the only part of the government that people halfway respect.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567791)

In the US system, judges are guaranteed to write laws from the bench. That's how judicial precedent works. Either go to a common law based system (the French have that, so that means it's a commie-coward approach to writing law), or suck it up.

The French don't use Common Law. (5, Informative)

rjh (40933) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567881)

Either go to a common law based system (the French have that...)

The French do not use the Common Law system. They use the Civil Law system, which is derived from the Napoleonic Code, which is derived from the Code of Justinian, which actually dates from well before the fall of the Roman Empire.

The United Kingdom uses the Common Law system.

The United States uses both. The federal system uses Common Law, as do most of the states: but Louisiana in particular uses a Civil Law-based system, in keeping with its heavily French heritage.

I don't see that either one is clearly superior. If you take a look at what comes out of Louisiana state courts, you'll see they're just as crazy as any other system. It's just crazy of a slightly different flavor. You might think that flavor tastes better, but I don't.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567033)

Market forces won't work if there's no incentive to be right. It's tempting for ideologues to sign up and just vote the way they want it to go, instead of the way they think it will go.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (1)

Garridan (597129) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567815)

If it were an opinion poll, I'd cry foul over the options: 2 "against" and 1 "for", thus diluting (or, here on /., dilluting [slashdot.org] ) the "against" stats.

Re:Sooo... basically, nothing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39567895)

Intrade internalizes the cost of being ideological. I'm not sure why this school of business didn't just go to intrade rather than create its own project.

My prediction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39566889)

Based on everything I've read and heard, and all the information I currently have at my fingertips, my prediction is I just got a first post. That's right. I'd like to share this one with the big man himself, Jesus. I couldn't have done it without him. First post for Jesus. Shout out to my homies.

Re:My prediction (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567045)

Based on everything I've read and heard, and all the information I currently have at my fingertips, my prediction is I just got a first post. That's right. I'd like to share this one with the big man himself, Jesus. I couldn't have done it without him. First post for Jesus. Shout out to my homies.

Sorry, but Jesus was two minutes late.

Re:My prediction (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567175)

He as busy mowing my lawn.

Re:My prediction (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567501)

Sorry, but Jesus was two minutes late.

He as busy mowing my lawn.

That's what happens why your dad cuts off your allowance.

Though I'm kind of surprised... usually he's just busy rigging the results of a ball game or making sure it doesn't rain on someone's picnic.

Great. I'll give it a try, BUT... (2)

amunds0n (2562195) | more than 2 years ago | (#39566915)

Judging from the results of my recent final 4 picks I am not too optimistic now about my ability to predict what the court will find!

Markets aren't any good at prediction (2)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39566919)

If they were, we wouldn't have recurrent crashes and bubbles on Wall Street.

/Enough said.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction (1, Offtopic)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39566969)

The recurrent crashes and bubbles on Wall street are unrelated to markets, they are related to the government's ability and willingness to attempt and control the economy and money supply (inflation). There wouldn't have bee a housing bubble and even Internet bubble before it without artificially low interest rates. There wouldn't be another major collapse in the future (bonds, dollars) without the Fed either. Does it have anything to do with the markets? Not much, not until the signals stop being mingled by the governments.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction (4, Informative)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567061)

The first known bubble occurred in 1637 over tulips [wikipedia.org] , when the US federal government was still considered a very remote possibility.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction (0, Offtopic)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567097)

You shouldn't have.

You see, I will explain to you something that hopefully will put this to rest.

Tulips are grown at will, they are nothing more than Federal reserve notes without the Federal reserve. They ARE paper.

You don't need to have a central monetary authority to have a bubble based on creation of fake currency if fake currency can be created by anybody anyway. It's perfect, it's as if everybody had their own printing press.

Fed has a monopoly on that (well, that and fractional reserve, but mostly Fed, god knows how many tens of trillions they've been pumping into the world's economy if only in one year that was revealed showed 15 of them).

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction (1, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567213)

You don't need to have a central monetary authority to have a bubble based on creation of fake currency if fake currency can be created by anybody anyway. It's perfect, it's as if everybody had their own printing press.

Thank you for demonstrating the obvious truth that markets don't need a government authority mucking with them to create instability. That roman_mir guy sure needs to open his damn eyes and... wait...

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction (1, Flamebait)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567349)

Yeah, great, except that the option contract was fucked by a GOVERNMENT DECREE that ALLOWED (by decree of the government) to get out of it with only a 3.5% loss.

That's right, a government decree that said that CONTRACTS DO NOT HAVE TO MEAN ANYTHING is somehow a 'free market failure'?

Well, if this posts (I am probably at limit of my 'karma'), don't take it personally if I don't reply under my name to any of your further ignorant statements.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567611)

That happened after the bubble had already formed and then burst, you idiot. The free market did not prevent the bubble from forming, it did not prevent it bursting. People who aren't ideologically blind call that a failure of the free market, yes.

This obviously isn't you. You don't appear to realize that having an ideology does not free you from the constraints of reality. As long as you can't separate the two then you're just crazy and there is no point to anything you say except for some measure of amusement. So please don't reply with this or any sock puppet account you may have unless you're going to be either sane, or funny.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39567917)

As far as GP is concerned, the Gilded Age was a shining example of the success of the free market, rather than an epic fail of deregulation (just wait, he'll reply himself to confirm this). So don't bother arguing, logic and reason need not apply here.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39567425)

Nicely done.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567517)

You don't need to have a central monetary authority to have a bubble based on creation of fake currency if fake currency can be created by anybody anyway. It's perfect, it's as if everybody had their own printing press.

Thank you for demonstrating the obvious truth that markets don't need a government authority mucking with them to create instability. That roman_mir guy sure needs to open his damn eyes and... wait...

Current Slashdot cookie:

Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- "Mark Twain, Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567223)

"You don't need to have a central monetary authority to have a bubble based "
yes, you do. In the case of Tulips it was the exchange markets that where the central authority.

Somewhere then need to be a central place for mass trading.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39567303)

Burn down the liquor store!

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction (0)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567383)

I said you don't have to have central monetary authority if everybody has their own printing press.

However the tulips were a futures market, people were trading options, you are right. What you don't know (it looks like by the comments) is that the government passed a law saying that ANY options contract can be declared void and only 3.5% of value has to be paid back based on that void contract.

So in fact even with the paper tulip standard (and god knows, government propagated 80 year war did NOT help the economies of the time) the government can come up with another asinine idea on how to create even more inflation under those conditions and how to screw up the market with insane regulations.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567341)

Tulips are grown at will, they are nothing more than Federal reserve notes without the Federal reserve. They ARE paper.

Is that so? You are saying anybody could grow valuable tulips in the 17th century? How'd they get the seeds and offsets? How'd they control the patterns? How'd they speed up the 10 year growing time?

You don't need to have a central monetary authority to have a bubble based on creation of fake currency if fake currency can be created by anybody anyway. It's perfect, it's as if everybody had their own printing press.

Interesting, you're blaming market participants for the failures of markets. How does that advance the claim that markets are good at prediction? Would it help if markets didn't allow people to join? Maybe someone should do a study on that.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction (0)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567389)

First: tulips were grown in increasing quantities.

Second: people were trading options (yes, derivatives, oh my) on the futures market, and then government came out with a law that allowed people to drop contracts and only be liable for 3.5% of the value. You don't see how that can create a problem that later can be blamed on 'free market', where in fact there was no such thing again?

By the way, 80 years of war, I always was wondering who in their right mind would fight wars for 80 years without government actively promoting them.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction (4, Interesting)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567635)

First: tulips were grown in increasing quantities.

Tulips are perishable goods, with a very long growing period, and a low rate of reproduction. They were considered valuable precisely because not everybody could grow them at will. That's why your analogy with printing money breaks down.

Second: people were trading options (yes, derivatives, oh my) on the futures market, and then government came out with a law that allowed people to drop contracts and only be liable for 3.5% of the value. You don't see how that can create a problem that later can be blamed on 'free market', where in fact there was no such thing again?

If the law considers a contract partially or fully unenforceable, then anyone entering into such a contract nevertheless is ignorant and a sucker. Why are we expected to believe that markets of such people are good at predicting things? Are they secret masochists?

By the way, 80 years of war, I always was wondering who in their right mind would fight wars for 80 years without government actively promoting them.

Off topic, but quite simple really. In the 17th century, most soldiers were mercenaries, whose motivation was money and pillage. Fighting wars was a career choice, basically, and soldiers frequently switched sides whenever their current employer was defeated, lost interest or didn't pay enough. It's best to think of them as criminal gangs terrorizing large parts of Europe.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567367)

The recurrent crashes and bubbles on Wall street are unrelated to markets, they are related to the government's ability and willingness to attempt and control the economy and money supply (inflation). There wouldn't have bee a housing bubble and even Internet bubble before it without artificially low interest rates. There wouldn't be another major collapse in the future (bonds, dollars) without the Fed either. Does it have anything to do with the markets? Not much, not until the signals stop being mingled by the governments.

The first known bubble occurred in 1637 over tulips, when the US federal government was still considered a very remote possibility.

You shouldn't have.

You see, I will explain to you something that hopefully will put this to rest.

Tulips are grown at will, they are nothing more than Federal reserve notes without the Federal reserve. They ARE paper.

You don't need to have a central monetary authority to have a bubble based on creation of fake currency if fake currency can be created by anybody anyway. It's perfect, it's as if everybody had their own printing press.

Fed has a monopoly on that (well, that and fractional reserve, but mostly Fed, god knows how many tens of trillions they've been pumping into the world's economy if only in one year that was revealed showed 15 of them).

Read this closely, kiddies: this is your brain on free-market cool-aid.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567073)

The recurrent crashes and bubbles on Wall street are unrelated to markets, they are related to the government's ability and willingness to attempt and control the economy and money supply (inflation).

Yes, of course. Nothing ever goes wrong without meddling by the big wicked gummit, especially when money is involved.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567253)

I guess the Government was involved in all teh booms and busts that occured in the unregulated banking markets prior to the great depression huh?

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39567619)

Free markets had short booms and busts, but it took government to create a great depression.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39567843)

Possibly, if you blame the government for the larger and more interconnected global society that developed.

Then again, you might as well blame them for plagues.

Re:Markets aren't any good at prediction (2)

strat (39913) | more than 2 years ago | (#39568123)

Don't forget the Community Reinvestment Act (a.k.a. "nevermind those underwriting standards").

Markets aren't good at prediction, any more than anything else is. What they are excellent at (and in fact the best tool known to man) is identifying a legitimate price between buyers of a particular product at a particular point in time.

prediction (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39566955)

Scotus will most likely delay the decision, it's election year, and Obama has ways to pressure them, but Republicans will have to show their base they are not signing under the mandate being constitutional (and it's not), so it's most likely to be delayed.

But a more important prediction: if/when this act goes into effect expect many of the companies that have maybe up to 100 people all of a sudden lose half of their employees so not to go over 50 employee maximum after which they have to comply with various provisions.

Re:prediction (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39566981)

many of the companies that have maybe up to 100 people all of a sudden lose half of their employees so not to go over 50 employee maximum

At most, companies with 60 people might, MIGHT be willing to cut 10 people.

For the most part, I doubt it. It's a severe pain in the ass to do work while understaffed, and if you were already able to do work with less than 50 people, you would've had less than 50 people.

Re:prediction (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567007)

My prediction is that companies up to 100 people (and some even bigger) will absolutely lose people until they are under 50 limit.

Re:prediction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39567047)

So are you saying that companies up to 100 people will lose people until they are under the 50 employee maximum?

Re:prediction (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567057)

Without a doubt.

Re:prediction (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567277)

So you are saying companies of up to 100 people are currently working in a very inefficient way that wastes a lot more money than they need to?

Re:prediction (1, Flamebait)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567301)

No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that small/medium sized companies are on razor thin margins and the gov't doesn't give a shit, of-course the big companies will either get exemptions or will be bailed out, the small ones will have to lay people off.

That, by the way, is not inefficient, that is just very dangerous in terms of being able to absorb huge blows, and this is going to be another huge blow by the government, as if all the other stuff, including inflation and real taxes (spending and interest on that) wasn't enough.

Re:prediction (2)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567333)

if a company can't afford to take this kind of blow, then they are over extending themselves in the first place.

Ever hear of the cure of Home Depot install contracts? a small 5 man operation signs up with HD for install contracts thinking it will make a nice easy income stream... then HD starts sending you more work than you can handle so you grow fast....but your growth is not organic and your costs start going crasy and your QA sucks because you have to sub out so much work that you cannot vet everyone.... then HD drops you for customer complaints...then you go out of business.

Re:prediction (0, Troll)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567451)

Oh, yeah, right, I forgot, you are the moral authority on the kind of businesses that people can still run in USA, you are the 'decider', figuring out who has the right and who does not have the right to run a business.

Makes sense, with this type of government: hey, there is a business that's still running somehow after everything we've thrown at it, and the kitchen sink. It's not one of our preferred monopolies that we keep bailing out and 'stimulating' etc., so let's crash it, especially since modman0f2sdfhsflabl approves.

Re:prediction (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567803)

Oh, yeah, right, I forgot, you are the moral authority on the kind of businesses that people can still run in USA, you are the 'decider', figuring out who has the right and who does not have the right to run a business

You've got the right to run whatever business you want. You also have the right to run it out of business through malfeasance (throwing a temper tantrum and destroying the company so you can "show them"). We have the right to point and laugh.

Re:prediction (1)

udachny (2454394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567821)

Malfeasance is on the part of the government that puts barriers to doing business while talking about lack of jobs.

Re:prediction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39567907)

If the damn government wouldn't require people to be compensated everyone could have a job! If your business isn't making it, run a better business. Well run businesses alre!ady provide health insurance, if the cheapstakes who can only compete by screwing over their employees are driven out of the market they will take over their base and that will be that.

Re:prediction (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567343)

That should be curse....not cure

Re:prediction (2)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567133)

My prediction is that companies up to 100 people (and some even bigger) will absolutely lose people until they are under 50 limit.

My prediction is that any company which lays off half or more of its employees at one go, for any reason, is not long for the world, and is probably not a place where people want to keep working if they have any reasonable alternative. I also predict that any company which would lay off any significant portion of its employees for the reason you give is and will continue to be a hellish place to work regardless of what the Supreme Court decides.

Re:prediction (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567169)

I also predict that any company which would lay off any significant portion of its employees for the reason you give is and will continue to be a hellish place to work regardless of what the Supreme Court decides.

Most companies are hellish places to work, without regard to this issue.

Re:prediction (1)

CrAlt (3208) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567235)

and is probably not a place where people want to keep working if they have any reasonable alternative.

The problem is that in many area's there is NO alternative so people stick with a crappy job out of necessity.

Work still needs to get done so MY prediction is that alot of companies will lay off down to 50.Then give the people let go the option of becoming "contractors".

Re:prediction (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39567465)

Or... they could split into two companies. Or three. One administrating, under contract, the businesses of the other two halves of the productive part of the previously one business.

Re:prediction (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39567183)

I live in Massachusetts. Based on when Romney-care went into effect, you're 100% correct.

I personally know people who were forced out of the state because their employer simply couldn't afford to buy them health care, and they couldn't afford to buy it on their current salary.

End result: they're out a job, and were forced to move to a state with sane laws.

Oh, and other fun factoids from Romneycare: when it went into effect, emergency room care skyrocketed, and the number of people able to see their doctors (and, therefore, receive preventative care) plummeted. It had exactly the opposite of the intended effect. I think 2011 was the first year since Romneycare that the number of people being treated by the emergency room stayed STABLE, let alone dropped. However, even so, the number of doctors in the state has fallen as they've fled the results of state-run health care.

Now I should give Romney partial credit: Romneycare, as implemented, isn't his plan. It's his plan after being butchered the Democrat party. Plus, when he originally proposed it, it hadn't been tried and proven to fail before. By the time Obama copy-pasted it, Massachusetts had already proven it to be a horrible idea. And that's ignoring things like the Massachusetts law being Constitutional while Obama thinks of the Constitution as "mere words."

Re:prediction (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567299)

stop astro-turffing.

Re:prediction (1)

BStroms (1875462) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567117)

I don't think they'll delay it, as that would be a bit too irresponsible. The individual mandate goes into effect in 2014, and the longer businesses are unsure of which way it will go, the worse off we are. Uncertainty is almost never good for encouraging businesses to hire. The court wants to make their decision and give congress and the president as much time as possible to try to pass new laws to save the bill.

I do find it interesting that they could have crafted it to have almost the same effect while having almost no chance of being declared unconstitutional. Raise taxes on everyone by the amount the fee for not buying health insurance would have been. Anyone who buys health insurance gets a credit on their taxes equal to that amount. Those with earnings low enough that they would have avoided the mandate also avoid the tax in this scenario.

The effect is virtually identical, but it's clearly within congress's power. Of course they took the path they did because raising taxes on the middle class is all but political suicide so it was unlikely to have made it through congress. So they picked their path, and now they have to deal with a congress even less likely to pass a tax increase than the one back when they first made the choice.

PS - My prediction is that the individual mandate is declared unconstitutional. They'll also decide that the parts requiring insurance companies to accept people regardless of preexisting conditions and charge the same amount will be struck as not being able to stand without the mandate. The rest of the law will be left as is.

Re:prediction (0)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567247)

My lovely karma is not going to let me post much longer, but I'll take this opportunity to explain something about constitutionality of the taxes in this case.

You see, Obama promised NOT to raise taxes, so when he was arguing for this health insurance act he was very specifically saying that it is NOT a tax, but it most certainly is, and now the gov't is arguing in front of SCOTUS, saying that it is constitutional BECAUSE it is a tax.

But WHAT kind of tax is it?

There are 2 types of taxes that are Constitutional:

1. Excise tax. This must be uniform.
2. Direct tax. This must be apportioned.

Excise tax must be on sale of a product, but not on not buying a product.

Direct tax, like capitation tax must be apportioned, but they absolutely cannot apportion this among states so that states can pay their share based on their population.

So it's not being levied on anything, not excise.
It's not a direct, it can't be apportioned.

It's not a legal tax.

My prediction is that EVENTUALLY they will declare this unconstitutional (and hopefully so), but my feeling is that they will not do this right now, right now they will delay their decision, I believe Obama has enough pressure points to ensure this during his re-election year.

Re:prediction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39567485)

Ahem, two types?

The 16th AMENDMENT is quite valid, your ignorance of it, does discredit your analysis.

Re:prediction (1)

slater.jay (1839748) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567639)

It's a good thing you posted AC. I'd hate for the mods to try the mental contortions required to call the individual mandate a tax on income, realize it's not possible, and blow your karma out of the water.

Re:prediction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39568141)

Individual Mandate's not relevant to the subject at hand, which was refuting roman_mir's inaccurate representations of the lawful taxes that the Constitution allows to the federal government.

Since the 16th Amendment, it explicitly allows an income tax. I'm sure you see how roman_mir concocted a reason why that amendment was illegal, but as I said, his legal analysis lacks any credibility.

Too blinded by his own fanaticism to even offer a constructive dialogue. Monomaniacal is the best way to describe him and his trolling.
 

Re:prediction (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567665)

Can't reply as myself anymore, but income taxes are illegal and are collected illegally [slashdot.org] .

The amendment is vague in many respects, it talks about 'income' without defining what that is (and people don't have income, only corporations do). In this case [wikipedia.org] SCOTUS declared that income tax was unconstitutional (and that's what prompted Congress to seek the amendment) what the amendment had to do was define excise tax as income or to change the rule on apportioning direct taxes.

That amendment needs to be repealed, and in any case, gov't never had to stand its grounds on defining what income means for an individual, not for a corporation.

Re:prediction (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567827)

never had to stand its grounds on defining what income means for an individual, not for a corporation

They didn't have to. Corporations are people too.

Re:prediction (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567151)

Scotus will most likely delay the decision, it's election year, and Obama has ways to pressure them

OTOH, some of them will see it as a way to strike a blow against the evil Democratic Administration.

but Republicans will have to show their base they are not signing under the mandate being constitutional (and it's not), so it's most likely to be delayed.

Their base (if by "base" you mean all the non-rich social conservatives that they've suckered into working for them) wouldn't have ever cared a fig about the mandate, if their pwners hadn't told them too.

And those pwners kind of screwed up, because their real base - rich people - *want* the mandate, because it will drive up the net worth of the health insurance industry. They just don't want the consumer protections in the bill.

But a more important prediction: [...]

My prediction: SCOTUS will castrate the law, and as an unintended side effect we'll have a single-payer system within a decade. I.e., the worst possible outcome for the class that five members of the court think they were born to take care of.

Re:prediction (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39567231)

Their base (if by "base" you mean all the non-rich social conservatives that they've suckered into working for them) wouldn't have ever cared a fig about
the mandate, if their pwners hadn't told them too.

Mandating insurance coverage is a dumb as mandating homeless people buy houses. Its a bad idea and won't work. - Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoSnqofelsQ

Oh, you didn't know Obama said that did you? Now what was that about clueless Republicans that blindly follow what their leaders say.

Re:prediction (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567447)

Oh, you didn't know Obama said that did you? Now what was that about clueless Republicans that blindly follow what their leaders say.

What makes you think I give a shit, or even listen, when Obama says something?

Not everyone in this country has joined a political party and guzzled the cool-aid.

Re:prediction (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567435)

Hahahah, "unintended" side effect.

Single payer is the goal, and severing the individual mandate is part of that. The only question is why severability wasn't expressly part of the law, since the outcome of severing the individual mandate would collapse the insurance industry inside of a year - if they are mandated to cover "pre-existing" conditions, then there is no incentive for anyone to buy insurance before they are diagnosed with one.

Why pay all the premiums when you can just sign up when you're diagnosed and get everything paid for.

Of course, the premiums would have to rise to the point that it doesn't make sense to bother buying insurance even then. Then, NO ONE will have insurance, so we'll have to do something, and single payer is something, so we'll have to do that.

By not making the individual mandate severable, they seem to have unnecessarily risked the possibility that the entire law will be stricken, resulting in an opportunity for sanity to prevail.

Re:prediction (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567709)

Hahahah, "unintended" side effect. [...] By not making the individual mandate severable, they seem to have unnecessarily risked the possibility that the entire law will be stricken, resulting in an opportunity for sanity to prevail.

OK, maybe it was intended... though I'm reluctant to credit the Democrats with that much savvy.

Re:prediction (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567841)

Why pay all the premiums when you can just sign up when you're diagnosed and get everything paid for.

Why try for a better job when you can't afford to give up the health insurance?

Re:prediction (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567969)

What kind of "better job" neither offers a health care benefit, nor pays enough more than your current job that you can pay for your insurance individually?

I have of people with good health care benefits (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | more than 2 years ago | (#39568259)

I have of people with good health care benefits have the insurance co trying to find ways to get out of paying out when some one got sick.

and yes it's was a cop or fireman plan.

Re:prediction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39567417)

The Surpreme Court will not consider Obama's wishes in the least. You all are forgetting Obama blasting the justices in his first State Of the Union speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k92SerxLWtc

You all may have forgotten this, but they have not. They will not dely decision or do anything else Obama asks.

Re:prediction (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567439)

They will not dely decision or do anything else Obama asks.

Did Obama ask them to delay it? I would think it's to his best political advantage if they strike it down and announce that a few months before the election.

Re:prediction (3)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567559)

And I predict that none of what you predicted will happen.

Scotus will most likely delay the decision, it's election year, and Obama has ways to pressure them

Really? What ways in particular? How is the president able to force the scotus not to act? Are you aware of how the three branches of government work in the US? Do you have any idea what you're talking about in general?

Republicans will have to show their base they are not signing under the mandate

Which they came up with...

being constitutional (and it's not), so it's most likely to be delayed.

Newsflash, dippy. The scotus exists for the very purpose of deciding the constitutionality of laws (as well as some other key functions). Thankfully you are not on the court.

But a more important prediction: if/when this act goes into effect expect many of the companies that have maybe up to 100 people all of a sudden lose half of their employees so not to go over 50 employee maximum after which they have to comply with various provisions.

Thank you for demonstrating so clearly that you have no idea what you are talking about. You might as well predict an invading herd of chupacabra to lay siege to Washington DC.

Why reinvent the wheel? (3, Interesting)

Jazari (2006634) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567173)

InTrade already has a market running on this issue, where you can bet real money: https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=745353 [intrade.com]

Re:Why reinvent the wheel? (1)

slater.jay (1839748) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567651)

More interestingly, intrade (where there's skin in the game) is sitting at ~60% unconstitutional. The market from TFA (where I don't believe there actually is any real skin in the game) is sitting at about 60% constitutional.

Re:Why reinvent the wheel? (2)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567723)

The market from TFA (where I don't believe there actually is any real skin in the game) is sitting at about 60% constitutional.

Without skin in the game, that market is going to reflect which political sites link to it and how many zealous readers they have.

Invalid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39567193)

By showing on the home page how the results are trending, they've already skewed their results! Y'all should read Predictably Irrational. Sheesh.

Ohhh.... Slashdot has been heard.... (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567239)

When I first went on 20 minutes ago, it was showing that it would be found constitutional....now...there is a huge surge to unconstitutional....

Markets suck when emotions involved (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39567325)

This is one of those topics you'll have a strong opinion one way or the other. I'm sure most folks are saying what they "want", not what they logically think will happen. Even those who try to separate the 2 probably can't, due to moral compass skew.

As much as I want to promote my Alma Mater... (1)

r_jensen11 (598210) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567533)

The site seems to be a waste of energy when alternative sources exist with a much greater volume of activity. The prime example that comes to my mind is the Iowa Electronic Markets [uiowa.edu] . I understand the Big Ten rivalry, but why reinvent the wheel? Do they honestly expect to get valuable commentary in conjunction with the votes?

iPredict (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39567615)

If you want to earn money off market predictions, then try iPredict:
https://www.ipredict.co.nz [ipredict.co.nz]

Only place worth 'expressing my opinion' is Vegas (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567643)

And I'm placing odds it'll stand.

Most accurate prediction? (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 2 years ago | (#39567941)

There aren't that many possibilities, really. The scotus can toss it out entirely, let it stand, or remove just some parts of it. They aren't going to rewrite it (that's not their job). Similarly they can't just make their own law in its place. Any other proposed solution is likely even further from the realistic possible outcomes.

Hence the notion of "most accurate prediction" is rather absurd in this case. You get it right, or you don't. The options essentially boil down to A, B, and C. If you answer F, 7, or blue, you likely have no idea what's going on.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?