Muzman on 23/3/2010 at 04:42
I don't have numbers but from experience I'd wager welfare and such constitutes a relatively small portion of your taxes, and for that matter, the state budget.
The only developed nations to spend less on welfare, nationally, than Australia was always the US and Japan. And we bitch constantly about it, don't you worry. It's all about self important moral outrage and easy targets.
Rug Burn Junky on 23/3/2010 at 04:50
That's a different argument altogether. Long term welfare is a whole nother kettle of fish.
The problem is that it poisons the well - the economics of health care are entirely different than mere subsistence level welfare. Healthy people subsidizing the sick is because of, as I said, risk allocation. That's true whether you're talking about government run health care, or private insurance - the only difference is who's running it, but it doesn't change the basic equation.
But even so, you're overblowing the welfare costs. The amount of money paid is still a fraction of taxes, even at the state level. And the number of people abusing the system that you notice is a further fraction of the people who actually take advantage of the safety net in good faith. Your resentment is understandable, but it's also irrational.
Vae on 23/3/2010 at 04:53
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
The only problem is that you're the one who passed along "Klein is a left winger" to impune his motives as partisan - the very definition of an ad hominem.
If it had been an article by Shaun Hannity, I would have mentioned that he was a right-winger just the same.
Quote:
Never mind the fact that it's ultimately utterly fucking misguided - Klein himself is liberal, but he's ultimately a pragmatic moderate (full disclosure, he's also dating my GF's college roommate). FDL however, which you held up as "non partisan," is pretty fucking far to the left. Much further than Klein, so Klein's criticisms were centrist and moderate in comparison, and far less "partisan."
Yeah, that's great logic. FDL is a left publication, so that means that every article from every writer must be left biased...give me a break. Jane Hamsher wrote a fair, insightful fact sheet on the key mechanics of ObamaCare.
Don't believe me? Then perhaps you think that I'm a left-winger?...:ebil:
Quote:
So, no matter how many times you want to say that you're not participating in partisan tactics, clinging to anyone who criticizes the bill as non partisan while engaging in ad hominems against those that support it says otherwise.
So now I'm a right-winger?...:confused:
Quote:
On top of that, nobody in this thread has gone further in clinging to ideological talking points in furtherance of their positions than you. It's clearly obvious to me that while you may have done much digesting, you've done little critical thinking on your own.
:laff:...Nothing could be further from the truth.
The only problem here is your prejudice towards those that you are unfamiliar with.
Quote:
Oh, and on that point, that lame "38 states against obamacare" thing you keep linking to - you do know that PR Newswire isn't in fact a news service? It's a press release. A decidedly partisan press release. That really kinda fucks your credibility on this one.
So you think that many States aren't preparing to file legislation against ObamaCare? Really?
Well then, here is a map with the corresponding state legislation. (
http://www.alec.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=ALEC_s_Freedom_of_Choice_in_Health_Care_Act) USA MAP
Epos Nix on 23/3/2010 at 05:31
Quote:
The economics of health care are entirely different than mere subsistence level welfare.
How so? In both cases one group of people pay more so another group of people can get a free (or cheaper) ride. If everyone paid into the health care system equally, as should be the case with a risk allocation system, I'd agree with you. But seeing as it's based on income, with higher income families paying more than low income families, it is almost identical to the taxation system that is supporting welfare. (which, btw, South Carolina paid $45 million on food stamps alone in 2005 for anyone saying welfare is a small chunk of change)
Add to that the fact that anyone making a decent wage can easily get cheap health care in this country, and it furthers the idea that public insurance is merely to support the poor. Keep in mind that our government could have easily made sweeping changes to the current way our health care system works (ie. coverage denials, etc) WITHOUT this public insurance mandate.
(And mind you, I have nothing against supporting those who truly can't support themselves. I just wish provisions would be put in place that would limit exactly how long or under what circumstances people could take advantage of those systems that I help pay for so that they can't be easily abused. I mean, would it be so much to ask that a woman who has 4 kids, all of whom are being paid for by the state to go to school, attend day care, have their food and clothing provided for, and are practically given a house to live in to stop having kids, and in fact be penalized for having more? Again, move to South Carolina and you will see that situation repeated amongst more people than you can count.)
Matthew on 23/3/2010 at 10:58
Certain people keep throwing around a nullification issue from the states regarding this bill. On another forum I visit, it was pointed out to me that the last time this was tried (which was apparently around the time Eli Whitney's cotton gin came out), it was ruled as being unconstitutional. Is that correct?
SD on 23/3/2010 at 11:17
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
I live in South Carolina. Here, productive people subsidize the lazy bastards who shit out kids. This bill merely cements that ideology.
Don't you think it's odd that the assholes who oppose this bill are the same assholes who oppose measures that would cut the number of people on welfare, such as sex education in schools, better access to contraception and wider availability of abortion?
Rug Burn Junky on 23/3/2010 at 11:56
Quote Posted by Epos Nix
How so? In both cases one group of people pay more so another group of people can get a free (or cheaper) ride. If everyone paid into the health care system equally, as should be the case with a risk allocation system, I'd agree with you. But seeing as it's based on income, with higher income families paying more than low income families, it is almost identical to the taxation system that is supporting welfare.
you're looking at this way too superficially. Yes there is an element of progressive taxation in the system - there has to be, there is too much disparity in income not to, and if we only "insured" in such a way that everyone could afford to pay into the system equally, the system would be insolvent. But that's not the point. If we removed the insurance system, healthcare wouldn't exist in this country - because the number of people that could afford to actually pay for the expensive care wouldn't be enough to justify the framework necessary to support it. You need an insurance system in the first place in order to have a functioning healthcare system. That's not the case with welfare. So welfare is a case of "generosity," whereas health insurance is a case of necessity - you personally wouldn't even have the option of purchasing healthcare out of pocket if the demand curve wasn't smoothed out by insurance. It's in everyone's best interest to insure a maximally functioning system, which means maximum participation.
Quote:
(which, btw, South Carolina paid $45 million on food stamps alone in 2005 for anyone saying welfare is a small chunk of change)
That's chump change in the context of a state budget. And if you break it down by those that are using it in good faith and those that are abusing the system, the amount that you're complaining about declines further.
Quote:
Add to that the fact that anyone making a decent wage can easily get cheap health care in this country, and it furthers the idea that public insurance is merely to support the poor. Keep in mind that our government could have easily made sweeping changes to the current way our health care system works (ie. coverage denials, etc) WITHOUT this public insurance mandate.
No, and no. There are severe roadblocks in place now for many to get coverage, and even people WITH coverage are being dropped as soon as they make a claim. That needs to be stopped.
But if you remove those barriers, you have a free rider problem. People who happily swim along without health insurance as long as they're healthy, but then just buy "insurance" only once they're sick. It's like waiting to see who wins a game before placing a bet, and the only way to prevent that is to insure that everyone signs up for insurance BEFORE they get sick by providing incentives to do so. Because once they DO get sick, and hop into an insurance plan that they now can't be turned down from, you can be damn well sure that they won't be paying nearly as much in premiums as they'll be receiving in care. The mandate is a fraud prevention technique. Since you seem to be so personally affronted by people gaming the system, you should be happy about it. Well, other than the fact that the people that they're worried about gaming this system includes yourself, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence.
If you'd care to actually educate yourself on this instead of just kneejerking, you can start with (
http://www.amazon.com/Uncertain-Times-Kenneth-Changing-Economics/dp/0822332485) Kenneth Arrow.
---------------------------------
And Vae, you're a joke. I'm quite familiar with Hamsher's work, and read her fact sheet before it was even posted here. There's no way you can paint that as "non-partisan." She is most assuredly criticizing the bill from an extreme liberal perspective. That's not to say that she doesn't make a few fair points, but unless you think the Public Option is a non-partisan solution that you'd support (the reason she dropped support for the bill in the first place), you have a hard time making the argument that it isn't, and an even harder time painting her as less partisan than Klein. She wants a much, much, much stronger bill. The only thing she has in common with you is that she's delusionally unrealistic, given the present political realities.
I don't think for a second that you're a left winger, what I think is that you're so deluded that you're willing to paint any CRITICISM of the bill as non-partisan to bolster some illusory claim of your own that you're not driven by ideology on this issue. That however is belied by the content of your posts. You are spouting the weakest of conservative/libertarian platitudes. This is not prejudice against someone I don't know - this is simply basic reading comprehension and a recognition of the cartoonish level of thought displayed in your posts so far.
And really, linking to a conservative libertarian nutjob site isn't doing you any favors. But since you did, you should actually take a look at what's on that site. "Filing" legislation is meaningless. All it really says is that in 30+ states, you have at least one nutjob senator willing to propose this legislation. So fucking what?
Passing legislation is what matters. Passing legislation and then actually following through with a suit matters more than that. Winning that suit? Good luck with that. I mean, you never know with the Roberts block on the court, but really, telling Congress that they're not allowed to impose an income tax surcharge is still pretty unlikely. But hey, keep dreaming. it's kinda cute.
CCCToad on 23/3/2010 at 14:54
Greenwald put up a good point on his blog about how ironic it is that the Republicans are decrying the bill as a threat to Democracy, when they themselves believe that , in his words,
Quote:
For years, the explicit GOP view of public opinion was that it is irrelevant and does not matter in the slightest. Indeed, the view of our political class generally is that public opinion plays a role in how our government functions only during elections, and after that, those who win are free to do whatever they want regardless of what "the people" want.
.....
That's why the GOP (with substantial Democratic help) funded the Iraq War indefinitely and without conditions even in the face of massive public opposition. It's why the Wall Street bailout was approved by both parties despite large-scale public opposition, and why a whole slew of other policies favored by majorities are dismissed as Unserious by the political class. The Washington Post's Shailagh Murray explicitly said that public opinion is and should be irrelevant to what political leaders do because people are too ignorant to have their views matter
karmaKGB on 23/3/2010 at 14:54
Quote Posted by Vae
Lots of things that don't make sense.
Oh look! I can do that too!
Seriously though, there's no point (from my perspective) in adding anything on the objective policy side of things (kudos to others for actually doing so). I won't argue with you because you've so obviously made up your mind, despite actual evidence to the contrary. Not to mention the fact you continue to link to and/or quote right-wing hacks.
My original misquote of you was simply the obvious play on what you said. You are the only one here who cares about the left-wing/right-wing labels. Clearly, you don't self-identify as right-wing, but your arguments are very consistent with that side of things. I imagine that you believe your views are centrist and logical and unassailable. Maybe you even believe that you're part of the "silent majority". But you can't be a centrist if you MAKE UP FACTS or POSE YOUR OPINIONS AS FACTS.
As an elementary school teacher, I'm actually quite aware of the difference between fact and opinion.
You, evidently, are not.
Stitch on 23/3/2010 at 15:21
As usual, Ruggums could charge money for his work in this thread. I've followed this health care debate pretty closely and I'm still learning quite a bit from his posts.
Well done.
