I find these comments interesting. MP CBO Score
Now I do understand the concept of expressing one's displeasure with a Spouse by withholding sex, conversation, etc. Or punishing a child by taking away a toy that they enjoy or putting them in time out.
But the idea that the GOP is trying to force people to be good citizens by withholding freebies, and allowing them to experience the natural consequences of their poor choices seems silly to me.
By the way, I asked them for their definition of a good citizen and got no response.
"You don't get it---your definition of what a "good citizen" is and what "successful" is are not the same as most of the people here. Your definitions seem to be mostly centered around money and money accumulation as the main measure of worth of a person. Further, the idea that your definitions of those terms is how you want to divide society into the "deserving" and "undeserving" columns is unpalatable to those same people." NealWhat I find fascinating is the Liberal belief that the GOP is trying to "punish people into compliance" somehow by "not giving them free stuff and services" that is paid for with additional taxes on other citizens that are required to be paid?
"What's interesting is the idea that the function of Government in a democracy is to "herd" citizens. Again, your problem is that your notions of capability, responsibility, and self sufficiency are not universally accepted. I keep saying one of the primary characteristics of the reactionary conservative mindset is a rejection of democratic society on a basic level. For all their chatter about individual rights and responsibilities at the end of the day the Republican agenda isn't about participating in the democratic process, it's about capturing the levers of government and using them to force everyone into compliance." Paul
"What does it reveal about Republican preferences? What it reveals about their character and moral fiber is more to the point." Steven
I'd say that the key attribute to their character is an overwhelming desire for conformity to a rigid "moral" standard for which they have christened themselves as the final arbitrator. Their preference is authoritarian in nature and punitive to anyone that doesn't fit their definition of what a productive member of society is." Ian
"I wish I'd written that. Can I copy it and just paste in the future whenever this discussion arises? :)" Paul
Now I do understand the concept of expressing one's displeasure with a Spouse by withholding sex, conversation, etc. Or punishing a child by taking away a toy that they enjoy or putting them in time out.
But the idea that the GOP is trying to force people to be good citizens by withholding freebies, and allowing them to experience the natural consequences of their poor choices seems silly to me.
By the way, I asked them for their definition of a good citizen and got no response.
"What is your definition? Mine is centered around what is good for the USA (ie our society):If anything it seems to me that the Liberals are trying to force American citizens to comply with their beliefs regarding what a "good citizen" is... Unfortunately they seem to have only one requirement:
- Makes good use of society's investment in their education. (ie graduates HS and is proficient academically)
- Obeys the laws of our country (ie drugs, immigration, other)
- Gets financially stable before having children, only has the number of children they are capable of caring for themselves. (ie don't require additional investment from society)
- Both Parents are actively involved in the support and raising of the children. Ensure kids are fed, learn and mature to become good citizens.
- Continues life long learning, works, volunteers, gives to charity, etc to help themselves and our country be all we can be.
Do these seem unrealistic? Rationale?" G2A
- If you learn, work, save, invest and are financially successful, you shall pay a high tax rate to give a cut of your wealth to others who made different choices.
51 comments:
What I find fascinating is the Liberal belief that the GOP is trying to "punish people into compliance" somehow by "not giving them free stuff and services" that is paid for with additional taxes on other citizens that are required to be paid?
I am not a big fan of moralism in politics. I try to avoid a rhetoric that says those who benefit from a certain policy outcome are "rewarded" and those who are negatively affected are being "punished". I don't generally view policies that I advocate as "right" or policies I oppose as being "wrong". I see politics and policy as places where interests clash, but I rarely see one side as necessarily good or the other side as necessarily bad. There are millions of people, I see as "good citizens" with whom I have strong disagreements. There are certainly or or two individuals, and maybe even a half a dozen with whom I agree, but whom I would not describe as good citizens.
For me, a sound allocation of the burden, a pretty vague concept I know, plays a big role. The fact is, the burden of paying for our society often falls on the wealthy, just as the burden of fighting for it's preservation often falls on the poor. Is this fair? Is this moral? Maybe or maybe not, but that is pretty much the way things are. I do know that Donald Trump, for one given a choice, preferred to pay for the Vietnam War through his taxes, rather than fight the war himself. Who am I to say he made the wrong decision? But his choice does remind me that there are things more valuable than money.
--Hiram
"...preferred to pay for the Vietnam War through his taxes."
How do we know this?
Moose
How do we know this?
Because that's what he did.
--Hiram
Hiram,
Since the draft ended in 1973, everyone who has joined the military has done so to better their lives and/or to serve our country. Maybe we should have made progressive taxes optional starting back then also. :-)
Hiram,
I think Moose meant "How do we know he paid taxes?" :-)
Since the draft ended in 1973, everyone who has joined the military has done so to better their lives and/or to serve our country
People join the military for lots of different reasons. I have been reminded recently in my reading that the prestige that the military has in America isn't shared by many other countries. Donald Trump is in Germany right now. He is dealing with a leader there who grew up in a country whose military was a tool of the Soviet Union, and before that, shared in the responsibility for millions of deaths, and the destruction of Europe. Is it any wonder she doesn't share the same view of the military that's now so fashionable in the United States? I doubt if Trump, with his demands that Europeans whose history has taught them to have deep misgivings about the military is fully aware of the political impact on European leaders of his demands that they raise their defense budgets. Not a single home, the Trump family has ever built in Queens has ever been destroyed by carpet bombing. Not one.
I used to raise the issue of whether Donald pays taxes, but that was sort of resolved by Rachel Maddow who produced his tax returns. I have no doubt that property developers like Donald do pay a lot of taxes in various forms.
--Hiram
I think a couple of aphorisms spring immediately to mind:
1. "A democracy only lasts until the people discover they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury." Plato?
2. "The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of everyone else's money." -- Margaret Thatcher
3. "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have." Gerald Ford (and that includes freedom and human dignity)
4. "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." ~ H.L. Mencken (Except liberals always exclude themselves first.)
5. “If you put our federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there would be a shortage of sand." -- Milton Friedman
To the basic question, divide the two parties into a binary set. Democrats are basically socialists, in which we are all wards of the state, and Republicans, who are (barely recognizable, admittedly) Constitutionalists seeking individual freedom.
I am not a big aphorism guy. I read a lot of history and it's made me aware of how often eloquence is just a form of glibness.
"A democracy only lasts until the people discover they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury."
What strikes me about the Republican health care is the blatancy of the ripoff. They literally want to take away health insurance from 22 million Americans in order to pay for a trillion dollar tax cut for rich people. No wonder Trump would rather tweet videos of his younger self body slamming Vince McMahon. If that were my plan, my tweets would exclusively consist of links to cat videos.
--Hiram
Leave aside the aphorisms for the moment; truth is where you find it. Short and clear beats long and convoluted. We are talking about who controls, and your examples make no sense. Apparently Obamacare has insured, at last count, some 10.7 million people. So even if Republicans repealed O'care lock, stock, and stupidity, they would not take insurance from more than 10.7 million people. And I don't care if "rich people" get a $1 Trillion tax break; I am willing to accept that to get 10s of millions of people a $3500 average price reduction on their medical insurance.
And another thing, Trump did not tweet the video; he retweeted it. And then CNN threatened the original author of the video. "Hello, we're Democrats, and we have no sense of humor of which we are aware."
I don't really understand what this post is about so I am going to throw in a link to a column that might be sort of related in a stretch. It is about public vs private responsibilities (written by one of my favorite conservative writers)
Why Republicans Are Losing the Health Care Fight
The CBO says the uninsured will be increased by 22 million. Republicans need that number to work because that gives them the trillion dollars they need to pay for their tax cuts. Who am I to argue?
And another thing, Trump did not tweet the video; he retweeted it.
Some love to argue differences without distinctions. In this case there is neither a distinction, nor a difference.
As someone who thinks a lot about the ways we communicate, something I have noticed about Trump is while he complains about his message not getting through, and that he claims twitter provides him with a way around that, he doesn't actually use twitter that way. Instead of defending his health care plan in a way that would set the tone for the Sunday morning news show, he tweets the wrestling video. This happens so often with Trump, even if he has a point, which I usually doubt, he never seems to get to it.
--Hiram
Hello, we're Democrats, and we have no sense of humor of which we are aware.
For myself, I gave up my sense of humor for Lent several years ago, and I never got around to getting it back. And as for satire, I don't do satire, because satire is what closes on Saturday night.
As for the funny, was the Trump video with McMahon funny. Was it funny when the CNN logo was superimposed on it? Did you laugh? Not being a funny person myself, or one who has very good sense of the funny as perceived by others, I really don't know the answer myself. My perception of Trump generally is that he is the kind of person who thinks he is funny but isn't. Trump's problem is very often what's funniest about him is the lack of self awareness that the joke is on him. It's a common figure in humor, the emperor without clothes,
--Hiram
and there is this, which is sort of related to the link I just posted. It is also about the GOP party and their healthcare bill.
Attack of the Republican Decepticons
My question for John is if people support GOP policy and the direction they want to take the country why do they lie so much about the effects of their policies?
Laurie,
I would be hard pressed to see that writer as a Conservative I think he is even Left of me in the theater.
As for GOP and their "lying so much about the effects of their policies?" I think both sides are guilty of this game, and I think each side's history of taking sound bites out of context has made both of them afraid to speak candidly.
The Democrats keep saying how great ACA is and how much money it is saving... When in reality the cost is just being paid via taxes on others.
The Democrats say that all these "people will die" due to losing their health insurance. When in reality they will still get health care.
I guess my question is why do both parties lie to us so often?
"And I don't care if "rich people" get a $1 Trillion tax break; I am willing to accept that to get 10s of millions of people a $3500 average price reduction on their medical insurance. "
I don't understand those 2 sentences. Do you want the govt to tax the rich to make insurance more affordable for the poor?
Jerry,
Of course you are exaggerating again since most Americans value some level of a Mixed Economy.
"Democrats are basically socialists and Republicans are seeking individual freedom."
As for CNN, I would have happily gone after the people who used their trademark inappropriately in court. I mean that is what Trump would do. And since Tump has deep pockets they may have gotten a good payout. :-)
Laurie,
I am pretty sure Jerry is implying that somehow ACA has increased the cost of insurance by $3,500 per year per customer... Something that he has no source to quote.
Here is an Opinion Piece that may or may not support Jerry's thought.
Of course my view is that ACA drove up costs because more people are covered for more things...
The Democrats keep saying how great ACA is and how much money it is saving... When in reality the cost is just being paid via taxes on others.
The ACA has slowed the growth of premiums, or at least it should. Basically, because the government stands behind the insurance, insurance companies can afford to charge less. But ACA doesn't address the reason why what we pay for insurance is going up which is the aging of the population something that isn't the fault of Obamacare. Republican alternatives increase the risk to health care providers and that will increase what they charge. Risk, like choice, costs. What Republican plans do is shift the expenses on to somebody's else's books freeing up cash on the government books for tax cuts.
Of course my view is that ACA drove up costs because more people are covered for more things...
It also lowers costs because lots of people who now have insurance don't use it. Pure profit for the health care companies.
--Hiram
Obamacare is the classic example of why good intentions do not make good policy. The GOP had the right idea of simply repealing the whole furshlugginer thing and then creating something better, but I think they chickened out, afraid of what Democrats and the media would say about it-- true or otherwise.
And if the insurance companies are making out like bandits, why are they fleeing in droves? If the "ACA" is so great, why are enrollments DROPPING?
John, do I really need a source for common knowledge and official reports?
Laurie, that was a great article; thank you. I disagree only with the degree that the culture has adopted the new "liberal" ideas and forgot the traditional values. The fight the GOP has is somehow demonstrating (not just stating) that the old ways were actually better. It's why I think they should have repealed Obamacare very early this year, so that the new paradigm would be visible by the next election. Done well, it would get them votes for "keeping their promises" from conservatives, and enough "sensible reform" votes from independents to win.
Jerry,
Yes you need a source for this silliness...
"I am willing to accept that to get 10s of millions of people a $3500 average price reduction on their medical insurance."
The reality is that the subsidies and medicaid expansion more than offset any increase for the vast majority of people who are challenged to pay their premiums.
I agree that the middle and upper class rural folks with no pre-existing conditions got screwed, but most others won from ACA. That is why the tax reductions and loss of healthcare funding have had such a notable bite and why the Senate is having such a hard time coming up with a better option.
"The reality is that the subsidies and medicaid expansion more than offset any increase ..."
Source, please. I want to see the math. And having Peter pay the health insurance bill for Paul doesn't count, unless you assume that somehow cost-Peter + cost-PaulfromPeter + cost-Peter < cost-Paul + cost-Peter. It's "I bought mine and I bought yours, and both of us got by cheaper." I find that very hard to believe. Of three things-- cost, quality or number covered-- you can try to control any TWO. Obamacare "thinks" it can control all three and fails.
BTW, speaking of "who controls," was Charlie Gard forced to die by the British single-payer system? I thought that was today.
Of ACA improved...
Cost for many low income people and pre-existing condition folk by charging others more.
Availability /timeliness for many low income and pre-existing condition folks by charging others more.
And Quality likely stayed the same or got better because rural areas could afford to have clinics, hospitals, etc.
There is no doubt that ACA blatantly robbed from all the Peters and gave it to the Pauls... That is my only real heart burn with ACA. Otherwise it was overall a good idea.
I think Sean's Improvement Ideas would be better than repealing ACA.
As for Charlie Gard, it seems to me that terminating life support is the correct things to do.
And it looks like it has nothing to do with their single payer system.
It is so strange that you are happy to rob people of healthcare insurance to give wealthy people tax breaks and yet you are concerned about an 11 month old brain damaged infant and want to let people use him as a lab rat.
"Otherwise it was overall a good idea."
How would anybody know it was a good idea? We heard lots of promises and good intentions, but we had to "pass it to find out what's in it" and we did it without a single Republican vote. If it had any merit at all, wouldn't at least one Republican have signed on? The insurance companies are bailing out. The rollout of the exchanges was deeply flawed. Average premiums have gone UP an average of $3500. People are dropping out of Obamacare because they cannot afford it. Only half the people expected to be covered did so, and we only expected half of the uninsured to get it. Over 1 million people in Texas alone paid the penalty rather than buy something they didn't want and couldn't afford. Nobody understood the thing well enough when it was passed, I fail to see why we should try to untangle it now. Just ditch it and start over.
As for Charlie Gard, it is STRICTLY about their system. The boy, regardless of his state, is being kept against his parents' will and by ruling of the government courts. Had things not changed (today), his death would have been ordered by the courts. Who should control in this tragic situation, the government or the parents?
Please remember that the majority of Americans approve of ACA after years of living under it.
Actually the court is acting upon the guidance of the medical professionals. Just as we do here when the Parents want to do something that is deemed harmful to the child. In this case the Parents are recommending a path that has little hope and is putting the child through pain.
Well, 86% of people were happy with the system BEFORE the ACA, too.
The parents first asked to be allowed to take the child home to die and were denied. Then they asked to be allowed to take him for alternate treatment and were denied. Once the "medical professionals" decided he had to die "for his own good," they seized control that did not belong to them. They essentially acted as a "death panel," regardless of what was in the best interest of the child OR of the parents morally and (it used to be) legally responsible.
Sorry, just looked at the link. "Given what you know about..." It isn't surprising that you get to 50% approval. Most people are either uninformed or un-impacted by the law, or most likely both. The best evidence we have says that 10.5 million people approve, because they have signed up rather than paid the penalty. Put everybody else in the "approve or indifferent" column.
And what is this "rob people of health care to give tax breaks to the rich" meme? Shouldn't you liberals find a new talking point every decade or so?
Now back to some actual facts and data. Pre ACA Gallup Poll
Please remember what I have been saying... ACA did little to change healthcare in America, it mostly changed who was paying which bills.
"Americans are broadly satisfied with the quality of their own medical care and healthcare costs, but of the two, satisfaction with costs lags. Overall, 80% are satisfied with the quality of medical care available to them, including 39% who are very satisfied. Sixty-one percent are satisfied with the cost of their medical care, including 20% who are very satisfied."
""Close to 4 in 10 Americans (38%) -- by far the largest percentage mentioned for any issue -- cite the cost or affordability of healthcare as the nation's biggest healthcare problem.""
Now with almost all low income people getting additional fiscal support through expanded medicaid or the subsidies, I am assume cost is less of an issue for them.
As for the other issues. Please refere to Sean's proposed solutions
And now I am a Liberal again...
"rob people of health care to give tax breaks to the rich"
This isn't an opinion it is just a fact... The rich and most all of us who pay income taxes are paying more... And that money is paying for the medicaid expansion and the subsidies.
If one stops the funding source... The medicaid expansion and the subsidies go away unless another funding source is found.
Let's consider Sean's suggestions. I didn't want to be rude, but notice the language-- "extend subsidies ...[to cover] rising premium costs", "increase penalties", "institute a public option", "payments where there is low competition."
Don't those sound like they are all INCREASING government's control, stifling competition and arbitrarily driving total costs UP? Isn't the question of "who pays" one of government control versus individual freedom and responsibility? With a single payer system (which is what Obamacare intends to be) in which government pays for health care, do they not get to control your life and tell you that you cannot smoke or drink or vote Republican?
If one stops funding for, say, Medicaid, then the Medicaid program gets less. It does NOT mean that the rich get any benefit at all. There is no linkage except in the mind of liberals. Pardon the insult.
If, on the other hand, one slows the rise of Medicaid funding by adding efficiencies and "targeting" the most needy, how is that a bad thing? So on both ends of this meme, there is a hatred of anything and everything that doesn't increase government control. And remember, Medicaid as it is is the largest contributor to the debt and deficit, while producing essentially zero benefits for the recipients. Rightfully the whole program should be phased out and replaced with something better. A "public option" as Sean suggests and just following the words not Sean's meaning, might be one such solution. I'm thinking it would be some sort of "premium support" arrangement, or perhaps a refundable tax credit for purchase of private insurance.
I never have quite understood the benefit of drawing a line between something and how we pay for that something. In real life, the cost of things has an impact on the choices we make. It's a factor in a decision to go to the cabin for a vacation, and not to Europe. In health care, financial considerations are at play all the time. It's why we have some things and don't have others. It's why Mitch McConnell with his government paid health care, feels so comfortable in putting the health care of others who aren't lucky enough to have government jobs, at risk. As anyone who has dealt with insurance companies knows, what insurers will pay for and how they will pay for it, routinely affects care decisions.
Generally speaking, Republicans govern badly because they allow political considerations to blind them as to how money works. This insistence that health care and how we pay for it are not intertwined is just one example of that.
--Hiram
By the way, another odd thing I see a lot is the equation of having an opinion with having a bias. When did that happen?
==Hiram
Jerry,
Since the taxes were added specifically to fund ACA, and they would be removed with the repeal of ACA... I think there is a pretty clear linkage in this case.
If the taxes were added specifically to fund the ACA, then repeal of those taxes would be a budget neutral arrangement if the expenditures were also eliminated. So, putting taxes back the way they were is somehow a "tax cut for the rich"? The ACA taxes were unfairly targeting the rich? Both, or neither?
And how much in taxes should government be spending before we cross into "forced compliance" territory?
Yes it would be budget neutral... And from this point in time it would be a tax cut..
As I keep saying, the successful folks would save money and the unsuccessful folks would lose their medicaid and subsidies.
Remember where this discussion has been.
"rob people of health care to give tax breaks to the rich"
As for whether taxing the Rich to pay for Health Care of the poor is "fair" or "unfair". I think it is likely unfair and yet necessary / effective since us citizens are not willing to make bigger different changes to eliminate poverty in our country.
So, putting taxes back the way they were is somehow a "tax cut for the rich"?
If it isn't a tax cut for the rich why not just leave the money in Obamacare?
But again, this is why Republicans govern so badly. They think see issues like health care and tax burdens can be meaningfully solved by quibbles and plays on words. Semantics can't cure the flu.
--Hiram
I keep saying, the successful folks would save money and the unsuccessful folks would lose their medicaid and subsidies.
Depends on what you mean by success. Lots of people who many people see as successful are broke. Donald Trump who many regard as a succesful businessman went bankrupt four times. On the other there are lots of people who have led rather ordinary lives who are in fact quite wealthy.
As for whether taxing the Rich to pay for Health Care of the poor is "fair" or "unfair".
Lots of things are fair and unfair. Was it unfair that Trump was wealthy enough to find a doctor who would get him out the army during the Vietnam era? It's arguable. Is it fair that the men and women who put their lives on the line today in the middle east are paid less than daughters of rich guys who market costume jewelry? Who really gets the better of the deal. Taxpayer who may for the military, or the wealthy folks who pay their wages? Where does the fairness lie?
--Hiram
Fairness lies not in equal outcomes but in equal opportunity. Those who have a rich Daddy and know how to make jewelry will fare better than those with no capital, two kids and no work ethic.
So, let's talk real terms. Under the AHCA, Medicaid funding would increase roughly 50% in 10 years. Everyone now getting it would be grandfathered in so nobody "loses their health care." Things are turned back to the states, who have proven capable of more efficient and effective management. So, are the people claiming "people will lose health care to give tax cuts to the rich" lying, or simply repeating spurious Democrat talking points?
Jerry,
Keep believing as you wish...
Healthcare requires money to pay the bills.
If the successful folks pay less, there is less money to do so.
Even quite a few of the GOP Senators have figured that out. (ie latest post)
Healthcare requires money. Well said, but it makes the glaringly erroneous assumption that the only way to deliver health care is exactly the way it is done today. As I've said before, four changes would reduce our total costs by about 50% without affecting quality. So should we NOT do those things, just because we might be able to lower taxes for somebody? I'm not understanding the reasoning, here. It looks like an attempt to keep a political argument alive, regardless of what the "right thing to do" might be.
Please feel free to share these again.
"four changes would reduce our total costs by about 50% without affecting quality"
I'll post them as Jerry's Healthcare Improvement ideas, so do a good job with the rationale.
Anyone who has spent time in the system sees ways to save money. America's health care system is structured to generate fees. That's the result of a Darwinian natural selection process, since it's a fee based system. The practical problem in undoing this system is quite simply immense since it means undoing the assumptions at the very heart of the system that are incredibly beneficial to incredibly powerful and wealthy people. It's like emptying an ocean one teaspoon at a time.
--Hiram
It is also beneficial to many many millions of citizens who are employed in or indirectly benefit from the expensive and complicated system.
From research labs to implantable companies to healthcare employees to IT companies to Accounting firms to insurance companies to companies near all of the above and on and on.
The money doesn't just disappear into the pockets of wealthy people. We just have a whole lot of well paid people in the system.
Actually, they aren't mine; they come from a Mayo study many years ago. They are:
1. Eliminate first dollar coverage. Every use of the system costs /something/ (a copay, IOW).
2. Eliminate fee-for-service. This is the big one. Rather than doing what is the quickest and best treatment, doctors are led to do what pays the best or, more likely, to add on something unnecessary just to cover their costs.
3. Eliminate third-party payers. Forget single-payer. Everybody pays their own fees or buys insurance on their own. If they get a stipend or a tax credit to do so, that's their own affair.
4. Eliminate defensive medicine. The malpractice system is out of control and drives up costs, not directly, but indirectly.
To that we should add, now, deregulation of the health insurance industry. If I want, I should be able to buy a "catastrophic only" policy, or open an HSA or "prepaid care account," without government telling me I can't.
"We just have a whole lot of well paid people in the system."
And yet that marketplace is badly distorted by government regulation. Medicare tells doctors they can only get, say, $250 for an appendectomy (I have no idea, but) the doctor doesn't make a penny unless he charges at least $500. So he makes it up somewhere else or refuses to do it. If the doctor could charge, say $550, he might get "rich," but do we really want to hire the low-cost bidder for something like that?
And by law, all insurance companies in Minnesota are "non-profit." Why would anybody get into that business?
In fact, the whole idea seems illogical to me. If we had a free (or mostly free) market in health care, prices would be set by the millions of individual choices and implicit contracts made between providers and patients-- sellers and buyers. The best and/or scarcest goods and services would make those providers "rich" and everybody else would enter the market at the point where they saw a beneficial exchange, or exit the business for lack of business. Absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Post a Comment