Bush hates kids. [Archive] - Chicago Improv Network

Scol

01-25-2008, 04:35 PM

Texas Georgie likes to wear cowboy hats and speak in Yee-Hawisms, but in truth, he is a blue blood. His Mommy raised him to believe in the inherent superiority of the American aristocrat class. I have no trouble picturing him dressed like Little Lord Fauntleroy, licking a giant lollipop. He would certainly have flaunted his lolly in front of poor kids.

When he attended Yale, he was known to lecture any fellow ivy-leaguer who would confess to liberal guilt regarding their own massive wealth. This spoiled, sheltered, arrogant little fuck is a true believer. All those cartoony skull and bones snobs you see depicted in second rate college comedies were his cronies from day one.

These are people who were spoon-fed the bullshit of the so-called Scottish Enlightenment and the mean-spirited novels of Ayn Rand. They are smugly positive that they were put on this earth to own everything. This, to them, is morality. Born on third base and convinced they just hit a triple, the very idea of social welfare of any kind is abhorrent to them. It flies in the face of their greedy version of Manifest Destiny, revised for the 21st century.

This is the true constituency of the Bush administration. When he denies health care benefits to children, he is sending them a message: "Don't worry, I'll always be with you." He doesn't care about being fiscally conservative. His only concern is absolute wealth, absolute power, greed as a virtue. In his world any concern whatsoever for the poor or needy is considered the pinnacle of immorality.

Bush and his little gang of thugs are basically the same people who drove France to a bloody and murderous revolution. Let's hope it doesn't come to that. I know I won't be chopping off any heads. But I doubt I'd cry if I were to see Bush's evil noggin on a spike in the town square. He would probably laugh if he saw mine.

Only about 169 more shopping days until Bastille Day.

mrandy

01-25-2008, 08:26 PM

Your 2007 Federal Budget

$586.1 billion (+7.0%) - Social Security $5,000 billion short fall in trust fund.
$548.8 billion (+9.0%) - Defense +115 billion supplemental
$394.5 billion (+12.4%) - Medicare $30,000 billion short fall in trust fund between Medicare and Medicaid
$367.0 billion (+2.0%) - Unemployment and welfare
$276.4 billion (+2.9%) - Medicaid and other health related
$243.7 billion (+13.4%) - Interest on debt
$89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training
$76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation
$72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans' benefits
$43.5 billion (+9.2%) - Administration of justice
$33.1 billion (+5.7%) - Natural resources and environment
$32.5 billion (+15.4%) - Foreign affairs
$27.0 billion (+3.7%) - Agriculture
$26.8 billion (+28.7%) - Community and regional development
$25.0 billion (+4.0%) - Science and technology
$23.5 billion (+0.0%) - Energy
$20.1 billion (+11.4%) - General government

National Debt roughly 9 trillion dollars.

Is it wise to begin another entitlement program, when the two largest entitlements are 35 trillion dollars in the hole? Compared to such large numbers, 35 billion (additional) seems like a drop in the bucket, but to effectively pay down the debt (which I believe will eventually help children more since all we're doing is billing them later for their 'free' healthcare). The State of Ilinois has already mangled reimbursement to the point, that private physicians limit the number of public health patients they will accept and it is creating two types of healthcare the best in the world for anyone paying cash and government clinic level for those that promise a check from the government is coming. It will take actual hard choices, at most $150 billion could be slashed from everything beneath debt interest. After that you have to either raise taxes in a manner that cannot be evaded and won't cause business to reincorporate elsewhere, cut defense significantly (which I agree with) and lower social security, unemployment, welfare, medicare benefits. Currently the plan seems to be to 'phantom' tax the average worker by monetizing huge amounts of the debt and fueling inflation and coming out ahead by spending the money when it is worth something and putting it back after its worthless. At this point the only thing guaranteeing the currency is a bankrupt goverment and the willingness of it's bankrupt citizens to work for the paper. The federal government has mismanaged and squandered perhaps the best 60 years of prosperity in the world and ended up behind, so I'm against giving them more money to mismanage. Also the link between smoking and uninsured children doesn't exist and tobacco is a declining revenue stream. President Bush was somehow dumb enough to accidentally get this right.

Scol

01-25-2008, 09:23 PM

No, "President" Bush did not get this right.

You made no mention of corporate welfare in your Federal Budget, which usually takes the form of massive tax breaks, abeyances, and other sleazy loopholes for the mega-mega-mega wealthy.

How about we make the wealthiest corporations pay their federal taxes? How about we invest in the people at the bottom of the socio-economic shitpile, instead of constantly kissing the asses of those at the top, who claim that they will take their ball and go home if we don't?

The federal government is US. Yes, we elect officials who mismanage. That's our fault. We have a system in place that allows us to correct that. It's called democracy. Corporations have no vested interest whatsoever in the safety and well-being of the citizens of this country. But, we're actually allowed to hold our government accountable. We should be demanding free healthcare for everyone. To hell with numbers, and how they can be twisted and distorted.

Do you think of police protection as an 'entitlement?' Do you think you should pay the cops everytime you're mugged or robbed?

Healthcare an entitlement? Bullshit. It is a RIGHT.

Hawkins

01-26-2008, 11:12 PM

Healthcare an entitlement? Bullshit. It is a RIGHT. it's neither, it's a service. A commodity, like anything else. It's how hospitals and insurance programs can stay in business in the age of lawsuits.

Nor should it be FEDERALLY funded, get your state or city on it, but a FEDERAL program would be economic disaster

Most school systems have good insurance for low income families.

several states have already expanded S-CHIP these expansions are what's causing these states to have shortfalls

from the Heritage Report on S-Chip
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/wm1381.cfm

The law defines as "low income" those children whose family's income is below 200 percent of the Federal poverty line (FPL), or $40,000 for a family of four. Of the 14 projected shortfall states, seven have set SCHIP eligibility above 200 percent of the FPL. Of those seven, four states (Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New Jersey) are at or above 300 percent of FPL, or $60,000 for a family of four.so at one income level do we tell parents to pay for their own?

In the 2006 guidelines for S-Chip, and it says that four times the poverty level for a family of 3 in the 48 contiguous states and D.C. would be $66,400. For a family of four, it's $80,000.

This would be expand a program designed to help the poor to created taxpayer funded health insurance for some folks who I don't think can be called "poor" by any stretch of the imagination. They may not be wealthy, they may not be having an easy time meeting their expenses, I don't think they're supposed to be the beneficiaries.

Also it's not even covering kids anymore

Moreover, some of the projected fiscal year 2007 shortfall states use SCHIP funds to cover adults. Five of the 14 shortfall states—Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin—cover parents, pregnant women, or childless adults. According to the General Accountability Office, "Adults accounted for an average of 55% of enrollees in the shortfall states" in fiscal year 2005. Okay, if you're a nonpregnant, childless adult, why is your health insurance being covered by a Children's Health Care plan?

Before we expand an abused program, how about properly applying the funds already being used

Bush made the right responsible move

mrandy

01-28-2008, 12:50 PM

The reason corporate welfare isn't listed on the expense side of the ledger is because it's simply taking less money not an outlay of additional money. Here is the income side for 2007
.
$1,163 billion - Individual income tax
$869.6 billion - Social Security and other payroll taxes
$370.2 billion - Corporate income tax
$65.1 billion - Excise taxes
$26.0 billion - Customs duties
$26.0 billion - Estate and gift taxes
$47.2 billion - Other

We both agree that government is horribly mismanaged; but disagree on whether or not it should get more money.

In the case of Senator Clinton. She proposes taking what she values at 50 billion in incentives away from the energy companies and creating a clean energy fund. That money won't just be reannexed without consequences. First, the energy companies will likely shrink their own research budgets. If both private industry and the government were to race to clean energy I think private energy would win due to the fact that their budgets and careers are based on results, not intent. What would constitute failure for the $50 billion clean energy fund at the government? Secondly, if $50 billion is taken from the energy companies I assure you it will be taken back in the form of higher gasoline and natural gas (and in turn, electricity prices). It is just shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic.

Now back to healthcare. It is a slippery slope, and it's a question that we can only ask now that we're in the October/November of the American empire. Where does it stop? Is it just physical health, or do we reopen mental health wards? How much right do you have over your medical health records and conditions? If repealed, can insurance companies cherry pick even more than currently since all your prexisting conditions would be revealed through Govcare. Would doctors (and possibly pharma) be given the blanket immunity that Government enjoys against court action. Since they would be acting as agents of the government? Would privately held medical equipment be seized and moved through a hideous version of emminent domain to create a balance per capita of MRI/Catscan/lab equipment or would the wealthier districts have defacto better healthcare. Doctors are leaving school with record debt. Would illegal immigrants be turned away? Would the government embursement offset those expenses? If not, will it lead to a shortage of medical professionals? Would doctor's be allowed to choose where they live and practice or would they be basically conscripted into service? And if all the privacy and rights of doctor's are upheld, how is it any different than now where the people that live in the best areas get the best care with the inverse being true for the poor. It's not like a former mastermind of benefits administration from BCBS is running or would be running this, it would be a body of self and district serving politicians and probably laden with earmarks. I think should visit a few government clinics before choosing that through vote proxy for their healthcare since it is far more likely to drag everyone's care down towards that, than up towards the Mayo Clinic.

mrandy

01-28-2008, 12:50 PM

sorry duplicate

Scol

01-28-2008, 03:47 PM

Of course healthcare is a complicated problem.

What amazes me is that it is still not widely (enough) viewed as a moral imperitave. Regardless of the difficulties in enacting it, to not do so should be totally unacceptable.

America, the wealthiest country the world has ever known, is ranked 37th in the world regarding healthcare. That is an outrage.

America is the only developed nation not providing universal healthcare. That is an outrage.

Viewing this through the prism of insurance company profits is draconian. We passively accept the massive outsourcing of American jobs, but we still worry about these parasites? This is supposedly some sort of capitalistic paradise, yet we're frightened of experiencing ecomonic collapse if we turn the tide on the health-profiteers?

Over forty million Americans have no insurance. Spin that all you want. Viewing healthcare as a "commidity" is reprehensible. That is a typical right-wing view-that somehow, people have to "earn" the right to live decent lives. What have the legacy babies, whose wealth is entirely inherited, done to earn anything? Why is someone born into a stable family, with genuine education options, more morally-endowed than someone born into poverty?

Everyone has numbers to wave around. I'm certainly not going to trust the propganda-soaked figures of the Heritage Foundation, but that's really beside the point. A moral imperative transcends figures.

Bush is gumming up the works because he is ideologically opposed to providing any extra square inch of social welfare, because it means taking a few extra dollars out of the hands of greedy pigs. He has never been fiscally responsible. Why in the world is this used as an example of his prudent wisdom?

mrandy

01-28-2008, 04:44 PM

Healthcare as a moral imperative assumes that all people have a set of morals that create that imperative. Your basic stance (correct me if I'm wrong, of course) is that we must institute healthcare at any cost. Healthcare sadly does cost money and that is the source of our disagreement. I take particular umbrage at the statement that this 'imperative' transcends the actual laws of mathematics. I haven't been to the doctor recently but moral imperative wasn't a billing option when I went.
Now onto the irrelevant cost of this moral imperative. The other industrialized nations, have a vastly smaller (or in many cases) non existent militaries. Let's for the sake of argument that healthcare plan would cost at minimum what Medicare likely runs. Medicare had a budget of 394.5 billion covering 43 million people. Which is a cost of $9100 per covered. Now with 300 million people, that means universal health should run in the neighborhood of 2.75 Trillion dollars per annum (roughly equal to the total spent by the federal government in 2007). Our 2006 GDP was 13.13 trillion. So a Government mandated program will cost roughly 20% of everything we create and do. Then the question comes as to how to pay for it. Since basically it would require cutting EVERYTHING at our current levels of revenue.
There aren't enough loopholes to close or accounting irregularities to stop to try to find enough money to do this. It would be nice if everyone could walk in and get free healthcare, but free healthcare isn't free. Old people shouldn't be lonely. Returning veteran's should get free houses. Everyone's home should be heated by burning good intentions. I don't see much progress beyond our current disagreement of 'I want it' vs. 'We can't afford it'.
I get my information from those right wing Nazi's at Wikipedia from some kook that got it from the Federal Office of Management and Budget.

Hawkins

01-28-2008, 06:05 PM

Everyone has numbers to wave around. I'm certainly not going to trust the propganda-soaked figures of the Heritage Foundation, but that's really beside the point. A moral imperative transcends figures.

So in other words you're going dismiss any reasonable fact based data because you've labeled something a "moral imperative"

I want to know why it's a "moral imperative" now to require government to foot the bill and wasn't in 60's, 70's or 80's or the 19th century.

If the government is going to foot the bill for your healthcare, why do they then not have the right to dictate what you can and can't do to keep your body in good health or void coverage? If I'm healthy and you're not due to your own behavior, why do I have to foot your bill?

Nonprofits and government hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.

Now that being said, if you apply a higher tax percentage to the people who would use this governmental service instead of those using private insurance companies, and could find a big government agency that could handle the red tape, I have no issue with that.

Scol

01-28-2008, 07:26 PM

Your argument "Why do I have to foot the bill..." is inherently selfish. You (we) foot the bill for roads, public schools, police protection, libraries and much, much more. You (we) foot the bill because it makes society a better place. Everyone benefits. It is extreme arrogance to take the stance that "Because so and so has an unhealthy lifestyle, I'm not gonna pay for it." Tell that to a kid with leukemia.

Why wasn't this a "moral imperative in the 50's, 60', 70's or the 18th century?" Who says it wasn't?

Of course, that was before the HMO's moved in, and healthcare costs skyrocketed. What a great system that's turned out to be.

And by saying that non-profits and hospitals provide certain services, are you actually suggesting that this means that everyone has access to decent healthcare?

I called out your figures because of the cherry picking that ensues when an ideoligical debate is backed up by the "facts" that you choose to distort. It's a pissing contest, and an empty one.

And I reject the argument that we can't trust the federal government to properly make this work. By extension, that puts the private sector on a pedestal as a paragon of efficiency. Let's ignore, for a moment, all the malfeasence, corruption, and incompetency that is also part of that legacy, and focus on the fact that the private sector has NO VESTED INTEREST IN THE WELL BEING OF THE POPULATION. And maybe that's how it should be. They're in the business of profit. And nothing else.

Which means we need a strong federal government, one that is accountable to its people, to stand in opposition to the excesses of the private sector. And, flawed as this instituion may be, that's the one who should be funding universal healthcare. They're the ones with the resources, the checks and balances, and the, yes, moral imperative, to do it. I'm not living in a dreamworld here. I know how fucked up the government is. We have the means to do deal with that.

What means do we have to deal with big business?

I'll tell you what. The courts. That's right, the place where all those lawsuits happen, the ones that cause insurance companies to lower benefits while driving up prices. Republicans are constantly screaming about tort reform. Outraged that big business is held accountable, and get hit where they live?

And again, I know damn well that this process is heavily co-opted, that the floodgates open, and frivilous and unjust lawsuits abound. But, just how did those floodgates open in the first place?

Don't bullshit me with numbers. I refuse to believe anything other than healthcare as a right. How can we have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if we're denied the chance at a decent life because of economic circumstances?

Do human beings have inherent value? Or, must they claw their way through the economic battlefield to get medicine for their children?

I say, shame on everyone who believes the latter.

I quit this topic. I have better things to do. Like take a piss on my copy of Atlas Shrugged.

mrandy

01-28-2008, 08:43 PM

Eventually, there isn't any money. This is a country that has failed to fully fund public spending programs which would be most similar (social security and medicare). Presuming you're satisified with government as it exists, it is roughly a 5 trillion dollar budget (medicare and medicaid roll into the new program). Now it's a budget that is 38% of GDP. 38% of GDP that feeds only the eldery, heats next to no one, puts a roof over no ones head, and has the same level of crumbling infrastructure.
Corporate tax rate is 35%. How high can you push it until business leaves, 40%, maybe 46% (where it stood in the less competitive 1986). Okay now 370B goes to 500B assuming business doesn't leave. Individual income tax would have to double. Whatever you pay now just double it. Also the home interest decuction would have to be removed. After all they are the landed gentry. That should get another 1.4 trillion on board. Medicare isn't free the people on it pay a premium monthly. At minimum $216 /mth. What ever you withhold for medicare, change to roughly $43/week + $21/ week if you are lucky enough to work you have to cover 1/2 an American whom for whatever reason can't. Social Security witholding stays the same, but remains underfunded. Cut the DOD in 1/2 and you are roughly in the ballpark. Until, our economy which is 70% consumer activity finds that the consumer has 30% less money, I'll ignore the effects on the publicly traded companies since the are evil and the jobs they create have completely ruined the lives of everyone they have touched, but tax revenues will decline. Lowered tax revenues and a spiraling stream of revenue will make our debt less attractive to our foreign benefactors who buy our bonds (to finance our staggering national debt) for security, not because they think we are cool.
We don't have enough rich people for them alone to shoulder this. Even the entire net worth of the Forbes 400 richest people, couldn't cover it, for even a year even with all their considerable money. If you lower the rate of return enough through taxation it will eventually become unattractive for people to invest capital. Which again hamstrings innovation and job creation.
If you want it, tell me better how to fund it (in spite of hating numbers). Bring up specific sources of revenue that you feel can be tapped within a vacuum to protect the greater economy. Or if you prefer you can hide behind your shield made of children with leukemia.

Scol

01-28-2008, 09:11 PM

I wanted to be done with this, but I'll throw in one last response.

Oh, no question it's a mess. Our system is so screwed up, to even approach this would take years. A borderline quagmire.

(By the way, I resent the statement, 'Hiding behind the shield of children with leukemia.' That is insulting. Tearing down moral outrage is, at best, smug.)

Also not buying the idea that insisting on higher taxes from the wealthy hamstrings innovation and job creation. That's objectivist thinking. If they want to take their ball and go home, fuck 'em. In a true capitalistic economy (as opposed to an oligarchy), someone else will come along with a new ball.

I'm sure I'll get torn apart for my "naive" suggestions. But I don't buy the fact that there is no money. What? You rebduget. You restructure. There has to be a way to fund this. But it may have to be somewhat radical, and it's easy to sneer at such notions. When this president wanted a war, he got one. It's draining our economy, which exacerbates this problem (I believe that to be part of the design), but, we can spend billions on an unjust war, but we can't provide healthcare. Is that really the case?

Once you get rid of the notion that is supposed to be profitable enterprise, as opposed to a public service, don't the costs automatically go down? Why are people going to Canada for drugs, bypassing the American companies? Why have health costs gone up so dramatically (an understatement) since the HMO's began privatizing the whole thing?

Okay, just a handful of ideas:

For one thing, get rid of the tax shields for corporations, as well as individuals. And, yes, raise taxes on the wealthy too.

Get the fuck out of Iraq.

Legalize marijuana and tax it.

Tax the church. They've been getting a free ride for hundreds of years.

Economists could (and have) come up with more, and better answers than these. They're examples. Feasible? In this climate, I don't know. Possible? Of course.

Now, I'm really done. My argument is ideological. Apparently, the idea that our policies are so egregiously wrong that they are unacceptable, isn't enough. This is a forum, not a power point presentation being put before congress. We're supposed to be a great nation. A true leader would do what Kennedy did when he said, we're going to the moon in ten years. Get it done.

There's no way that this is impossible. Get it done. (I can already see the insults being directed at that statment).

The rest of the developed world has already accomplished it. Why aren't we studying what they're doing right? Are we so enmeshed in our own wrong doing that the very notion of cleaning it up is unthinkable?

Now, my detractors are welcome to the last word. I'm sick of this.

mrandy

01-28-2008, 09:30 PM

I did neglect a couple of points in favor of this.
It does free the money spent by companies and individuals on their own health care. Doubtful that it would trickle down to the employee, as they would have a massive hole in their balance sheet. It would bail out the health spending areas of countless pension plans, which are honestly going to self destruct, probably even with the help.
Total healthcare spending as a nation was 2 trillion in 2005 (a group in favor of universal care www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml )and has been rising at a 6% clip (understating the 7.7% from the same prouniversal source). Therefore it is 2.38 Trillion that needs funding, removing elective surgery and including procedures not done due to lack of coverage and medicine not taken due to finances an argument could be made that 2.75T is overstating the case, but I think it can be agreed that it's a ballpark figure.
I attribute the inflation partially to monetary policy. Also, the lower percent of GDP listed for other countries reflects their emphasis on prevention, their stronger currencies, but I don't see providers taking a 40% paycut either. So whatever we pay now would likely be the starting point for what we pay them in the future.
I'm not saying healthcare no, I'm saying healthcare how? We're far less far apart than you would think. Given the choice between guns and butter, I prefer butter (The Clinton surpluses were created by his peace dividend that cut the military 30%). I agree on the marijuana point, as it is one way to bring something that has existed in a vacuum within the shadow economy. 2.75T is an incredible amount of money. It is bigger than the economies of all but 3 nations (US 13T, Japan 4.3T, Germany 2.9, China will catch and pass at 2.6). If those that support it get what they want, I hope that they are up to the task since this agency has the control of the world's 5th largest economy for one slender purpose. And the penalty of mismanaging that is likely the destruction of considerable wealth and fiat currency system. And the US bureaucracy doesn't seem like the best horse to bet in that race.
You see possibility and I see consequence, nothing wrong with either just looking through different glasses.

Hawkins

01-29-2008, 12:02 PM

Your argument "Why do I have to foot the bill..." is inherently selfish.so is asking me to provide something that you should be providing for yourself. Trying to be magnanimous in your justification doesn't make it less selfish. I have the right to economic self-preservation

Again, if you're a performer at a theatre, ask the theatre to provide it for you. Go from there. Why is it my moral imperative, and not there's?

You (we) foot the bill for roads, public schools, police protection, libraries and much, much more. You (we) foot the bill because it makes society a better place. Everyone benefits.no we foot the bill because it will ultimately benefit us personally. I need roads, a school, police protection and libraries. I don't need to pay for your health care, because I have it.

It is extreme arrogance to take the stance that "Because so and so has an unhealthy lifestyle, I'm not gonna pay for it." Tell that to a kid with leukemia. His parents should be paying for insurance. Also, leukemia happens in nature, it's a terrible thing, but it's true. We don't get to choose when we die.

Of course, that was before the HMO's moved in, and healthcare costs skyrocketed. What a great system that's turned out to be.

And by saying that non-profits and hospitals provide certain services, are you actually suggesting that this means that everyone has access to decent healthcare? Who gets to choose what's "decent" and what isn't. New technologies cost money. Pharmaceuticals cost money. Therefore people with more money should have the most access. Is it fair? No. But show me something that is fair.

I need transportation, but I don't get to select if the government provides a bus or a BMW

I called out your figures because of the cherry picking that ensues when an ideoligical debate is backed up by the "facts" that you choose to distort. It's a pissing contest, and an empty one. Fine, then prove the figures are wrong.

And I reject the argument that we can't trust the federal government to properly make this work. By extension, that puts the private sector on a pedestal as a paragon of efficiency. Let's ignore, for a moment, all the malfeasence, corruption, and incompetency that is also part of that legacy, and focus on the fact that the private sector has NO VESTED INTEREST IN THE WELL BEING OF THE POPULATION. fine, but let's also remember all the good things corporations have done for the land also. Corporations and the private sector are subject to market forces and have a vested interest in the population because it's the population that buys their goods and buys stock, or else they don't stay in business

And maybe that's how it should be. They're in the business of profit. And nothing else. Yes

Which means we need a strong federal government, one that is accountable to its people, to stand in opposition to the excesses of the private sector. Already have it, we turn it over every four years. You want a government that's accountable to the people, that was the purpose of Congress.

What means do we have to deal with big business? power of the purse

I'll tell you what. The courts. That's right, the place where all those lawsuits happen, the ones that cause insurance companies to lower benefits while driving up prices. Republicans are constantly screaming about tort reform. Outraged that big business is held accountable, and get hit where they live?

And again, I know damn well that this process is heavily co-opted, that the floodgates open, and frivilous and unjust lawsuits abound. But, just how did those floodgates open in the first place? People felt they had the right or "moral imperative" to sue and be taken care of life because a doctor got a diagnosis wrong.

Don't bullshit me with numbers. I refuse to believe anything other than healthcare as a right. How can we have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness if we're denied the chance at a decent life because of economic circumstances? no one's denying you the chance at life. It may be uncomfortable, but it doesn't say the right to a comfortable life.

Do human beings have inherent value? Or, must they claw their way through the economic battlefield to get medicine for their children? Welcome to the suck. Take care of yours and by extension we already take care of almost everyone. It's the few that don't that we should concern ourselves with.

I quit this topic. I have better things to do. Like take a piss on my copy of Atlas Shrugged. So your debate strategy is to demand things, say you won't listen to an opposing voice, take your ball and go home.

Here's my question: do YOU have healthcare, because if you don't wouldn't it makes your debate...selfish.

Biddle

01-29-2008, 05:56 PM

Jeff,

I reject almost all of your core philosophies. I think it's why I so rarely agree with anything that you write about politics or the world. For easy reference, here's a short list of things that you just posted that I most fervently disagree with...

(Yes, I am paraphrasing, but I think I am holding true to your core principle)

-You have no obligation to hold any concern for the health and well-being of any other human being.

-The market will out. Stop buying products to force your will on a company. If their sales dip low enough, they'll come around to the will of the people.

-The elections are the best system for people to put change in effect.

-Quality of Life isn't a concern for anyone but the individual. People should just be grateful to be alive. It's naive and pointless to want to live a comfortable or happy life. Being sick for the rest of your life or being terminally ill is irrelevant because in the end, we're all terminally ill.

-People with more money get to enjoy better lives, because they can afford to live them. Social programs to equalize the huge deficit between the "haves" and the "have nots" are inherently unfair to the "haves", who technically should have more rights, because they can afford them.

-Corporations are good and do good things for the country. And this has gone on relatively unchanged for the last century.

-Welcome to the Suck.

Jeff,
I can't state more clearly to you how repellant I find these ideals to be. I know I can't change you. Or make you more empathetic to your fellow man. If 30+ years of life haven't done that for you yet, then nothing will. I don't know.
The good news, though, is that you're aging and the chances for you to enjoy exposure to illnesses, disease and the guaranteed, natural breakdown of the human body is on the horizon for you. Maybe you're edging into heart attack country or maybe your kidneys have called "last call" or maybe your eye sight is getting dimmer and dimmer and dimmer and you'll get to put your theories to the test.
My only wish is that some young, brash, pro-capitalist is around to actually say, "Welcome to the Suck" to you, when you're actually... you know... in "the suck".

With All Due Respect,
COB

speedymarie

01-29-2008, 06:37 PM

The point of a society, of a civilization, it to band together to take care of each other. Go back to where societies began, back to tribes, and then mental move forward in a natural progression.

The society allows people to specialize in providing services to the group and to pool resources. I, working alone, could gather enough food, and water, manage my animals and crops, sew my own clothes, to the point that I could live alone and just barely make it. However, if I band together with others, I can focus on one project, like food gathering, and I could gather more than I needed, and trade that with someone who would give me milk from their animals, and with someone who sewed clothes with furs they traded with someone else to get, etc, etc. In this manner of specializing and sharing, less energy is expended to accomplish more work (switching from job to job takes more time and energy than focusing). This surplus allows a society to have specialists who don't produce goods but instead provide services, such as priests and medicine men, who are "paid" in goods or taken care of by the society they serve.

Would such a society allow an orphaned child to starve? Would a sickly woman be ignored because she couldn't gather food to trade to the medicine man? No - the society as a group takes care of each other, and when one is temporarily unable to contribute, others pick up the slack, knowing that at some point in the future, a time will come when THEY need help, and they would expect the society to provide it.

Extrapolate out to modern society. You pay taxes because your money, joined with everyone else's money, can accomplish more for you and for society than your money could alone. Things like bridges, roads, research, police and firemen, etc. It would be less effective if, in order to get your burning house put out, you had to pay the fireman directly - but whoops, all your money is inside your burning house! Too bad. Or the police didn't save you from a mugger until you paid their fee. Or the city wouldn't build the road through your neighborhood until they were able to collect the road-building fee from each household. Sometimes your taxes go to things you, personally, don't need at the moment. But sometimes, you also get more than your share out of something. What about all the people who pay taxes that go to the CTA, who don't ride it? What about all the taxes I pay for road work, when I don't have a car?

Claiming that taking care of our fellow man, insuring that everyone has as good a life as possible, is not a moral imperative, strikes me as uncivilized. Would you stand by and watch a mugger beat up an old lady, or a house burn with a person inside who needed help? Would you feel no requirement to offer aid or assistance? Can you really sit on your laurels and believe that because you were born into a family that wasn't dirt poor, you some how deserve a better life than someone who was unlucky enough to be born without money or a stable family?

Do you have insurance through work? Do you actually know how much your company pays per year for your insurance? The premium you pay out is probably only about 10-20%. Why do you have that group insurance? Because it's cheaper to buy insurance in a group than it is to get it on your own - it's also much easier, because they essentially can't turn you down. Buying private insurance is much more expensive, and you can be turned down for almost any reason if the insurance company thinks you are going to "cost" too much (I had a friend who was turned down for being on an anti-anxiety med, and had to get State of Illinois insurance. She makes good money, but couldn't get private insurance.). So for those people whose jobs don't offer insurance, or the many, many who are self-employed (like my friend), what do they do?

If the money your company paid in insurance premiums was instead paid directly to you, it could then be paid in taxes to go towards health insurance. If we all put that money into one giant fund, along with what already goes into Medicare/Medicaid, it would go towards covering everyone. I don't have figures available on what we pay out to insurance companies now, but I imagine someone can find that. You likely wouldn't be paying that much more, if any, in taxes. It's just a redirection of funds.

Someone mentioned "Medicare had a budget of 394.5 billion covering 43 million people. Which is a cost of $9100 per covered. Now with 300 million people, that means universal health should run in the neighborhood of 2.75 Trillion dollars per annum." This is false, because costs don't increase like this. Most of the cost isn't care, it's administrative, and those kind of costs go down when you have more people in the pot, so the per person cost goes DOWN when you add more people.

mrandy

01-29-2008, 07:52 PM

As a counterpoint, I will gladly bet anyone that the law of diminishing returns applies in terms of efficiency gains when moving from 43 million people to 300 million people. If you haven't figured how to lower costs at the 43 million threshold I doubt that 300 million will show some undiscovered talent for efficiency. Medicare officially claims only 2% administrative costs, this is harldy the bulk of their costs or they are liars. They already have the national infrastructure in place. Which will need to be ramped up to deal with the greater population covered. They may save money on administration by getting things largely wrong as noted in this congressional report http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d011141t.pdf (The Office of Accounting and Oversight)
where under test call situations Medicare 'professionals' gave correct and complete information 15% of the time, incomplete information 53% and were ENTIRELY wrong 32% of the time. Unless this level of service is acceptable than my national cost figures are likely understated if anything.
I fail to see any appreciable savings nor do I see any reason to believe that fraud will not go up proportionally. In an industry where 6 figure bills wouldn't raise an eyebrow and the adjusters would have no impetus towards lowering the bottomline I wouldn't be shocked by fraud in the neighborhood of $150B a year. If the cost overruns of the military disgust you, it would be nothing compared to what would be crammed under rug of 'caring for your fellow American'. If they deny a claim they would lose that money to their department and be considered callous. There is no incentive for the government to lower cost, and once a government shutdown could cut off a maintenance medication then the whole nation is truly over the barrell. I've seen what the Federal Government considers prudent when they don't have the ability to hold your medicine hostage.
The rallying cry of the prouniversal is to tout the 47 million uninsured, therefore to bring their standard of care it will be subsidized by the currently insured, unless the standard of care is brought lower and insured pay at the same level for proportionally lesser care.
The same level of money, only everyone gets equal shares lowers the value of those that already had their hand in the jar, otherwise you have to fill the jar even more almost definitely at the expense of those that already had coverage. To disagree is to lean towards healthcare as a non- zerosum industry, the argument is possible but I for one would need convincing on whom would take less money and how much less.
My major points which can be attacked alone or as a group.
1. The government has no profit motive, but also has no motivation whatsoever to contain costs.
2. It is the expense side of medicine and care that is out of control.
3. Administration would be at the typical level of most government programs, which is not a compliment.
4. For those uncovered they would get more and those currently covered less for their money.
5. A universal health program would be used as a bargaining chip against taxpayers during the construction of budgets.

My argument is not that people shouldn't have healthcare, it is that the Government is somehow being given the job after singularly looting every single trust, providing hideous customer service, dubious accounting, massive fraud, numerous conflicts of interests, no motive or consequences for wasting money and a rotating management by design at an increased fee for everyone currently privately covered. If you were shopping for insurance would you consider such an organization, then why are people so excited to tie all our healthcare needs to it.

Hawkins

01-29-2008, 07:58 PM

-You have no obligation to hold any concern for the health and well-being of any other human being. you are responsible for you and your family and maybe your friends

-The market will out. Stop buying products to force your will on a company. If their sales dip low enough, they'll come around to the will of the people. The Will of the People is fickle. Most people would want a million dollars, doesn't mean it's the job of a government or corporation to provide that

-The elections are the best system for people to put change in effect. They're a system, the rest is on people. It's not up to the government to make societal changes that infringe on the rights of one people to benefit another

-Quality of Life isn't a concern for anyone but the individual. People should just be grateful to be alive. It's naive and pointless to want to live a comfortable or happy life. Being sick for the rest of your life or being terminally ill is irrelevant because in the end, we're all terminally ill. Quality of Life is entirely dependent on the viewpoint of the individual. It's not naive or pointless, but it's not the government's job to make sure you're happy.

You want more stuff, work harder and change your lifestyle. You want family, you may have to sacrifice career, etc.

-People with more money get to enjoy better lives, because they can afford to live them. no they have access to better goods and services

Social programs to equalize the huge deficit between the "haves" and the "have nots" are inherently unfair to the "haves", who technically should have more rights, because they can afford them. It's not the government's job to make things fair for the poor by punishing the rich, they are part of the "equal under the law" just because they have more doesn't change this

-Corporations are good and do good things for the country. And this has gone on relatively unchanged for the last century.
my argument was corporations have done a hell of a lot of good for this country

-Welcome to the Suck. well, this one you may have me on. But we all got our baggage. It's not my responsibility to carry yours because you may not feel like it.

If everyone took care of their own and themselves, then the TRULY helpless people would have the resources.

The good news, though, is that you're aging and the chances for you to enjoy exposure to illnesses, disease and the guaranteed, natural breakdown of the human body is on the horizon for you. Maybe you're edging into heart attack country or maybe your kidneys have called "last call" or maybe your eye sight is getting dimmer and dimmer and dimmer and you'll get to put your theories to the test.

We're all on our way out, plan accordingly

Miss Mason

01-29-2008, 08:13 PM

My point in posting this was not to debate wether or not children deserve free health care. All humans do. How much would you estimate is the value of your life? How much would you pay to keep it? How much would you charge someone to help them keep it. Is it morally right to charge what ever you can for something just cause some one is willing to pay it? What about those with no resources?

I am not asking us to pay more taxes or even for the government to raise taxes. While Bush spoke about earmarks and congressional spending last night in his state of the union I thought it's simple to solve these problems. Let's just re-appropriate the money we already collect (even thought that's all corporations would have to do to remove this burne from the government) ...just spend less on CEO salaries and move it to employee health care. If corporations won't do it the government will have to.

OUR SCHOOLS AND UTILITIES ARE SOCIALIZED. As the only "modern" country in the world with out socialized medicine, we need to look at those models. I know our Schools need reform but you can't just come out and say, If we socialize medicine the government will ruin it like they did our schools. I went to a public school. I'm a decent, educated person and I can't afford healthcare, how is a child supposed to? All things human at this point in history could use reform, that is not the debate here.

The question is, do we value human life?

speedymarie

01-29-2008, 08:53 PM

Hawkins,

You sound exactly like my fundamentalist Christian, Republican aunt that I argued with for 2 hours at Christmas. Some of the exact same stuff came out of her mouth. I was literally dumbfounded by the selfishness and callousness of some of what she said.

I didn't get anywhere with her, and I doubt any of us are gonna get anywhere with you, either.

mrandy

01-30-2008, 01:08 PM

What cost is unacceptable? While I'm sure I'll win no one over the unacceptable cost is systemic economic risk. It is the process where insuring everyone could be (I'm not saying it would, but it elevates the risk enormously) worse off in the attempt to make them better off. The consequence of redistributing 20% of the GDP centrally would have consequence, and without bumpers on the expense side would continue to grow, even with the bumper the demographic shift (the graying of America) will balloon costs.
On the first tier; doctor's and healthcare professionals would likely unionize and couldn't be replaced (like the air traffic controllers), but they will organize to make sure that the sacrifice does not include their lifestyle. We don't have more doctors to replace them with. So their cost is static or growing throughout the tenure of the program.
With medical equipment and pharma there is a chance for savings at the cost of those companies that provide those items. It will destroy the worth and value of those publicly traded companies (which are widely held in most retirement plans and pensions). It will put politicians in the position of deciding which businesses live and die (I'm sure you could care less whether Grandma gets a Stryker or a Zimmer artificial hip) There will only be one of each product. Lipitor or Zocor, kill Merck or Pfizer and then kill whatever the dead company had in the pipeline. These businesses provide a lot of jobs, and the newly overstretched government will not be able to bridge them since they are down the money they would have paid in payroll taxes and funding a monster new program. Biotech is dead on the table, since it is a venture capitial business with high risk/reward and the reward just left town. Basically either we buy everything at current rates/ or near current rates or American medical innovation would be dead on the table. So if you have a disease that has a cure great. If you have one where we don't, I'm sorry but the R&D budget isn't there. The healthcare sector is 11.6% of the Wilshire 5000 (the broadest index of stocks), and it will drop and destroy tremendous wealth and personal savings. The collateral action is other industry would be lessened but still significant.
But what if we just pay everyone? America is the best in the world and everyone deserves everything. Well the disease would be better than the cure in that case. The costs would balloon and it would be underfunded creating the inflection point where our debt becomes unattractive until maybe the 8% mark and rising. The influx of scared money domestically from the equity market would be outstripped by foreign holders leaving. The dollar goes the way of the Weimar currency, and extremists internally would gain traction in spreading the venemous blame to areas wholly unresponsible. America has only been able to sustain sacrifice for 5-10 years at a time before the average person wants what they've been led to believe is their God given right of prosperity with no effort, health with no accountability for their choices, and equality for all so long as it's a lot and they have a way to get a little more than their neighbor.
The only way this works is if America is a far more disciplined nation capable of sacrifice that lowers their own standard of living for the sake of a singular goal that is monitored by an equally disciplined and purely goal driven government that is above influence and has the ability to police its own workers and works. Maybe you live in a different America than I do.
Is what we have now perfect, no. But could insuring everyone lead to insuring no one and then attempting to rely again on an infratstructure that was intentionally destroyed, yes. And just the fact that chance exists should give people pause.

Biddle

01-30-2008, 04:43 PM

Mr. Andy.

First, please consider spacing between your paragraphs. It's not a super big deal, but I've skipped all of your previous posts because they look super-dense and unimpregnable. If you want to be better understood, please help make that easier for your readers. (It's a small point, but something that no one else had pointed out, I bet.)

Second, there is A LOT of speculation in what you wrote there. I mean, A LOT. Doctors MIGHT unionize. Pharmaceutical companies MIGHT go out of business. By insuring everyone now we MIGHT not be able to insure everyone later. Grandma MIGHT need a new hip.

It seems to me that all of this speculation about what MIGHT happen has goaded you into accepting an unacceptable position - Change might have a high cost, so change isn't worth considering. We're not talking about Universal Health Care here. We're talking about expanding a program for sick kids to include more sick kids. Which doesn't mean me or you or anyone reading this message board.

And not to ignore the things that you're rebuttling there (charging pharmaceutical companies or "giving money to everyone"), but the SCHIP program was to be funded by increasing taxes on cigarettes. That's it. I can't see how that would have harmful to pharmaceutical companies and doctors and prosthetic companies at all.

Let me ask you this - who in this country should the US government provide health care assistance for, if not for poor, sick kids? Seriously, is there any group that needs help more than them? They can't work or receive health care from work. Their parents aren't working, so they can't provide health care from work. And no social program in the country is funded well-enough to provide them any sort of coverage. Add to that, they're living in destitution and are much more likely to get sick, or suffer environments that propegate health risks for them. They're in dire, dire situations there and likely to get worse.

Who, in this country, needs government assistance more than poor, sick kids?

COB out...

mrandy

01-30-2008, 05:47 PM

Hawkins

01-30-2008, 05:47 PM

Is it morally right to charge what ever you can for something just cause some one is willing to pay it? What about those with no resources? But it's not morally wrong either.

I think the whole problem is you're tying to associate a moral code to a commodity. That's like saying "should all people have plasma tv's or cars" It makes quality of life better, but it is not necessary for human survival.

Let's just re-appropriate the money we already collect (even thought that's all corporations would have to do to remove this burne from the government) ...just spend less on CEO salaries and move it to employee health care. This seems rather simplistic Rachel. It's up to the stockholders to set the amount a CEO gets, if the stockholders choose to put more money towards the laypeople, that's their business.

Let's put it in other terms, are you willing to ask Charna to take a pay cut to start paying teams at IO so they can pay for healthcare?

Then why make this demand of any other business owner?

If corporations won't do it the government will have to.Isn't that true fascism? What keeps me from moving my corporation elsewhere?

OUR SCHOOLS AND UTILITIES ARE SOCIALIZED. They're monopolized. You start giving businesses the right to fight for the electrical dollar and school vouchers, they'll be better

Our utilities and schools stink because of a lack of competition

As the only "modern" country in the world with out socialized medicine, we need to look at those models. I know our Schools need reform but you can't just come out and say, If we socialize medicine the government will ruin it like they did our schools. I went to a public school. I'm a decent, educated person and I can't afford healthcare, how is a child supposed to? All things human at this point in history could use reform, that is not the debate here. Public schools have insurance programs on the cheap for students while they are enrolled. I went to public schools, I've taught in public schools (before selling out to the man). While earmarks and the like can use reform, so could people's fundamental way of thinking.

My father was in the service, so I've also been privy to the military medical system. Between that my private doctor is like the differences between going to McDonald's and a nice steak. But both are considered "healthcare"

Why not improve one's skills so that they're marketable enough to go to a job that provides healthcare? Why not put a cap on malpractice suits when no malfeasance is there?

Your main obstacle, which is near impossible, is to convince me that socializing medicine will make it BETTER for those of us who already have coverage. Because in the end, we're going to be the ones sacrificing.

Why would I give up my healthcare for you if I'm going to end up getting worse treatment?

Why would a doctor not want to make money in a free market system?

The question is, do we value human life? Again, this question is irrelevant to the debate, people live many fruitful years without healthcare. The value of human life and how we value it is not dependent on healthcare. There's too many people and too much expensive technology to give it away, it's a monetary issue and like any other investment you have to show that it will produce positive results (ed. fiscally)

Biddle

01-30-2008, 06:17 PM

My argument against the construction of the initial bill, was it states that uninsured children are the responsibility of smokers. No amount of circular logic will make that true for me.
If it is everyone's responsibility, then everyone pays. A construction of a bill like that for children would face much less resistance from me, except to my smaller government sensibilities.
The concept of healthcare as a 'right' caused me to expand my argument to include that scenario of universal health. I dealt in the speculative since that's all I have. I would be love to wrong, since neither party addresses what might; only what should or worse yet 'What we deserve as Americans'.

Q. Who, in this country, needs government assistance more than poor, sick kids?
A. Homeless veterans. Everyone has their own opinion though.

Q. If all children are equal as humans, why treat American children when vastly more 3rd world children could be saved with the same amount of money for basic nutrition and immunizations?

Dude, this bill wasn't about Homeless Vets. It was about poor, sick kids. Are you saying that you were holding out your support for the bill because the vets aren't getting enough support?

If so, why didn't you say any of that in the first place? Why all the obfuscation about "the cost of the program to companies"?

This isn't about companies suffering (they won't) or Homeless Vets (that's a separate bill and a separate discussion thread). It's about a program that was deeply under-funded to provide minimal health care to poor, sick kids that Bush vetoed because A.) he wants to show the world that he's still can do that and B.) the tobacco lobby fought hard against this and C.) he really doesn't see the actual repercussions to his veto - less health care to poor, sick kids.

Q. If all children are equal as humans, why treat American children when vastly more 3rd world children could be saved with the same amount of money for basic nutrition and immunizations?

Well, Andy, because these are American taxes being used for a program that was put in place by American government to take care of poor, sick American kids. It's not set up to feed "All The Children" of the world. They have their own governments to take care of them.

Let's not lose focus here, Andy. We're talking about a program that was already in place, albeit dramatically underfunded, and this president, single-handedly vetoed it's expansion for what reason? To protect smoker's rights? Why would he do that?

mrandy

01-30-2008, 06:41 PM

Your question was openended.

Q. Who, in this country, needs government assistance more than poor, sick kids?

I answered your question, that I believe that homeless veterans would be higher on my list. It is not the absence of veteran's affairs coat-tail legilation that causes my dislike of the bill construction.

This was the American government billing smokers for an unrelated problem to them. It is the legislation of cowards who don't feel secure enough in the benefit of their own program to ask Everyone, to pay for it and instead billing an unrelated group of people. If everyone wants it, everyone can pay and my list of reservations is much smaller. Better yet, let's try to find the money within the existng budget.

Q. Do you believe that uninsured children are the fault of tobacco smokers?

Miss Mason

01-30-2008, 07:25 PM

Bush Hates kids and Vets. Under his administration more vets have gone without. Vets get treatment though at VA hospotals. Children's memorial hospital also takes in every child regardless of coverage. That hospital literally surves on donations. Shoudl it have to just cause it can.

You said:
I think the whole problem is you're tying to associate a moral code to a commodity. That's like saying "should all people have plasma tv's or cars" It makes quality of life better, but it is not necessary for human survival.

ARE YOU SICK! Equating TVs with Health Care? If I had cancer would you hand me a remote?

You said:
It's up to the stockholders to set the amount a CEO gets, if the stockholders choose to put more money towards the laypeople, that's their business.
Let's put it in other terms, are you willing to ask Charna to take a pay cut to start paying teams at IO so they can pay for healthcare?

YES I HAVE! A sick employee is a bad employee. I just fought to get coverage for my spouse too. All americans deserve health care. ESPECIALLY SICK KIDS or the DISABLED, like VETS!

You said:
If corporations won't do it the government will have to.
Isn't that true fascism? What keeps me from moving my corporation elsewhere?

That's simplistic. Fascism? I want socialized medicine NOT Facism. You Pubs are all the same. Twist words.

Fact. Kids who can't earn money to pay for health care should get it for free.

Miss Mason

01-30-2008, 07:26 PM

Q. Do you believe that uninsured children are the fault of tobacco smokers?

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

I hate everyone.

You know what? No one deserves health care. We are all squandering life and should all fuck off and die.
What a pitiful bacteria we are on the planet. Not even willing to help each other.

What a shame.

Hawkins

01-30-2008, 08:03 PM

Fact. Kids who can't earn money to pay for health care should get it for free. but as stated, this bill would expand health coverage to more than kids, and even to kids on non-taxpaying residents

I have no issues with kids, even though their insurance can be HIGHLY subsidized by school systems, just close the loopholes for everyone else

mrandy

01-30-2008, 09:12 PM

Hmm, given the concession that Hawkins most dislikes the scope, my biggest beef is with the funding. But I don't think either of us hate the ends. Would this be a bill that everyone could at least live with? Look out here comes compromise!

All children under age 18, that are American citzens and uninsured by family or otherwise, and whose family income is no more than $50000 (indexed to CPI) would be granted health coverage. Those families making between $50001-$75000 may purchase a partially subsizided partially covering ONLY the children scaled according to income. (specific policy language excluded)

The coverage will be funded by lowering the standard deduction for all Americans by $250 for a single person or $500 for married and filing jointly. For those that itemize their deductions, they will lower their total deductions by the same amount $250 for single or $500 for married and filing jointly.

Any amount collected in excess of the appropriated $6 billion dollars addtional per year will be allocated to the Medicare Trust Fund. If the costs of the program exceed the budget within the next five years, then the program is subject to an independent forsenic audit and given one year to balance their books or the program will be suspended.

Biddle

01-30-2008, 09:26 PM

Andy,

That actually sounds pretty reasonable to me. I particularly liked the bits about accountability for the funding for the program. If they don't make budget, then the program is suspended. That'll control waste and encourage the program administrators to keep down extraneous costs.

I know that this is just a dumb message board and that we don't actually bring about change on this, but I still think it's cool to see people on opposite sides of the idealogical aisle come to some sort of agreement about ANY political idea. I can't remember the last time that anybody compromised about anything in Politico.

Kudos to everyone involved for keeping the hysterics to a dull roar and for the conversation not devolving into "Fuck you!"/"No, Fuck YOU!" etc. I'm really impressed by that.

Nice work, Mr.Andy. That was a smart solution to the problem that we were discussing that neatly addressed everyone's concerns about the program. (Even if that wouldn't entirely work as is, the solution that you presented looks like a really smart "first try" at it.)

Nice job, Politicos!

COB out...

Hawkins

01-31-2008, 12:06 AM

Hmm, given the concession that Hawkins most dislikes the scope, my biggest beef is with the funding. But I don't think either of us hate the ends. Would this be a bill that everyone could at least live with? Look out here comes compromise!

Actually my biggest problem is funding, I'm just bending a bit on scope if you can guarantee me the loopholes for funding are cut. My concern is they won't and if this is approved this is the "give an inch" that will allow Congress to take a mile.

Parents should be providing insurance for their kids. Period.

I can see the occasional fluke "dad died and now I'm stuck" story that will be carted out as the exception

My proposal for the kids is raise the tax on diapers, formula and babyfood to pay for it. Make the people who use it pay for it.

and tie it into enrollment in an education program (not sure about the homeschooling conundrum, how do you prove accreditation, etc.)

Biddle

01-31-2008, 12:24 AM

Jeff,

You don't see anything... well... stupid about INCREASING TAXATION on the BASIC NECESSITIES of the POOR people WHO CAN'T SEEM TO AFFORD HEALTH INSURANCE ON THEIR OWN... BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY POOR?!?

How are you going to squeeze blood out of that stone, exactly?

What are they going to pay those increased taxes with? Their dignity? Because you've left them little else.

Ridiculous.

What planet are you from, that you can't make that connection?!?
That's just mind-numbing to me.

Lord Have Mercy.

Jeff M.

01-31-2008, 01:39 AM

I think he has issues......

speedymarie

01-31-2008, 02:57 AM

Parents should be providing insurance for their kids. Period.

I can see the occasional fluke "dad died and now I'm stuck" story that will be carted out as the exception

My proposal for the kids is raise the tax on diapers, formula and babyfood to pay for it. Make the people who use it pay for it.

Do you actually understand what "poor" means? Have you ever actually feared for the roof over your head? Have you ever actually been hungry, and had no way to buy food? Did you ever have to chose between food and shelter? Have you ever worked a 12 hour day in a job no one else wanted, just to feed your kids? Do you know what its like to live, knowing there is no one available to help you if you get in trouble - no parents or grandparents who can loan you a few hundred bucks if you need it? Do you know what its like to work just to pay the babysitter? To keep the heat set on 58 degrees to try to save a few precious dollars? Have you ever truly wanted for any basic necessities?

The jobs many people have to take don't offer insurance, or offer it at a rate that is unaffordable to many of the employees. If those people would be able to pay extra tax on basic necessities in order to cover health insurance, the tax wouldn't be necessary. That's a pretty basic and obvious point.

I find it hard to believe that you are really as cold hearted and clueless as you seem. If you are, I pity you, because at some point in your life, you're going to need help, and your karma is going to come around.

Scol

01-31-2008, 03:36 AM

A couple of days ago I spent way too much of my time critisizing the hell out of religion.

And yet, here's a quote that I, an athiest, hold near and dear:

"There but for the grace of God, go I."

I would love America more if everyone felt that way.

Hawkins

02-02-2008, 09:47 AM

Do you actually understand what "poor" means? Have you ever actually feared for the roof over your head? Have you ever actually been hungry, and had no way to buy food? Did you ever have to chose between food and shelter? Have you ever worked a 12 hour day in a job no one else wanted, just to feed your kids? Do you know what its like to live, knowing there is no one available to help you if you get in trouble - no parents or grandparents who can loan you a few hundred bucks if you need it? Do you know what its like to work just to pay the babysitter? To keep the heat set on 58 degrees to try to save a few precious dollars? Have you ever truly wanted for any basic necessities?.

If I said "yes" and then turned around and asked you the same? And I don't mean post-college playing the starving artist, I mean growing up.

Look, I get it, if it makes you feel good, no one's keeping you from throwing in a few extra bucks here and there. It just seems rather arrogant of you to expect other people to pay for your cause du jour because you feel they have the means. But charity shouldn't be mandatory, no matter who's asking.

And as much bitterness as there is from the others, the rich are not an ATM for every social experiment you want the government to subsidize. In our free market system they have a right to keep what they earn too. If you are against government interference in your everyday lives, you can't justify it just because you feel it's for the greater good socially. The two don't mix.

speedymarie

02-02-2008, 03:05 PM

What are you even talking about anymore? You're acting like I expect the rich to go around throwing money at the poor.

And no, thankfully, I have never lived in long-term poverty. But I have enough knowledge and empathy for other people to understand at least a little what it is like, and to know that, most of the time, it's no more their fault that they are poor than it is my fault that I was born middle-class. So I know that just because I was born middle class, I don't have more of a right to education and health care than does some one who was born into a situation where it will be almost impossible for them to get education and health care for themselves.

Society overall does not benefit from leaving many of it's citizens sick and hungry and stupid. Those are people that usually become criminals or even bigger drains on resources.

How much of your tax money do you think would be taken to provide health care to poor kids? $50 a year, maybe? You spend that much in a month on movies or Starbucks.

you just continue to enjoy the privileges of civilization, and try to avoid the responsibilities. I don't understand how you live with yourself, but whatever.

Hawkins

02-04-2008, 04:40 AM

Society overall does not benefit from leaving many of it's citizens sick and hungry and stupid. Those are people that usually become criminals or even bigger drains on resources. keeping them alive wouldn't make them any less so, or any smarter for that matter. So if your argument is to make them less of a drain...

stupid people don't become smart because you throw money their way. Nor do they stop being criminals. Criminal behavior is a personal choice.

How much of your tax money do you think would be taken to provide health care to poor kids? $50 a year, maybe? You spend that much in a month on movies or Starbucks. okay...but it's my choice to spend it at the movies or Starbucks. Let me know when you put in your 50, and I'll pass the hat to the next guy.

you just continue to enjoy the privileges of civilization, and try to avoid the responsibilities. I don't understand how you live with yourself, but whatever.[/quote] First poor kids then poor families, then everyone. Where does it end. Then maybe I'll have to pay for their college or clothes or ...

My responsibilities are to me and my family, and to stand up when someone makes a boneheaded move like saying the FEDERAL government should pay for health care.

If I pay for their health care does that mean I get to tell them how to act or be raised or whatever?