No one denies it is worthwhile....

The thread on using a chip to know exactly where kids in high school are located got me thinking... Some have posted that the idea is an affront to personal liberty, and thus even if it were free it would not be what they want. Others have posted that is just a waste of money.

I was on a long car ride to our Albany for my yearly lobbying trip. We were discussing some clearly worthwhile cause, let's say breast cancer prevention, and were discussing a bill to increase funding. I asked my fellow carmates which disease deserved less funding to make up for the increased funding? Or I asked how much of a tax increase we should request to be able to increase the funding? Of course there was no cogent answer.

So here is my proposal......

ALL bills that add costs to the government's budget MUST either have a corresponding decrease somewhere else, and that must be clearly delineated, or a corresponding tax increase, and that must be clearly delineated.

I know everyone will likely say that emergency contingencies may require this policy to be violated at some point but the general idea that we should pay for what we spend is a good one and I think we would be in a lot better shape if we moved in that direction. Endless deficit spending and increases in giveaways is not the solution in the long-term. Calling everything an emergency is not the way to govern. Leave an exception for true emergencies but balance all other spending with revenue increases or cuts to other areas. Don't grow the government.

Government giveaways have gotten out of hand. We need more people working to better themselves and less living on out dimes. The low cost/no cost clinic my friend works in consistently has customers coming in with iPads, iPhones and the like who get free health care. I'm not saying that people don't need assistance but we need to scrutinize the heck out of it and only assist those who really need it.

If you don't make enough money, go back to school at night and study a new trade. Put incentives out there to get off the government dime.

As Ben Franklin is quoted as saying:

"I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

We have made poverty easier...and that takes away the desire to get out of it.

Am I heartless? Not at all. I just ask that those we give stuff to be asked to work their way out of it if at all possible...

I suspect there would be all sorts of unsubstantiated claims that a bill that adds some new expense doesn't really increase costs but would be balanced by some kind of "efficiency improvement" or that in some way the costs are not "real".

Quote: SOOPOO

ALL bills that add costs to the government's budget MUST either have a corresponding decrease somewhere else, and that must be clearly delineated, or a corresponding tax increase, and that must be clearly delineated.

This is called Paygo, and as can be expected the politicians blow it off all of the time even though they made it the law.


My issue is that it makes tax cuts next to impossible. The pols who blow off Paygo to spend on some "worthwhile" thing stick to it when it is time to cut revenue. We are better off with the method the House has now, every bill is supposed to have an "executive summary" attached explaining why it is constitutional. Next, throw out baseline budgeting, make Congress appropriate funds every year. As it is now, spending never ends for any "worthwhile" thing.

Quote: RonC

The low cost/no cost clinic my friend works in consistently has customers coming in with iPads, iPhones and the like who get free health care.

Why not? If it was possible to get 2 years of (non-free) unlimited healthcare for 200 bucks upfront plus $50 per month, this point would make some sense. But with the outrageous healthcare prices being where they are now ... you are comparing apples and oranges.

Quote: SOOPOO

The thread on using a chip to know exactly where kids in high school are located got me thinking... Some have posted that the idea is an affront to personal liberty, and thus even if it were free it would not be what they want. Others have posted that is just a waste of money.

WHAT thread? What the heck are you talking about?

Quote: weaselman

Why not? If it was possible to get 2 years of (non-free) unlimited healthcare for 200 bucks upfront plus $50 per month, this point would make some sense. But with the outrageous healthcare prices being where they are now ... you are comparing apples and oranges.

You might be able to get health insurance for about $100 a month if it was really "insurance" for claims above $25K. But what people call "health insurance" is really a hybrid of insurance and managed payments instead of a fee for service. This results in people thinking they should get $150 in meds for a $100 insurance payment each month.

Quote: AZDuffman

You might be able to get healt insurance for about $100 a month if it was really "insurance" for claims above $25K.

Yes. But that's not the kind of care those people were seeking in the free care clinic, is it?

Quote:

But what people call "health insurance" is really a hybrid of insurance and managed payments instead of a fee for service.

Perhaps. I did not mention health insurance actually, specifically, because I don't care what it is called.
I am just questioning the validity of an argument that a person does not need health care assistance if he has an iPhone. The costs are simply incomparable. If there was any chance you could afford your healthcare, or even any considerable part of it, by giving away your iPhone, I would agree, that people with iPhones coming in for free care are shameless frauds. But the way it is now, I think it is perfectly understandable how one could have an iPhone, and still require health care assitance.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

WHAT thread? What the heck are you talking about?

That thread was called 'students rights'.

Back to this thread. I keep thinking I want the government to act like a household. If I have $1000 to spend and have a new expense I think is worthwhile, I have to find something to cut to get down to that $1000. And rather than plan on running a deficit for unexpected additional costs, I plan ahead by saving up. It is so ridiculous that our government does it backwards.

This was discussed before. I basically favor it. The way I would implement it would be to modify the income tax rates to match government spending, no matter how much the spending was. For example, if the current formula produces a 10% shortfall, then raise taxes by 11.1% to make up for it. In other words -- pay as you go.

Yes, there must be provisions in case of emergencies, and I think a "rainy day" fund should be part of the budget, and dipping into it should require a super-majority of the congress and the president to approve.

Regarding medical research, I favor spending money more or less according to the number of years of life saved. The reason I don't just say number of lives, is I'd rather save the life of a 30-year-old than a 90-year-old (sorry Doc). As a doctor, SOOPOO, do you think the government does a good job of spending money on medical research where it will have the greatest benefit?

Quote: Wizard

This was discussed before. I basically favor it. The way I would implement it would be to modify the income tax rates to match government spending, no matter how much the spending was. For example, if the current formula produces a 10% shortfall, then raise taxes by 11.1% to make up for it. In other words -- pay as you go.

My problem is this--why is the default remedy "lets raise taxes!" Why not limit government spending to say 17-18% of GDP and tell the people, "you want a new program, what other program would you like to get rid of?"

Back in HS economics I remember the exercise, there were about 10 items you could have. New car, popular girlfirend, jewelry, etc. You had to pick which 3 you would like if you had to choose, the rest you could not have. Point of exercise was to explain the science of economics being about societal distribution of limited resources anongst unlimited wants.

Quote: AZDuffman

My problem is this--why is the default remedy "lets raise taxes!" Why not limit government spending to say 17-18% of GDP and tell the people, "you want a new program, what other program would you like to get rid of?"

Back in HS economics I remember the exercise, there were about 10 items you could have. New car, popular girlfirend, jewelry, etc. You had to pick which 3 you would like if you had to choose, the rest you could not have. Point of exercise was to explain the science of economics being about societal distribution of limited resources anongst unlimited wants.

Exactly. Conceptually Obamacare makes sense. All Americans should have access to quality healthcare. But to pass the law without the slighest idea (or intention?) of how to pay for it.... My 'law' would have prevented Obamacare from being passed without also making the hard decision on how to pay for it, or what other programs to cut/eliminate.

Quote: Wizard

For example, if the current formula produces a 10% shortfall, then raise taxes by 11.1% to make up for it. In other words -- pay as you go.

That would most likely create a bigger shortfall, as people would find a bigger incentive to find tax shelters, or outright evade their taxes altogether.

Quote: weaselman

Why not? If it was possible to get 2 years of (non-free) unlimited healthcare for 200 bucks upfront plus $50 per month, this point would make some sense. But with the outrageous healthcare prices being where they are now ... you are comparing apples and oranges.

I'm sorry but I am sick and tired of the entitlement mentality. If you don't work and you are on the government dole, you shouldn't have as many things as people who work their behinds off to get ahead. Perhaps health care is not the best example but these people bitch if they have to pay the $3 co-pay two times because they have to come back for a follow-up. They go to the doctor for every little runny nose while those of us who have to pay more for co-pays and also lose pay for days off work try to avoid the doctor unless we really need to go.

Maybe my point isn't so much about getting a iPad and free medical care as it is about using the money for the iPad for something else...keep the free health care and spend your extra money on getting an education or a skill that can get you off the government dime. That dime is not the government's; it is ours. If you aren't doing everything you can to pay your own way, why should we pay it?

Taking away the desire to get ahead is one of the worst things we can do.

Quote: Nareed

That would most likely create a bigger shortfall, as people would find a bigger incentive to find tax shelters, or outright evade their taxes altogether.

We're smarter than that when we want to be....yes, people will try to get away with not paying taxes--but we can do a lot of things to keep that from happening as much as it does.

Tax shelters? Allow many, many less of them.

Quote: RonC

Tax shelters? Allow many, many less of them.

And see the capital flight faster than light.

Quote: Wizard

This was discussed before. I basically favor it. The way I would implement it would be to modify the income tax rates to match government spending, no matter how much the spending was. For example, if the current formula produces a 10% shortfall, then raise taxes by 11.1% to make up for it. In other words -- pay as you go.

A problem with this proposal is that it ignores the fact that people respond to incentives. My understanding is that regardless of what the tax rate is, the government typically collects approximately 18% of the GDP in income taxes. See here for one explanation. If you want to maximize government revenue, which I completely oppose, you ought to maximize GDP rather than worrying about the tax code, or else discover some new politically feasible method of taxation that gets around this 18% ceiling.

In theory, though, the PAYGO is a good idea because it forces politicians to say what they are giving up in order to fund their great new idea. However, the fact of the matter is that the government's accounting practices would be considered so fraudulent as to be criminal if practiced by a private organization so on a practical level it matters little.

Turn back Time.

Include in the Constitution: Politicians can't write a check for which they have no cash. (or some such)

Quote: rxwine

Turn back Time.

Include in the Constitution: Politicians can't write a check for which they have no cash. (or some such)

This was considered, Alexander Hamilton shot it down. He rightly understood that there is a need to keep a national debt, though it must be managable. Today's is out of control. Had this been in the Constitution they would be speaking French or Spanish in Las Vegas.

Quote: RonC

Perhaps health care is not the best example but these people bitch if they have to pay the $3 co-pay two times because they have to come back for a follow-up.

It's not just their 3 bucks. It's also a few hundred of your money, and mine. Most of those appointments are totally unnecessary. Definitely, not worth the hundreds they are charged for.

Quote:

keep the free health care and spend your extra money on getting an education or a skill that can get you off the government dime.

How do you know they are not already doing that? I mean, maybe, they aren't or maybe they are, but how do you know, and what does it have to do with them showing up in a free care clinic with an iPhone?

Quote: weaselman

It's not just their 3 bucks. It's also a few hundred of your money, and mine. Most of those appointments are totally unnecessary. Definitely, not worth the hundreds they are charged for.

Wow. Some things require follow-up to make sure the child is getting better...and sometimes those follow-ups are ordered because the parents can't be trusted to take care of the kid the way they need to be taken care of. Is every one of them necessary? Perhaps not. Some of them are very necessary. Either way, they bitch about the $3 co-pay.

Quote: weaselman

How do you know they are not already doing that? I mean, maybe, they aren't or maybe they are, but how do you know, and what does it have to do with them showing up in a free care clinic with an iPhone?

The people I am talking about aren't doing anything to improve their lifestyle except have more kids (they get more money) and sleeping in--they are too lazy to get out of bed for an 8 a.m. appointment. They want 11 a.m. so they can sleep. They want all the things that many of us work for but they want you and I to provide it for them.

Are there people trying to better themselves? Sure. Take care of those folks.

The ones who aren't become pretty obvious to even a casual observer over time. if you don't want to try to make them do more for themselves and have us support them less, that is fine. Spend your money on that. I want my money spent on moving people ahead...

Quote: weaselman

How do you know they are not already doing that? I mean, maybe, they aren't or maybe they are, but how do you know, and what does it have to do with them showing up in a free care clinic with an iPhone?

I think what the OP is saying is if you have $400 to drop on an iPhone you should be expected to pay your own freight off the government dime. Years ago (1950s) NY state would not allow welfare recipients to even have a TV set. Now if they are not allowed high-speed internet and cable we are somehow being "cruel" to them.

I've done service work in public housing. People had to have subsidized housing, but they were able to fill it with a big-screen TV and every home electronoc product imaginable. It was and is sick.

Quote: AZDuffman

I think what the OP is saying is if you have $400 to drop on an iPhone you should be expected to pay your own freight off the government dime.

Right. And what I am saying is that if the price of health care was in any way comparable to the price of a cell phone, then that argument might actually make sense. But the way things are in reality, it just does not.

Quote:

I've done service work in public housing. People had to have subsidized housing, but they were able to fill it with a big-screen TV and every home electronoc product imaginable. It was and is sick.

Same kind of problem with your example. Unsubsidized apartment would cost them a couple of those TVs per month.
If you can afford a TV, once in a few years, does not mean you have enough income to pay market rate for housing. Maybe you do. But owning a TV just does not indicate it in any way.

Quote: weaselman

Right. And what I am saying is that if the price of health care was in any way comparable to the price of a cell phone, then that argument might actually make sense. But the way things are in reality, it just does not.

So in that case they sould be putting the $400 towards their own health care before demanding I help pay for it. You can get several doctor office visits for $400. Several more for the $100/month data plans the people are probably on so they can play "Angry Birds" in the waiting room.

Quote:

Same kind of problem with your example. Unsubsidized apartment would cost them a couple of those TVs per month.
If you can afford a TV, once in a few years, does not mean you have enough income to pay market rate for housing. Maybe you do. But owning a TV just does not indicate it in any way.

At time an unsubsidized apartment in the area was about $400-500 and the TV at least $1500-2,000. In any case, you know who deserves big-screen TVs? People who work and pay their own apartment rental. If you are living off state subsidy you should be paying as near to market rate as possible, not just a few hundred with me paying the rest so you can fill up your home with nicer things than hard-working people can buy.

IOW, you are supposed to pay for your own needs before asking someone else to pay so you can instead use the money for luxuries.

Quote: AZDuffman

So in that case they sould be putting the $400 towards their own health care before demanding I help pay for it.

Maybe they'd want to. But you can't buy five years of health care for $400.

Quote:

You can get several doctor office visits for $400. Several more for the $100/month data plans the people are probably on so they can play "Angry Birds" in the waiting room.

A data plan is $25/month what are you talking about? Why do you think there isn't a private insurance plan offered for $25/month? If there was, maybe some of those people would cancel their data plans and get medical care instead ...

Quote:

At time an unsubsidized apartment in the area was about $400-500 and the TV at least $1500-2,000.

Fine. So, you save $50 per month to get enough for a TV in a couple of years. How does it help you in terms of housing?
You see $500 per month only looks like it is less $1500 once in a decade. You have to take the scale into consideration.

Quote:

In any case, you know who deserves big-screen TVs? People who work and pay their own apartment rental. If you are living off state subsidy you should be paying as near to market rate as possible, not just a few hundred with me paying the rest so you can fill up your home with nicer things than hard-working people can buy.

And who should decide who deserves what? A Special Commission On Citizen Privileges? A Civilization Benefit Distribution Committee?
Nah ... I don't think I am liking it.

I apologize for my part in getting this thread off track...the bottom line is that I don't think we can continue to spend outside of our means and I don't think those dastardly "rich people" can pay the bills for all of us either.

It is time to get our house in order instead of ignoring the issue. It may be a bit painful, but we'll be better off with spending under control and reasonable taxes.

Quote: AZDuffman

My problem is this--why is the default remedy "lets raise taxes!"

Because government can never agree on how to cut government spending. I think the public would care a lot more about how government spends money when they have to pay for wars and bank bailouts at the time the money is spent -- not just pass the bill down to the next generation.

Quote: weaselman

Maybe they'd want to. But you can't buy five years of health care for $400.

So what? You can have health care or you can have a fancy phone. If you would rather the phone, don't cry to me when you get sick.

Quote:

A data plan is $25/month what are you talking about? Why do you think there isn't a private insurance plan offered for $25/month? If there was, maybe some of those people would cancel their data plans and get medical care instead ...

Nobody buys data only, if anybody even sells it. Again, it doesn't matter if the health insurance is more than the cost, if you want health insurance you should be putting your funds towards that instead of a data plan so you can watch youtube videos on your phone.

Quote:

Fine. So, you save $50 per month to get enough for a TV in a couple of years. How does it help you in terms of housing?
You see $500 per month only looks like it is less $1500 once in a decade. You have to take the scale into consideration.

Still yet again---if you have that money you should be putting it towards your own housing, not buying big-screen TVs and expecting someone else to pay your housing costs.

Quote:

And who should decide who deserves what? A Special Commission On Citizen Privileges? A Civilization Benefit Distribution Committee?
Nah ... I don't think I am liking it.

If you want public housing then it should be set by the Dept of HHS. Make it simple, say no more than $500 of consumer electronics in a public housing unit. If you have more when you want to check in you have to sell it off. If "you don't like it" the answer is simple---pay for private housing and buy your own health insurance. If you are living off the government you should be limited to subsistance level. We should not be letting people watch 100 cable channels on a big-screen TVs while good working people cannot afford that after paying for their own housing and health care.

Quote: Wizard

Because government can never agree on how to cut government spending. I think the public would care a lot more about how government spends money when they have to pay for wars and bank bailouts at the time the money is spent -- not just pass the bill down to the next generation.

That is why the hard-cap. It would be like any private business. You think breast cancer and AIDS research is worthwhile? Good, then explain to the greater population why you cut research for heart disease. Or whatever. Otherwise you get the "lets let rich people pay more taxes" which is just another way of passing the bills along.

Sooner or later not enough buyers will show up at Treasury Auctions then choices will have to be made, or the Fed will run the printing press.

Quote: AZDuffman

So what? You can have health care or you can have a fancy phone. If you would rather the phone, don't cry to me when you get sick.

No! The point is even if you don't have a fancy phone, you still cannot have health care. Giving up the phone does not get you any closer to being able to afford health care, so there is no reason to give it up.

Quote:

Nobody buys data only, if anybody even sells it.

You said "data plan".
Now, voice is a luxury too? Fine, another $30.

Quote:

Again, it doesn't matter if the health insurance is more than the cost,

It's not just "more". It's incomparable

Quote:

If you want public housing then it should be set by the Dept of HHS.

Department of HHS should decide what you deserve? Come on. Are you for real?

Quote:

Make it simple, say no more than $500 of consumer electronics in a public housing unit.

Random searches at night?

Quote:

We should not be letting people watch 100 cable channels on a big-screen TVs while good working people cannot afford that after paying for their own housing and health care.

Who cannot afford cable?

Quote: weaselman

Now, voice is a luxury too? Fine, another $30.

Yes, ANY cell phone is a luxury if you are wanting someone else to pay your housing and health care. If you want that subsidized you can get a $30 land line and answering machine.

Quote:

Department of HHS should decide what you deserve? Come on. Are you for real?

If you want public assistance then YES, HHS should decide what you get. If you choose to be a ward of the state you surrender this choice. So yes, I am for real.

And to repeat, if someone does not like that, pay your own way in life.

Quote: AZDuffman

Yes, ANY cell phone is a luxury if you are wanting someone else to pay your housing and health care. If you want that subsidized you can get a $30 land line and answering machine.

Land line is actually more expensive than cell nowadays. If anything is a luxury, that is.
Welcome to the 21st century.

Quote:

If you want public assistance then YES, HHS should decide what you get.

So, you are scared to death of letting the government decide what medical care to pay for and how much, but are fine with letting HHS handle virtually every aspect of people's lives? Nice ...

I realize there are entitlement issues vs costs and all, but certainly as much of this problem has to do with the working middle-class and various pension plans and beer budgets and champagne tastes.

In fact, I daresay, the financial crisis we were last plunged into had little to do with unemployed welfare recipients (in the strict sense of the word).


edited to add unemployed

Quote: weaselman

So, you are scared to death of letting the government decide what medical care to pay for and how much, but are fine with letting HHS handle virtually every aspect of people's lives? Nice ...

Not a valid comparrison. I don't want the government forcing health care choices on me. But if you sign up for assistance then you are doing so of your free will, no person is forcing this on you. As the goal of HHS should be to get people OFF assistance, then there should clearly be some forcing people into better behaviors. So if you want to live on the dole you should be forced into better behavior.

For the fourth time, if a person does not like this, they should not go on the dole. If you are expecting me to pay your way, don't think you should have a nicer phone and TV than most working people have.

Quote: rxwine

In fact, I daresay, the financial crisis we were last plunged into had little to do with unemployed welfare recipients (in the strict sense of the word).

Actually a good deal of it has to do with forcing banks to loan to people with a bad risk profile to maintain "good" ratings with the various regulatory agencies.

BTW: Banks MUST consider welfare income if somebody is trying to buy a house. Nice system we have here, eh?

Quote: AZDuffman

Not a valid comparrison. I don't want the government forcing health care choices on me. But if you sign up for assistance then you are doing so of your free will, no person is forcing this on you.

Nobody has ever been talking about government forcing health care choices on you either. You would have to sign up for the government program. I don't see any difference at all.

Quote:

As the goal of HHS should be to get people OFF assistance,

The goal of HHS is to provide people with housing.
Getting people off assistance is a great goal, and there are government agencies, that are (nominally) tasked with it, but HHS is definitely not one of them.

Quote: AZDuffman

Actually a good deal of it has to do with forcing banks to loan to people with a bad risk profile to maintain "good" ratings with the various regulatory agencies.

BTW: Banks MUST consider welfare income if somebody is trying to buy a house. Nice system we have here, eh?

What I was getting at is it's lot more than the people who won't work, or whatever.

The problem goes deeper and farther than those people.

Quote: weaselman

Nobody has ever been talking about government forcing health care choices on you either. You would have to sign up for the government program. I don't see any difference at all.

Obamacare is EXACTLY forcing a government health care choice on me. Buy an approved plan or go to jail via the IRS.

Quote:

The goal of HHS is to provide people with housing.
Getting people off assistance is a great goal, and there are government agencies, that are (nominally) tasked with it, but HHS is definitely not one of them.

The idea of government housing is for an emergency, transitional period. Let me ask you, do you say to your landlord or mortgagee, "Hey, I would rather have a nice phone and huge TV, so can I pay less in rent/interest?" I highly doubt it. HHS should be 1st priority for these folks disposable income. Means no fancy phones with data plans; no roomfulls of electronics; no dresserfull of jewelry.

Constitutionally we should close HHS altogether and let the states decide how to handle it. Put the Dept of Health/CDC under the DoD (it is already a branch of the military, technically) and get out of government provided housing at the federal level.

Quote: RonC

I'm sorry but I am sick and tired of the entitlement mentality. If you don't work and you are on the government dole, you shouldn't have as many things as people who work their behinds off to get ahead..

What about the millions of people who are on some sort of social assistance, and work full time jobs.

Should they have to go with nearly nothing because they are getting "something" that the rest of us pay for?

I agree about those who are "working the system", but perhaps we can think of ways to make incentives to allow those families who work to get off assistance. Perhaps by freezing the subsidized housing rates for two years while a single mom is working toward a degree. As it stands now, if a person gets a $2 buck and hour raise, their rent would go up nearly $80 a month. Doesn't really leave much room for saving and investing for the future. And what about child care? That same woman would seemingly better her position, but have to pay a larger share of child care expenses. Again, not leaving much left over to "get off welfare".

And as far as Medicaid goes, there is NO federal requirement that states provide coverage for adults without dependent children. Adults that have dependent children may qualify, but only if their income meets strict guidelines (41% of the Federal Poverty Level, or around $9100 for a family of 4). Now the states (and I love this because I am against state's rights) have the ability to do whatever they want. They can allow everyone to be covered if they see fit.

It is clearly a vicious cycle, but who really cares if they have a phone or not. They could be using MetroPCS and paying $40 a month, all-inclusive. They could have gotten it as a gift. And how would one be able to look for, and talk about, a job without a phone? I say we all just mind our own business. We aren't gonna change what the government does with the money anyway. This is great banter, but is pretty much useless to talk about.

Anyway....time to go back into my cave....Cheers!!!

Quote: AZDuffman

Obamacare is EXACTLY forcing a government health care choice on me. Buy an approved plan or go to jail via the IRS.

.

Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose. lah lah...me and Bobby McGee.

Hey though, if a healthy 18 year old gets drunk and drives and hits someone and turns himself or someone else into a quadreplegic for the next 30 years, who pays?

We do, most likely.

Why bitch about some forced health insurance? You're just paying by other means if you're a tax payer.

Amen!!!

Whenever I've read of some new health care measure that was either proposed or passed, I've often wished there was a simple "cut to the chase" panel wherein we could see the changes in the pie: who would get more, who would get less.

Of course this whole notion then leads to the famed "Revenue Neutral Legislation" trap wherein some change is proposed but is advertised as being without effect on the tax burden.

The best restraint used to be the New England Town Meeting concept with its line item voting. Every darn thing done had to be approved. The modern equivalent is the general budget deduction wherein a hospital might get its funding but Catholic legislators routinely decrease the budgeted amount by the cost of providing abortions or some other such token monetary punishment.

Many of our diseases are politicized ... lawyers, lobbyists, rabble rousers, front organizations, Cash Roots Movements, etc.
Many of our actions are a joke. In the fifties Christian churches raised dimes from little children to buy freedom for African slaves which of course simply raised the prices and made the slave-taking trade more profitable.

Look at our bloated bureaucracies: schools, police, etc. Teacher tenure programs made sense when a teacher might have to travel to a new position and most parents were not well educated or even literate, text books were few and a commitment was a sensible requirement. Now tenure is what sparks the home schooling movement.

Rational public policy is rare. We do not have a national energy policy. Its a bit of a joke to expect one policy to be adopted when our country is rather regional as far as energy sources and uses go. Water rights? Rational Policy is different depending on whether one is upstream or downstream?

Often the label attached to legislation is a meaningless charade. Stamp something as "child abuse" legislation and it gets passed, but most funding is for an army of clerks processing forms or for highly trained police personnel to be squandered on useless home visits. Look at the War on Drugs.... and the fifty to eighty thousand dollar a year gigs cops get to go to schools and lecture about DARE.

About the only time there is ever any restraint on financing takes place when a municipality files for bankruptcy or under Impact Programs wherein a poor county forced to pay millions in Public Defender fees gets token assistance in buying gasoline for its fire trucks. Its hard to force people to adopt Lifeboat Policies until they are in a Lifeboat Situation. And even in a lifeboat there will be those bleeding hearts who want to aid those who will be a threat to the safety of the lifeboat itself or impose an excess risk or excess cost on some for the benefit of others.

When a disease is no longer Gay Related Immune Disorder but instead becomes AIDS, its a political act to facilitate funding. Once that happens, the battle is already lost. This is always seen in the world of Popular Initiatives where organizations always have the exact opposite purpose than their names. (Committee for Fair Rents is actually the Landlord's Committee for Rent Gouging).

Quote: rxwine

Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose. lah lah...me and Bobby McGee.
Hey though, if a healthy 18 year old gets drunk and drives and hits someone and turns himself or someone else into a quadreplegic for the next 30 years, who pays?
We do, most likely. Why bitch about some forced health insurance? You're just paying by other means if you're a tax payer.

Its like those highway signs from the sixties: State funds ten percent; federal funds ninety percent. And only the Libertarians emblazoned the signs with: Taxpayer Funds: 100 per cent.

Some people have suggested that a District Attorney who wants to make decisions between Plea Bargaining and Costly Trials with Long Sentences should have his budget reflect the costs he imposes. A DA's decision most often affects the Department of Corrections budget that has to pay the forty grand a year for a prison cell. A daredevil should have to pay for his own misadventures. Instead we mount free Search and Rescue operations for people who think its "recreation" to ride snowmobiles uphill to provoke avalanches for the thrill of escaping them in time.

Quote: avargov

What about the millions of people who are on some sort of social assistance, and work full time jobs.

Should they have to go with nearly nothing because they are getting "something" that the rest of us pay for?

I applaud those who are trying to move from assistance programs to a self-sustaining position. I think the goal of our programs should be to support that transition and encourage it.

Quote: avargov

I agree about those who are "working the system", but perhaps we can think of ways to make incentives to allow those families who work to get off assistance. Perhaps by freezing the subsidized housing rates for two years while a single mom is working toward a degree. As it stands now, if a person gets a $2 buck and hour raise, their rent would go up nearly $80 a month. Doesn't really leave much room for saving and investing for the future. And what about child care? That same woman would seemingly better her position, but have to pay a larger share of child care expenses. Again, not leaving much left over to "get off welfare".

Again, I support moving people up and off the government dollar. We can figure out a way to do that without rewarding the freeloaders.

Quote: avargov

It is clearly a vicious cycle, but who really cares if they have a phone or not. They could be using MetroPCS and paying $40 a month, all-inclusive. They could have gotten it as a gift. And how would one be able to look for, and talk about, a job without a phone? I say we all just mind our own business. We aren't gonna change what the government does with the money anyway. This is great banter, but is pretty much useless to talk about.

It isn't the phone. It is the attitude that they should get everything we have without working for it. I think we could change the cycle if we really tried...and if both parties wanted to do it together. It wouldn't happen overnight.

Quote: avargov

Cheers!!!

Cheers!!

I think health care coverage covers too much, it is the equivalent if your auto insurance covered you filling your tank, changing your oil and any other scheduled repair. We don't bust out our auto insurance policy if we need to change our tires, we don't bust out our homeowner's policy when our paint starts fading etc. Why does my health coverage cover stuff I can't cover on my own? If I needed an overnight stay in a hospital, a major surgery, and expensive test etc. those are things I can't pay for out of pocket. Why is a routine visit that costs $150-$200 covered? I could pay that out of pocket and it probably is about $500 worth of my premium?

Quote: avargov

What about the millions of people who are on some sort of social assistance, and work full time jobs.

Should they have to go with nearly nothing because they are getting "something" that the rest of us pay for?

Yes.

Quote:

I agree about those who are "working the system", but perhaps we can think of ways to make incentives to allow those families who work to get off assistance. Perhaps by freezing the subsidized housing rates for two years while a single mom is working toward a degree. As it stands now, if a person gets a $2 buck and hour raise, their rent would go up nearly $80 a month. Doesn't really leave much room for saving and investing for the future. And what about child care? That same woman would seemingly better her position, but have to pay a larger share of child care expenses. Again, not leaving much left over to "get off welfare".

The 1996 Welfare Reform Act passed by the Gingrigh Congress after not one Clinton Veto but two had the best solution for this. Two years on the dole and then you are thrown off. Two years should be enough for almost anybody to get their life in order. I've seen these people work the system. They can't understand how much they are paying at Rent-A-Center but they know how to work the EIC as good as a CPA. Instead of being happy they made more money at work they were POed that it caused their EIC to go down. IOW, the attitude was, "I worked for my money?"

We seem to have a misconception in the USA that the government is supposed to help you pay for daycare for the child you chose to bring into this world. Where is the woman's husband? Or where is her "babby daddy?" That is who is supposed to be paying for this care, not you and me.

Quote:

And as far as Medicaid goes, there is NO federal requirement that states provide coverage for adults without dependent children. Adults that have dependent children may qualify, but only if their income meets strict guidelines (41% of the Federal Poverty Level, or around $9100 for a family of 4). Now the states (and I love this because I am against state's rights) have the ability to do whatever they want. They can allow everyone to be covered if they see fit.

States rights are the way the country was supposed to be. Why somebody would be against having their government decisions made as close as possible to them instead of in DC I have no idea. But unless you want to repeal the 10th Ammendment, States Rights is (supposed to be) the law of the land.

Quote:

Anyway....time to go back into my cave....Cheers!!!

Cheers. Between postings lets remember those who served.

Quote: AZDuffman

Obamacare is EXACTLY forcing a government health care choice on me. Buy an approved plan or go to jail via the IRS.

Well, I am not talking about Obamacare. I am talking about a government-run medical insurance company.

Quote: Gabes22

I think health care coverage covers too much, it is the equivalent if your auto insurance covered you filling your tank, changing your oil and any other scheduled repair. We don't bust out our auto insurance policy if we need to change our tires, we don't bust out our homeowner's policy when our paint starts fading etc. Why does my health coverage cover stuff I can't cover on my own? If I needed an overnight stay in a hospital, a major surgery, and expensive test etc. those are things I can't pay for out of pocket. Why is a routine visit that costs $150-$200 covered? I could pay that out of pocket and it probably is about $500 worth of my premium?

Bingo!

Quote: SOOPOO

Exactly. Conceptually Obamacare makes sense. All Americans should have access to quality healthcare.

But to pass the law without the slighest idea (or intention?) of how to pay for it.... My 'law' would have prevented Obamacare from being passed without also making the hard decision on how to pay for it, or what other programs to cut/eliminate.

OK, just a second here.....

a) When people get really sick and don't have Health Care Insurance,
they go to the ER and get treated, right ?

So given that, doesn't it make sense that everyone should be
required to have Health Care Insurance ?

AND

b) If I recall correctly, didn't the independent Government Accounting
Office do an analysis and show that the Obama Plan would LOWER
the overall amount spent on Health Care in this country ?

c) I'm not sure that the Republicans can explain why they are so against
this program, except that they don't want Obama re-elected.

d) But I am sure that a lot of the Tea Party and Republican "leave me
alone" voters are going to be very vocal IF the benefits THEY
receive from the government were to be discontinued.

Quote: JohnnyQ

OK, just a second here.....

a) When people get really sick and don't have Health Care Insurance,
they go to the ER and get treated, right ?

So given that, doesn't it make sense that everyone should be
required to have Health Care Insurance ?

NO. They have a personal liability for their treatment. If I have say a HELOC with $100K of draw ability that should cover me for most things, and I can get a simple hospitalization plan for the really big stuff. IOW, I might prefer to self-insure. But Obamacare demands you buy a "government approved" plan, which will be a plan covering all kinds of things I do not want (eg: free birth control pills.)

Quote:

b) If I recall correctly, didn't the independent Government Accounting
Office do an analysis and show that the Obama Plan would LOWER
the overall amount spent on Health Care in this country ?

The plan was presented with only 6 years of cost but 10 years of revenue to make it look like it will save money. Already they are revising costs upwards. If you believe that government getting involved and millions of people lining up for their "free" health care then you probably believe Big 6/8 is the smartest bet in the casino.

Quote:

c) I'm not sure that the Republicans can explain why they are so against
this program, except that they don't want Obama re-elected.

They have many times. It is a budget-busting big government program to do something that is not the government's job to do.

Quote:

d) But I am sure that a lot of the Tea Party and Republican "leave me
alone" voters are going to be very vocal IF the benefits THEY
receive from the government were to be discontinued.

Most Tea-Party members I have met are not on the governmnet dole. Maybe you are confused with OWS?