GG Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 he would have at least been truthful. What he actually said is a whopper even by politician standards. Or something very familiar to parents of 10 year olds.
OCinBuffalo Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 (edited) Damn, you and 3rding are turning into the same person!! Does that happen when you swallow enough of each others arguments? The irony of this statement is lost on you, but not on the people who have been here awhile. For the newbs: The chance that both DC_Tom and 3rdnlng would arrive at the same conclusion, using the same thinking, is infinitesimal, unless it's in response to a DiN post. Congratulations DiN, you are a real world example of "statistical outlier". That's a bad argument. Do you have to get insurance when you own a gun? That can hurt someone also. But you being uninsured does hurt society if you get sick and then just dump your expenses on the rest of society to pay for it. so its completely logical that there exists a mandate to safeguard payment to the parties that were effected. the parties being all of us. Edit: forget what was here. No point. Tom is right. Let's just go with this: If you didn't have the inclinations of a farm animal, you'd understand this. Should we require idiots to buy insurance against the stupid things(or posts) they are likely to do in their life? Well, why not? If their idiocy is likely to cause society harm, then....what? Why not? We don't know if someone is going to get sick, but, we sure as hell know, as evidenced by you, that an idiot is going to say/do stupid things. Should we force you to buy stupid post insurance? Why not? Your posts clearly damage the society here. I grow tired of this...too easy. -------------------------------------------------- An interesting point that I read recently, that Dave is incapable of making, that seeks to legitimize Obamacare: If you simply give a tax credit to those people that buy insurance, isn't that the same thing as forcing them to buy it, in that they still have to buy insurance to benefit? The answer is: NO. The difference is obvious, and important. In this model, the government stays on its side of the line, controlling only what it is supposed to be controlling = taxes. This lets the market determine which products to deliver, and consumers which to buy. The Feds could also choose to give tax incentives to corporations to buy health insurance, which would easily be a revenue increase, never mind neutral, for the Feds. Yeah, imagine how much business currently being done off-shore would return, if we offered to give tax breaks for insurance, and let companies compete across state lines? But, that would be the smart thing to do, and as Democrats have shown since 2006, they aren't interested in the best ideas, they are only interested in the ones that punish people and pay off their cronies/constituents. Edited April 4, 2012 by OCinBuffalo
/dev/null Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 What he actually said is a whopper even by politician standards. America, Land of the free and home of the Whopper® -Peter Griffin, Family Guy
janicks Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 An interesting point that I read recently, that Dave is incapable of making, that seeks to legitimize Obamacare: If you simply give a tax credit to those people that buy insurance, isn't that the same thing as forcing them to buy it, in that they still have to buy insurance to benefit? The answer is: NO. What you wrote is certainly true for reasons you gave. But I've heard a different argument made which I don't quite know how to resolve. If the government is allowed to tax the population and then buy a product for that population, eg medicare, social security, etc, why is the government not allowed to tell the population to directly buy that product? I'm not an economist, but I collaborate with economists quite a bit, and they tell me that they don't quite understand the distinction.
ieatcrayonz Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 What you wrote is certainly true for reasons you gave. But I've heard a different argument made which I don't quite know how to resolve. If the government is allowed to tax the population and then buy a product for that population, eg medicare, social security, etc, why is the government not allowed to tell the population to directly buy that product? I'm not an economist, but I collaborate with economists quite a bit, and they tell me that they don't quite understand the distinction. The government hands out cheese with tax money too. Why can't they just tell everybody to set up an online account with Land o Lakes so we can fix the cheese crisis?
DC Tom Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 What you wrote is certainly true for reasons you gave. But I've heard a different argument made which I don't quite know how to resolve. If the government is allowed to tax the population and then buy a product for that population, eg medicare, social security, etc, why is the government not allowed to tell the population to directly buy that product? I'm not an economist, but I collaborate with economists quite a bit, and they tell me that they don't quite understand the distinction. The government isn't "buying" SS or Medicare on the free market. (And don't anyone tell me Medicare buys health care on the free market - it doesn't, it's price-controlled.)
ieatcrayonz Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 The government isn't "buying" SS or Medicare on the free market. (And don't anyone tell me Medicare buys health care on the free market - it doesn't, it's price-controlled.) So are you saying there is no control on the free market but that Medicare has control? Then why wouldn't we go with a system where we can control the prices? Why not just fold all health care into Medicare. Even the name works. I would bet anything that Medicare is short for Medical Care. There wouldn't even be any re-branding costs.
3rdnlng Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 So are you saying there is no control on the free market but that Medicare has control? Then why wouldn't we go with a system where we can control the prices? Why not just fold all health care into Medicare. Even the name works. I would bet anything that Medicare is short for Medical Care. There wouldn't even be any re-branding costs. So, you are suggesting an old fashioned round-up?
janicks Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 The government isn't "buying" SS or Medicare on the free market. (And don't anyone tell me Medicare buys health care on the free market - it doesn't, it's price-controlled.) "Buy" may not be the right word, and free market is not the point; but the government forces you to pay ss and medicare tax, then "creates" the ss and medicare system, then gives it back to the population. I am not arguing for/against obamacare, or for the current ss/medicare system. I don't even like the current ss system, as I can and do invest my money on my own and get a better return than I can with ss. I'm only asking where the distinction lies.
DC Tom Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 "Buy" may not be the right word, and free market is not the point; but the government forces you to pay ss and medicare tax, then "creates" the ss and medicare system, then gives it back to the population. I am not arguing for/against obamacare, or for the current ss/medicare system. I don't even like the current ss system, as I can and do invest my money on my own and get a better return than I can with ss. I'm only asking where the distinction lies. And you just stated where the distinction lies: The government taxes you for SS and Medicare, then pays back a segment of the population. There is no free market. Health insurance...under the ACA, the government provides nothing, and taxes you for NOT buying health insurance on the free market.
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 I would hardly consider that to be a "bad" argument, of course it is subjective and that characterization largely depends on the value of the opinion of the person offering the critique. Having said that, the example you offered isn't half bad. The main difference I would offer is that most vehicular accidents are just that, involuntary mishaps. in other words accidents On the other hand the vast majority of gun incidents are willful actions committed by the party at fault. So it isn't so much a monetary compensation issue as much as a penal one. Also in regards to property damage you would be hard pressed to see many cases where physical monetary damage or the need for recourse as a result of a gun issue Oh, you are a reasonable person. You are a stranger in a strange land, then. I appologize for my rudness. There are gun accidents all the time though. Dick Cheney should have to have gun insurance, you see. And hunting season around here brings all kinds of accidents, like the doofus that shot a school bus last year. But actually, that's not the point. The point is the government can mandate something is it is for the common good. This law is there to help the government manage the all important issue of health care, therefore the executive and legislative branches should be able to pass a law concerning this. If it is so unpopular it gets repealed, then so be it. I mean the Federal government has drafted a people away and sent them to Vietnam and other places, I think they can require them to do this little thing The chance that both DC_Tom and 3rdnlng would arrive at the same conclusion, using the same thinking, is infinitesimal, unless it's in response to a DiN post. What, two right wing idiots hating on a liberal. Ya, big surprise there! Do you think Tom and 3rd both read those long moronic posts you sit and right? I wonder
Chef Jim Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 Oh, you are a reasonable person. You are a stranger in a strange land, then. I appologize for my rudness. There are gun accidents all the time though. Dick Cheney should have to have gun insurance, you see. And hunting season around here brings all kinds of accidents, like the doofus that shot a school bus last year. But actually, that's not the point. The point is the government can mandate something is it is for the common good. This law is there to help the government manage the all important issue of health care, therefore the executive and legislative branches should be able to pass a law concerning this. If it is so unpopular it gets repealed, then so be it. I mean the Federal government has drafted a people away and sent them to Vietnam and other places, I think they can require them to do this little thing What, two right wing idiots hating on a liberal. Ya, big surprise there! Do you think Tom and 3rd both read those long moronic posts you sit and right? I wonder So now the mandate is being compared to the draft? Now I've heard everything.
DC Tom Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 Oh, you are a reasonable person. You are a stranger in a strange land, then. I appologize for my rudness. There are gun accidents all the time though. Dick Cheney should have to have gun insurance, you see. And hunting season around here brings all kinds of accidents, like the doofus that shot a school bus last year. But actually, that's not the point. The point is the government can mandate something is it is for the common good. This law is there to help the government manage the all important issue of health care, therefore the executive and legislative branches should be able to pass a law concerning this. If it is so unpopular it gets repealed, then so be it. I mean the Federal government has drafted a people away and sent them to Vietnam and other places, I think they can require them to do this little thing What, two right wing idiots hating on a liberal. Ya, big surprise there! Do you think Tom and 3rd both read those long moronic posts you sit and right? I wonder I can't wait until spring break is over...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 I can't wait until spring break is over... Am I disturbing your little world?
DC Tom Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 Am I disturbing your little world? THAT would be "yes". So now the mandate is being compared to the draft? Now I've heard everything. And gun accidents. Somehow.
B-Man Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 I can't wait until spring break is over... No matter, the school library probably has computers. .
OCinBuffalo Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 (edited) What you wrote is certainly true for reasons you gave. But I've heard a different argument made which I don't quite know how to resolve. If the government is allowed to tax the population and then buy a product for that population, eg medicare, social security, etc, why is the government not allowed to tell the population to directly buy that product? I'm not an economist, but I collaborate with economists quite a bit, and they tell me that they don't quite understand the distinction. Economists are where this argument is coming from, so this is no surprise. The problem is: economists don't concern themselves with the law, freedom, limits on government power, unintended consequences that arise when any of these are screwed with, etc. For the economist, this is a black box. It's possible for the input to return the same output, regardless, so why does it matter? Tell the economists you collaborate with that they have their own problems to deal with, focus on them, and leave the solutions to the solutions people. Example: They should be worried about what happens to the value of the dollar, and the likelihood of any Keynsian tool ever being effective again, if the cost of Obamacare is off by $1.9 trillion. Tell them they get to talk about this stuff right after they have addressed that problem. Bring your own chair, as you will be there a while.... The government isn't "buying" SS or Medicare on the free market. (And don't anyone tell me Medicare buys health care on the free market - it doesn't, it's price-controlled.) And it's a price that is controlled by Medicare. And, once Medicare sets it's price, ALL the other insurance companies set theirs. Yes, government setting prices....what did we learn about that from Nixon-Carter? "Buy" may not be the right word, and free market is not the point; but the government forces you to pay ss and medicare tax, then "creates" the ss and medicare system, then gives it back to the population. I am not arguing for/against obamacare, or for the current ss/medicare system. I don't even like the current ss system, as I can and do invest my money on my own and get a better return than I can with ss. I'm only asking where the distinction lies. And you just stated where the distinction lies: The government taxes you for SS and Medicare, then pays back a segment of the population. There is no free market. Health insurance...under the ACA, the government provides nothing, and taxes you for NOT buying health insurance on the free market. And, not only do they provide nothing, they impede the market from competing. The reason is: if we could buy insurance across state lines, like we buy electricity, then the union-owned/sponsored health insurance companies would be driven out of business. State regulations should have no bearing on this, and the ones that do need to be taken to court and killed. Also, we should allow "insurance unions" no different than we allow "credit unions". The argument is identical. Edited April 4, 2012 by OCinBuffalo
3rdnlng Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 Oh, you are a reasonable person. You are a stranger in a strange land, then. I appologize for my rudness. There are gun accidents all the time though. Dick Cheney should have to have gun insurance, you see. And hunting season around here brings all kinds of accidents, like the doofus that shot a school bus last year. But actually, that's not the point. The point is the government can mandate something is it is for the common good. This law is there to help the government manage the all important issue of health care, therefore the executive and legislative branches should be able to pass a law concerning this. If it is so unpopular it gets repealed, then so be it. I mean the Federal government has drafted a people away and sent them to Vietnam and other places, I think they can require them to do this little thing What, two right wing idiots hating on a liberal. Ya, big surprise there! Do you think Tom and 3rd both read those long moronic posts you sit and right? I wonder I say write on, OC.
B-Man Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 Dr. Krauthammer on Mr Obama's remarks; "Here's the president talking about respect for the law and implying there's partisanship if the law is overturned. We all were witnesses to the oral hearings in which Obama's case for the constitutionality of the law was utterly demolished to the point where one liberal observer called it a 'train wreck,'" Charles Krauthammer said on FOX News' "Special Report" this evening. "It's perfectly natural for a majority of the Court to side with the side that actually won the argument intellectually. That's not partisanship, that's logic. What is partisanship is when the four liberal justices are in such lockstep with the administration that they end up supporting the case that's been utterly destroyed in an open argument and be humiliated," Krauthammer said on the panel. "Second, the president talks about the deal as unprecedented. What' he talking about? Since 1803, our system has been one in which the Supreme Court in the end, judges, whether the law is constitutional or not. And in this case, he talked about the law passing by majority. He had a strong majority, with 75 Democrats outnumbering Republicans in the House. Obamacare passed by seven votes. It was a very narrow majority. It wasn't a broad of a majority that he implied," he added. "On every count he doesn't have an argument. This is liberals in shock over watching their side being demolished in oral argument and trying to bully the Supreme Court into ending up on their side in a case which they clearly lost intellectually and logically," Krauthammer concluded. RealClearPolitics .
janicks Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 Economists are where this argument is coming from, so this is no surprise. The problem is: economists don't concern themselves with the law, freedom, limits on government power, unintended consequences that arise when any of these are screwed with, etc. For the economist, this is a black box. It's possible for the input to return the same output, regardless, so why does it matter? Tell the economists you collaborate with that they have their own problems to deal with, focus on them, and leave the solutions to the solutions people. You're right about economists in that they care nothing about constitutional or legal arguments, only about what is / should be happening with the economy. To the italicized you are not right. Economists almost universally want the individual to be the input (if I understand what you are saying), not the government. Individuals make choices based on what is best for them, which leads individuals to choose the best product, which leads to market competition to deliver to the individual the best product. When the government creates a product, they can undercut the private sector, destroy competition, and end up delivering an inferior product. To the bolded, you have it backwards. The politicians are the ones who should be getting out of the way with respect to fixing the economy, and listening to the economists' solutions. Politicians keep screwing things up. Let the experts fix the problem.
Recommended Posts