Obama Care

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Please explain how the federal government/infrastructure allows private individuals & companies to make money? As far as the government infrastructure goes we already pay for that, far more than we should. The government provides military to make sure we don't get taken over, OK. Interstate roads receive federal funding, I get it. Possibly some oversight into banking and finance, OK I get that too. What else could the fed possibly do to make sure I have "hard earned money"? I'd gladly keep my 7.8 or so percent of my paycheck for SS and Medicare and handle my own retirement. States/localities provide over 94% of education funding. Police and Fire are provided through state and local taxes.

You will recall, I'm sure, from your history lessons that there was no income tax in the U.S. until the early part of the 20th century. The country was doing just fine economically without it.

Shhhh. History only counts when it proves the United States is mean and big Government saved the day.

Wait, I am sorry, that is just how the NEW history books portray it.

[BringBackJoeT]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Please explain how the federal government/infrastructure allows private individuals & companies to make money? As far as the government infrastructure goes we already pay for that, far more than we should. The government provides military to make sure we don't get taken over, OK. Interstate roads receive federal funding, I get it. Possibly some oversight into banking and finance, OK I get that too. What else could the fed possibly do to make sure I have "hard earned money"? I'd gladly keep my 7.8 or so percent of my paycheck for SS and Medicare and handle my own retirement. States/localities provide over 94% of education funding. Police and Fire are provided through state and local taxes.

You will recall, I'm sure, from your history lessons that there was no income tax in the U.S. until the early part of the 20th century. The country was doing just fine economically without it.

I'm sure you recall from your own history lessons that there was in fact an income tax imposed during the Civil War, and that much of the debate regarding the necessity of an income tax that led to the constitutional amendment surfaced in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War. Apparently, the US Congress and three-quarters of the union's states believed that the country was not doing "just fine" without an income tax.

Oh, and you say that it is "possible" that there may be some justification for the federal government's use of power to provide "some" oversight of banking and finance? Meaning, that this is a close call? That no oversight might not be a bad idea. Wow.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by BringBackJoeT

I'm sure you recall from your own history lessons that there was in fact an income tax imposed during the Civil War, and that much of the debate regarding the necessity of an income tax that led to the constitutional amendment surfaced in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War. Apparently, the US Congress and three-quarters of the union's states believed that the country was not doing "just fine" without an income tax.

Oh, and you say that it is "possible" that there may be some justification for the federal government's use of power to provide "some" oversight of banking and finance? Meaning, that this is a close call? That no oversight might not be a bad idea. Wow.

Certainly the crisis of the Civil War constituted extreme measures (income tax). Even so, the tax was less than the SS tax alone is today.

And I'm not saying there should be "no oversight" into the financial system, but not the monstrosity of regulations/legal burdens companies must jump through for the government.

You really should read Chapter 1 of The Fair Tax Book by Neal Boortz to understand how the Income Tax really came to be. As is the same today, the Income Tax (or expansion of taxes) was a Democrat creation, and unfortunatley a few liberal Republicans signed on.

Again, as usual with lefties, my original point wasn't countered....at all, only nit-picking minor details. Please enlighten me, how does the federal government/infrastructure allow/facilitate private individuals & companies to make money? And do you believe the cost of that is worth about 33% of a mid-high end workers income?

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Please explain how the federal government/infrastructure allows private individuals & companies to make money? As far as the government infrastructure goes we already pay for that, far more than we should. The government provides military to make sure we don't get taken over, OK. Interstate roads receive federal funding, I get it. Possibly some oversight into banking and finance, OK I get that too. What else could the fed possibly do to make sure I have "hard earned money"? I'd gladly keep my 7.8 or so percent of my paycheck for SS and Medicare and handle my own retirement. States/localities provide over 94% of education funding. Police and Fire are provided through state and local taxes.

You will recall, I'm sure, from your history lessons that there was no income tax in the U.S. until the early part of the 20th century. The country was doing just fine economically without it.

SS and Medicare are not everything there is to government/infrastructure. How much money do you think you'd make if there was no government? None, because there would be no money. Would you prefer a barter system?

Keep in mind, the Federal government is not the only type.

It also seems you're suggesting that before the income tax, there was no government? Not sure how the income tax has anything to do with the government enabling you to make money.

[saden1]

The "invisible hand" card being played again? LOL...I recognize that I am a wishful thinker but damn if I'm more of wishful thinker than you lot.

Children, children...invisible things don't exist neither does magic.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

The "invisible hand" card being played again? LOL...I recognize that I am a wishful thinker but damn if I'm more of wishful thinker than you lot.

Children, children...invisible things don't exist neither does magic.

So what is your point? That an economic metaphor used to analyze the correlation between self interest and effect on large scale economics is pointless? Or is it that self-interest on large scale has effect has no effect on economics of scale? That the question raised by SS33

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Please enlighten me, how does the federal government/infrastructure allow/facilitate private individuals & companies to make money? And do you believe the cost of that is worth about 33% of a mid-high end workers income?

And arguments raised by CRedskin:

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

It is required to be 33% (and growing) because of the misguided belief that government, better than individuals and charities, can help solve individual hardship, and that in a country as grand as ours, no one should go without. As Schneed said, if a person needs urgent medical attention, all hospitals are required to provide it. However, if a person chooses, or has thrust on them, the option of not securing health insurance, that is where the debate lies. I say each individual/family must come to terms themselves. Others would disagree.

Are without value?

Enlighten me, oh brilliant self righteous one, on why the concept of statistical probability as it relates to the correlation of maximizing public good through self interest is irrelevant, invalid or otherwise meaningless in the health care setting. Apparently, it is your belief that your understanding of economic theory is clearly far superior to any and all comers and is equally applicable in all markets regardless of the goods and services being exchanged. I wish to understand the facts, assumptions and reasoning of this flawless theory.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

...
Apparently, it is your belief that your understanding of economic theory is clearly far superior to any and all comers and is equally applicable in all markets regardless of the goods and services being exchanged. I wish to understand the facts, assumptions and reasoning of this flawless theory.

It's not a mere claim to understanding of such simplistic things as an economic theory that drives the one you speak of. It is the claim of understanding all that encompasses the gravitas of life. It is the claim of a knowledge of good and evil, and the knowledge that all which the government can do is achieve the greatness of human evolution to the final and great wondrous utopia of all through a simple sharing of all that is, that which may be, and that which never was but should have been. Ask the mice they understand.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

So what is your point? That an economic metaphor used to analyze the correlation between self interest and effect on large scale economics is pointless? Or is it that self-interest on large scale has effect has no effect on economics of scale? That the question raised by SS33



And arguments raised by CRedskin:



Are without value?

Enlighten me, oh brilliant self righteous one, on why the concept of statistical probability as it relates to the correlation of maximizing public good through self interest is irrelevant, invalid or otherwise meaningless in the health care setting. Apparently, it is your belief that your understanding of economic theory is clearly far superior to any and all comers and is equally applicable in all markets regardless of the goods and services being exchanged. I wish to understand the facts, assumptions and reasoning of this flawless theory.

Finally Joe, you're using something other than a jab. Now that the jabs are out of the way let me get right to the heart of the matter, the invisible hand with respect to universal healthcare. I am bewildered by the notion that the invisible hand can and does play a role in the healthcare setting. How does the invisible hand help Aunt Jane avoid medical bankruptcy or help Uncle Joe get his two kids, himself and his wife covered whilst making $10 an hour? Sure, nothing precludes them from making more money thanks to the invisible hand but do you realize that poor people have been with us since the dawn of time? I know, it's hard to believe right?

Now here come the numbers that aught to interest you Joe. Are you ready for the next round Joe? First lets define what it means to be poor in this country. Per federal guidelines an individual making less $10,830 is considered below poverty line and so is a family of four making $22,050. I hear you whisper so? So here's the thing Joe...in 1959 (the date the feds started tracking poverty stats) the the percentage of American below the poverty line was 22.4% of individuals and 20.8% of families. Disgusting numbers right? By 1969 that number dropped down to 12.1% of individuals and 10.4% of families. That's a precipitous drop isn't it?

You being the second smartest Republican on this forum I'm sure you can look at the the actual historical numbers and figure out what precipitated the decline in poverty but just in case though here's a hint...the government was involved with Civil Rights Act of 1960/1964, Pilot Food Stamp Program 1961-1664, Food Stamp Act of 1964, Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Equal Pay Act of 1963, Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1965, and Social Security Act of 1965. After the 60s the national poverty percentages stabilized with minor fluctuation due to the the economy. Note the Ronald Reagan era when the invisible hand was the most active (we can lay all the blame for the high numbers on Carter if you want). The poverty rate for 2006 was 12.3% of individuals and 10.6% of families (the numbers are probably much worse for 2008). Peeewwww, nothing seems to have changed since the 70's.

Now I figure you know the tremendous strides we have made in the last 50 years with respect to our GDP and per capita income. Given that the market has been functioning why hasn't the invisible hand improved our poverty rate since the 70's even though we're significantly economically stronger? Do we have to give the invisible hand more time? How long do you expect us to wait? In the mean time how do you expect these people below the poverty line to afford health insurance? What role does the invisible hand play in income inequality? What about the people hovering just above the poverty line?

As for SS33's post, if your tax rate is 33% you're not a mid-high end worker...if single and you make $171,550-$372,950 annual you're a high end worker and so is a married couple making 208,850-$372,950 annually (we're talking top 5% income earners here not top 25%-50)%. We've really addressed the issue of tax fairness before on many occasions and if you wish to revisit subject this exchange with FRPLG is one of my favorite on the matter.

With respect to CRR's post it is clear to me that neither individuals nor charities (invisible hands) have been able to solve the problem. And if I'm not mistaken S10's original gripe was with the pending proposal to cut DSH funding by the government. It was pretty obvious to me that he shitted on the first part of the quote with the second part.

I'm not entirely sure what is meant by self-righteous Joe. This label is quite perplexing seeing how it's being placed by you. Try as you may you still can't land an effective punch Joe, you really need to work on your lower/upper body strength.

[Beemnseven]

So let's see, in the 60's the poverty rate declined because the government pointed their guns at the heads of the producers, stole more money from them and gave it to the bums. Well, I guess that's one way to do something about poverty.

As you pointed out, poverty has been around a very long time; but sorry to say, it will always be here. There will always be poor people. There won't be an economic system ever devised that will save absolutely everyone.

[Beemnseven]

Case in point on the poor -- anecdotal, I know, but it's worth mentioning.

There's a homeless person that hangs around the area in which I live. He has a dog and a bicycle and has the familiar sign which reads: "Homeless. Need work. God Bless." So he stands around at red lights, and inevitably someone will roll down their window and give him a few bucks.

I've seen this guy for at least three years -- the amount of time I've lived in this area. Every now and then, someone will approach this person, talk to him for a few minutes and hand him a business card, or maybe it's just some way to contact them.

So the other day I'm in the grocery store getting some things for lunch and the homeless guy walks in. He walks in, and comes back to the clerk in less than a minute (I'm still in the 20 items or more lane). So what is he purchasing?

A twelve-pack of Natural Light.

I guess he has to buy food at some point, so the money that people are giving him do help out. But I can't help wondering, in all the time he's been carrying that sign, no one has ever offered him work? I know of churches that will take these people in, clean them up, give them food, and provide odd jobs to give them some money to get on their feet. There are numerous charities that do this.

But what's the one thing that has to happen for that to work? Initiative. That's right -- the homeless person has to want to do it. They have to want a better life for themselves. Many times they don't want the help. I think they actually prefer the life they have. No place they have to be, and an endless supply of people who have some pity who can provide just enough money for beer. Now, the government could throw gobs of cash at these people if it wanted to -- but the question is what would they do with it?

Sometimes you actually have to reach for the helping hand.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

So let's see, in the 60's the poverty rate declined because the government pointed their guns at the heads of the producers, stole more money from them and gave it to the bums. Well, I guess that's one way to do something about poverty.

As you pointed out, poverty has been around a very long time; but sorry to say, it will always be here. There will always be poor people. There won't be an economic system ever devised that will save absolutely everyone.

I expect nothing less from a know-nothing-conservative. You look good with a red nose.

See Joe, you got people like this clown on forum. If this joker actually knew anything he would know that taxes were reduced during the early 60's and the rich got richer.

[BringBackJoeT]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

So let's see, in the 60's the poverty rate declined because the government pointed their guns at the heads of the producers, stole more money from them and gave it to the bums. Well, I guess that's one way to do something about poverty.

As you pointed out, poverty has been around a very long time; but sorry to say, it will always be here. There will always be poor people. There won't be an economic system ever devised that will save absolutely everyone.

Absolutely correct, but is this necessarily an argument against government involvement in trying to find the most practical methods to deal with this reality? Look, I read the story you told about the homeless guy, with the concluding statement that sometimes you need "to reach for the helping hand." But the danger is in projecting that story out and seeing poverty as always being the fault of the individuals suffering from it (which I'm not saying you are saying). The fact is that government involvement in dealing with poverty is, first, quite literally centuries old, and second, is not, and has never been, exclusively driven by compassion and/or moral imperatives. Hardly. So, that we have in our history (e.g., the 60s programs) attempts to apply a level of sophistication to a routine government operation, ones greater than simply labeling poverty an individual disease and sticking all the infected in poorhouses, is, in my opinion to our credit. Yes, some programs have worked better than others, but system improvement is a better solution, I think, to no-end-game cessation of them.

My own opinion, and I know you and others fundamentally disagree, is that the programs that emerged from the Great Society have immeasurably improved the lives of millions, far more than they have affected harm. I admit to a bias, seeing as how my entire legal/policy career has been devoted to quite possiblly the most enduring product of it--the Medicaid program. The degree to which the program has provided critical support to persons with disabilities and low-income elderly (even those who have Medicare) is astounding, and I'm not aware of how, if we were to turn to the clock back to the 60s, things could have been constructed differently that would still have allowed these individuals to access the support Medicaid has provided, support that in many circumstances has been life-saving, and in others has allowed individuals to attain services that has prevented institutionalization and allowed them to be active members of the community.

And this program is a federal/state partnership, a voluntary program that every state has agreed to participate in. Developments leading up to the birth of the program didn't exactly tend toward the eventual availability of comprehensive medical insurance for these individuals that wasn't government supported. Far from it. So, to write off this program, being one example of a 60s product, as one forced-by-gunpoint down the throats of states for the sole purpose of advancing a political agenda unfairly downplays what inspired its creation and what value it has provided since.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by saden1

Finally Joe, you're using something other than a jab. Now that the jabs are out of the way let me get right to the heart of the matter, the invisible hand with respect to universal healthcare. I am bewildered by the notion that the invisible hand can and does play a role in the healthcare setting. How does the invisible hand help Aunt Jane avoid medical bankruptcy or help Uncle Joe get his two kids, himself and his wife covered whilst making $10 an hour? Sure, nothing precludes them from making more money thanks to the invisible hand but do you realize that poor people have been with us since the dawn of time? I know, it's hard to believe right?

...

With respect to CRR's post it is clear to me that neither individuals nor charities (invisible hands) have been able to solve the problem. And if I'm not mistaken S10's original gripe was with the pending proposal to cut DSH funding by the government. It was pretty obvious to me that he shitted on the first part of the quote with the second part.

I'm not entirely sure what is meant by self-righteous Joe. This label is quite perplexing seeing how it's being placed by you. Try as you may you still can't land an effective punch Joe, you really need to work on your lower/upper body strength.

Saden, First, as you said the invisible hand of charities did not solve the problem, of course like you also pointed out, this is a problem that has always been with us, and the fact is that the invisible wallet of government is a far more inefficient method to take care of the problem.

Second, as to Joe's landing punches, sadly you are like a boxer who is badly beaten, yet once out of the ring stands and proclaims the other guy never landed a punch. It is either an amazing amount of arrogance, or pure lunacy, that allows that boxer to make that claim. In your case though it is probably a mix of both.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Saden, First, as you said the invisible hand of charities did not solve the problem, of course like you also pointed out, this is a problem that has always been with us, and the fact is that the invisible wallet of government is a far more inefficient method to take care of the problem.

Second, as to Joe's landing punches, sadly you are like a boxer who is badly beaten, yet once out of the ring stands and proclaims the other guy never landed a punch. It is either an amazing amount of arrogance, or pure lunacy, that allows that boxer to make that claim. In your case though it is probably a mix of both.

I showed you a concrete example of what the government can do with respect to poverty and all you seem to do is talk...blah blah blah. Compared to charities and individuals the government is certainly more effective.

It is required to be 33% (and growing) because of the misguided belief that government, better than individuals and charities, can help solve individual hardship, and that in a country as grand as ours, no one should go without.

Get that weak stuff out of here. Work on your game cause you really can't be in the ring with me let alone throw a punch.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by saden1

Try as you may you still can't land an effective punch Joe, you really need to work on your lower/upper body strength.

Fine, then let’s break this down a bit - shall we? In the response to CRedskinsRule which I asserted was dismissive and self-righteous, you mockingly claimed as irrelevant the relationship of economic choices made by individuals and charities in the health care market and their effect on health care costs. Further, you asserted that CRedskinsRule’s response was foolish and that your approach was much more grounded in reality (“I recognize that I am a wishful thinker but damn if I'm more of wishful thinker than you lot”) followed by an assertion, without any limitations, that Adam Smith’s concept of the “invisible hand” of the market place was non-existent.

Tired of your dismissive demeanor towards legitimate theories of which you personally disapprove, I responded by challenging you to state why self-interested market reactions by private individuals are irrelevant in the health care market.

In answering my challenge as to why you believed as such, you first disabuse the thought that such choices will have any effect on lower income individuals (“How does the invisible hand help Aunt Jane avoid medical bankruptcy or help Uncle Joe get his two kids, himself and his wife covered whilst making $10 an hour”). It appears obvious to me, in accordance with the economic principles of the “invisible hand”, that finding a way to allow market forces to lower costs should be the first priority of any health care plan as this will greatly affect both the amount Aunt Jane will initially need pay for her care and the ability of the government to intervene and help both Aunt Jane and Uncle Joe.

To dismiss market forces as you do and their effect in the health care market, ultimately results in a health care system that provides goods and services but is divorced from the historical market forces. Such an attempt is doomed to failure because of the complex nature of the underlying economic transactions (i.e. – all the costs and risks associated with being able to provide health care goods or services, the general disadvantage held by the purchaser of health care goods and services, and the wide variety of knowledge of the health care field held by the purchasers of those goods and services). Attempting to resolve these complex economic transactions, with an eye towards providing the most and best health care services, while ignoring the theory that mass self interest by private parties acts to lower costs for all parties is both short sighted and ignorant.

Next you raise the one legitimate, responsive point in your answer by asserting that the government’s actions in the 60’s through direct wealth transfer actions (the Pilot Food Stamp Program 1961-1664, Food Stamp Act of 1964, Social Security Act of 1965) and indirect wealth transfer programs (Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1965) had a significant effect on the poverty level. So we are clear, I concede this as responsive because it directly addresses Slinging Sammy33’s question “What do my taxes pay for?” In part, they pay for the alleviation of mass poverty. This effect, irrespective of the social justice aspect, has many laudatory market effects – it increases the number of consumers; it creates a more diverse field of consumers; it lessens the incentive for criminal behavior by those unable to achieve economic subsistence within the parameters of the market; and it infuses wealth into the system that otherwise may have sat outside the system as unused excess. Thus, while I am in sympathy with the limited government philosophy of both Slinging Sammy33 and CRedskinsRule, I do not ascribe to their overall bare bones application of the same.

In making the concession, I ask this question - is it unexpected that the direct and indirect wealth transfers of the 1960’s (taking from the rich and giving to the poor) would result in fewer poor? Surely you would concede that this is the expected result of even the most inefficient of wealth transfers. Barring corruption by the middleman (i.e. the government), transferring wealth, directly or indirectly, to those below the poverty line has the inevitable result increasing the wealth of poor and, thus, raising them above the poverty line.

Unfortunately, you follow this legitimate response to Slinging Sammy33’s question with a walk off the reservation.

CRedskinsRule original statement was not an assertion that not that “invisible hand” was a cure all for economic woes. Rather, as I indicated above, my quote of CRedskinsRule asserts that: 1) individuals and charities are better than government at solving society’s ills; and 2) in the health care market, the consideration of market forces generated by individual choices will yield a better result than an attempt to resolve the matter through comprehensive wealth transfers enacted by an interventionist government that is divorced from traditional market forces.

According to you “It was pretty obvious to me that [CRedskinsRule] shitted on the first part of the quote with the second part.” You preface this statement with a series of irrelevant questions. There is no assertion by me or, I believe, by CRedskinsRule, that government has no role in the health care market place or that the “invisible hand” is the cure for all society ills. Rather, as I believe one of his earlier posts indicated, and to differing degrees, he and I both agree that government has a role in the market place - this would include the health services market place. At the same time, both of us (and Slinging Sammy33) would suggest that government intervention, alone and without consideration of existing market forces, cannot resolve the complex economic problem of providing the maximum health care to the maximum number of people. In fact, the point of CRedskinsRule's statement (I believe), is that an attempt to do so would result in waste, inefficiency and, ultimately, a failed system.

And just so we are clear and you don’t accuse me of avoidance – irrelevant though they may be - I will answer your multiple questions as why the “invisible hand” has not wiped out poverty despite the increased wealth generated by the system. Simply – because it cannot. In any population of normal human beings, market forces based on private self interest alone will always create an unbalanced market as, inevitably, some (many) flawed humans will confuse irrational greed with legitimate self-interest. In part to check this inherent flaw, governments appropriately regulate market forces. Although in doing so, they cannot thoroughly eliminate the flaw without also eliminating the beneficial market force. The consideration and balancing of private market forces when crafting economic solutions to complex economic problems, however, is necessary and cannot be ignored simply because it is not a cure-all.

To demonstrate the foolishness of your questions concerning the “invisible hand’s" failure to cure all societal ills – Answer me this:

“Given that [government intervention] has been [greatly increased since LBJ’s original “War on Poverty”] why hasn't [government intervention] improved our poverty rate since the 70's even though [the government is spending] significantly [more in real terms on social services]? Do we have to give [government intervention] more time? How long do you expect us to wait? In the mean time how do you expect these people below the poverty line to afford health insurance?” [As to the last, I believe that, through Medicaid, those below the poverty line already receive basic health services including (as Schneed10 has pointed out) preventive care coverage].


Along those lines, during the campaign, you consistently asserted that the wealth transfers endorsed by Obama as they related to health care constituted your position on the matter. Obama has now endorsed radical legislation in the health care field involving significant direct and indirect wealth transfers. I ask you now - with faint hope that you will answer the direct questions asked:

1) Is the legislative health care package currently before Congress as endorsed by Obama, consistent with the health care solutions outlined in his campaign?

2) Do you endorse that legislative health care package?


Finally, Saden, does repeating my name, Saden, throughout your argument, Saden, somehow increase the intellectual acuity of your argument, Saden, while somehow, Saden, magically rendering mine less valid? Or was this, Saden, just an attempt by you to highlight the humor, Saden, in your already comical response? (Saden)