Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Doubtless that market is distorted by the tax benefits to employers of providing health insurance. But not for those incentives, employers would be relatively different. Except that consumers have more power in the marketplace when they pool, as through an employer. If everyone was left to purchase health care individually, you'd see a lot more cream-skimming, to the detriment of many of us.



Instead of mandating that people purchase it, and struggling with the resulting enforcement/gap-filling problems, why not provide basic coverage through the government (directly or indirectly) and "make" people pay for it by taxing them?

One would also have to address the fact that, without the collective purchasing power of employers or the state, insurance companies would simply refuse to insure many of the people most in need. For example, I could not purchase private health insurance. I have a heart condition and diabetes. No company would cover me. Without employer-provided health insurance I would be destitute and, ultimately, dead, due to an inability to pay the costs of my health care out of pocket.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm sort of convinced that the only real limit on our ability is the one imposed by our will, or lack of will.

Why aren't we intervening in Darfur and Zimbabwe right now? On some level, it's a question of will. We don't have the troops, but we could add them if we really cared. But what would they do once they were there? Superintend refugee camps? There are a lot of failed states in the world, and it's not like anyone really knows how to fix them.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by taxwonk
One would also have to address the fact that, without the collective purchasing power of employers or the state, insurance companies would simply refuse to insure many of the people most in need. For example, I could not purchase private health insurance. I have a heart condition and diabetes. No company would cover me. Without employer-provided health insurance I would be destitute and, ultimately, dead, due to an inability to pay the costs of my health care out of pocket.

This is what I meant by "cream skimming, to the detriment of many of us," but you said it much, much better.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why aren't we intervening in Darfur and Zimbabwe right now? On some level, it's a question of will. We don't have the troops, but we could add them if we really cared. But what would they do once they were there? Superintend refugee camps? There are a lot of failed states in the world, and it's not like anyone really knows how to fix them.

Actually, if we had the will, there needn't be any refugee camps. Bring the people back home, and then level the other people who are forcing them to be refugees. But we're too afraid of seeming to judge the killers - heck, there's two sides to every genocide, right?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm sort of convinced that the only real limit on our ability is the one imposed by our will, or lack of will.

The United Imperial States of the World?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
The United Imperial States of the World?

The Living Residents Of Darfur?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

No one seems to be talking about this great new tax bill that Bush and the GOP have pushed through - why not? I mean, I assume that with the economy struggling the idea of a tax bill is to really jump start things, and that a lot of deep thought about economic policy has gone into this. And, let's face it, Bush had to push this through both the House and the Senate at a time when the R's have the majority, and his ability to set economic policy under such conditions is surpising. Yet, here he has done it, and crafted a bill of which everyone can be proud - What Leadership!

So, Bilmore, Slave, Club, what do you think of this tax bill? Isn't it great! I understand there is something for everyone in it.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So, Bilmore, Slave, Club, what do you think of this tax bill? Isn't it great! I understand there is something for everyone in it.

"Everyone" is exactly right, which is why it got bipartisan support, from all the pork-whores on both sides.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
The Living Residents Of Darfur?

I don't disagree with the notion that it would be good if we did something. I don't even necessarily disagree with your statement that we could do something if we had the will. But where do we draw the line? I think we have to draw it somewhere.

After all, You have genocide of one form or another or massive repression of ethnic or social minorities going on in parts of India, Pakistan, China, Mexico, Sudan, Chad, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Niger, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Indonesia, all of the Middle East, Chechnya, Croatia, Serbia, Tibet, Brazil, Turkey, Cyprus, Korea, and too many other places to list. Surely we can't stop it all.

Where, Bilmore, where?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
"Everyone" is exactly right, which is why it got bipartisan support, from all the pork-whores on both sides.

Ah, I've been waiting for this lovely little come back all day, after your little episode giving Bush full and undiluted credit for one small provision you approved of this morning.

So in the debate tonight we cannot expect Bush to claim a major bill in a Republican controlled legislature is the product of his Leadership, can we? So what is he doing right now to exercise leadership on the economy? And where does the buck stop on these things?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
No one seems to be talking about this great new tax bill that Bush and the GOP have pushed through - why not? I mean, I assume that with the economy struggling the idea of a tax bill is to really jump start things, and that a lot of deep thought about economic policy has gone into this. And, let's face it, Bush had to push this through both the House and the Senate at a time when the R's have the majority, and his ability to set economic policy under such conditions is surpising. Yet, here he has done it, and crafted a bill of which everyone can be proud - What Leadership!

So, Bilmore, Slave, Club, what do you think of this tax bill? Isn't it great! I understand there is something for everyone in it.

Well, I'm just glad that the vital bow and arrow industry and the makers of ceiling fans in China have finally gotten the relief they've needed for so long. I may even change my vote. Is Zippy the Pinhead a native-born American citizen?

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Giant step backward? You really are glum about the world, aren't you?

Murder: According to a Justice Department report called Homocide Trends in the US, homicide rates recently declined to levels last seen in the late 1960's. I'm not sure if they included 9/11 in their numbers.




Abortion: According to the CDC, who has been monitoring legal abortions since 1969, the number of abortions in the US has been declining, and this is not accounting for changes in the population size. In a November 2003, MMWR article interpreting the data from 2000 the CDC reported that "From 1990 through 1997, the number of legal induced abortions gradually declined. In 1998 and 1999, the number of abortions continued to decrease when comparing the same 48 reporting areas. In 2000, even with one additional reporting state, the number of abortions declined slightly."

Incarceration: The rate has increased significantly since 1980, but it appears that it is leveling off.



Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics

ETA on the government expenditures: I'm still looking at deficit and surplus numbers, but preliminarily it looks like federal outlays as a percent of GDP have been falling considerably since 1990.

I am so misunderstood (and I swear that you are one person here who I will never, ever intentionally insult, and its not because you are a moderator... more because you are like a hero).

My comparison is with the time before all of the great society programs began. I want to see all of my factors at the 1946 or 1927 levels. Comparing our crime factors to the time of our crack wars just doesn't do it for me. Similarly, comparing our abortion and teenage birth rates to any time after 1973 and the 1960's respectively, just doesn't do it for me. Even a conservative pro-choice estimate of abortions will show (I'm fairly certain I've seen several) that abortions skyrocketed after it was made legal, and teen birth generally skyrocketed after government aid was made an entitlement. I'd go so far as to say that the reasons society shies away from going after dads is because of the no-say-in-abortion decisions thing and (of course) the general availability of government aid. We have 19 year olds living in public housing with 3 kids next door to the public housing apartments where they grew up with 7 more. I don't mean to sound like I'm optimistic that all of this (misallocated incentives) gets fixed. Rather, I think this stuff gets slowly rolled back. And I'm not saying that you have not dealt with sheer human misery in this country, but if you've seen the same things I have, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

Hello

[Replaced_Texan]

Krauts for Kerry?

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That may have been your topic, but that's not what I was talking about. The original topic was the success of containment in dealing with the threat posed by Hussein to us (i.e., WMD), not the threat he posed to his own people, but you have dropped that one like a hot rock.

I mentioned thousands of children dying each month and suggested that I favored the use of force in Iraq to put a stop to the killing fields and the horrific sanctions which were not, in my mind, working based on my definition of “working.” You chose to respond and said “our tactics in Iraq -- aimed at force protection -- have resulted in more "collateral damage." I do not believe civilian war casualties have exceeded the number of dead children I mentioned. So I fail to see your point.

I'm not opposed to acting out of humanitarian concerns, but I think the ultimate end of our foreign policy should be national security. I usually have this discussion with bleeding-heart lefties, so it's something of a shock to hear this sort of earnestness from the right.Does anyone disagree that Hussein was a bad man? No. The world is full of them. Robert Mugabe, for example, has been starving his own people for years. Unfortunately, there are real limits to our ability to effect social change in other parts of the world. The question is rarely, how bad are things, but, what can we do about them?

Whatever. Shit or get off the pot, Ty. If our administration had said they were going in based on humanitarian reasons would you support it? Or will you take the weasel-ly approach and whine how the administration DIDN’T use this as the reason for going in and therefore it doesn’t matter. It matters to me. Would you or would you not have supported the war to end human rights abuses and the devastating effects of the sanctions?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I don't disagree with the notion that it would be good if we did something. I don't even necessarily disagree with your statement that we could do something if we had the will. But where do we draw the line? I think we have to draw it somewhere.

After all, You have genocide of one form or another or massive repression of ethnic or social minorities going on in parts of India, Pakistan, China, Mexico, Sudan, Chad, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Niger, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Indonesia, all of the Middle East, Chechnya, Croatia, Serbia, Tibet, Brazil, Turkey, Cyprus, Korea, and too many other places to list. Surely we can't stop it all.

Where, Bilmore, where?

Start with the Basques. You can't trust those fuckers.