Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Politics
 Some recent Republican eff-ups.
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3

Convinced
Skeptic Friend

USA
384 Posts

Posted - 08/29/2012 :  13:11:34   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Convinced a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse

Originally posted by Convinced
yeah right. Where have the Dems "reached out" to the republicans in a meaningful way.
"Obama-care" is a republican invention. They should have jumped all over it.


Do you remember how this got passed? They compromised with and bribed the pro life democrates and did not listen to or compromise with any republican who had problems with the legislation. Remember Nancy Pelosi saying "“But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.”

Most representatives did not even have time to read the bill before it was passed. Is this called reaching out?

Also, not all republicans were in favor of the idea when they proposed it 20 years ago.

Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. (Eph 5:15-17)
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 08/29/2012 :  13:34:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Convinced

Also, not all republicans were in favor of the idea when they proposed it 20 years ago.
Not all Republicans agree on anything (they may vote the same way, but at least some votes are due to intra-party concessions or for party unity), so it's silly to suggest that unanimity is required before something can be deemed a Republican position. Even though 39 Democrats voted against final passage of Obamacare, there is no doubt it was a Democratic plan.

And of course, what the administration originally wanted was single-payer (which still wouldn't be good enough for this leftie), but they had to compromise with the right-leaning members of their own party to get the corporatist Republican thing we have now. That the Republicans voted against it just goes to show how far to the right they've moved in the last 20 years.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9682 Posts

Posted - 08/29/2012 :  17:03:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
You know, in Europe the Democrats would be considered a right wing party.
the US Republicans are so far to the right they've fallen off the map, lost in religious-rights fascist fantasy land.
Not even the Swedish Christian conservative party is calling for a ban on abortion.

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

Machi4velli
SFN Regular

USA
854 Posts

Posted - 08/29/2012 :  17:29:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Machi4velli a Private Message  Reply with Quote
As far as I understand, the policy was an attempt to deflect Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan, and so the actual support level in spirit of the plan among Republicans of the time is questionable. It quite possibly could have seemed the lesser of evils to Republicans of the time while fearing imminent political obligation to accept some change they didn't find positive regardless.

It quite well could be a parry -- obstruct and divide support for the alternative by offering a token plan. It's hard to organize an opposition bloc without at least that. This may give the opportunity to wait until there's more political will to do the changes you actually support (e.g. Republican claims tort reform is of much importance, which they did run on in 2000, though it mostly didn't materialize after the election). I mean this from a political point of view, the party decides which products of the think tanks to support.

Now I don't suppose the writers of the plan didn't support it, which one of the crafters of the plan at Heritage says, and admits the change:

So why the change in this position in the past 20 years?

First, health research and advances in economic analysis have convinced people like me that an insurance mandate isn't needed to achieve stable, near-universal coverage. For example, the new field of behavioral economics taught me that default auto-enrollment in employer or nonemployer insurance plans can lead many people to buy coverage without a requirement.

Also, advances in "risk adjustment" tools are improving the stability of voluntary insurance. And Heritage-funded research on federal employees' coverage — which has no mandate — caused me to conclude we had made a mistake in the 1990s. That's why we believe that President Obama and others are dead wrong about the need for a mandate.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-02-03/health-individual-mandate-reform-heritage/52951140/1

He also says the incentive structure was different, in the form of a tax credit for buying insurance as opposed to a penalty for not buying insurance (which sounds more expensive to me).

"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking

"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 08/29/2012 :  21:12:33   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Machi4velli

He also says the incentive structure was different, in the form of a tax credit for buying insurance as opposed to a penalty for not buying insurance (which sounds more expensive to me).
I fail to see any difference between a tax credit for doing X, and a tax penalty for not doing X. Either way, those doing X pay less in taxes than those not doing X.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Machi4velli
SFN Regular

USA
854 Posts

Posted - 08/30/2012 :  11:39:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Machi4velli a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by Machi4velli

He also says the incentive structure was different, in the form of a tax credit for buying insurance as opposed to a penalty for not buying insurance (which sounds more expensive to me).
I fail to see any difference between a tax credit for doing X, and a tax penalty for not doing X. Either way, those doing X pay less in taxes than those not doing X.


Yes, but those not doing X pay their current amount, not hundreds to thousands of dollars more.

"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking

"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 08/30/2012 :  12:55:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Machi4velli

Yes, but those not doing X pay their current amount, not hundreds to thousands of dollars more.
I'd personally prefer the burden of the extra tax calculations to be on the minority: the people being penalized.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Machi4velli
SFN Regular

USA
854 Posts

Posted - 08/30/2012 :  21:57:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Machi4velli a Private Message  Reply with Quote
You would rather not have an extra calculation and save no money as opposed to have an extra calculation and save money?

Base tax = x

ACA without insurance: x + h
ACA with insurance: x
other without insurance: x
other with insurance: x - k

I would be happy to provide proof of insurance and save $k rather than not provide it and save nothing.

"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking

"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 08/30/2012 :  22:34:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Machi4velli

You would rather not have an extra calculation and save no money as opposed to have an extra calculation and save money?
Perhaps you're forgetting that I think our taxes are currently way too low.

But really, if the base tax rates were in any way stable, you'd have a point with your comparisons. Thanks to people running our government, taxes vary from year to year, and people have the power to change their own effective rates as often.

But everyone in my exact-same shoes (as seen from the IRS' point-of-view) will pay X, and everyone in my exact-same shoes who refuses to buy insurance will pay X+H, whether it's implemented as a credit or a penalty. Either way, I "save" H dollars compared to the people who opt out.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Machi4velli
SFN Regular

USA
854 Posts

Posted - 08/31/2012 :  02:03:16   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Machi4velli a Private Message  Reply with Quote
If you simply want higher taxes, ACA compared to the other is a route to higher taxes, but I don't understand the rest of your post.

Originally posted by Dave W.
But really, if the base tax rates were in any way stable, you'd have a point with your comparisons. Thanks to people running our government, taxes vary from year to year, and people have the power to change their own effective rates as often.

How does that affect my point?

If year 1 can be either X or X-k and year 2 can be either Y or Y-k, the tax credit would still put $k more in your pocket.

But everyone in my exact-same shoes (as seen from the IRS' point-of-view) will pay X, and everyone in my exact-same shoes who refuses to buy insurance will pay X+H, whether it's implemented as a credit or a penalty.

I don't understand why you're comparing costs for different situations under the current plan instead of costs for the same situation under different plans.

Everyone in your exact same shoes and buys insurance will pay X under ACA
Everyone in your exact same shoes and buys insurance will pay X-k under the other

Either way, I "save" H dollars compared to the people who opt out.

So another person having to pay $H more is the same as you getting $H?

This reminds me of someone who buys some clothes on sale and comes out saying, "You won't believe how much money I saved!" The inevitable response: "Put it on the table."

"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking

"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus
Edited by - Machi4velli on 08/31/2012 02:04:54
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 08/31/2012 :  06:19:28   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Machi4velli

So another person having to pay $H more is the same as you getting $H?

This reminds me of someone who buys some clothes on sale and comes out saying, "You won't believe how much money I saved!" The inevitable response: "Put it on the table."
That's why I put "save" in quotes. The effect of buying insurance is the same whether it's implemented as a credit or a penalty: I pay $H less in taxes than I would if I didn't buy insurance. And if time is money, then me having to fill out a worksheet to claim a credit takes away from that "savings."

But the clothing analogy actually fails. I have to pay taxes. The clothing thing is the classic joke it is because if I buy, say, a $300 designer shirt at half-off, I've still voluntarily spent an outrageous amount of money on a shirt.

Also, tax credits need to be paid for somehow. Either other taxes need to increase or the government needs to spend less. If the latter option is picked, history shows the reduced spending will probably be on social or science programs that I think are underfunded already. If the former, then either everyone (including me) will pay more in taxes (which will negate the credit), or some subset of people will pay much more to subsidize my insurance choice. In my opinion, the fairest of those options that meshes with my liberalism is the one in which other increases in taxes erase my credit, so I'd wind up paying the same as in pre-credit years (all other factors being equal), and non-insurance-buying people would pay $H more, just as if the program were implemented as a tax penalty.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9682 Posts

Posted - 08/31/2012 :  10:02:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
My solution: tax everyone 1% extra*, and use those means to provide healthcare to everyone.

Problem solved: everyone has health care. Health care is a basic human right.


* number subject to revision if it turns out it's not enough to cover all citizens.

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 08/31/2012 :  14:53:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse

* number subject to revision if it turns out it's not enough to cover all citizens.
If I remember correctly, the Germans do it for 8%.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend

Sweden
9682 Posts

Posted - 09/02/2012 :  07:24:43   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send Dr. Mabuse an ICQ Message Send Dr. Mabuse a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I don't know how large portion of the Swedish taxes goes to healthcare, but I've seen that the efficiency of the system is good. The Swedish national health insurance system has an overhead of 2-2.5%

Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3

"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse

Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder.
Go to Top of Page

the_ignored
SFN Addict

2561 Posts

Posted - 10/10/2012 :  18:28:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send the_ignored a Private Message  Reply with Quote
PZ Myers has may have found another example of repugs screwing up:

Yep, his marriage fell apart thanks to his philandering, and now we have a recording of a phone call with his ex-mistress in which he’s urging her impatiently to get an abortion.


Note: I said "may have" earlier. Why? Look at his source. The Huffington Post. Anyone got anything from a more reliable news source that backs this up?



>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.

What brought that on? this. Original posting here.

Another example of this guy's lunacy here.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.38 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000