This might even account for the importance of the contraceptive issue, because mandated contraceptive coverage may be seen as representing not just a modest monetary benefit, but also perhaps some sort of societal validation. I would have thought that a strong independent woman wouldn’t need a stamp of societal approval for her choices, but apparently I would have been wrong. I leave it to the evolutionary-psych folks to work out why the “slut” charge retains such power in liberated times.Who did the shaming? Conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh, were characterizing sex as nothing more lowly than private recreational activity. The idea was: You have to pay for that yourself. It was the other side that seized upon that argument and imposed a new, politically motivated interpretation on it, that the woman was shamed. The wounded woman — wounded in the "war on women" — should then seek succor in the arms of the Democratic Party, who would care for what are health needs (not recreational supplies!).
Apparently, however, it is especially wrong to “slut-shame” even though lefties feel no compunction about shaming people regarding other personal choices — from not recycling to owning an SUV to, worst of all, being a Republican. As I say, there’s something more going on here. And if the “shaming” part of slut-shaming isn’t bad, because shaming is fine in other contexts, then it must be the “slut” part.
Realistically, this should be a policy debate about insurance coverage, but minds must be manipulated, so competing templates are offered. What should a woman prefer, to be thought of as a strong free agent, doing what she chooses, with the government as far from her sex life as possible or a government that sees her as vulnerable, easily wounded, and in need of protection and support?
One answer is: I'm for whichever side gives me $1,000. That's what's really frightening.
Posts
280 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 280 of 280Michelle Dulak Thomson said...
“Oh, yes. But the difference is, I don't have to buy a car; I don't have to drive. (In fact, I don't.) But I do have to breathe. The mandate says that I mustn't be an American citizen and breathe without either purchasing health insurance to the government's stipulation (which rules out the kind of high-deductible, catastrophic insurance I'd rather have), or incur a fine/tax penalty, whichever it is today (it depends on whether they're addressing the public or the Supreme Court).
Michelle,
For those who don’t or can’t purchase healthcare insurance, who ultimately pays the pill for services provided to those people?
Do use your analogy, we are all forced to own a “car” since we ultimately have no choice on what happens to our body. We are forced into the healthcare market because of the lack of that choice. Given that, shouldn’t everyone have to buy insurance based on your car analogy?
Freder Frederson said...
The issue is a First Amendment issue because many people, and especially the Catholic Church consider the use of artificial contraception a sin and is a part of their free exercise of religion.
It is a well established constitutional principle that when religious affiliated organizations are providing services outside of core pastoral care, they are subject to the same laws and regulations as private employers. E.g., while a seminary could refuse to provide birth control to its employees or students, a university that does not discriminate on religious grounds must provide the same benefits as a non-religiously affiliated institution.
3/8/12 12:00 PM
And since when do statutory rights trump enumerated rights? It's simple, congress cannot impose a statuary right over an enumerated right, hence the university can't be compelled to comply with that mandate. Now imagine that the profesional studen Ms. Fluke upon graduating Georgetown decided she needed continuing education and she chose to go to a Hindu University? If the Hindu University in conformance to it's religeous beliefs dictate that no food containing any animal products are not allowed on campus or to be consumed on school property and it's insurance plan does not cover OTC supplements needed for a strict vegetarian diet, would Fluke have the right to demand that university be forced to sell meat and force insurance companies to be mandated to provide supplements with a zero co-pay?
Steve Koch said...
“Except that conservatives and libertarians are vigorously pushing to reduce the size, cost, and power of the gov while dems are strenuously resisting even though we are insanely over budget year after year.
Two different concepts. One concept is what political change you want to make happen. The other concept is am individual living with an existing political economic system. You are conflating the two concepts.”
How much did the federal government grow under George Bush?
I refuse to believe that people don't understand the difference between calling someone cracker or kike, breeder or faggot, and cunt or dick.
Unless perhaps, we are talking about white christian males who know exclusively only other white christian males. Then that type of stupidity might be
You are a bit of a dullard and a bigot. What you refuse to believe doesn't seem all that interesting.
As far as there being no greater threat to our liberty than our own government, are you oin board with eliminating the Department of Defense?
Yes, do away with the department in charge of one of the few specifically listed jobs of the government.
For those who don’t or can’t purchase healthcare insurance, who ultimately pays the pill for services provided to those people?
A poorly written and implemented law requiring ER to treat everybody in spite of an inability or unwillingness to pay is not a compelling reason to give the state near total power over the citizenry.
Again, why would the Constitution go into such detail as far as what limitations the government has --- and then toss in a single clause that undoes all of it?
Makes absolutely no sense.
How much did the federal government grow under George Bush?
Far too much.
Yet, the last deficit under the Republicans was roughly 10% of Obama's deficits every year.
Who grew it more?
fiend,
Is your point that because a gov subsidy works out every now and then that gov subsidies are always a good thing?
Let us differentiate between subsidies for research and production. Gov production subsidies are almost always a bad thing leading to bad economic decisions, politicized economic decisions, corruption, politicized markets and businesses, vote buying, skewed markets, market bubbles, market busts, etc. Can we at least agree that the gov needs to get out of the business of subsiding production?
No. Just responding to Ann’s comment about her being frightened by the idea of people siding with a group that is wiling to provide them a benefit when this siituation obviously occurs on both sides of the aisle
OK. That brings us full circle. As I first said, I think you are twisting her point in order to make this a D vs. R argument. I find that a pretty pointless path so I'll take a detour outta here.
damikesc said...
“A poorly written and implemented law requiring ER to treat everybody in spite of an inability or unwillingness to pay is not a compelling reason to give the state near total power over the citizenry.
Again, why would the Constitution go into such detail as far as what limitations the government has --- and then toss in a single clause that undoes all of it?”
Read about the An Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen to get an idea on what the Founders thought about healthcare.
Steve Koch said...
“Is your point that because a gov subsidy works out every now and then that gov subsidies are always a good thing?
Let us differentiate between subsidies for research and production. Gov production subsidies are almost always a bad thing leading to bad economic decisions, politicized economic decisions, corruption, politicized markets and businesses, vote buying, skewed markets, market bubbles, market busts, etc. Can we at least agree that the gov needs to get out of the business of subsiding production?”
Steve,
I think the subsidy has to weighed in relation to the benefit to the country as a whole. I agree with your point that government should get out of subsidizing industries like the oil industry that makes record profits and then turns around and uses those profits to lobby for legislation in their favor, i.e., to continue government subsidies of their own industry.
fiend,
Conservatives and libertarians turned on Bush II because of his spending (and other reasons), which is why his popularity numbers plummeted so low. The most energetic, influential force on the right is the Tea party. The Tea party is all about reducing the size, power, and cost of gov.
You realize that your argumentation is quite weak, right? How do you expect to persuade anyone who lives outside politically correct kingdom?
Many (most?) older conservatives and libertarians were lefty when younger. At some point we learned enough about the lefty approach to reject it.
"And if the rates were not going to be dropped? Only the deductions eliminated. What then?"
Then you're just raising my taxes (well, not mine, I don't have a mortgage), to fund more of your ideas of goodies.
Just Lurking said...
No. Just responding to Ann’s comment about her being frightened by the idea of people siding with a group that is wiling to provide them a benefit when this situation obviously occurs on both sides of the aisle
OK. That brings us full circle. As I first said, I think you are twisting her point in order to make this a D vs. R argument. I find that a pretty pointless path so I'll take a detour outta here.
Just Lurking,
A D vs. R argument is pointless? Isn’t that the whole nature of politics?
"I think the subsidy has to weighed in relation to the benefit to the country as a whole."
And this weighing will be done by smart people like you, right?
Steve,
I’m not trying to persuade anyone to change their opinion here. I was simply pointing out that Ann’s comment about being frightened by the idea of people siding with a group that is wiling to provide them a benefit is a situation that obviously occurs on both sides of the aisle. Her comment seemed a bit naive to me.
fiend,
My statement was to eliminate all energy production subsidies, including oil and green energy. Don't twist my words.
I have explained why production subsidies are bad but you are not capable of either refuting my points or learning. What is the point in debating this with you when you are so weak at debate?
36fsfiend said...
Dust Bunny Queen said...
“All of my taxes go into the general fund. I don't get to, as much as I would like to, tell the government what to spend the money on. I can work to vote the assholes in government OUT and replace them with someone who will spend or not spend the way I want.
Since I can't tell the government what to spend my money on, I work to reduce the amount of money that they can get from me by using every tax trick in the book.
The money IN my pocket is mine and I should be able to spend or not spend it as I wish. If I don't wish to buy auto insurance or a bells and whistles health insurance policy or even milk, that is my choice.”
So, again, are you OK with people who don’t agree with war getting a tax break? They are being forced to pay for something they don’t agree with, in some cases that’s based on religious beliefs.
3/8/12 1:40 PM
First there conscientious objectors. Second and to the point it is a core requirement of a nation state to provide for national defense along with police, a judiciary and certain ministerial functions such as foreign relations. The US was founded and its grounded in our constitution that the national government to justify it's existence must provide for this.
Everything else is statutory and therefore discretionary. What congress grants it can repeal. So you observation makes no sense, you are comparing apples to oranges. As for tax deductions that you have mentioned, you conflate paying less taxes to getting unearned benefits in cash or in kind. No relationship between the two.
Original Mike said...
“And if the rates were not going to be dropped? Only the deductions eliminated. What then?"
Then you're just raising my taxes (well, not mine, I don't have a mortgage), to fund more of your ideas of goodies.”
No. I’m simply suggesting that folks who have children and homes pay the same rates as those without?
Are you in favor of this position?
Original Mike said...
“I think the subsidy has to weighed in relation to the benefit to the country as a whole."
And this weighing will be done by smart people like you, right?”
Ah, that’s why we elect folks to office. That’s one of their responsibilities. You know, like deciding what weapon systems are required for the defense of the country for example.
"Are you in favor of this position?"
Yes, but I am not in favor of dumping a massive new tax burden on the economy as a whole.
Steve Koch said...
“My statement was to eliminate all energy production subsidies, including oil and green energy. Don't twist my words.
I have explained why production subsidies are bad but you are not capable of either refuting my points or learning. What is the point in debating this with you when you are so weak at debate?”
I agree that production subsidies are generally not smart as I stated above about the oil companies. Is green energy a start up or production subsidy at this point?
"Ah, that’s why we elect folks to office."
But they are incapable of making selfless decisions, as you yourself admit.
"Is green energy a start up or production subsidy at this point?"
It's money down a rat hole.
Original Mike said...
“Are you in favor of this position?"
Yes, but I am not in favor of dumping a massive new tax burden on the economy as a whole.”
What’s the tax burden associated with the contraceptive rule? The mandate is shifting the burden from the taxpayers to the insurance companies in this case.
fiend,
Thank you for responding to my specific point (sorry for getting testy).
All energy has engineering and production costs. Green energy is no exception. Deploying wind mills or sun panels to provide energy for the grid is production. That should not be subsidized.
R&D for energy is a different discussion.
"The mandate is shifting the burden from the taxpayers to the insurance companies in this case."
LOL re: the "insurance company" pays for it.
cubanbob said...
"First there conscientious objectors. Second and to the point it is a core requirement of a nation state to provide for national defense along with police, a judiciary and certain ministerial functions such as foreign relations. The US was founded and its grounded in our constitution that the national government to justify it's existence must provide for this.
Everything else is statutory and therefore discretionary. What congress grants it can repeal. So you observation makes no sense, you are comparing apples to oranges. As for tax deductions that you have mentioned, you conflate paying less taxes to getting unearned benefits in cash or in kind. No relationship between the two."
cubanbob,
Conscientious objectors still have to pay federal taxes that support the military as ruled by the Supreme Court. The Constitution also stipulates that Congress can collect taxes to provide for the general welfare. I guess that is one of the points that will be argued before the Supreme Court.
As far as conflating tax deductions with unearned benefits in cash or in kind, if I don't have children or own a home then I'm in effective subsidizes those benefits for those who do. That's a give away from my perspective since I could better use that money in the general economy for my own personal desires.
Original Mike said...
“Ah, that’s why we elect folks to office."
But they are incapable of making selfless decisions, as you yourself admit.”
And why is tat? Is that a reflection of society as a whole?
"And why is tat? Is that a reflection of society as a whole?"
I don't give a damn. Just take their power away to hand out goodies.
A D vs. R argument is pointless? Isn’t that the whole nature of politics?
To be precise, if an argument consists mainly of "your side does it too", that seems pointless to me. As a lifelong independent voter, I don't really have a side.
Like I said in my first statement, I dislike the govt creating dependency. I don't like it when either side does it. So if your argument consists of the fact that the right gives benefits as well as the left, there is nothing left for me to add except, no shit.
But I gotta tell you, from where I sit, I see more dependency building from the left than from the right. It's just my opinion of course.
Steve Koch said...
“Thank you for responding to my specific point (sorry for getting testy).
All energy has engineering and production costs. Green energy is no exception. Deploying wind mills or sun panels to provide energy for the grid is production. That should not be subsidized.
R&D for energy is a different discussion.”
Steve,
I admit that I don’t have a deep background knowledge about green energy but I understand that we are trying to compete with both Germany and China in this industry. From what I understand, both of those countries heavily subsidize that industry because the see it as the way of the future. Do we as a nation try to compete or just accept we will not participate in that market?
The government has subsidized aviation, railroads, space exploration and other industries which have given us an advantage in those industries in the past and present.
The problem with green energy is that it "doesn't work", and it's not a problem of money, it's a problem of physics.
36fsfiend said...
Dust Bunny Queen said...
“So what. That's your problem.”
Actually, not true. Who pays the bill if I don’t have insurance?
3/8/12 1:07 PM
You. fee for service. Just like any other obligation in life. now if you can't pay the bill then if you are insolvent then file for bankruptcy. You seem to believe that once congress passes a statutory right or imposes a mandate that those rights and mandates are permanent and non-repeal-able but you would be wrong.
Hospitals take on the deadbeat mandates in order to be able to accept Medicare and Medicaid payments. However if they were to drop them while they would still be required to treat a life or limb threating emergency they could sue for the money. heck if the Supreme Court over turns the ACA many medical and health insurance mandates would be on shaky ground.
A small matter of imposing a public good on a private party without compensation, it's in there somewhere in the constitution.
fiend,
Eliminating DoD is not an option because we live in a bad ass world and have to be able to defend ourselves. Spending on DOD will have to be cut as part of overall budget cutting. The reason that we have the gov run the military is because if we outsource it, we will be vulnerable to revolt (bye bye democracy).
You are a young person, right? Be aware that gov spending is way out of control. The Congressional Budget Office says that if the budget problem is not fixed, within 15 years our economy will no longer function.
Once most of the fed gov budget is spent paying the interest on the national debt, we also cannot afford the goodies that dems want the gov to pay for (i.e forced austerity). Once we can't afford to pay the interest on the national debt, nobody will loan us money. At that point (maybe sooner) the USA becomes a 3rd world country.
Young people should learn that academics are generally fos (if you can't do then you teach). Don't obsess about tiny current issues, take the long view. What kind of country do you want to be living in 20, 30, 40 years from now?
Just Lurking said...
“Like I said in my first statement, I dislike the govt creating dependency. I don't like it when either side does it. So if your argument consists of the fact that the right gives benefits as well as the left, there is nothing left for me to add except, no shit.
But I gotta tell you, from where I sit, I see more dependency building from the left than from the right. It's just my opinion of course.”
You dislike government dependency. Do you or will you collect Social Security or Medicare? How about veteran’s benefits or the GI bill? Do you rely on the defense department for security? How about the FAA that ensures you make it safely from point A to B on an airplane? How about safe food and drugs? And the list goes on.
"A small matter of imposing a public good on a private party without compensation, it's in there somewhere in the constitution."
That old thing? It's like over a hundred years old.
Blogger Original Mike said...
“The problem with green energy is that it "doesn't work", and it's not a problem of money, it's a problem of physics.”
I had solar heating for my water while I lived in Hawaii and it worked great. It helped to keep the cost of natural gas down quite a bit.
"I had solar heating for my water while I lived in Hawaii and it worked great. It helped to keep the cost of natural gas down quite a bit."
Well, balls to the wall, then!
(You do realize you've cherry picked a good application (solar water heating in a private home) and location (Hawaii), right?)
You dislike government dependency. Do you or will you collect Social Security or Medicare?
I already answered both of those questions.
How about veteran’s benefits or the GI bill? Do you rely on the defense department for security? How about the FAA that ensures you make it safely from point A to B on an airplane? How about safe food and drugs? And the list goes on.
Yes, the list does go on and on. Why not food, clothing & housing? Why should I even work, right?
36fsfiend said...
Dust Bunny Queen said...
“Um....because it is ....."private"?
If you bought a personal contract with a private insurer it will cover the items that you have mutually decided you want covered.”
As I stated up thread, every taxpayer $1 spent on birth control saves around $14 of taxpayer money in birth and abortion related costs.
Why not push this cost to the insurance companies instead of the government picking up the bll?
3/8/12 1:43 PM
Figures lie and liars figure. You can make an equally compelling (and just as silly) case to ban contraception on economic grounds since the ratio of private sector workers to entitlement recipients is currently unsustainable unless there serious cuts in entitlements so therefore we need more kids to sustain the welfare state long term.
Society and government are not one and the same. While society might have a moral requirement in some instances to raise kids, or provide medial care food and housing government has no constitutional requirement to do so. What congress grants it can repeal.
Steve,
I agree that DoD spending also needs to be reduced. We don’t need to be spending what the next 15 countries combined spend on defense.
I’m also of the opinion that the tax code needs to be revised. Too many loop holes and give aways.
As far as interest on the debt, a lot of that is due to the Bush tax cuts which were never paid with offsets and put in place based on projected surpluses that never materialized due to recessions and the wars. Continuing them does not seem to make fiscal sense to me.
As far as healthcare, we as a nation spend around 16 percent of our GDP on healthcare while other industrialized nations spend around 9-10 percent of their GDPs. We are not being competitive in the world in this regard. Something needs to be done.
fiend,
There is a difference between subsidizing research and production. It makes no sense to subsidize production because it skews the market into deploying the technology before it is commercially viable. This leads to huge misallocation of resources, which we cannot afford.
The market decides when a new technology is viable and affordable to deploy. Politicians are terrible at this because they are ignorant, not smart enough, corrupt, and very motivated to politicize the process. It is a disaster. BTW, I have many successful years experience in managing and developing new technology in the energy sector. When you get it right, the customer grabs it from you.
China wants to sell the green technology. In the meantime they are building one coal power plant every week.
The German government and people are incapable of acting in a politically incorrect way because of their profound guilt from the national socialist years. They are now realizing that solar panels are next to useless in Germany.
Original Mike said...
“ (You do realize you've cherry picked a good application (solar water heating in a private home) and location (Hawaii), right?)”
I’m just responding to your comment that green energy "doesn't work", and it's not a problem of money, it's a problem of physics.
The physic on solar energy work fine.
Just Lurking said...
“Yes, the list does go on and on. Why not food, clothing & housing? Why should I even work, right?”
Well, I guess it has something to do with the concept that the government should do for the people what the people cannot collectively do for themselves, like defense, a safe air traffic control system, safe food and drugs, disaster relief, etc.
cubanbob said...
“Figures lie and liars figure. You can make an equally compelling (and just as silly) case to ban contraception on economic grounds since the ratio of private sector workers to entitlement recipients is currently unsustainable unless there serious cuts in entitlements so therefore we need more kids to sustain the welfare state long term.
Society and government are not one and the same. While society might have a moral requirement in some instances to raise kids, or provide medial care food and housing government has no constitutional requirement to do so. What congress grants it can repeal.”
I don’t think the private sector workers using birth control is currently unsustainable since 99 percent of women of child bearing age have or do use it.
As far as the point the government has no constitutional requirement to be involved in healthcare, we’ll have to see what the SC decides.
"They are now realizing that solar panels are next to useless in Germany."
That just floors me. "Smart" people can do really dumb things.
Steve,
Your comment about subsidizing production because it skews the market into deploying the technology before it is commercially viable, leading to huge misallocation of resources, which we cannot afford is also a case for being against a mature industry like oil receiving government subsidies.
As far as the market always deciding, the government subsidized the electrification of the Pennsylvania Railroad back in the 1930s which helped the development of the NEC and associated industries in the northeast of the country. Government subsidies to industry expanding into new technology paid off in that case.
And the reason China wants to sell green energy is because they see a market for it, right?
As far as Germany’s guilt from socialism, I lived there for a couple of years and I didn’t notice too much guilt. As in the case with China, they are investing in green energy because they see a market for it the future.
What’s the tax burden associated with the contraceptive rule? The mandate is shifting the burden from the taxpayers to the insurance companies in this case.
God, she is stupid.
The mandate is shifting the cost of buying your own contraceptives, IF you are affiliated with a company that doesn't cover those things, to an insurance company who will promptly raise their premiums to offset the costs.
The "taxpayers" have nothing to do with this since the "taxpayers" do not directly buy condoms or birth control pills.
The burden is rightfully yours....that huge $9.00 a month or so.
You just want other people to give you free stuff and you want the Church to be forced to violate one of its First Amendment rights.
Totalitarian moron.
Well, I guess it has something to do with the concept that the government should do for the people what the people cannot collectively do for themselves, like defense, a safe air traffic control system, safe food and drugs, disaster relief, etc.
I'm glad you acknowledge that.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
“God, she is stupid.”
“The mandate is shifting the cost of buying your own contraceptives, IF you are affiliated with a company that doesn't cover those things, to an insurance company who will promptly raise their premiums to offset the costs.
The "taxpayers" have nothing to do with this since the "taxpayers" do not directly buy condoms or birth control pills.
The burden is rightfully yours....that huge $9.00 a month or so.
You just want other people to give you free stuff and you want the Church to be forced to violate one of its First Amendment rights.”
First of all, I’m not a she.
Secondly, people are arguing against the rule claiming that it’s the government giving away a benefit at taxpayers expense or that seems to be the point Ann was implying with her statement that folks will side with those who are going to provide a benefit to them.
As far as the religious institutions being “forced” to violate their First Amendment rights, if they voluntarily decide to enter business in the public sector they should be prepared to follow any and all public laws. If they can’t do that in good conscience then perhaps they need to stay out of the public sector and then they can have all the exemptions they want.
fiend,
Bush is gone. In the here and now, Obama and the dems are setting records for out of control spending. For several years the dems have refused to define a budget.
Face reality, in the present the dems spending is completely out of control. You can tinker with the tax code but remember that high taxes drag the economy down, the parasite can only suck so much blood out of the host. Gov spending has to be reduced enormously. The dem big gov model is not only the most serious threat to our liberty, it is not economically sustainable.
Young people (for example, you) will be stuck with the bill and you will never catch up. You will live in a forced austerity regime (eg: Greece) with a crappy 3rd world economy. Foreigners will be telling your government how to budget, tax, and spend. If interest rates return to normal levels, this will happen sooner rather than later.
Older people will be fine, we will be dead before the country completely goes to crap. Young people who vote for dem big government are betraying their own future.
Just Lurking said...
"I'm glad you acknowledge that."
I have no problem acknowledging the concept that the government should do for the people what the people cannot collectively do for themselves.
Lincoln articulated the same concept himself.
36fsfiend said...
cubanbob said...
"First there conscientious objectors. Second and to the point it is a core requirement of a nation state to provide for national defense along with police, a judiciary and certain ministerial functions such as foreign relations. The US was founded and its grounded in our constitution that the national government to justify it's existence must provide for this.
Everything else is statutory and therefore discretionary. What congress grants it can repeal. So you observation makes no sense, you are comparing apples to oranges. As for tax deductions that you have mentioned, you conflate paying less taxes to getting unearned benefits in cash or in kind. No relationship between the two."
cubanbob,
Conscientious objectors still have to pay federal taxes that support the military as ruled by the Supreme Court. The Constitution also stipulates that Congress can collect taxes to provide for the general welfare. I guess that is one of the points that will be argued before the Supreme Court.
As far as conflating tax deductions with unearned benefits in cash or in kind, if I don't have children or own a home then I'm in effective subsidizes those benefits for those who do. That's a give away from my perspective since I could better use that money in the general economy for my own personal desires. "
You overlook a few key points. National defense isn't optional, it's a core requirement along with the judiciary, police and certain ministerial functions. That is why conscientious observers don't have to serve but do have to pay. Try reading my comment first. A core requirement isn't optional.
As for the general welfare that is a question for another time. When it was drafted it meant a function or service that the government can provide that benefits everyone directly or indirectly like the post office, roads, bridges and ports. It took a tortured progressive interpretation for it to mean cash subsidies,welfare and the rest of the entitlement state.
Now as for children as long as we have mandates such as Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security then my kids will have to pay for those programs you will use. Now I am all in favor of abolishing them and let people be able to purchase creditor proof and tax free retirement, long term care and medical coverages over the course of their lifetime but until then you too will be subsidized by others unless you are a net taxpayer which I happen to be, so if you are not, then I am subsidizing you and not the other way around.
Now I agree with you about keeping more of my own money since besides the core functions and debt service which we are all on the hook for most of what I pay in taxes in proportion to government spending is of little or know benefit to me.
"Older people will be fine, we will be dead before the country completely goes to crap. Young people who vote for dem big government are betraying their own future."
Yeah, I don't know why I'm wasting my time arguing with the guy. Just sport, I guess.
Steve,
Bush is gone but his policies and their effects remain in place such as the tax cuts, Medicare Part D, the costs of the wars which Obama physically couldn’t stop the day he took over even if he wanted to and the economic collapse that happened on his watch. It’s disingenuous to claim all the $15 trillion in debt is solely attributed to Obama. The debt curve has been on a positive slope since around 1980 and only had a negative slope during the Clinton administration.
The concept of high taxes dragging the economy down didn’t seem to impact the Clinton administration during which time over 22 million jobs were created.
The Bush tax cuts didn’t work. Only around 8 million jobs were created during his administration and most of those were lost in the economic collapse that occurred on his watch.
fiend,
So we can agree that subsidizing either green or oil energy production is something the gov should not be doing. You are making some progress.
cubanbob,
"You overlook a few key points. National defense isn't optional, it's a core requirement along with the judiciary, police and certain ministerial functions. That is why conscientious observers don't have to serve but do have to pay. Try reading my comment first. A core requirement isn't optional.”
And providing for the General Welfare is also a core requirement as stipulated in the same section of the Constitution that addresses providing for the common defense.
"As for the general welfare that is a question for another time. When it was drafted it meant a function or service that the government can provide that benefits everyone directly or indirectly like the post office, roads, bridges and ports. It took a tortured progressive interpretation for it to mean cash subsidies, welfare and the rest of the entitlement state."
Why address it another time. It’s central to this discussion. Does general welfare simply mean infrastructure or people? The government provides for the nation defense to ensure the security of the nation’s people - all people regardless of how much each pays in taxes, correct?
“Now as for children as long as we have mandates such as Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security then my kids will have to pay for those programs you will use. Now I am all in favor of abolishing them and let people be able to purchase creditor proof and tax free retirement, long term care and medical coverages over the course of their lifetime but until then you too will be subsidized by others unless you are a net taxpayer which I happen to be, so if you are not, then I am subsidizing you and not the other way around.”
If we do away with Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security who will run similar programs in the private sector? The same banks that drove the economy off the cliff and who the right seems unwilling to regulate to prevent this from happening again in the future. You trust the government with running the military – a $1 trillion operation when all is said and done but you have concerns about healthcare. Why trust the government on anything?
“Now I agree with you about keeping more of my own money since besides the core functions and debt service which we are all on the hook for most of what I pay in taxes in proportion to government spending is of little or know benefit to me.”
It’s the principle to me. I actually don’t object to subsidizing those with children or owning a home since those activities support society as a whole.
36fsfiend said...
First read the enabling acts for Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, they are tax and spend programs but as the SCOTUS ruled in Nestor you do not have a property right to the taxes you paid in to Social Security as congress passed it as tax and can change, amend, modify or repeal anytime it wants. In short you ain't guaranteed squat so if congress changes it's mind or the economic circumstances force it to do so then you are SOL. So sayeth the SCOUTS back in 1960.
As for 90 or 99% of woman using birth control or whatever the figure is irrelevant. it's a liberty of contract thing. I provide benefits to my staff that are not mandated because I choose to do so for my business reasons. So if employers want to offer abortion and birth control to their employees for their business reasons that is their choice. It is being compelled to provide something that is not a core responsibility or violates someone's enumerate rights that is the issue.
Steve Koch said...
“So we can agree that subsidizing either green or oil energy production is something the gov should not be doing. You are making some progress.”
Steve,
Again, I believe the cost of a subsidy needs to be weighed against the benefits for the nation. Do we as a nation not want to compete in the global market in regards to green energy? If not, then don’t subsidize it. Let China and Germany control the market and all the associated technological developments with it.
As far as big oil, that’s clearly a mature industry earning billions in profits that has a strong position in the global market. They don’t need help from the taxpayers to get established.
cubanbob said...
“First read the enabling acts for Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, they are tax and spend programs but as the SCOTUS ruled in Nestor you do not have a property right to the taxes you paid in to Social Security as congress passed it as tax and can change, amend, modify or repeal anytime it wants. In short you ain't guaranteed squat so if congress changes it's mind or the economic circumstances force it to do so then you are SOL. So sayeth the SCOUTS back in 1960.”
Who in the government is going to deny people their benefits after they pay into Social Security? Who will ever have that much political will?
“As for 90 or 99% of woman using birth control or whatever the figure is irrelevant. it's a liberty of contract thing. I provide benefits to my staff that are not mandated because I choose to do so for my business reasons. So if employers want to offer abortion and birth control to their employees for their business reasons that is their choice. It is being compelled to provide something that is not a core responsibility or violates someone's enumerate rights that is the issue.”
Cubanbob,
The 99 percent figure is just to demonstrate that there is a market for the product. As far as the mandate, as I mentioned up thread, government stipulates minimum requirements for car insurance. This is done to protect other drivers. If you think about it, we are all forced unto the healthcare industry because unlike a car, I cannot chose to not have a body. That being the case, why shouldn’t the government stipulate minimum requirements to keep long term health care costs down, which is what birth control will do. This in effect helps to protect others in the insurance pool by lowering the pay outs for more expensive healthcare costs associated with child birth, abortion and diseases that can be prevented or controlled with BC pills.
fiend,
Obama is the commander of the USA military, he can bring troops home anytime he chooses.
When Obama was elected, the dems had complete control of the house, senate, and the prez. They could have rewritten the tax laws as they saw fit. Obama owns the wars and he owns the debt he has created on his watch.
Blaming Bush is a waste of time. He is gone, nobody is defending Bush.
The question is what do we do now.
Conservatives and libertarians are saying that we have to reduce the size, cost, and power of the gov starting now. Your side wants to keep this bloated, unaffordable gov that is already metastasizing into a tyrant (Holder, NLRB, Big Sis, EPA, Healthcare takeover, Finance industry cronyism, etc).
For example, having the gov take over any industry is a bad idea, especially health care. Forcing the insurance companies to provide the routine cost of monthly birth control for free is unconstitutional, reduces our liberty, and is wasteful. By forcing this routine, inexpensive transaction through the government and insurance company, you just add make it much less efficient. Anybody who is willing to sacrifice even a small chunk of liberty to save $9/month deserves to be oppressed by their gov.
Some day you are going to realize that you are completely wrong but by then it will be too late.
"Why address it another time. It’s central to this discussion. Does general welfare simply mean infrastructure or people? The government provides for the nation defense to ensure the security of the nation’s people - all people regardless of how much each pays in taxes, correct?"
36fsfiend the general welfare concept is exactly that, that was what the founders meant. Furthermore presidents in the early history vetoed certain bills that would have provided disaster relief under the premise that government is not a charity and should not take the place of charity. In other words public payment for a private good that isn't benefiting everyone equally.
Core functions whether or not paid for equally are one thing, everything that isn't a core requirement is optional and can be repealed, modified, amended or defunded. Now if you are concerned that not everyone pays an equal amount of taxes, well lets get the ball rolling on repealing the amendment allowing for the income tax and replace it with a head tax. Works for me.
Steve Koch said...
“Obama is the commander of the USA military, he can bring troops home anytime he chooses.”
Let him try to bring the troops home from Korea. It will be interesting to see which senators squawk the loudest.
“When Obama was elected, the dems had complete control of the house, senate, and the prez. They could have rewritten the tax laws as they saw fit. Obama owns the wars and he owns the debt he has created on his watch.”
Steve, really? Look at the difficulty he had getting the ACA passed which was the centerpiece of his campaign.
“Blaming Bush is a waste of time. He is gone, nobody is defending Bush. The question is what do we do now.”
The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. That was true in 1941, that’s true today and that will be true a 1000 years from now. Same for Bush and his responsibilities. As to what to do, that’s what all those folks in DC who enjoy nice salaries and benefits courtesy of the taxpayers are supposed to be working on.
“Conservatives and libertarians are saying that we have to reduce the size, cost, and power of the gov starting now. Your side wants to keep this bloated, unaffordable gov that is already metastasizing into a tyrant (Holder, NLRB, Big Sis, EPA, Healthcare takeover, Finance industry cronyism, etc).”
Steve, I’m actual not a dem. However, I belive in government being sized to meat the task. If departments/agencies can be reduced, let’s do it. If they need to be expanded to meet the task, then do so. You know between $60 to 90$ billion are lost to fraud committed by Medicare providers each year. Maybe we need a more robust DoJ to bring that problem under control.
“For example, having the gov take over any industry is a bad idea, especially health care. Forcing the insurance companies to provide the routine cost of monthly birth control for free is unconstitutional, reduces our liberty, and is wasteful. By forcing this routine, inexpensive transaction through the government and insurance company, you just add make it much less efficient. Anybody who is willing to sacrifice even a small chunk of liberty to save $9/month deserves to be oppressed by their gov.”
Well as I responded to Cubanbob, as far as the contraception mandate, the government stipulates minimum requirements for car insurance. This is done to protect other drivers. If you think about it, we are all forced into the healthcare industry because unlike a car, I cannot chose to not have a body. That being the case, why shouldn’t the government stipulate minimum requirements to keep long term health care costs down, which is what birth control will do, to protect other insurance consumers by lowering the overall costs of healthcare which is what BC pills will do.
'Cubanbob,
The 99 percent figure is just to demonstrate that there is a market for the product. As far as the mandate, as I mentioned up thread, government stipulates minimum requirements for car insurance. This is done to protect other drivers. If you think about it, we are all forced unto the health care industry because unlike a car, I cannot chose to not have a body. That being the case, why should’t the government stipulate minimum requirements to keep long term health care costs down, which is what birth control will do. This in effect helps to protect others in the insurance pool by lowering the pay outs for more expensive health care costs associated with child birth, abortion and diseases that can be prevented or controlled with BC pills.
3/8/12 5:53 PM'
We are all forced in to the food industry as well along with th housing and apparel industries, so all of those should be mandated? As for your cost figures, it's based on an assumption not on a factual basis.
As for subsidies, government should be in them as a matter of principal. But as long as we are going to have them, at least lets stick to the minimum and use them to the benefit of the largest portion of the population. Food is needed every day. Health care isn't for most people. Oil is needed by everyone every day or the economy collapses. Green is barley more than fantasy, the science and technology isn't there. Now belive it or not the oil and gas and electric power and auto industies managed to have their start-up days without government subsidies.
fiend,
Bye for now, back to real life. I hope you learned something (the good news is that you have nowhere to go but up).
I wish there were more intelligent, knowledgeable, mature lefties on this board with whom I could debate politics. Althouse and Meade have gone to a lot of trouble to create and maintain a site where left and right can have an intelligent discussion and the lefty participants really aren't pulling their weight. The likely reason is that lefties are so used to conforming to whatever the current definition is of lefty political correctness that they are not capable of responding to arguments that don't conform to lefty pc.
Maybe the best approach is to focus on one narrow issue before widening the discussion. If the lefty demonstrates that he is capable of debating that specific point then it is reasonable to discuss politics with him. If not, don't waste time.
cubanbob,
Well unlike food, where I have a multitude of choices that will not put me into bankruptcy that’s not the case with healthcare. As technological advancements are made in the medical field, more options are made available to treat folks and keep them alive. However these treatments are typically expensive and can lead to financial ruin unless one is wealthy. So I don’t agree that buying food is a valid comparison.
Like I stated up thread, it’s more like the auto insurance industry where the government stipulates minimum requirements for car insurance to protect other drivers. We are all forced into the healthcare industry because we cannot chose to not have a body. That being the case, why shouldn’t the government stipulate minimum requirements to keep long term health care costs down, which is what birth control will do, to protect other insurance consumers by lowering the overall costs of healthcare?
As far as the oil and gas and electric power and auto industries starting up without government subsidies, I’ll have to do more research although the Hoover Dam and the Tennessee Valley Authority are a couple of government projects that come to mind in regards to the electric power industry. I know aviation industry was subsidized in the early days.
Steve,
Again, I'm not a lefty. Cheers.
"We are all forced into the healthcare industry because we cannot chose to not have a body. That being the case, why shouldn’t the government stipulate minimum requirements to keep long term health care costs down, which is what birth control will do, to protect other insurance consumers by lowering the overall costs of healthcare?"
"I think the subsidy has to weighed in relation to the benefit to the country as a whole."
"I'm not a lefty."
My God, man! What do you think you are?
cubanbob said...
“36fsfiend the general welfare concept is exactly that, that was what the founders meant. Furthermore presidents in the early history vetoed certain bills that would have provided disaster relief under the premise that government is not a charity and should not take the place of charity. In other words public payment for a private good that isn't benefiting everyone equally.
Core functions whether or not paid for equally are one thing, everything that isn't a core requirement is optional and can be repealed, modified, amended or defunded. Now if you are concerned that not everyone pays an equal amount of taxes, well lets get the ball rolling on repealing the amendment allowing for the income tax and replace it with a head tax. Works for me.
Cubanbob,
My understanding is that Social Security was ruled constitutional in accordance with the general welfare clause in three cases brought before the Supreme Court back in 1937.
I assuming they will be arguing something similar in the case concerning the ACA.
As far as income taxes, actually Lincoln was the first president to impose an income tax. He thought it was a good idea to pay for things like war. We haven’t had any type of war tax for this Global War on Terror which we have been involved in since 2001.
Original Mike said...
“My God, man! What do you think you are?”
An ex-Republican turned Independent.
Right
Still missed them. Would love links, love.
Original Mike said...
Right
Mike,
The healthcare issue is nothing new. It’s similar to the plan that Bob Dole and the Republicans proposed back in 1994 to counter Clinton’s plan and it’s essentially the same plan put in place in Massachusetts by a guy who is running to be the Republican candidate for president.
Yeah, it's possible you were a Republican, afterall. It reminds me why I'm not.
You dislike government dependency. Do you or will you collect Social Security or Medicare?
Given that money was stolen from people to force us to support it --- why should anybody make that stolen money a gift?
Most conservatives would forego Social Security if we weren't required to pay for it.
The concept of high taxes dragging the economy down didn’t seem to impact the Clinton administration during which time over 22 million jobs were created.
No doubt, allowing massive corporate accounting fraud will likely lead to higher tax revenues. As long as you can investors ignore basic economics and have auditors refuse to actually investigate anything, a company can make a ton of money on paper.
...well, until that bubble bursts. Then it gets ugly.
Explain this: Why are WE still spending stimulus money every year? When it was passed, no new budgets have been passed since (thanks Democrats), which means the spending from the year of the stimulus continues.
Which means his "temporary" stimulus has cost, almost $2.7T thus far.
All because Democrats won't pass a budget to change anything.
Steve, really? Look at the difficulty he had getting the ACA passed which was the centerpiece of his campaign.
Bipartisan opposition to a bill tends to make it harder to pass when there is no similar bipartisan support for the bill.
Same for Bush and his responsibilities.
If "Bush's" spending isn't the fault of Obama, then such money losers as Medicare shouldn't be on Bush. Man, Bush ran surpluses in that case.
Hasn't Obama ran up the debt more than Bush did already?
Maybe we need a more robust DoJ to bring that problem under control.
Obama said he'd target it to pay for Obamacare.
He, mind you, hasn't done so.
Why not?
Also --- Sebellius was just nailed having to admit that ACA raised the deficit. There were never any savings.
Like I stated up thread, it’s more like the auto insurance industry where the government stipulates minimum requirements for car insurance to protect other drivers. We are all forced into the healthcare industry because we cannot chose to not have a body. That being the case, why shouldn’t the government stipulate minimum requirements to keep long term health care costs down, which is what birth control will do, to protect other insurance consumers by lowering the overall costs of healthcare?
In your world --- where, exactly, is the limit to the government's power? If they can regulate non-commerce that cannot legally occur over state lines anyway, what can they NOT do?
I’ll have to do more research although the Hoover Dam and the Tennessee Valley Authority are a couple of government projects that come to mind in regards to the electric power industry. I know aviation industry was subsidized in the early days.
TVA was a boondoggle that retarded economic growth in the TVA region for years. The states around the area grew far faster than Tennessee did.
I assuming they will be arguing something similar in the case concerning the ACA.
They are arguing it is under their taxation power --- while telling the public, repeatedly, that this is NOT a tax. I doubt the SCOTUS will want to do the dirty work for the WH in this case.
damikesc said...
“Given that money was stolen from people to force us to support it --- why should anybody make that stolen money a gift?
How was it stolen? It’s collected in accordance with a public law ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court. How about other government sponsored activities that you made depend on like the FAA, the Coast Guard, the National Weather Service, GPS satellites, etc, etc.
“No doubt, allowing massive corporate accounting fraud will likely lead to higher tax revenues. As long as you can investors ignore basic economics and have auditors refuse to actually investigate anything, a company can make a ton of money on paper.”
How does this relate to higher job growth during the Clinton administration?
“Explain this: Why are WE still spending stimulus money every year? When it was passed, no new budgets have been passed since (thanks Democrats), which means the spending from the year of the stimulus continues.”
What stimulus money is being spent each year?
“Bipartisan opposition to a bill tends to make it harder to pass when there is no similar bipartisan support for the bill.”
My comment was in response to Steve’s point that Obama could have gotten a repeal of the Bush cuts when he first came into office. I doubt that.
“If "Bush's" spending isn't the fault of Obama, then such money losers as Medicare shouldn't be on Bush. Man, Bush ran surpluses in that case.”
Not all of Medicare, just Part D.
“Hasn't Obama ran up the debt more than Bush did already?”
If you do the math, and factor in those activities that were initiated on Bush’s watch, no.
I stated: “Maybe we need a more robust DoJ to bring that problem under control.”
You stated: “Obama said he'd target it to pay for Obamacare.”
Well, if we are losing between $60 to 90$ billion each year to fraud committed by Medicare providers, sounds like we need more enforcement. The DoJ did claw back over $4 billion last year which was record high.
“In your world --- where, exactly, is the limit to the government's power? If they can regulate non-commerce that cannot legally occur over state lines anyway, what can they NOT do?”
Isn’t healthcare an industry that does cross state lines? Once a business activity crosses state lines the feds can get involved, correct?
“TVA was a boondoggle that retarded economic growth in the TVA region for years. The states around the area grew far faster than Tennessee did.”
Not arguing if it was a boondoggle or not, just responding to Steve’s comment that the electric power industry had not been subsidized in the past. It obviously was.
“They are arguing it is under their taxation power --- while telling the public, repeatedly, that this is NOT a tax. I doubt the SCOTUS will want to do the dirty work for the WH in this case.”
I don’t know. I’m assuming the Commerce Clause, the General Welfare and the Necessary and Proper Clauses may be discussed.
Fiend
Perhaps you would be satisfied with a more logical equivalent. I would be more than happy for anyone to list the cost of contraception as a deductible expense along with their mortgage interest expense. How about you?
The child credit is a different issue. Presumably, society has a compelling interest to support the process of raising children. Not so much the process of preventing them.
Krumhorn said...
“Perhaps you would be satisfied with a more logical equivalent. I would be more than happy for anyone to list the cost of contraception as a deductible expense along with their mortgage interest expense. How about you?
The child credit is a different issue. Presumably, society has a compelling interest to support the process of raising children. Not so much the process of preventing them.”
Krumhorn,
Well, my understanding is that the primary goal behind requiring insurance plans to cover contraceptives is to help reduce healthcare costs in the long run. Providing contraception is cheaper than the costs associated with child birth, abortion or treating other diseases such as ovarian cancer, dysmenorrhea and endometriosis that can be prevented or moderated with birth control pills.
The issue is not the availability of contraceptives, but including them in insurance plans to help reduce pay outs from the insurance pool for more expensive healthcare treatments in the long run. Providing a tax write-off for their use doesn’t accomplish this goal.
As far as the child tax credit, I agree with your point. I personally am not against child tax credits and home mortgage interest rate tax deductions, at least for one’s primary home, as these benefits help support families which is important to society as is the issue of women’s healthcare in my opinion.
Post a Comment