Jump to content

US POLITICS XXXIX


Guy Kilmore

Recommended Posts

I kind of agree with FLoW. I would like to seen states have tried this and see what works best to adopt at a national level. Other states do have near or universal coverage, look towards some of the Midwest states as an example.

There is a problem though, when citzenry have the freedom to move states that do not wish to adopt this policies such as these have worked actively to move people to states that do enact it. They don't take their fare share. Currently actively is not done, but it is done passively and I see it on the county level within my state on a day to day basis. If a state mechanism is proposed then all states must have something in the game, so to speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm nostalgic for the old days when the left said that the government shouldn't be involved in decisions affecting a patient and her body. Seems like rank hypocrisy to me.

And when the government does we'll be here waiting for you to laugh at us... until then :rofl:

Oh, and here's a fun kick to the balls for all those Fiscal Conservatives here who were linking the story about AT&T and the like posting massive losses ($1 billion for AT&T) due to the new Health Care Bill: http://www.fastcompany.com/1599951/healthcare-bill-will-cost-att-1-billion-may-lead-to-cut-in-retiree-drug-coverage-whos-to-bla?partner=rss

Turns out the problem isn't that the government is stopping the 100% subsidization of their retirees (thus making them actually pay for their own employees), but that they are closing a little loophole:

No wonder Waxman was confused.

What a surprise, a massive multi-billion dollar corporation was more concerned about their profits than actually helping people. But they're the poor, innocent victim in all of this.

Do you have a link to the article by chance? I haven't pulled it up and I'm not identifying where that's in the reform time line for 2010. Not sure if I'm just missing it because I'm looking for the wrong phrasing, or if this is too summarized, or what:

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/8060.cfm

I'd be interested in the link as well. I've seen an identical accusation twice from conservative friends on facebook and yet have seen no evidence to back up the claim. Seems like it may just be a talking point meant to keep people worked up.

A lot of Indianans would agree with you, given the margin by which he was re-elected. :)

I like Daniels. The guy has done a lot of good in Indiana. Hell, he took a $600 million deficit and turned it into a $300 million surplus in one year. But don't let his 2008 reelection fool you. His opponent was absolutely dreadful. Of the two debates I watched she came across as an utter buffoon. Her whole campaign was based on basically saying Republicans are poo-poo heads and thus Daniels was a poo-poo head as well, all the while trying (and failing) to capitalize on Obama's "hope and change" rhetoric.

He was almost certainly going to be reelected, as he has done a good job, and as a result the Democrats dragged out a terrible candidate.

But I think if he could make it to being one of the top 3, he'd probably win it.

I don't think he has a chance, unless he actually starts planning to run now. He'd be competing with men (and one woman) who have basically been running their campaigns since November 5, 2008. Also, all he has is a record of achievements. Last time I checked, far too many Republicans these days cared more about hellfire and brimstone speeches than their politicians actually accomplishing anything. And he's be massacred for programs like the Healthy Indiana Plan (SOCIALISM!), leasing the Indiana Toll Road, attempting to raise taxes on all citizens making $100,000 or more a year, etc. He probably would be the most qualified, and as a result the rest of the vultures in the primary field would gang up to eat him alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The GOP Primary will be interesting. It really depends how many of the people who stopped self-identifying as Republicans also stopped registering as Republicans.

Right now, Republican self-identification is way down, as most of the more moderate types have started calling themselves "Independents". That has left the "Republicans" as being the crazy inner core, which is how you get "50% of Republicans believe Obama may be the Anti-Christ" results from polls.

But I don't think the new "Independents" are gonna sit out the GOP Primary. But unlike the current crop of crazies, the GOP-Independents just aren't that ... loud. So I'm not sure how that will effect the field.

It should be interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FLoW,

In answer to your question as to why other states didn't try healthcare, you gave an example of a state who did with Mitch Daniels!

I would say for the other states, maybe its possible governors might have held off implementation waiting to see if it'd be implemented at a national level. (which it was)

I read your links on Mitch Daniels and looked up a couple other things on my own. This is a guy who would be a decent Republican candidate. A worthy opponent, intelligent, and, perhaps most importantly, efficient.

I was impressed that he invested in education, child welfare workers, more cops, and most importanly, healthcare. Even though he was conservative on personal issues, I like that he didn't press his beliefs on the state.

Anyway, while not as flashy (and therefore, possibly unlikely to get a try), I think he'd be a good selection. Much better than most of the candidates that have been put forth recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kind of agree with FLoW. I would like to seen states have tried this and see what works best to adopt at a national level. Other states do have near or universal coverage, look towards some of the Midwest states as an example.

Woohoo! Thanks.

There is a problem though, when citzenry have the freedom to move states that do not wish to adopt this policies such as these have worked actively to move people to states that do enact it. They don't take their fare share. Currently actively is not done, but it is done passively and I see it on the county level within my state on a day to day basis. If a state mechanism is proposed then all states must have something in the game, so to speak.

Guy, the problem with that argument is the supporters of the bill claim this is better for businesses, right? That business really favors this, and that it will make them more competitive. It will make everything cheaper and we'll all benefit. If that's not just proponents blowing smoke up our collective asses, then the "fair share" argument makes no sense. States should be racing to do this to attract businesses. Right?

In answer to your question as to why other states didn't try healthcare, you gave an example of a state who did with Mitch Daniels!

I asked why other states didn't do what Massachusetts did, which is supposedly so similar to the federal bill. But actually, I was asking an honest question. Why didn't more states do what either Massachusetts or Indiana did? My guess is that they didn't think they had to be 'cause the feds were going to address it, and because even what Indiana did is limited because of federal tax law, adn that's sort of the point you made. There are weirdly entrenched political interests in other states that make reform difficult as well. But we also needed some reforms at the federal level that would make HSA's, etc. easier all around. Indiana did that primarily with its state employees because they have more freedom under federal law to act with respect to their own employees. A constitutional quirk.

I read your links on Mitch Daniels and looked up a couple other things on my own. This is a guy who would be a decent Republican candidate. A worthy opponent, intelligent, and, perhaps most importantly, efficient.

Thanks. I think that's the kind of choice voters deserve. A clear distinction on the issues, but a competent, smart guy. I think he'd be a tough matchup for Obama, though he certainly can't compare in the sheer charisma category. But for voters who are concerned about deficits and efficiency, he's made to order. I don't want to see the GOP run up Palin or some other goof. That's just embarrasing for folks like me. The question is whether he's willing to fight for it. The health care thing seems to have nationalized him, primarily because of his concern over deficits.

One particular thing I really liked about him was that he tried privatizing something with IBM. It ended up not working out, but rather than doing the typical politician thing and trying to convince people it really was working to avoid the embarassment of doing a 180, he stopped it and is looking at alternatives. But he has a good point that what he is able to do as a Governor may not translate as well to the national stage where there is a whole other level of political games being played.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

States didn't do it because:

1) they expected the Fed to deal with it

2) they hadn't got around to it

3) it's easier for the Fed to deal with it, since they both don't have to worry quite so much about people running across state lines, leaving the state, etc. Or about balancing the budget quite as vigorously.

4) maybe just because they didn't want to for political/ideological reasons or something

There's tons of reasons for it, and none of them really all that meaningful.

Guy, the problem with that argument is the supporters of the bill claim this is better for businesses, right? That business really favors this, and that it will make them more competitive. It will make everything cheaper and we'll all benefit. If that's not just proponents blowing smoke up our collective asses, then the "fair share" argument makes no sense. States should be racing to do this to attract businesses. Right?

No. It's called a Collective Action Problem. Or something close to it.

Essentially, what is best for the individual is not always the best route overall, even for the individual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

States didn't do it because:

1) they expected the Fed to deal with it

2) they hadn't got around to it

3) it's easier for the Fed to deal with it, since they both don't have to worry quite so much about people running across state lines, leaving the state, etc. Or about balancing the budget quite as vigorously.

4) maybe just because they didn't want to for political/ideological reasons or something

There's tons of reasons for it, and none of them really all that meaningful.

Well, they are if you're interested in an alternative to what just happened. Perhaps the debate could/should have focused more on encouraging state-by-state experimentation and solution, and figuring out how the feds could promote that.

No. It's called a Collective Action Problem. Or something close to it.

Essentially, what is best for the individual is not always the best route overall, even for the individual.

I understand the concept. I just don't see it as logically applicable given the claims made about the benefits of the legislation. You still run head-on into the arguments you guys made that it supposedly was a good thing for everyone.

The other huge virtue of doing it on a state-by-state level is that most states have a balanced-budget requirement of some kind. That would have forced whatever was done to be truly deficit neutral. There is a real risk that the federal program will blow its budgetary gaskets due to a lack of political will to make necessary cuts down the road, either due to unexpected increases in expenditures, unexpected decreases in revenue, or both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. It's called a Collective Action Problem. Or something close to it.

Essentially, what is best for the individual is not always the best route overall, even for the individual.

Hey did von Hayek wrote something to that effect in "The Road to Serfdom"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think he has a chance, unless he actually starts planning to run now. He'd be competing with men (and one woman) who have basically been running their campaigns since November 5, 2008. Also, all he has is a record of achievements. Last time I checked, far too many Republicans these days cared more about hellfire and brimstone speeches than their politicians actually accomplishing anything. And he's be massacred for programs like the Healthy Indiana Plan (SOCIALISM!), leasing the Indiana Toll Road, attempting to raise taxes on all citizens making $100,000 or more a year, etc. He probably would be the most qualified, and as a result the rest of the vultures in the primary field would gang up to eat him alive.

With records like that, he'll be torn to pieces by the teabaggers. Watch how quickly they abandoned and villified Scot Brown for just a single vote on a job bill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, they are if you're interested in an alternative to what just happened. Perhaps the debate could/should have focused more on encouraging state-by-state experimentation and solution, and figuring out how the feds could promote that.

And what's the benefit of this approach exactly?

Cause I can see plenty of downsides (herding cats, differences in regulation, states poaching businesses from other states, regulation intersection issues, etc, etc)

I understand the concept. I just don't see it as logically applicable given the claims made about the benefits of the legislation. You still run head-on into the arguments you guys made that it supposedly was a good thing for everyone.

You obviously DON'T understand the concept then.

Everyone benefits from the collective actions, but individual companies can benefit MORE if they skip out while everyone else doesn't.

The other huge virtue of doing it on a state-by-state level is that most states have a balanced-budget requirement of some kind. That would have forced whatever was done to be truly deficit neutral. There is a real risk that the federal program will blow its budgetary gaskets due to a lack of political will to make necessary cuts down the road, either due to unexpected increases in expenditures, unexpected decreases in revenue, or both.

How is this a good thing?

It just leads to alternating cycles of cuts and expansions as the economy of the state goes up and down with the standard business cycle. That's bad for the system as a whole and it's efficiency.

The ability of the Federal government to run a deficit when necessary is what allows it to do shit like this so well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With records like that, he'll be torn to pieces by the teabaggers. Watch how quickly they abandoned and villified Scot Brown for just a single vote on a job bill.

Aye. As much as even the conservatives here may not like the crazies, they make up a sizable chunk of US voters, an even MORE sizable chunk of GOP Primary voters and are by far the most vocal group on the Right at the moment.

It's not a good time to be a moderate Republican. The GOP is in "Purge" mode right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You obviously DON'T understand the concept then.

Everyone benefits from the collective actions, but individual companies can benefit MORE if they skip out while everyone else doesn't.

I think this stemmed from the lack of understanding of the concept of the tragedy of the common.

It floored me when trisky posted that he was never taught or came across that in business classes at all ........ and trisky is a very bright guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard about it so much now that it makes me wonder if I just wasn't paying attention in class.

The other funny thing though...it seems to me that it could just as easily be something taught in a political science or philosophy class as opposed to a business course.

There's no reason it shouldn't be taught it any of them.

It really is one of the most basic philosophical ideas to do with human interaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone benefits from the collective actions, but individual companies can benefit MORE if they skip out while everyone else doesn't.

Huh? You were one of the folks saying that things were going to get worse absent this reform, and businesses would benefit from it. So how could they possibly benefit "more" by leaving the state in which this beneficial reform is occuring? I get the whole free-rider issue, really. And frankly, I agree that it is applicable here. The problem is that it contradicts your selling point that this would help businesses. If it was done on a state by state basis, and a business left a state where this was going to help them, they should logically be worse off than if they'd stayed. Unless, of course, the "reform" really doesn't help them at all.

How is this a good thing?

It just leads to alternating cycles of cuts and expansions as the economy of the state goes up and down with the standard business cycle. That's bad for the system as a whole and it's efficiency.

Yes, massive long-term debt spiralling into the abyss is so much better....

The ability of the Federal government to run a deficit when necessary is what allows it to do shit like this so well.

Er, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FLoW, in the other thread you asked why states hadn't adopted UHC plans, in such a way as to imply, "Well, if people wanted reform so badly, they would have gotten their state governments to do it." I'm not sure it's that simple. Government is not always responsive to the needs and desires of the governed, as witnessed by the decades-old struggle to reform a health care system most Americans wanted reformed. Also, not every state has a Democratic majority willing to push through reform plus a Democratic governor to sign off; as you yourself said, Republicans are content to leave the uninsured behind, so that pretty much leaves out the red states.

Hmm...kind of ironic that the strategy you suggest would leave out the very states that most reliably vote Republican. That's nothing new, of course; some people seem to think that helping the rich by screwing themselves is fine and dandy as long as we save unborn babies and prevent those gays from marrying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huh? You were one of the folks saying that things were going to get worse absent this reform, and businesses would benefit from it. So how could they possibly benefit "more" by leaving the state in which this beneficial reform is occuring? I get the whole free-rider issue, really. And frankly, I agree that it is applicable here. The problem is that it contradicts your selling point that this would help businesses. If it was done on a state by state basis, and a business left a state where this was going to help them, they should logically be worse off than if they'd stayed. Unless, of course, the "reform" really doesn't help them at all.

And again, you show that you DON'T understand collective action problems.

Let's look at the easiest example: The Road

A community gets together to pay money into a big pile to build a road.

Everyone will benefit from the road.

However, the individual benefits MORE from not paying for the road, but having everyone else do it for them.

And if everyone follows this logic, everyone suffers.

Now this isn't a directly applicable analogy, but the point here is that paying for the road is what's best for everyone (including the individual), but not what's best for the individual.

Yes, massive long-term debt spiralling into the abyss is so much better....

Debt, if kept properly under control, is irrelevant to the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And again, you show that you DON'T understand collective action problems.

Let's look at the easiest example: The Road

A community gets together to pay money into a big pile to build a road.

Everyone will benefit from the road.

However, the individual benefits MORE from not paying for the road, but having everyone else do it for them.

And if everyone follows this logic, everyone suffers.

Your argument is that the individual moves out of state to avoid the tax. And if that happens, he's not using the road.

Debt, if kept properly under control, is irrelevant to the government.

That's a rather big "if". The reason states have those provisions is precisely because of the inevitable temptation not to keep it under control. Which is exactly what has happened at the federal level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your argument is that the individual moves out of state to avoid the tax. And if that happens, he's not using the road.

You missed the part where I said it wasn't a direct analogy.

It's a fallacy to assume that what benefits everyone does not also benefit the individual, even if the individual can derive more/equal/differing benefits by screwing everyone else over.

FYI, it's also a fallacy to say "If Health Care is so good, why didn't anyone do it before", which is also a large part of your 'argument'.

That's a rather big "if". The reason states have those provisions is precisely because of the inevitable temptation not to keep it under control. Which is exactly what has happened at the federal level.

States have kept them because they sound fancy to voters, despite it leading to horrible cuts during, for instance, the current economic crisis.

Deficit spending is a powerful tool of the government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You missed the part where I said it wasn't a direct analogy.

It's a fallacy to assume that what benefits everyone does not also benefit the individual, even if the individual can derive more/equal/differing benefits by screwing everyone else over.

Your argument still makes no sense here, Shryke. An employer that fled the state where something like this was enacted would not be deriving "more/equal/differing benefits if the legislation it is fleeing was to its benefit. It would be going from a situation that benefitted it, to one that did not.

FYI, it's also a fallacy to say "If Health Care is so good, why didn't anyone do it before", which is also a large part of your 'argument'.

I asked a question. How can that be a fallacy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think he has a chance, unless he actually starts planning to run now. He'd be competing with men (and one woman) who have basically been running their campaigns since November 5, 2008. Also, all he has is a record of achievements. Last time I checked, far too many Republicans these days cared more about hellfire and brimstone speeches than their politicians actually accomplishing anything.

yeah. Too bad the republicans can't just focus on accomplishments of their candidates, like the democrats did with Obama.....

:leaving:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...