Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Give them all time and room, and see which ones rise to the occasion.

Agree with this completely. At this point in 2007, would anyone have given Obama a real shot?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You can use that argument from both sides. Every new program, including the ACA, costs others elsewhere. It also had a negative impact on full time hiring, and contributed to underemployment.

I'm not arguing against the ACA. It has had a positive impact on HC cost inflation. I'm merely noting, to care about one group often involves not caring about an impact to another. Some people somewhere are paying the tab, in terms of both adverse economic impact and taxes.

An argument I frequently hear from people on the right (I had dinner with several imaginary right leaners, and a few imaginary moderates just this weekend) is that we're giving free HC to the destitute and getting nothing in return. Forty percent of births are covered by Medicaid right now. That means the working poor, the middle, and the rich are paying for someone to get something. One should care about these people. But one should also recognize that some very hardworking people are subsidizing these people. Who cares about them?

Anyone who owns a car is subsidized by the form of socialism we have where you get to use public space to leave your car. Do your hardworking people ever think to themselves, wow, it's great to be subsidized that way?

eta: Your conservative pals are all concerned about subsidies, but often the justification for government programs is that they are not just zero-sum transfers -- they make things better for everyone. Obviously -- this should be obvious, but maybe your conservatives are idiots -- when little taxpayers have good medical care from birth, they are more likely to turn in adult taxpayers who add to the economy. This is probably related to the reason that conservatives want health care for their own children, so just require a tiny bit of empathy and the ability to imagine a newborn as something other than a leech. Not only did the ACA have a positive benefit on healthcare cost inflation, as you say, it also seems to have improved health. If one's prime concern is making sure that the unwashed pick themselves up by their bootstraps, I'd think that making sure their hearts permit it would be good thing.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Anyone who owns a car is subsidized by the form of socialism we have where you get to use public space to leave your car. Do your hardworking people ever think to themselves, wow, it's great to be subsidized that way?

There are endless cross-subsidizations. That's the point. To say you "care about" someone who is receiving a benefit given by the govt means you are saying you're okay with someone else losing something. Unlike the economy, govt is a zero sum game (at least it's supposed to be). For every thing given to someone, someone else is taxed.

You can't "care" about everyone. You wind up picking and choosing.

The accusation "you don't care about other people" in re: tax policy can never really be accurate. Even if a person just cares about himself and votes for his own interests, he winds up voting for the interests of similarly situated people.

This leads to an argument about which caring is best. Is caring for the worst off the best form of caring? Is caring for the most productive a better form? I don't know. You can make all sorts of arguments for enhancing how much you care for numerous classes.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

SEVERAL COMPANIES who MAKE a car is subsidized by the form of socialism we have where you get to use public MONEY to PAY TO BUILD your car. Do your hardworking people ever think to themselves, wow, it's great to be subsidized that way?

Fixed

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Do you think Obama would beat Trump if he could run in 2020?

I think so but I think Trump has picked up steam with his despicable ness.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You can use that argument from both sides. Every new program, including the ACA, costs others elsewhere. It also had a negative impact on full time hiring, and contributed to underemployment.

Actually, ACA had a very strong positive impact on employment, because it drove employment in the healthcare sector. There are a lot of reports and studies validating that the ACA was a very effective jobs bill, and, because healthcare is one of the most disbursed industries in the country, had a positive effect all over, from rural Indiana to urban LA.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I've been through a lot of campaigns, and watched Carter, Clinton and Obama rise from relative obscurity to election and come out of a campaign looking very different than they went in. I've watched Biden walk into two campaigns looking like he was one of the guys with stature and then just completely blow it. Give them all time and room, and see which ones rise to the occasion.

Really, you love the Jets?

I've kinda fallen on the Mayor Pete bandwagon of late, but I'm really open to most of 'em at this point.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You can use that argument from both sides. Every new program, including the ACA, costs others elsewhere.

Well, yeah. My employees are hurt by ACA, so is my family. But ACA wasn't passed intending to do harm against me. It was intended to help others, and the harm to me was collateral and worth it*.

Your argument might be better directed to pollution control- you can argue more control helps the air, and hurts companies. And vice versa.

But I think adder meant the flat out hate, where the only "benefit" is no fags/immigrants/etc. Not a possibly good benefit that Ty and I might disagree about, but just hate?


*not worth it in my opinion, but in the minds voting for it.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I've kinda fallen on the Mayor Pete bandwagon of late, but I'm really open to most of 'em at this point.

He is a phenomenon. As I keep tracking who is landing in his camp, it is a really unusual cross section of people from all parts of the party.

I'd reverse that for myself, I'm open to most of 'em, but am kinda of Pete curious at this point.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Well, yeah. My employees are hurt by ACA, so is my family. But ACA wasn't passed intending to do harm against me. It was intended to help others, and the harm to me was collateral and worth it.

Your argument might be better directed to pollution control- you can argue more control helps the air, and hurts companies. And vice versa.

But I think adder meant the flat out hate, where the only "benefit" is no fags/immigrants/etc. Not a possibly good benefit that Ty and I might disagree about, but just hate?

If any of your employees have kids who have stayed on their insurance post-college, they're likely finding a significant net benefit in that mix.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

If any of your employees have kids who have stayed on their insurance post-college, they're likely finding a significant net benefit in that mix.

I'm not trying to have that debate. Just trying to help Sebby see how intent might play into how a reasonable person might feel about the actions of an administration.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I'm not trying to have that debate. Just trying to let Sebby know intent might play into how a reasonable person might feel about the actions of an administration.

Good luck.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Well, yeah. My employees are hurt by ACA, so is my family. But ACA wasn't passed intending to do harm against me. It was intended to help others, and the harm to me was collateral and worth it*.

Your argument might be better directed to pollution control- you can argue more control helps the air, and hurts companies. And vice versa.

But I think adder meant the flat out hate, where the only "benefit" is no fags/immigrants/etc. Not a possibly good benefit that Ty and I might disagree about, but just hate?


*not worth it in my opinion, but in the minds voting for it.

I get that. But even if you consider multipliers (friends in PE make arguments that ACA has huge multiplier, and it might, but it also encourages employers to use more contractors and pare hours, keeping many people part time rather than full), somebody is paying to subsidize it.

Now, you and I aren’t going to freak out about that. The increased cost is small.

But imagine you’re the guy who’s feeling the impact, in terms of not having had a full time job, or struggling to pay for a plan while others are effectively fully subsidized. This is where Trump finds his sweet spot. He plays the struggling against the hopeless. When I hear a well heeled person chiding freeloaders, I know that’s just meanness. But when you see these Trump followers arguing, “Where’s my safety net? Why does a guy doing nothing get covered using dollars I’m struggling to pay for my plan at a job that avoids hiring full time employees in part because of the ACA?” you see what I think is the hidden Trump voter.

You can tell these people that people getting effectively free care under the ACA are a rounding error, but I don’t think that resonates. You can tell them greedheaded corporate managers are the real problem, but they have no power to challenge those sorts. The people with whom they can take issue are the truly destitute receiving govt benefits which they think should be given to them.

I was trying to tease this point out with the Adder exchange, but never got there. Those with some significant assets and income enjoy subsidies. Those with nothing enjoy subsidies. Those just staying afloat seem to be bypassed in re most of the useful subsidies. I think that’s the essential Trump voter.

I imagine the ACA architects probably factored in backlash from people like Hank. Turns out he didn’t care. I’ll bet they didn’t consider the possibility the law would pit the middle class against the truly destitute.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There are endless cross-subsidizations. That's the point.

I mean, it wasn't as this little riff started with you evaluating how the current president's policies harmed or benefited you personally, but whatever.

Unlike the economy, govt is a zero sum game (at least it's supposed to be).

It most certainly is not. That's what a multiplier is.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Your argument might be better directed to pollution control- you can argue more control helps the air, and hurts companies. And vice versa.

Doesn't really work there either as there are companies that make and install the environmental equipment too.

But I think adder meant the flat out hate, where the only "benefit" is no fags/immigrants/etc. Not a possibly good benefit that Ty and I might disagree about, but just hate?


*not worth it in my opinion, but in the minds voting for it.

Right. Not sure who Sebby thinks benefits from kids in cages, for example. Private prison companies, maybe?