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

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Funny. As I read through it it seems in part about me. I think that is the point? Good thing about books as opposed to snap chat is you can re read.

No bullshit: you’re the author (okay sorta bullshit) and Sebby is the various people she talks about.

The basic point being listen, no the reaction you’re having isn’t listening, it’s not about you, yeah, that’s a huge part of the problem, no, it’s not your fault but you’re not helping right now.

Okay, more seriously, it’s about all of us, which is the point. We’re all swimming in white supremacy. Those of us who are deemed white all benefit from it. We all participate in it and actually can’t help but do so. What we can do is affirmatively try fight against racism, which starts first and foremost with not denying it and reacting defensively to naming it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Almost is a word in the English language you might want to look up.

In the context of this discussion, “almost entirely” is a perfect adjective to convey a scenario where all but outliers of a certain demographic share a common characteristic.

Listen, Sebby, absolutely nothing in this conversation turns on the difference between "almost entirely" and "entirely." Nothing. You are arguing, perhaps without realizing it, that the immigrants we are talking about do not deserve healthcare because they don't pay for it, "almost entirely." That's bullshit. Maybe you don't really believe that immigrants should be treated as an underclass, but are advising Democrats to do it out of political expediency. If that's not what you really think, say so, instead of relying on debating tricks like complaints about sophistry. You make it very difficult to tell what you really do believe, and when I quote you, you bitch and moan about it. Stand for something.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Ty's last gasp.

You've more strawmen than all historical stage productions of The Wizard of Oz combined.

Let's go line by line.

Listen, Sebby, absolutely nothing in this conversation turns on the difference between "almost entirely" and "entirely." Nothing.

Actually, no. That's entirely what tripped you up in this conversation. Which is why you're reframing the conversation. Which is what you do when you're confronted with being incorrect about something.

You are arguing, perhaps without realizing it, that the immigrants we are talking about do not deserve healthcare because they don't pay for it, "almost entirely."

This is a new low, even for you. Here you are not only using a strawman, but attempting to preempt observation of that fact by telling me what I'm subconsciously arguing.

I'm not arguing that point at all. You are trying to say that I am arguing that point so you can counter it because you've failed to counter the point I actually made.

As I argue below, and previously (which you conveniently ignore), undocumenteds do deserve health care.

Maybe you don't really believe that immigrants should be treated as an underclass, but are advising Democrats to do it out of political expediency.

This is unclear, but I think you're saying I think immigrants are an underclass. I don't think they're an underclass at all. I think they're underpaid. That was my point. My argument for subsidizing their care is primarily economic. I also think it's inhumane to turn away people in need of acute care.

In terms of spending power as a demographic, undocuments are, in purely economic terms, an underclass. They are paid far less in most instances (yours, mine, and GGG's outlier anecdotes aside). On average, eleven million of them each pay $2k in state and fed taxes. Given there are outliers paying far more than that, we could postulate that there's a hockey stick distribution, and 80% of undocuments are in dire economic circumstances, paying far less than $2k per year, while a small fraction of fortunate ones pay far more than that.

If that's not what you really think, say so, instead of relying on debating tricks like complaints about sophistry.

You were engaged in sophistry. Your argument that I'd used the term "entirely" where I used "almost entirely" can only avoid being labeled as such by asserting it lacks requisite cleverness to qualify as sophistry.

Cornered, you do this sort of thing every. single. time.

You make it very difficult to tell what you really do believe, and when I quote you, you bitch and moan about it. Stand for something.

I made what I stand for abundantly clear: Calling out politicians for bullshitting, in the vain hope they'll stop doing so if sufficiently flagged for it.

The Ds in that debate know damn well that the HC plan for undocumenteds they're behind, in whatever form it takes, will be overwhelmingly paid for by govt subsidy. That's just simple math. And yet they offer the canard that through magical accounting, these undocumenteds will somehow be able to pay for something that most documented immigrants and citizens cannot afford. This offends basic math and logic. It's bullshit. And the Post was right to look right through it and call it what it was - a massive subsidy.

And why not call it a subsidy? What's wrong with arguing that undocumenteds contribute to keeping the costs of numerous goods and services low, so subsidizing medical care for them is not a "giveaway" of any kind? Why do you have to lie? Why do you have to hew to the fiction that most undocumented immigrants can afford to pay for HC insurance? You're the one standing facts on their ear here.

I'm standing for elimination of bullshit. And I don't need to stand for anything more. The problems at hand are incredibly complex, and my views shift on them all the time. I don't have a fix and I'm not sure one is politically possible, but I do believe that to find out whether one may be possible, the necessary first step is destroying "narratives" and "bullshit." And as I noted earlier, this applies to the Rs as well, who are lying through their teeth about immigration in endless regards.

(I think you want me to stand for something else. This need you have for people to pick sides as you'd desire people to align, or be stereotyped, is a pathology in your thinking we can address elsewhere.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The Ds in that debate know damn well that the HC plan for undocumenteds they're behind, in whatever form it takes, will be overwhelmingly paid for by govt subsidy. That's just simple math.

I guess this is where we disagree. I think you're wrong that healthcare for illegal immigrants would be "almost entirely" subsidized. Illegal immigrants work and they pay taxes. It's not hard to imagine ways to get them to pay for healthcare, or more in taxes. They also tend not to use government services when they're here, and to go back to their country when they get older, which means they're not using the more expensive parts of the healthcare system. Generally, see this.

Why do you have to lie?

I almost said something I'd regret later, but I'm going to bite my tongue. I don't think your tone is called for.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I guess this is where we disagree. I think you're wrong that healthcare for illegal immigrants would be "almost entirely" subsidized. Illegal immigrants work and they pay taxes. It's not hard to imagine ways to get them to pay for healthcare, or more in taxes. They also tend not to use government services when they're here, and to go back to their country when they get older, which means they're not using the more expensive parts of the healthcare system. Generally, see this.



I almost said something I'd regret later, but I'm going to bite my tongue. I don't think your tone is called for.

I agree we are having an argument of degree. I'll read that article (just as soon as I figure out how to get out of private browsing, which is barring me from doing so).

Regarding the "lie" comment, that was lazy of me. I didn't mean to assert you're a liar. I meant to assert that you were pushing a narrative I don't think you believe is truly accurate, but you believe is nevertheless defensible.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I agree we are having an argument of degree. I'll read that article (just as soon as I figure out how to get out of private browsing, which is barring me from doing so).

Regarding the "lie" comment, that was lazy of me. I didn't mean to assert you're a liar. I meant to assert that you were pushing a narrative I don't think you believe is truly accurate, but you believe is nevertheless defensible.

ETA: So I read it. And the final statement in it - “give providers more money to care for undocumented” (subsidize their care) - is exactly my prescription.

Nothing you’ve cited demonstrates any significant portion of HC coverage can be afforded by the average undocumented immigrant. And the math, even some of the facts in that article, suggest undocumenteds don’t have the ability to pay for any substantial portion of such coverage. So really, where we’re at is you disagreeing with my assessment such HC coverage would be “almost entirely” subsidized. But given what we know now, there exists a huge and credible basis for use of that measurement. The standard of contrary proof is yours, and you’ve got a job on your hands.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

ETA: So I read it. And the final statement in it - “give providers more money to care for undocumented” (subsidize their care) - is exactly my prescription.

Nothing you’ve cited demonstrates any significant portion of HC coverage can be afforded by the average undocumented immigrant. And the math, even some of the facts in that article, suggest undocumenteds don’t have the ability to pay for any substantial portion of such coverage. So really, where we’re at is you disagreeing with my assessment such HC coverage would be “almost entirely” subsidized. But given what we know now, there exists a huge and credible basis for use of that measurement. The standard of contrary proof is yours, and you’ve got a job on your hands.

On an individual basis, *anyone* who has any significant healthcare expenses is being subsidized by others who don't. That's what private insurance is, and that's what the ACA does. The number of people who can afford to pay for their coverage without being "subsidized" by their coverage is vanishingly small. So everyone, or almost everyone, is "subsidized." (When rich people are covered by their insurance, we acknowledge that their wealth gives them a moral claim to whatever they want, so we don't dwell on that.) The whole point of health insurance is to make this subsidy happen.

Undocumented immigrants work. That's why they want to be here. They make less money than most people, but they also use less healthcare.

Now, I understand that you have a standing objection to universal healthcare on the ground that 'we can't afford it' (not quoting you there, but I also don't think I'm misrepresenting your views). We actually can afford it, objectively, much as we can afford military spending in excess of the next several militaries cumulatively, or to put men on the moon, or to be fighting wars on mainland Asia for decades. 'We can't afford it' is not a statement of accounting fact, but a euphemism for 'that's not important to me.'

Saying that healthcare for immigrants will be "almost entirely subsidized" is the same sort of rhetorical. "Subsidized" is a great word because it rests on baseline assumptions about who deserves want. Immigrants are here, working. If your view is, they can pay taxes directly and drive economic activity that generates more taxes indirectly, and they don't deserve any benefit from government spending, then, yes, it follows that letting them participate in health insurance is a form of subsidy.

Maybe that's not what you meant. But you're still assuming that if the government spends money on immigrants, it's a subsidy, which is too say that immigrants pay taxes but shouldn't expect to get anything back. Would you ever say that Mississipians are subsidized by defense spending because they pay less in taxes but receive the same (or more) per capita benefits? The framing of the basec complaint -- "poor people are getting something they don't deserve" -- is fundamentally conservative.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If your view is, they can pay taxes directly and drive economic activity that generates more taxes indirectly, and they don't deserve any benefit from government spending, then, yes, it follows that letting them participate in health insurance is a form of subsidy.

https://itep.org/immigration/?gclid=...iAAEgLlc_D_BwE

the $11 billion number is "state and local" taxes, is there a number for federal taxes? is Bernie fixing to spend state tax money?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

No bullshit: you’re the author (okay sorta bullshit) and Sebby is the various people she talks about.

The basic point being listen, no the reaction you’re having isn’t listening, it’s not about you, yeah, that’s a huge part of the problem, no, it’s not your fault but you’re not helping right now.

Okay, more seriously, it’s about all of us, which is the point. We’re all swimming in white supremacy. Those of us who are deemed white all benefit from it. We all participate in it and actually can’t help but do so. What we can do is affirmatively try fight against racism, which starts first and foremost with not denying it and reacting defensively to naming it.

The book that our friend T has been begging us all to read took me 4 or 5 hours to read, tops. It is 150 pages. It is not a "hard read." There will be concepts that are hard for you to all accept, but there are not passages you have to go back and reread.

I have to say, if you even vaguely pay attention to sebby v anyone fights here you have wasted far more time then the book will take you to read. And I must say that EVERY. ONE. OF. YOU. posts stuff that makes me know you could benefit.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

The book that our friend T has been begging us all to read took me 4 or 5 hours to read, tops. It is 150 pages. It is not a "hard read." There will be concepts that are hard for you to all accept, but there are not passages you have to go back and reread.

I have to say, if you even vaguely pay attention to sebby v anyone fights here you have wasted far more time then the book will take you to read. And I must say that EVERY. ONE. OF. YOU. posts stuff that makes me know you could benefit.

It’s not even stuff that should be new to you, if you’ve been listening, but it’s helpful and enlightening to have it all in one place.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

It’s not even stuff that should be new to you, if you’ve been listening

not trying to be a dick, but this statement doesn’t apply to me. And I wonder, if it were true, why was t so adamant we read it?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

https://itep.org/immigration/?gclid=...iAAEgLlc_D_BwE

the $11 billion number is "state and local" taxes, is there a number for federal taxes? is Bernie fixing to spend state tax money?

Here’s ITEP saying they pay $11.64 billion in state and local
taxes (bottom of p. 1): https://itep.org/wp-content/uploads/immigration2016.pdf

Here’s the IRS saying they're estimated to pay $9 bil payroll taxes: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/20-I...20Taxation.pdf

Here’s a somewhat dated (2009) Pew analysis showing undocumented immigrant households earn far less than median income: https://www.pewhispanic.org/2009/04/...united-states/

It’s inarguable that, on average, this demographic cannot afford to pay much for health care coverage. It’s silly to even debate that. The debate is whether, in the same way we subsidize health care for poor citizens with similar incomes, we should also for non-citizens. Given the benefits undocumented immigrants provide in terms of performance of labor people born here won’t do at reasonable cost, and the decrease in cost of goods and services this passes on to consumers, economically it’s a no brainer to subsidize care for undocumenteds. Given the fact that it’s inhumane to deny care and in most cases unlawful, the reality is, we’re already subsidizing care for these people in an inefficient manner. Doing it in an organized fashion would probably be cheaper.

But, we will never hear such clarity on this, because folks like Ty and those on the Right want to frame it as a debate about who deserves what, which makes it a wedge issue.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Here’s ITEP saying they pay $11.64 billion in state and local
taxes (bottom of p. 1): https://itep.org/wp-content/uploads/immigration2016.pdf

Here’s the IRS saying they're estimated to pay $9 bil payroll taxes: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/20-I...20Taxation.pdf

Here’s a somewhat dated (2009) Pew analysis showing undocumented immigrant households earn far less than median income: https://www.pewhispanic.org/2009/04/...united-states/

It’s inarguable that, on average, this demographic cannot afford to pay much for health care coverage. It’s silly to even debate that. The debate is whether, in the same way we subsidize health care for poor citizens with similar incomes, we should also for non-citizens. Given the benefits undocumented immigrants provide in terms of performance of labor people born here won’t do at reasonable cost, and the decrease in cost of goods and services this passes on to consumers, economically it’s a no brainer to subsidize care for undocumenteds. Given the fact that it’s inhumane to deny care and in most cases unlawful, the reality is, we’re already subsidizing care for these people in an inefficient manner. Doing it in an organized fashion would probably be cheaper.

But, we will never hear such clarity on this, because folks like Ty and those on the Right want to frame it as a debate about who deserves what, which makes it a wedge issue.

You can be remarkably thick. By raising the question of whether immigrants should be "almost entirely subsidized," *you* are the one who raised the question about who deserves what, adopting framing used by the right wing. My point is that I *don't* want that debate or wedge issue. Nor am I the one who asked the candidates that question, or who complained that their answers were bad politics. I don't think it should be a leading issue for Democratic candidates, but they are speaking to the issue because Democratic partisans (who are more likely to vote in the primaries) are reacting to what conservatives have done with this issue, and are staking out the opposite side and demanding candidates do the same. It's a little case study in polarization.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You can be remarkably thick. By raising the question of whether immigrants should be "almost entirely subsidized," *you* are the one who raised the question about who deserves what, adopting framing used by the right wing. My point is that I *don't* want that debate or wedge issue. Nor am I the one who asked the candidates that question, or who complained that their answers were bad politics. I don't think it should be a leading issue for Democratic candidates, but they are speaking to the issue because Democratic partisans (who are more likely to vote in the primaries) are reacting to what conservatives have done with this issue, and are staking out the opposite side and demanding candidates do the same. It's a little case study in polarization.

Okay, sure, yeah, but should sick people die if they aren’t citizens? Aren’t the D candidates beyond stupid for not proudly exclaiming that? Like, totally bad optics that they didn’t call for heads on spikes?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

Okay, sure, yeah, but should sick people die if they aren’t citizens? Aren’t the D candidates beyond stupid for not proudly exclaiming that? Like, totally bad optics that they didn’t call for heads on spikes?

What I don’t get is why you and Ty want the immigrants to get ill in the first place; it’s ghoulish. Since the candidates were raising their hands to support something they can’t make happen anyway, why not all promise that if elected no immigrant will get ill?