Re: This
 

I'm not arguing about the optics. (I don't think the optics are good, but I also don't think that the people who get exercised about this issue are going to vote for Democrats. Trump has done too much to make this issue central to conservatism, so trying to appease people on it just makes Democrats look weak. And it's also important for Democrats to motivate their base instead of just playing to potential swing voters.)

That aside, it is a simple fact that undocumented immigrants pay huge amounts in local, state and federal taxes. If you don't believe me, research for yourself. Sebby said their government healthcare would be "almost entirely subsidized." That implies they aren't paying taxes, and that's wrong. Moreover, the Democrats we are talking about want those immigrants to be more integrated in the legitimate economy and paying more taxes. So pretending that they want immigrants to get something for nothing is stupid.

Re: This
 

Not let it go? I'm not even going to bother to respond to you.

Re: This
 

Good. When you engage in sophistry and try to change the issue from “How much of this HC for undocumenteds will be subsidized?” (Nearly all of it) to “But... Undocumenteds do pay taxes,” you’d do well to not reply.

I did not state that illegals paid no taxes. That’s your straw man, to avoid discussing how much of their coverage will be subsidized. The Post saw through that, which should tell you something about how wise it is to attempt that redirection.

On average, undocumented immigrants do not earn anywhere near enough to pay for any significant potion of health insurance. Don’t like that fact? Take it up with Vox, which cited @ $20 bill paid by over 11 mil undocumented taxpayers (state and fed). Show me how people paying taxes that small can afford to pay for anything close to even half of health insurance.

Oh, wait, are you arguing that $ 20 bil should be credited entirely to payment for this new health insurance for them? No, because that’s theoretically taking that money away from the states and feds and directing it all to this new HC insurance. That’s just a different kind of subsidy.

This new HC for undocumenteds is heavily to nearly entirely subsidized. They simply don’t earn enough to significantly contribute.

I have no issue with that subsidy, by the way, as undocumenteds tend to be poor and spend all of their money, and I’d rather see it go into the broader economy than funneled disproportionately into health insurance. What I do have a problem with is you bullshitting.

Re: This
 

Actually, I know it's not bullshit, I know several undocumented immigrants who have purchased plans either on the exchanges or through a local church organization. Believe it or not, whether you are documented or not, healthcare is really important.

I know one family with a little girl who has been sick who have been working their fucking tails off to make sure she is fully covered and all the uncovered expenses are paid for, and it is heartbreaking. But they've worked their way into a six figure income that mostly goes to healthcare.

Re: This
 

Submitted without comment.

Re: This
 

When a question is asked of all the candidates, the plans at issue will range from single payor to Medicare for all to ACA with some improvement to ACA a bit slimmed down. If it's a Medicare for all plan, you're relying on medicare taxes (and possibly - likely - supplementary plans). Medicare taxes are paid by all, though the underground economy that doesn't report certainly does include many undocumented aliens. If its an ACA style approach, there is a policy which may or may not be subsidized. If it is subsidized, note that the inclusion of a broader set of people in the pool, even at a lower cost, helps control costs for everyone, so it's a dynamic cost model. Single payor can describe either approach, it just has to do with whether there is effective a single insurer, likely but not necessary the government, rather than multiple insurers.

Our nation is undergoing an enormous crisis in compassion and in unity; the "us" versus "them" elements in this discussion disturb me. I spend my life working with immigrants who have built businesses and added to our country, and if they're "them", count me as a "them", too, please.

Re: This
 

The optics may well motivate the 'winger base, and there are some swing voters who may be affected by it, which is part of why you see Trump doubling down on immigration these days. He's determined that he can make immigration in general into a winning issue literally by abusing kids, separating families, and demonizing large groups of people.

We have to change that. Broadly. Or we will just get another Trump after him.

Re: This
 

Dude, I'd vote for any of them over Trump. You talk like I'm saying they changed my vote. I'm not sure what all the words you're writing mean, but they are mobilizing Trump votes. For no reason. Do you think a bill to extend HC of any sort to undocumented passes the House? The senate? So why give Trump the commercial?

Re: This
 

No, we voted for President Obama, twice. We just need to make sure idiots don't think the next Trump is the same as an actually competent candidate so they don't vote or vote third party.

Re: This
 

Don't worry, I'm not worried about you losing your mind and supporting trump. I do think we ought to be able to have a discussion about policy without working about jumpy swing voters or people motivated by hate - the first ought to respect a well thought out position (I know, wishful thinking) and the second are going to be with Trump regardless.

I actually do think that a health plan that intelligently includes everyone present in the US can get through the House today, and might get through a Senate if it flips. Note that when I say "intelligently includes" that automatically rules out anything drafted by Bernie, who hasn't gotten a major bill through anything in three decades, but not things drafted by Liz Warren or Kamala Harris, both of whom have a much better sense of how to draft thoughtful, workable bills.

Re: This
 

at some point we need fewer idiots, but point taken, we're kind of stuck with the ones we have right now.

Re: This
 

Right. And I know one who makes decent five figures and a family member negotiated on behalf of to private pay for a surgery.

You know what these people are called? Outliers. That's why you and I can offer anecdotes about them, while Vox cites $20 bil in state and fed taxes paid by 11 mil undocumented immigrants, which describes a demographic hardly able to afford HC insurance.

I have no objection to subsidizing these people because economically, it makes sense. But the Democrats are bullshitting when they argue that undocumented immigrants would fund anywhere near most of their own HC under any of those Democrats' plans. That's bullshit. If I'm already buying what the Ds are selling on this issue, why bullshit me. Why not just make this argument:

Much like we do with Wal Mart employees, the Federal govt subsidizing HC for undocumented illegals helps to keep the cost of innumerable items low for everyone else in America. They're a stealth workforce that does jobs no one else wants to do, and this is a small price to pay to keep the cost of such labor low. They also spend all of their money in the broader economy, and it does no good for anyone in this country to funnel more dollars to sector with a limited multiplier like HC that's already awash in cash. It actually robs the rest of the economy.

Is that too complex an argument for Joe Sixpack?

Re: This
 

This is what happens when the spoils of the economy are distributed in an extremely lopsided fashion. We're experiencing people feeling unfairness, and the effects of a very cold and merciless new industrial revolution of sorts, but these people have no power. These people are labor, or middle management (the $75k Trump voter). They don't have capital, and if you don't have capital in the new economy, you don't count. So they're doing what the losers in every economic upheaval do: Attacking those they have the power to attack.

It's dumb, it's counterproductive, and it saps us of the diversity that makes this country so innovative. But I see no cure for it. Our debt-addicted rentier economy has created an angry middle class/underclass that is maleducated, or just plain dumb, has no constructive ideas, and simply seeks to lash out.

Debt forgiveness would fix a lot of this. And it's coming.

Re: This
 

The biggest impact on working class wages is the destruction of unions under Reaganism.

Re: This
 

If you pay taxes, then your government benefits are *not* entirely subsidized. You have bought into a conservative trope that immigrants are not members of our community and do not deserve to get anything, which is why it seems obvious to you that they would be almost entirely subsidized. Live where I do for a little while and you might see it differently. I see lots of immigrants, with different legal statuses, who are working and contributing and part of the community, and who are not "almost entirely subsidized." There's no sophistry here -- you and I apparently have different views about immigrants.

Re: This
 

My suspicion is that his part of the country could use more immigrants to kick-start the economy. Lazy assed people there seem to do nothing but go to bad cocktail parties.

My name’s Pitt...
 

More bullshit.

Do you see me using the term “entirely”? That’s your latest strawman.

As to the rest of your quasi ad hominem, trying to change the argument from one where I explain to you that you are full of shit when you say that illegal immigrants in aggregate would not be heavily subsidized under any govt hc insurance plan for them to one about me drinking conservative kool aid is not going to save your ass here.

Why? Because math. $20 billion paid by 11 million undocumenteds. That’s around $2k a piece these people pay in state and fed taxes. That is not a demographic that can pay for any substantial amount of hc insurance. Your anecdotes describe outliers.

Stop.

Fake news!
 

Sophistry indeed.

Re: This
 

I actually agree with you. Entitled whites are the worst of the worst. We should throw the whiners out of the country and replace them entirely with immigrants.

If you’re calling me an entitled white, son, I left your jackass industry to try a few different businesses. Laziness? I wish I had it. My problem is finding what you do so impossibly dull and societally damaging I couldn’t stand it anymore.

The very best thing anyone can do for our economy is innovate full of shit lawyers who create nothing but obstacles and paperwork (we all do, more so than anything else we do) out of existence.

We’re economic poison. As Walter White would say, “we are the trouble.” We have zero moral credibility to criticize anyone.

Hooked, on the boat, but still flipping
 

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.

Re: This
 

actually that one was not directed at you but the broad old industrial/rural mid-Atlantic, including my parts of upstate. I understand you're used to me throwing shit at you, so it's a reasonable mistake to make

Re: This
 

Fair enough. I agree that the mid Atlantic is sclerotic. On one hand, there are tons of entrenched locals fighting against innovation and change. (An immigrant client of mine is getting fucked on a license issue by white geriatrics right now.) On the lower end, we’re polluted with entitled and lazy white workers enabled and empowered by Trump’s bullshit.

They’re often horrible workers. Drug issues, miserable attitudes, looking for any angle to grab disability or workers’ comp.

The mid Atlantic desperately needs immigrants. It needs youth. It needs to also become business friendly. Land use, permitting, etc. are used by local business interests and the politicians they buy to protect themselves. This problem is exacerbated in Commonwealths, where every County is like giant feudal estate. And unsurprisingly, where so many layers of crooked bureaucracy persist, lawyers cancer the system, extracting their little rents at every opportunity.

Re: This
 

Hand raising was not a good way to deal with a complicated question. And leads to bad optics.

You know what’s also bad optics? Turning people away from the only available health care in a single payer system (assuming at least some of the candidates are proposing one).

ETA: definitely not the way for a candidate to put it, but if you go the France and need care, they don’t send you to the special foreigner health care providers, which don’t exist, and you get the same care at the same prices as the locals. Because what other option is there?

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

As I get toward the end of White Fragility, the entire thing has felt like it was written just for/about Sebby. Everyone should read it.

And in other thoughts that only get expressed “anonymously” here: there’s a local youngish black dude I know only on Twitter who likes a bunch of my tweets. That counts for some sorta pathetic cred, right?

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

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. Edit- I didn’t mean for this to sound so dicky, sorry

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

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.

Re: Hooked, on the boat, but still flipping
 

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.

Re: Hooked, on the boat, but still flipping
 

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

Let's go line by line.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

Re: Hooked, on the boat, but still flipping
 

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.

Re: Hooked, on the boat, but still flipping
 

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.

Re: Hooked, on the boat, but still flipping
 

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.

Re: Hooked, on the boat, but still flipping
 

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.

Re: Hooked, on the boat, but still flipping
 

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?

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

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.

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

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.

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

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?

Re: Hooked, on the boat, but still flipping
 

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.

Re: Hooked, on the boat, but still flipping
 

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.

Re: Hooked, on the boat, but still flipping
 

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?

Re: Hooked, on the boat, but still flipping
 

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?