Health care - Senate Dems compramise, public option looks dead [Archive]

Name Lips

12-09-2009, 10:35 AM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34326187/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

Dems stick together on public plan compromise
Leading liberal and much-courted moderate both appear open to deal

WASHINGTON - After agreeing tentatively to jettison a key liberal priority — a full-blown government-run insurance option — Senate Democrats woke up Wednesday to find that the fragile coalition backing President Barack Obama's health care bill is still together.

A leading liberal — former Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean — and a much-courted moderate — Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman — both signaled they might be able to live with a compromise to offer private insurance plans under the auspices of the federal employee health program, while also allowing middle-aged people to buy into Medicare.

"I am encourged by the progress toward a consensus," Lieberman said in a statement issued by his office, which also underscored his opposition to a new government insurance plan that would compete with private carriers.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here

Dean, meanwhile, said the Medicare option for people age 55 to 64 was "a positive step forward." A physician, former presidential candidate and one-time Vermont governor, Dean has been one of the most vocal supporters of the idea that the government should get into the health insurance market.

"Using Medicare makes more sense than reinventing more bureaucracy," said Dean, appearing on CBS' "The Early Show."

However, as the Senate continued to debate, a powerful small business group swung into opposition. The National Federation of Independent Business, which was instrumental in defeating then-President Bill Clinton's health care bill in the 1990s, said the Democratic bill would raise costs and make it harder to create jobs.

"Despite the inclusion of insurance market reforms in the small-group and individual marketplaces, the savings that may materialize are too small for too few and the increases in premium costs are too great for too many," NFIB vice president Susan Eckerly said in a letter to Senate leaders.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., was upbeat about the bill's prospects.

"We've overcome a real problem that we had," Reid said in announcing what he called a "broad agreement" Tuesday night.

Officials said it included nonprofit national health plans administered by the Office of Personnel Management, which runs the popular federal employees' health plan, as well as opening Medicare to uninsured Americans beginning at age 55, effective in 2011.

Greater government involvement would potentially kick in if private insurance companies declined to participate in the nationwide plan, although details weren't available. One possibility was for the personnel office to set up a government-run plan, either national in scope or on a state-by-state basis.

"I think when people see this they'll really like what we've done," said Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark., who was among five moderate senators who spent several days negotiating with five liberals. Reid planned to describe the plan in greater detail after getting an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office.

The White House weighed in quickly with a statement from spokesman Reid Cherlin. "Senators are making great progress and we're pleased that they're working together to find common ground toward options that increase choice and competition," he said.

The Senate is in its second week of debate on the 10-year, nearly $1 trillion legislation that would dramatically remake the U.S. health care system and extend coverage to millions of the uninsured, with a new requirement for nearly everyone to purchase insurance. New purchasing marketplaces called exchanges would make it easier for small businesses and people without government or employer coverage to shop for health insurance, and onerous insurance company practices such as denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions would be banned.

The deal reached Tuesday puts even more requirements on insurers by requiring that 90 percent of premium dollars be spent on medical benefits, as opposed to administrative costs, officials said. The officials who described the details of the closed-door negotiations did so on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss them publicly.

Reid wants action on the health bill by Christmas but more challenges lie ahead. On Wednesday, senators expected to debate an amendment by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., to legalize the importation of prescription drugs from Canada and several other countries as a way of holding down consumer costs. The idea enjoys widespread support but is opposed by the pharmaceutical industry, which has worked closely with the administration on health care and has spent millions of dollars on television advertisements in support of legislation.

The Food and Drug Administration issued a letter saying it would be "logistically challenging" to assure the safety of imported drugs, raising concerns without stating outright opposition.

Underscoring the heated emotions surrounding the government insurance plan, Reid refused to acknowledge its demise, contending that reports it was gone were "not true."

In a statement, Reid said the emerging compromise "includes a public option and will help ensure the American people win in two ways: one, insurance companies will face more competition, and two, the American people will have more choices."

It wasn't clear what he meant by a "public option" — the Medicare expansion or another element.

Either way, it's a far cry from what liberals had in mind when they envisioned the government competing directly with private insurers to offer health coverage to uninsured or self-employed Americans.

Even though the government plan would have been available to relatively few people, it took on outsize importance in the health care debate. Liberal groups clamored for it as necessary to offer consumers choice and competition, while Republicans and business groups — and critically, a bloc of moderate senators — contended it could mushroom out of control and drive private companies out of business.

Reid must have the support of all 58 Senate Democrats and two independents to achieve the necessary 60 votes to overcome Republican stalling tactics and advance legislation, giving great influence to the handful of moderates opposed to the government insurance plan.

Reid already faced the prospect of losing moderate Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., who said his support was in question after the failure of an amendment he offered Tuesday to insert tougher abortion restrictions into the legislation. The vote was 54-45.

OK, so the public option is either dead or so watered-down it might as well be. But Medicare has been expanded to cover ages 55 and up, which is HUGE especially considering the aging baby boomers.

Removing the public option should make the plan a lot cheaper, since covering those millions of uninsured was a huge part of the expense, though this article doesn't mention this. I do seem to remember that universal coverage accounted for 100s of billions of the initial price tag.

I somehow doubt the Republicans will tout this as a victory, and instead keep crying "socialism" while opposing the legislation. To me this feels like a major concession, but I'm sure it will somehow be spun to be another nail in the coffin of freedom, capitalism, and democracy.

Northcott

12-09-2009, 03:00 PM

OK, so the public option is either dead or so watered-down it might as well be. But Medicare has been expanded to cover ages 55 and up, which is HUGE especially considering the aging baby boomers.

Which is a mixed blessing, really, because if anybody's under the illusion that extending coverage for the baby boomers is anything but a vote grab that'll end up costing taxpayers a shitload, they need to give their heads a shake.

The problem with increasing health support of your oldest demographic, and not extending the care for your youngest, is that you fail to create a stable foundation which reduces costs in the long term.

Freedom Canadian

12-09-2009, 03:16 PM

The problem with increasing health support of your oldest demographic, and not extending the care for your youngest, is that you fail to create a stable foundation which reduces costs in the long term.

Socialize costs, privatize profits, baby ! :D

obryn

12-09-2009, 03:44 PM

DarwinOfMind

12-09-2009, 08:17 PM

I still see nothing here that will help me...

Looks like they're simply going to pass a law requiring me to have health care without helping me with it, and from everything I've seen, that's gonna be like 1/4 of my income. I'll probably just have to break the law.

Name Lips

12-09-2009, 09:35 PM

More details:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34352187/ns/health-health_care/

Get ready: There’ll be a price for health benefits
Experts predicting ‘sticker shock’ for those buying coverage as individuals

WASHINGTON - Have your checkbooks and credit cards ready. There's a price for health care security.

President Barack Obama's overhaul — now looking like it really will happen — should give uninsured Americans options they've never had before. But it won't be a free ride.

As with the Medicare prescription drug benefit that passed when Republicans ran Washington, consumers will face a dizzying lineup of health plan choices — with different costs and benefits.

"People who need to buy coverage as individuals and small employers are going to have a lot more in the way of attractive health insurance options, and they won't have to worry about whether their medical condition precludes them from being covered," said policy expert Paul Ginsburg, who heads the nonpartisan Center for Studying Health System Change.

The downside: "Sticker shock is going to come to some."

Get ready for a whole new set of trade-offs.

For example, people in their 50s and early 60s, when health problems tend to surface, are likely to pay less than they would now. Those in their 20s and 30s, who get the best deals today, will face higher premiums, though for better coverage.

Obama on Wednesday hailed a tentative deal by Democratic senators to give millions of Americans the option of signing up for private plans sponsored by the federal employee health system, which covers some 8 million including members of Congress. The compromise, which also offers people age 55 to 64 the option of buying into Medicare, appears to have given Democrats a way around the dealbreaker issue of a new government plan to compete with private carriers. Senators continued to debate for a 10th day, with Democrats pushing to pass the bill by Christmas.

The 2,074-page Senate bill will grow even longer as amendments are considered, but the basic outlines of the legislation most likely to pass are becoming clearer.

The overhaul will be phased in slowly, over the next three to four years. But eventually all Americans will be required to carry coverage or face a tax penalty, except in cases of financial hardship. Insurers won't be able to deny coverage to people with health problems, or charge them more or cut them off.

Most of the uninsured will be covered, but not all. As many as 24 million people would remain uninsured in 2019, many of them otherwise eligible Americans who still can't afford the premiums. Lawmakers propose to spend nearly $1 trillion over 10 years to provide coverage, most of the money going to help lower-income people. But a middle-class family of four making $66,000 would still have to pay about 10 percent of its income in premiums, not counting co-payments and deductibles.

No dramatic changes are in store for most people who get coverage through their jobs — about 60 percent of those under age 65. The Congressional Budget Office says the bill wouldn't have a major effect on premiums under employer plans, now about $13,000 a year. Parents would be able to keep dependent children on their coverage longer, age 27 in the House bill.

One benefit for people with employer coverage is hard to quantify: It should be easier to get health insurance if they're laid off.

The real transformation under the legislation would come for those who now have the most trouble finding and keeping coverage: people who buy their own insurance or work for small businesses. About 30 million could pick from an array of plans through new insurance supermarkets called exchanges.

Some people's taxes would go up.

To pay for expanded coverage, the House bill imposes a 5.4 percent income tax surcharge on individuals making more than $500,000 and families earning more than $1 million. The Senate slaps a 40 percent tax on insurance plans with premiums above $8,500 for individual coverage, and $23,000 for family plans, among other levies.

The rest of the financing would come mainly from cuts in federal payments to insurers, hospitals, home health care agencies and other medical providers serving Medicare.

Preventive benefits for seniors would be improved. So would prescription coverage. But people enrolled in private plans through the Medicare Advantage program are likely to see higher out-of-pocket costs and reduced benefits as overpayments to insurers are scaled back.

The latest big wrinkles in the debate involve intriguing opportunities for consumers. But even there, it may be less than meets the eye.

Lawmakers have been talking for years about giving average Americans the option of coverage through the federal employee system, "just like members of Congress." The compromise among Senate Democrats would make plans certified by the federal employee system available nationwide, bringing competition to states in which one or two large insurers now control the market.

The other big new idea is to allow people age 55 to 64, one of the groups now most at risk for losing coverage, to buy into Medicare.

Yet from the inside, the federal employee health benefits plan isn't looking all that great these days. Federal workers do have a wide choice of insurance plans, but they're looking at hefty premium increases next year. Individual coverage under the most popular plan is going up 15 percent.

"I don't think you'll ever find someone satisfied with the price," said Jacqueline Simon, policy director for the American Federation of Government Employees. "And you've got people who are priced out." The union estimates that 250,000 federal workers are uninsured, mostly because they can't afford the premiums.

And what about Medicare? It is widely accepted, with 74 percent of doctors saying in a recent survey that they're taking most or all new Medicare patients. But buying into Medicare won't be cheap, about $7,600 a year not counting out-of-pocket costs for deductibles and copayments.

Ginsburg, the policy expert, says he's puzzled as to why anyone in their late 50s would want to buy into Medicare instead of picking a plan offered in the new exchanges, the insurance supermarkets. His reasoning: The exchange plans should have lower premiums since they would also include younger people who don't go to the doctor that often.

"The legislation already solved the problem by offering them coverage through the exchange," he said. "A Medicare buy-in based on the older age group is going to cost a lot more."

Most people who get insurance through their jobs won't notice much of a change.

There is a financial hardship exemption for being required to purchase health care.

If you don't qualify for exemption, there is a tax penalty for not having insurance. I assume you have to prove your membership in a plan at tax time. I would further assume that the penalty would be severe enough that you wouldn't want to risk it.

The "expansion" for Medicare is really just a buy-in option that is likely to be more expensive than other available plans.

"Exchanges" should provide a competitive marketplace for small businesses and individuals to find cheap insurance.

All in all it looks fairly solid to me... "Public Option" had become such a loaded buzzword that perhaps it was best to drop it. Virtually nobody knew what it actually entailed anyway, on either side.

DarwinOfMind

12-10-2009, 09:33 AM

Right now, I work for a small buisness that can't offer health care.. (I'm the only employee) My girlfriend can't work having been diagnosed with fibromyalgia, depression, borderline personality disorder, and now ADHD. Stupid fucked up laws, she can't get disability, so she can't get (government) help with all the medical bills that all brings in. (She does get assistance from the clinics she goes to)

I'm just above the poverty line

Me
Poverty line

So the government won't offer me anything even under this new law.

I get it now, I really do. Health Care Reform was never intended to help me. I'm not sure exactly who it was supposed to help but I know I'm not the target, but I think this shit should have been looked at fairly.

Name Lips

12-10-2009, 11:15 AM

I'm way above the poverty line, but I still qualify for "financial hardship" for not paying off my student loans. I also qualify for food stamps.

Family size might have something to do with it. You might be better off marrying her to increase your household size and reduce the "income per person" ratio.

Also, insurance companies will HAVE to allow your gf to get insurance. They cannot deny her on the basis of her conditions, and they cannot charge her more because of them.

In theory premiums won't be insane because of all the young, healthy people who are being forced to sign up. They provide income without making many claims, keeping costs low. Bad for them (unless they wind up needing it).

In theory the "exchanges" will provide a forum for the small business you work for to find something affordable. They might have to lower their employee's wages, but will end up providing medical care in return.

The judgement call here that Obama and the democrats are banking on is that it will benefit society as a whole to force people to have medical coverage, even if it comes with a hefty price tag and they would never have considered getting it on their own. He's gambling that people will come to agree that having their health is more important than having money.

Hatter

12-10-2009, 11:55 AM

Darwin, it probably won't help you now but it almost certainly will be a benefit for you in the future.

Utrecht

12-10-2009, 02:35 PM

I have to say, I like where this is going... granted there is slippery slope potential (55 becomes 45 becomes 35...)

But when you look at things

People like Medicare
People like Medicaide
People like SHIP

These programs are up and running, their beuracracies (spelling and I to damn lazy to look it up) are fully flushed out, most everyone understands how the benefits work.

So, I have to ask, why the fuck did it take 9 months to some senetor to figure out "hey why dont we expand what already works!" as opposed to "lets create more departments!" (i know, politics)

Name Lips

12-10-2009, 02:41 PM

Politics... start with something absurd, and compramise down to what you actually wanted in the first place. Act like you lost.

doc

12-10-2009, 02:44 PM

Face it the Liberial Dems will shove their idea of socialized medicine down out throat if it works or not, it was a campaign promise.

Utrecht

12-10-2009, 02:52 PM

Politics... start with something absurd, and compramise down to what you actually wanted in the first place. Act like you lost.

I am not sure this was the intended place where they wanted to get to - and given the histronics and lack of dicipline the democrats typically have, I don't think it was.

Face it the Liberial Dems will shove their idea of socialized medicine down out throat if it works or not, it was a campaign promise.

Even if it does become socialized medicine - it simply is not a charge that is going to stick.

GOP: The Democrats socialized medicine!!!!

Public: Ummm, havent we had Medicare for like over 50 years? and didn't you vote to extend funding for it like.... every year?

GOP: Errrrrr, uhhhh, mmmmm

AS opposed to:

GOP: The Democrats socialized medicine

Public: Yea, there is a whole new Government Agency here to control me!

GOP: Vote the bums out!!!

Name Lips

12-10-2009, 02:58 PM

Northcott

12-10-2009, 03:04 PM

Listening to a long report on NPR actually convinced me that the public option might not be a great idea, because market forces for health insurance work basically opposite to how you might expect. (In a nutshell, past a certain point, increased competition between insurance companies means higher prices. Health care costs aren't fixed; they're negotiated between hospitals and insurance companies, except in ... I think Massachusetts? Anyway, smaller insurers don't have a large enough block of customers to effectively negotiate with hospitals on prices.)

This plan sounds better, but I think everyone's avoiding the fundamental issue. If we decrease costs, someone, somewhere is going to make less money. After this announcement, doctors and hospitals were pissed. Previously, insurance companies were upset. Messing with drug prices will screw pharmaceutical companies. And right now, we and our employers are screwed. If it's not subsidized by government, any savings will translate directly to someone getting paid less. (Heck - even efficiency improvements in, say, health care billing, will cost people jobs.)

It's all a matter of determining who, exactly, takes the hit - doctors, insurers, taxpayers, hospitals, drug companies, or insurance purchasers. Naturally, nobody wants to.

-O

That's the real stickler... and it's something that has to be done if you want to get healthcare to the entirety of the citizenry. Just like a corporation may need to make cuts to run more efficiently, the government would (if it were done right) have to put things like salary caps in place, and a number of bureaucrats would lose their jobs.

When public healthcare was brought in up here, the doctors were furious. Mind you, at that time health care in Canada was a frickin' joke, there were no restraints on how doctors could fleece patients. While many were responsible, there were also many cases of doctors over-charging people and basically scamming cash wherever they could, done on the backs of the poor as often as not.

Which isn't to say our current system is perfect. Costs are driven up by people who need every sniffle looked at, or people who lend their health cards to family and friends across the border, along with needless bureaucracy chipping away at hospital funding. But a large part of the dent in our costs is isolation: public health care becomes more cost efficient when you've got more consolidated population bases. While most of ours lives very close to the border, we have a significant population that's spread out over vast areas, and that gets damned costly.

The USA is actually in a better position to make public healthcare work, given your population density and the fact that you're already spending more on it than we are, per capita. The big problem is that the whip has to be cracked, and that's highly unlikely to happen.

Though you won't catch me weeping any tears for Big Pharma if it does.

Northcott

12-10-2009, 03:09 PM

Maybe Utretch, but it looks suspiciously like the dems made a lot of noise and effort so that they could pander to the Socialized Health Care crowd, and yet ended up with a bill that's really just some health care reform ideas, nothing staggeringly new. Dems looks like heroes for trying so hard, Reps look like villians for trying to stop it with weird falsehoods and rumors, and the system stays under the control of the same insurance companies we always had. If it wasn't planned, it's awfully fortuitious...

Since news of this compramise broke, it seems the GOP has been fairly quiet. Is there an official response yet?

Never ascribe to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

Chances are it went more like this:

Dems want to push through healthcare and be public heroes.
Right Wing pundits spread lies about healthcare, making the Dems dance like puppets.
Dems flinch when they find out people are getting frothy about healthcare.
Dems come to realize that pushing through healthcare will require that they be The Bad Guys for a few years.
Dems quickly realize this means they'd be giving up cushy jobs for their principles.
Principles don't pay the bills for little Muffy's private school, and lobbyists don't try to buy off politicians that aren't in office.
Dems set the target lower.

Utrecht

12-10-2009, 03:09 PM

Maybe Utretch, but it looks suspiciously like the dems made a lot of noise and effort so that they could pander to the Socialized Health Care crowd, and yet ended up with a bill that's really just some health care reform ideas, nothing staggeringly new. Dems looks like heroes for trying so hard, Reps look like villians for trying to stop it with weird falsehoods and rumors, and the system stays under the control of the same insurance companies we always had. If it wasn't planned, it's awfully fortuitious...

Why would the Dems risk damaging their brand (which has taken a HUGE hit over this). Further, it gives the GOP the opportunity to state something along the lines of "our opposition stoped the hated public option and kept financial sanity" all bullshit off course, but it is a narrative that will play.

Since news of this compramise broke, it seems the GOP has been fairly quiet. Is there an official response yet?

Nothing that I have seen - but I am sure it will be some for of Dems are teh devil and we saved America from Socialism.

Random Encounter

12-10-2009, 03:42 PM

In theory premiums won't be insane because of all the young, healthy people who are being forced to sign up. They provide income without making many claims, keeping costs low. Bad for them (unless they wind up needing it).

On paper I'm a great insuree (is that even a word?).
I'm fairly young in my mid-30s; not overwieght (high side of normal) even by the bullshit BMI standard; Non-smoker and drink alcohol very rarely; always wear my seatbelt in a vehicle; get some if not lots of exercise and have no family history of heart disease.

But, in practice I tend to get good value for my money on health insurance. My cornea transplant in 1999 and keratoconus mean I need yearly checkups with an opthamologist. (Covered by my medical insurance not my vision plan since an opthamologist is considered a medical specialist and an optometrist is not I guess)
My allergies mean allergy injections every other week, yearly visits to my ear/nose/throat specialist and the occasional sinus infection I have treated.
My ADD means seeing a psychiatrist every 3 months and medication for it every month.
Not to mention in the last few years I've had 2 surgeries for a deviated septum (including cat scans and what-not before hand), flu bad enough to see the doctor on two different occasions, a recurring ingrown toenail removed, a hiatal hernia diagnosed and a few other minor ailments that have sent me to the doctor's office.

All in all I feel like I saved money having insurance even after paying my premiums, deductibles and copay for all these things.

AZRogue

12-11-2009, 10:28 AM

I'm still "bleh" about these changes. It's hard to get much reform without really breaking the system down and then building it back up again. Congress' job of regulating markets is the key, in my opinion. Also, the HMO law from decades past needs to be repealed or changed, not to mention that citizens need the same rights and tax breaks for purchasing insurance that employers receive. Oh, and effective tort reform needs to be enacted. Not to give a free pass to physicians, but to help curb the current norm of practicing from a perspective of fear, instead of from a perspective of patient care as planned out through communication between patient and provider. And the DEA and FDA need to back up off providers and patients who choose non sanctioned therapy so long as the risks are fully disclosed to patients. Less red tape.

But that's all off my radar, to tell the truth. The most frightening thing about health care is the ever dwindling supply of family practitioners. Being a family doctor does not pay the bills when compared to cardiology or neurology and fewer physicians are deciding to take out huge student loans only to choose a specialty that will ensure grueling hours and less pay.

Hatter

12-14-2009, 05:08 PM

:killinme:

Link (http://www.businessinsider.com/health-insures-caught-paying-facebook-users-virtual-currency-to-send-letters-to-congress-opposing-reform-bill-2009-12)

Health Insurers Caught Paying Facebook Gamers Virtual Currency To Oppose Reform Bill
Health insurance industry trade groups opposed to President Obama's health care reform bill are paying Facebook users fake money -- called "virtual currency" -- to send letters to Congress protesting the bill.

Here's how it's happening:

Facebook users play a social game, like "FarmVille" or "Friends For Sale." They get addicted to it. Eager to accelerate their progress inside the game, the gamers buy "virtual goods" such as a machine gun for "Mafia Wars." But these gamers don't buy these virtual goods with real money. They use virtual currency.

The gamers get virtual currency three ways:

* Winning it playing the games
* Paying for it with real money
* By accepting offers from third-parties -- usually companies like online movie rentals service Netflix -- who agree to give the gamer virtual currency so long as that gamer agrees to try a product or service. This is done through an "offers" provider -- a middleman that brings the companies like Netflix, the Facebook gamemakers, and the Facebook gamemaker's users together.

It's this third method that an anti-reform group called "Get Health Reform Right" is using to pay gamers virtual currency for their support.

Instead of asking the gamers to try a product the way Netflix would, "Get Health Reform Right" requires gamers to take a survey, which, upon completion, automatically sends the following email to their Congressional Rep:

"I am concerned a new government plan could cause me to lose the employer coverage I have today. More government bureaucracy will only create more problems, not solve the ones we have."

OMGPOP CEO Dan Porter spotted the survey and took a screenshot for us. (Click on the image at the right to expand it.)

What is this practice called?

Paying people to act like political supporters is called "astroturfing," because its fake grass-roots campaigning. So maybe this should be called Virtual astroturfing. Virtual-turfing? Astroturfing 2.0?

Who are the people behind this?

Get Health Reform Right describes itself as a "project of organizations whose shared mission is to ensure consumers continue to have access to employer-sponsored healthcare plans."

We are concerned about federal legislation that would create new government bureaucracies that would unravel the workplace healthcare system where more than 160 million people get their coverage.

Under the "Who We Are" tab on GetHealthReformRight.org, the following organizations are listed:
* Association of Health Insurance Advisors
* America’s Health Insurance Plans
* American Benefits Council
* BlueCross BlueShield Association
* Council of Insurance Agents & Brokers
* Healthcare Leadership Council
* Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers
* National Association of Health Underwriters
* National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors
* National Retail Association

Who are the gamers filling out the survey and sending emails to Congress?

Facebook gamers tend to fall into two groups: women in their 30s and 40s and teenagers of both sexes.

Is this legal?

Astroturfing, which involves real money, is not illegal, We can't imagine virtual curreny astroturfing would be illegal either. Whether or not it's ethical is a different question.

Who is profiting from this?

According to OMGPOP CEO Dan Porter, the middleman facilitating this transaction in multiple Facebook games is called Gambit. Up until a few weeks ago, these games included big hits like Zynga's Mafia Wars and FarmVille. Zynga has since removed all offers from its games. On its Web site, Gambit says its clients include:

* #1 MySpace Developer
* 20%+ of top 10 Facebook applications
* SmallWorlds.com
* School Vandals
* Foopets.com
* 2 Top 100 websites
* ...and over 150+ more

One important thing to remember:

Gambit is just the platform here, bringing three parties together: gamers seeking currency, game-makers seeking monetization, and companies (and, apparently lobbying groups) looking for customers.

OMGPOP CEO Dan Porter tells us it's most likely the case that Get Health Care Reform agreed to pay an ad agency for every letter-writer it recruited. Dan supposes it was this third-party that bundled the above survey with several others and submitted it into Gambit's offer network.

Update: We reached out to Gambit CEO Noah Kagan for clarification. He told us:

"It's not that Dan is wrong. But we don't run hot political issues. You don't have any evidence that this is from Gambit. We don't condone this in our system. Sometimes stuff does happen, but we've been very proactive in making sure that there's not negative offers in our system."

To this, Dan replied:

"My point all along had little to do with the Gambit platform. We are testing it in house and will deploy it and it has controls for how conservative a partner wants to be. I wouldn't use them if I didn't think it would provide value for our users in a safe way. Gambit and every other offers company simply bundle in offers from outside vendors. The primary distributers of this fake activism are companies you will never know, like webclients.net doing business under eltpath.com. [They] distribute this stuff to sources all over the web from from freecomputer4u to sweepstakes promotions to offer providers."

The response from Get Health Care Reform:

We've also contacted Get Health Care Reform using an email address listed on their Web site. We received the following message back:

Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further information about the cause of this error. The error that the other server returned was: 553 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1) (state 14).

Harry

03-21-2010, 11:04 PM

No matter how you slice or dice it or spin it or dismiss it, today was truly a historic day for America. There haven't been many like this in my memory, where you could see the government and the people act for the good of all, and actually accomplish the goal. The moon landing, the Watergate hearings,.... I'm kinda drawing a blank now on similar examples. This is special.

And of course, the only channels I get deemed the President's speech of little or no consequence, and cut him off in mid-sentence.

Trainz

03-22-2010, 12:20 AM

Booyah!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35961584/ns/politics-health_care_reform/

:D

obryn

03-22-2010, 12:22 AM

I already got my first Death Panel notice in the mail!

-O

Name Lips

03-22-2010, 01:29 AM

I thought the Death Panels were only going to kill Teabaggers.

Edit:

OK, so the Senate Bill passed, and having been passed by both the House and Senate, it now goes to Obama's desk to be signed into law.

The Democrats of the House wanted a slew of "fixes" and so they also passed a "fix" package, with a bunch of their wishlist items on it. This now needs to go to the Senate for approval. The House and Senate need to both approve the exact same version of these "fixes" to get them signed into law as well.

This was the compromise that allowed the larger bill to pass.

What I can't seem to find in my (admittedly brief, because I am very tired) search is the exact content of what Obama IS going to sign into law, and what is in the "Fixes" bill that may or may not become reality.

Can anybody find someplace where it's broken down, please?

Pigs in Space

03-22-2010, 05:07 AM

I already got my first Death Panel notice in the mail!

-O

The last actual Americans (in real life) that I spoke to were really, really worried (and fairly sure) that this was going to happen.

I had a good time telling them all about the state enforced euthanasia that is rampant in Oz.

It took a good few days (I think I was on to telling them about the snipers that had to reach a certain daily quota) before they clued in.

King Vyper

03-22-2010, 09:08 AM

Here is a cliff notes version

If enacted, the reconciliation bill combined with the Senate-passed bill would, from 2010-2019:

-Spend $938 billion on expanding insurance coverage, including $464 billion in subsidies to help uninsured people buy coverage.

-Expand Medicaid coverage to 16 million additional people.

-Require many employers to offer coverage for their workers.

-Collect $69 billion in penalties from uninsured individuals and employers for non-coverage.

-Provide coverage through an insurance exchange to 24 million people.

-Reduce the number of uninsured by 32 million people, but leave 23 million (including illegal immigrants) not covered.

-Cut Medicare spending by $455 billion from currently-projected levels.

-Not affect next month’s scheduled 21 percent cut in payment rates to doctors who treat Medicare patients.

-Produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion.

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-22-2010, 09:13 AM

Hooray! We probably just spent ourselves into bankruptcy as a country! Hooray!

TiQuinn

03-22-2010, 09:13 AM

David Frum posted a helluva blog posting at http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo

Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.

It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:

(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.

(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.

So far, I think a lot of conservatives will agree with me. Now comes the hard lesson:

A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

Only, the hardliners overlooked a few key facts: Obama was elected with 53% of the vote, not Clinton’s 42%. The liberal block within the Democratic congressional caucus is bigger and stronger than it was in 1993-94. And of course the Democrats also remember their history, and also remember the consequences of their 1994 failure.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan. Could we have leveraged his desire to align the plan more closely with conservative views? To finance it without redistributive taxes on productive enterprise – without weighing so heavily on small business – without expanding Medicaid? Too late now. They are all the law.

No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the “doughnut hole” and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents’ insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there – would President Obama sign such a repeal?

We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

There were leaders who knew better, who would have liked to deal. But they were trapped. Conservative talkers on Fox and talk radio had whipped the Republican voting base into such a frenzy that deal-making was rendered impossible. How do you negotiate with somebody who wants to murder your grandmother? Or – more exactly – with somebody whom your voters have been persuaded to believe wants to murder their grandmother?

I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

So today’s defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it’s mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it’s Waterloo all right: ours.

The bolded part for me was especially insightful I thought, and the thing that I wish everyone, Democrat or Republican, would heed.

Enk

03-22-2010, 09:56 AM

Utrecht

03-22-2010, 10:10 AM

There is a fair amount to like in this bill (coverage for more people, coverage for pre-existing conditions).

However, there is a crap load to dislike.

Further, lets go back to Obama's objectives at the very beginning

1) Cover all uninsure - 1/2 check
2) Reduce costs to business - no check
3) Bend the cost curve - no check

IMO, this was a classic example of Mr. Right Now instead of Mr. Right.

obryn

03-22-2010, 10:27 AM

I actually attended some small round-table discussions with Boehner's aids, encouraging him to work with the Dems and get a conservative minded bill moved through in conjunction with the Blue Dogs.

If the GOP had engaged, rather than stonewalled, they might have gotten a bill more inline with the party's platform.
Honestly, I think the GOP (or at least Limbaugh, Beck, et. al) poisoned the pool too much for that to be effective. If you're encouraging (or at least winking at and profiting from) comparisons to Nazis, death panels, Hitler, and so on, any compromise means you're negotiating with Evil.

-O

Scutisorex Shrewlord

03-22-2010, 10:45 AM

It will be awhile before the full effects of this can be measured, for good or ill.

Enk

03-22-2010, 10:57 AM

Honestly, I think the GOP (or at least Limbaugh, Beck, et. al) poisoned the pool too much for that to be effective. If you're encouraging (or at least winking at and profiting from) comparisons to Nazis, death panels, Hitler, and so on, any compromise means you're negotiating with Evil.

-O

To be fair, I did this at the beginning of the process, before the pundit train got rolling. I'm pretty sure that the GOP made the conscious decision to stonewall even before they were painted into that particular corner by the nutjob wing of the party.

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-22-2010, 11:05 AM

To be fair, I did this at the beginning of the process, before the pundit train got rolling. I'm pretty sure that the GOP made the conscious decision to stonewall even before they were painted into that particular corner by the nutjob wing of the party.

I'm not sure how anyone can call themselves a fiscal conservative and be for something like this. It's simply too expensive and continues the great society programs, which have been nothing but a middling failure in my eyes.

Utrecht

03-22-2010, 11:06 AM

To be fair, I did this at the beginning of the process, before the pundit train got rolling. I'm pretty sure that the GOP made the conscious decision to stonewall even before they were painted into that particular corner by the nutjob wing of the party.

To be equally fair, the democrats had no real intention of including anything of substance of Republicans - I point you towards the proposals that Congressman Ryan of Wisconson has put forward for the last year - as further proof, during the healthcare summit Obama rufesed to address anything put forward by Ryan.

tleilaxu

03-22-2010, 11:37 AM

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/22/health-care-reform-economic-freedom-opinions-contributors-mark-rice_2.html

can we start talking about financial reform now?

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-22-2010, 11:43 AM

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/22/health-care-reform-economic-freedom-opinions-contributors-mark-rice_2.html

can we start talking about financial reform now?

Well, if Mark Rice of the American Studies department at St. John Fisher College says it's okay, I suppose it's good enough for all of us paeons. :rolleyes:

Name Lips

03-22-2010, 12:10 PM

http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/22/health-care-reform-economic-freedom-opinions-contributors-mark-rice_2.html

can we start talking about financial reform now?

OK, lets. (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showthread.php?p=126689#post126689)

tleilaxu

03-22-2010, 12:31 PM

Well, if Mark Rice of the American Studies department at St. John Fisher College says it's okay, I suppose it's good enough for all of us paeons. :rolleyes:

i thought maybe the fact that it was in Forbes might impress you.whose opinion would you respect?

because it's clearly not these:

Congressional Budget Office
American Medical Association
AARP
etc.

Hatter

03-22-2010, 12:46 PM

Name Lips

03-22-2010, 12:51 PM

i thought maybe the fact that it was in Forbes might impress you.whose opinion would you respect?

because it's clearly not these:

Congressional Budget Office
American Medical Association
AARP
etc.

Everyone knows that the Cult of Glenn Beck is the only intelligent, objective, and rational source of information.

tleilaxu

03-22-2010, 12:56 PM

Everyone knows that the Cult of Glenn Beck is the only intelligent, objective, and rational source of information.

i don't think stannis is a beck follower. are you, stannis?

Utrecht

03-22-2010, 01:07 PM

I find I agree with Frums analysis. The GOP is in danger of being marginalized further by whipping themselves into such a fervor over a bill that contains both good and bad things. Instead of approaching it rationally, however, they pander to the conservative radio punditry who does not have the GOP interests at heart.

Not sure that playing up to the 55% who oppose the bill is an entirely bad thing. Especially if they use all of Obama's campaign promises against what was actually passed.....

and if they keep hitting the fiscal irresponsability of the thing combined with the other Obama only debts (they will have to dance around what Bush did sure - but Obama has been making Bush look like the junior varsity). Sure, they can make healthcare balance - if you have 10 years of payments and 6 years of benefits - but in the real world.....

Now, if they go down a technicality rat hole I agree.

Edit: As an aside the passage of this bill probably scuttles Romney's presidential aspirations in 2012.

how so?

Hatter

03-22-2010, 01:10 PM

how so?

If the Republican strategy is to demonize the health care reform bill (a likely strategy given that it is a big win for the Democrats), then Romney is put into a situation where he has to run against himself given his previous fondness for touting the very similar health care reform he passed in Massachusetts.

Utrecht

03-22-2010, 01:11 PM

i thought maybe the fact that it was in Forbes might impress you.whose opinion would you respect?

because it's clearly not these:

Congressional Budget Office

You realize that the CBO is only as good as the information that it is given - right? you feed it bad assumptions and Congress can cook the numbers however it likes.

I will agree that they are non-partisan - but the fact that they are not allowed to question the baseline assumptions does minimize its value.

So, yea, I respect the CBO, but not the weasels who give them the box they can play in.

Utrecht

03-22-2010, 01:15 PM

If the Republican strategy is to demonize the health care reform bill (a likely strategy given that it is a big win for the Democrats), then Romney is put into a situation where he has to run against himself given his previous fondness for touting the very similar health care reform he passed in Massachusetts.

Not necesarily - remember that the majority (like 65% or more) of Americans are in favor of some kind of healthcare reform.

Romney can approach it this way:

1) I beleive that this should be handled at the state level not the national level
2) MassCare did not pull any financial shell games like National Healthcare is doing (hey, how do you like paying taxes on something that you wont get benefits on for 5 years...)
3) MAssCare did not have any of the backroom deals (or as obvious ones) that National Care does.

I am sure there are 4 or 5 other things. The current bill is so bad, that pretty much anyone apposed can shoot holes in it.

Hatter

03-22-2010, 01:32 PM

Not necesarily - remember that the majority (like 65% or more) of Americans are in favor of some kind of healthcare reform.

Romney can approach it this way:

1) I beleive that this should be handled at the state level not the national level
2) MassCare did not pull any financial shell games like National Healthcare is doing (hey, how do you like paying taxes on something that you wont get benefits on for 5 years...)
3) MAssCare did not have any of the backroom deals (or as obvious ones) that National Care does.

I am sure there are 4 or 5 other things. The current bill is so bad, that pretty much anyone apposed can shoot holes in it.

If his strategy is based on nuance it's doomed to fail, the democrats have been failing with that for years.

Name Lips

03-22-2010, 02:18 PM

The republicans are vowing to repeal this bill based on its constitutionality. What is their argument, does anybody know?

Random Encounter

03-22-2010, 02:22 PM

Hooray! We probably just spent ourselves into bankruptcy as a country! Hooray!

So it's okay to spend over $700 billion (above and beyond normal defense spending and not including the Afghanistan war) attacking a country to remove a dictator and install a theocratic democracy in the hope that one day their example will stabalize the middle east?

But it's wrong to spend $900 billion (before the cost saving reductions in other areas included in the bill) on providing our own citizens with reliable medical coverage?

TiQuinn

03-22-2010, 02:53 PM

Utrecht

03-22-2010, 02:55 PM

If his strategy is based on nuance it's doomed to fail, the democrats have been failing with that for years.

I would hardly call some of those nuanced. You can make a pretty damn good bumper sticker out of the idea of paying for something for 10 years but only getting to use it for 6.....

or campaigning against the Louisian Purchase or Cornhusker Kickback - or the sweetheat deals the AFL/CIO was able to finegle.

That swamp is going to haunt democrats for a loooooong time.

The republicans are vowing to repeal this bill based on its constitutionality. What is their argument, does anybody know?

If I had to guess (and I would say it is flimsy) is the individual mandate elements and that it is trampling on states rights.

Hatter

03-22-2010, 03:05 PM

If I had to guess (and I would say it is flimsy) is the individual mandate elements and that it is trampling on states rights.

I agree that the constitutionality argument is not strong. I think Harry is right that the longer the legislation is in place the harder it will be for the Republicans to remove it without facing a backlash. The public is generally against tax increases and spending, but it likewise unwilling to give up services to which they've grown accustomed.

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-22-2010, 03:05 PM

i don't think stannis is a beck follower. are you, stannis?

No. Honestly, I don't watch or listen to much political stuff these days. I was burned out on it in my twenties and early thirties. Around election time I will listen to some of the talk radio on my drive home, but usually only then.

I am quite aware of what this all means without Shawn Hannity telling me so. And that's no slam on him, he's great at what he does. But the talk just doesn't stimulate me much anymore.

I've seen 1/2 of one Glenn Beck show. I also read an interview with him in GQ. The interview actually made him look pretty cool, do tell you the truth. But other than that bit of his show I saw and a South Park parody, I don't know much about him. Apparantly he cries?

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-22-2010, 03:09 PM

So it's okay to spend over $700 billion (above and beyond normal defense spending and not including the Afghanistan war) attacking a country to remove a dictator and install a theocratic democracy in the hope that one day their example will stabalize the middle east?

But it's wrong to spend $900 billion (before the cost saving reductions in other areas included in the bill) on providing our own citizens with reliable medical coverage?

So you think that we're only on the hook for $900 billion and that's it? No more after that. Is there some kind of expiration on this bill I'm unaware of?

By the way, your comparison of the two things is quite silly to me. But yes, to answer your question, I do think the cost of the wars is justified. One hundred percent for both of them.

Name Lips

03-22-2010, 04:24 PM

Well, I see the health care bill saving more American lives than the wars did.

Utrecht

03-22-2010, 04:31 PM

Well, I see the health care bill saving more American lives than the wars did.

well so would banning cars, sodas and cigarrettes.... Does not mean it is the right thing to do.

Look, all things being equal saving lives is a good thing - no arguments and had this bill done the things that Obama claimed it would (cover everyone, reduce costs, cover preexisting conditions, no pork) I could probably get behind it.

This bill only does one of them (cover everyone and not really that).

This is again Obama getting a case of Mr Right NOW instead of Mr. Right.

TiQuinn

03-22-2010, 05:47 PM

well so would banning cars, sodas and cigarrettes.... Does not mean it is the right thing to do.

Look, all things being equal saving lives is a good thing - no arguments and had this bill done the things that Obama claimed it would (cover everyone, reduce costs, cover preexisting conditions, no pork) I could probably get behind it.

This bill only does one of them (cover everyone and not really that).

This is again Obama getting a case of Mr Right NOW instead of Mr. Right.

I think our political system is such that time is compressed, so everything is a case of Right Now versus Right. Second, i've seen plenty of good ideas broken against the rocks of too many cooks and an obsession with pleasing everyone in an attempt to get it "right".

Harry

03-22-2010, 07:49 PM

The republicans are vowing to repeal this bill based on its constitutionality. What is their argument, does anybody know?

On one of the conservative forums I go to, they are crowing that this bill violates the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 10th Amendments on various grounds, some kind of loony. The part getting many up in arms in requiring people to have health insurance and fining them if they don't, which ignores the triviality of the fines and the mechanisms in place to help those who can't afford insurance. But I think that is a pretty phantom argument. States have required drivers to hold car insurance for years and we haven't turned into Amerika.

Harry

03-22-2010, 08:13 PM

Oh, and a hidden benefit of the bill:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/85685-limbaugh-says-hell-leave-us-if-healthcare-implemented

Rush Limbaugh says he'll leave the U.S. if healthcare reform becomes law.

The conservative talker said on his broadcast on Tuesday that he'll flee to Costa Rica to avoid changes to the U.S. healthcare system.

"I'll just tell you this, if this passes, and it's five years from now and all that stuff gets implemented, I am leaving the country," he told a caller. "I'll go to Costa Rica."

Utrecht

03-22-2010, 08:15 PM

On one of the conservative forums I go to, they are crowing that this bill violates the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 10th Amendments on various grounds, some kind of loony. The part getting many up in arms in requiring people to have health insurance and fining them if they don't, which ignores the triviality of the fines and the mechanisms in place to help those who can't afford insurance.

Well, it must not be completely loony since 12 states have already lined up to sue the Federal government the instant it is signed.

But I think that is a pretty phantom argument. States have required drivers to hold car insurance for years and we haven't turned into Amerika.

Bad analogy - you have a choice as to whether you have a car and as such pay insurance. In this case, you MUST buy insurance if you live in the US. The analogy you are looking for is Taxes.

Name Lips

03-22-2010, 08:25 PM

Yeah... other than taxes, this is the first "you're required to pay whether you use it or not, or whether you want it or not" law I know about. You can even avoid income taxes perfectly legally by not working.

But just because it's something new doesn't mean it's illegal.

edit: This is a weird mirror image of when Bush passed the Patriot Act. The liberals were up in arms that it was tearing apart their civil rights, destroying the Constitution, and so forth. Conservatives just looked at them in confusion, saying "it's there to keep you safe. Don't you trust your government with the power it needs to protect you?"

So regardless of anything else, the conservatives now know the gut-wrenching, physically nausiating, horrifying, what-is-happening-to-the-America-I-love, feeling that liberals had for 8 years straight.

The Winslow

03-22-2010, 08:27 PM

well so would banning cars, sodas and cigarrettes.... Does not mean it is the right thing to do.
Banning cars would do wonders to thwart international Islamic terrorism, though.

Utrecht

03-22-2010, 09:05 PM

Banning cars would do wonders to thwart international Islamic terrorism, though.

Well Stannis would be happy then.....

I kid, I kid! :lol:

Ergeheilalt

03-22-2010, 11:50 PM

Well Stannis would be happy then.....

I kid, I kid! :lol:

Stannis will never be happy until burka bedecked bulldogs bite the bullet.

Hatter

03-23-2010, 03:06 AM

Well, it must not be completely loony since 12 states have already lined up to sue the Federal government the instant it is signed.

Really? 12 republican state attorney generals vow to fight Democrat legislation. This is somehow surprising?

tleilaxu

03-23-2010, 03:24 AM

Really? 12 republican state attorney generals vow to fight Democrat legislation. This is somehow surprising?

what he said.

btw cnn says 10: FL, AL, NE, ND, PE, SC, SD, TX, UT, WA ... out of those states i can only take florda, pennsylvania, texas and washington the least bit seriously in general.

Aloysius

03-23-2010, 03:40 AM

Stannis will never be happy until burka bedecked bulldogs bite the bullet.

I'm trying to picture a burqa wearing pittbull. That happens to have nationalized health coverage. :D

AZRogue

03-23-2010, 03:44 AM

what he said.

btw cnn says 10: FL, AL, NE, ND, PE, SC, SD, TX, UT, WA ... out of those states i can only take florda, pennsylvania, texas and washington the least bit seriously in general.

That list is incomplete. I don't know how many others were left off, but Arizona should be on it. Our governor has given several speeches already on the matter; she's been quite passionate about it.

edit: This is a weird mirror image of when Bush passed the Patriot Act. The liberals were up in arms that it was tearing apart their civil rights, destroying the Constitution, and so forth. Conservatives just looked at them in confusion, saying "it's there to keep you safe. Don't you trust your government with the power it needs to protect you?"

So regardless of anything else, the conservatives now know the gut-wrenching, physically nausiating, horrifying, what-is-happening-to-the-America-I-love, feeling that liberals had for 8 years straight.

What about me? I was sickened by the Patriot Act, too, so I guess I just get lose-lose. I had hoped that the new administration would have axed the Patriot Act by now, but I didn't even get that satisfaction. It's enough to make a guy give up on politics altogether.

Scarbonac

03-23-2010, 04:43 AM

It's enough to make a guy give up on politics altogether.

More politics for the rest of us, then.

Brynja

03-23-2010, 05:20 AM

Why does section 163 state it needs access to our bank accounts?

:shock:

TiQuinn

03-23-2010, 07:25 AM

The part getting many up in arms in requiring people to have health insurance and fining them if they don't, which ignores the triviality of the fines and the mechanisms in place to help those who can't afford insurance. But I think that is a pretty phantom argument. States have required drivers to hold car insurance for years and we haven't turned into Amerika.

The funny thing is this is something that both sides essentially agreed upon.

obryn

03-23-2010, 08:12 AM

If you don't have an individual mandate, you can't have a pre-existing condition clause.

Since one of the things everyone agrees on is that they want a pre-existing condition clause, I don't see the individual mandate going anywhere.

-O

AZRogue

03-23-2010, 08:15 AM

For one thing, the argument that the health insurance mandate is similar to having to have car insurance is false: you don't have to have a car.

You don't have any choice when it comes to buying health insurance.

I'm not sure what sides agreed to what when it comes to the mandate--I haven't seen statistics or reports on that individual issue, just yes/no splits on the overall bill--but I don't see it as relevant. No matter who liked the idea, even if it was a GOP idea they've championed for years, I still think it's a horrible thing. I don't think the government should have the right to make me buy a product that's not even attached to a particular privilege. If I want to not buy a product, I should have that freedom.

It's just a bad precedent and was done as a lazy solution to the problem faced by insurance companies who are being forced to accept policies from individuals with pre-existing conditions and without placing a limit on lifetime coverage.

Whether you're for the bill or against it, I'm surprised more people aren't angry, or at least wary, of the mandate and the precedent it establishes.

Brynja

03-23-2010, 08:25 AM

Do I - as an insured person thru their job- need to buy it?

obryn

03-23-2010, 08:27 AM

It's just a bad precedent and was done as a lazy solution to the problem faced by insurance companies who are being forced to accept policies from individuals with pre-existing conditions and without placing a limit on lifetime coverage.
It's not really that, even. It's absolutely necessary when you otherwise might have people who wait to buy insurance until they're sick. That sort of behavior completely ruins any insurance model - it's like getting auto insurance after your car gets totalled, or taking out life insurance on your spouse when they're already dead.

A mandate is logical and necessary if you want pre-existing conditions covered.

-O

Scutisorex Shrewlord

03-23-2010, 08:27 AM

Now that the bill has been passed, I think the time advantage has flipped. It used to be in the Republicans' court: the longer they dragged out the process, the more likely the bill died. Now that it's passed, the longer time goes on, the more likely people will see its benefits. They'll see shortcomings too, but that will be a launching point for discussions on how to build on what already exists. Over time, it's more likely people will view this bill favorably rather than unfavorably.

I withhold judgment on that. It's too early to tell the full ramifications of this bill. People who have to pay for it, through taxes or otherwise, will likely not be happy with it. People who get something they didn't have before, at very little to no cost, will likely be pleased with it. Frankly I'm glad the issue is being pushed along one way or another. I'm far more concerned about job growth and employment.

Scutisorex Shrewlord

03-23-2010, 08:28 AM

obryn

03-23-2010, 08:29 AM

Do I - as an insured person thru their job- need to buy it?
Nope. Employer-based healthcare, despite how insane and illogical the system is, still exists.

-O

AZRogue

03-23-2010, 08:35 AM

Do I - as an insured person thru their job- need to buy it?

No, if you have health insurance, you're good to go. :)

It's not really that, even. It's absolutely necessary when you otherwise might have people who wait to buy insurance until they're sick. That sort of behavior completely ruins any insurance model - it's like getting auto insurance after your car gets totalled, or taking out life insurance on your spouse when they're already dead.

A mandate is logical and necessary if you want pre-existing conditions covered.

-O

I just don't accept that it's the only way to get around that problem. It's the easiest, sure, but I don't buy that a better solution couldn't be found. Hell, give us the resources and we could craft a better solution.

It was the solution chosen because the insurance companies' lobbyists made sure that it was chosen.

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-23-2010, 08:57 AM

Nope. Employer-based healthcare, despite how insane and illogical the system is, still exists.

-O

Good. Hopefully it provides a better level of service, too. Despite all the pollyanna bullshit, I want the fact that I had to sacrifice and get a college degree and maintain a good job actually mean something. I don't want some freeloading, unemployed douche to have the same level of healthcare service I or someone like Brynja has. Let them wait in lines while we get whisked to the front!

I may not be better as a human, but fuck all I definitely have more economic value to society.

Of course will companies eventually just stop offering insurance now that we're all covered? That is when things will fall apart.

Name Lips

03-23-2010, 09:22 AM

Yes, having insurance through your company satisfies your individual mandate to possess insurance.

I think companies will still offer it as a perk because employees will find it cheaper than going off and buying their own.

Once this gets up and running I see a new breed of "discount insurers" popping up all over the place, competing with each other to get the business of all those millions who now are required to get insurance. Bare-bones, cheap, doesn't cover a lot, but technically satisfies the mandate. Much like discount auto insurance providers - the coverage isn't very good, but it's good enough for you to drive legally.

tleilaxu

03-23-2010, 09:22 AM

Let them wait in lines while we get whisked to the front!

you are aware of the existence of the working poor, right? people who punch-in and punch-out for some bullshit job everyday work harder than you, or i, or any professional (that's why we bothered to become professionals, right?).

if you get up every day to go to work, i don't care if you dig ditches or are a janitor or whatever is regarded as the least prestigous jobs these days, you should be able to expect some level of social safety net, you should be able to provide your kids at least the chance for a better life, whether they take advantage of it or no.

and what about the kids of these lazy people you so despise? fuck em? they should have had the sense to be born into the middle class?

obryn

03-23-2010, 09:27 AM

Of course will companies eventually just stop offering insurance now that we're all covered? That is when things will fall apart.
With the tax incentives for offering health insurance, the competition between employers, and the penalties for failing to offer it? Not a chance.

I just don't accept that it's the only way to get around that problem. It's the easiest, sure, but I don't buy that a better solution couldn't be found. Hell, give us the resources and we could craft a better solution.

It was the solution chosen because the insurance companies' lobbyists made sure that it was chosen.
All I can say, as someone who's worked in a (non-health) insurance company for a few years, is that it makes sense.

In addition to the pre-existing condition clause, it also enables the removal of annual or lifetime caps. Both of those have a potential to increase premium; with a mandate, though, they won't. Insurance is really nothing more than a pool of money and a pool of risks. The larger the pool, the more predictable the outcomes, the less expensive it gets.

I think you can make moral arguments about a mandate, but if you want all the perks of this bill, you either need a mandate or you need public insurance. This is the more conservative option.

-O

Hatter

03-23-2010, 09:39 AM

you are aware of the existence of the working poor, right? people who punch-in and punch-out for some bullshit job everyday work harder than you, or i, or any professional (that's why we bothered to become professionals, right?).

Or small-business owners who have been priced out of the employer based insurance system. I guess they are a drain on the economy too.

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-23-2010, 10:01 AM

you are aware of the existence of the working poor, right? people who punch-in and punch-out for some bullshit job everyday work harder than you, or i, or any professional (that's why we bothered to become professionals, right?).

if you get up every day to go to work, i don't care if you dig ditches or are a janitor or whatever is regarded as the least prestigous jobs these days, you should be able to expect some level of social safety net, you should be able to provide your kids at least the chance for a better life, whether they take advantage of it or no.

and what about the kids of these lazy people you so despise? fuck em? they should have had the sense to be born into the middle class?

Through my wife and her almost 20 years of teaching, I'm also aware of the women who pump out kid after kid after kid, for no other reason than it gives them "status". I'm also aware of the derelict fathers who don't have a job and don't much act like a father.

And guess what, my friend, there are a lot of those people - more than you think.

As for the working poor, obviously I'm not talking about them dingus.

DarwinOfMind

03-23-2010, 10:21 AM

Right, I understand your not talking about me, your talking about my Ex's sister, believe me I know the people your talking about

The problem is, your so eager to punish my ex's sister, that you don't care who gets hurt along with, as long as it isn't you.

As long as it isn't you, you really don't give a shit if I get punish, as long as we punish her right?

obryn

03-23-2010, 10:27 AM

Through my wife and her almost 20 years of teaching, I'm also aware of the women who pump out kid after kid after kid, for no other reason than it gives them "status". I'm also aware of the derelict fathers who don't have a job and don't much act like a father.

And guess what, my friend, there are a lot of those people - more than you think.
OK, so mom's a piece of work and dad's an idiot.

Where do the kids figure into this?

-O

Brynja

03-23-2010, 10:47 AM

Apple trees make apples and it is not as often as you might think that those baby apples becomes something else.

Hatter

03-23-2010, 10:57 AM

Through my wife and her almost 20 years of teaching, I'm also aware of the women who pump out kid after kid after kid, for no other reason than it gives them "status". I'm also aware of the derelict fathers who don't have a job and don't much act like a father.

And guess what, my friend, there are a lot of those people - more than you think.

As for the working poor, obviously I'm not talking about them dingus.

You're paying for these people's health care under the current system too. Only indirectly when they go to the emergency room and can't afford the bill.

Harry

03-23-2010, 11:13 AM

You're paying for these people's health care under the current system too. Only indirectly when they go to the emergency room and can't afford the bill.

Yes, precisely. And that also helps keep the artificial costs high. The government ends up paying the bills for people who can't afford to pay or don't pay. The hospitals don't just write that off - they submit the inflated price to Uncle Sam, or to your state government.

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-23-2010, 11:20 AM

You're paying for these people's health care under the current system too. Only indirectly when they go to the emergency room and can't afford the bill.

That behavior won't change, they'll still go to the emergency room. Getting to your point, it probably won't change much. I'll still be paying their bill, which leads me to ask why we did all this in the first place. At least hospitals could write off some of those bills, now they'll pass them on entirely to the government. No way in hell will this be less expensive in the long run.

The Winslow

03-23-2010, 11:20 AM

Apple trees make apples and it is not as often as you might think that those baby apples becomes something else.

So, government-enforced euthanasia of jobless people's kids?

Brynja

03-23-2010, 11:39 AM

Sure. Sounds good.

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-23-2010, 11:47 AM

So, government-enforced euthanasia of jobless people's kids?

Yeah, what's the big deal?

Cat of Ulthar

03-23-2010, 11:52 AM

Apple trees make apples and it is not as often as you might think that those baby apples becomes something else.

Get off Brynja, you're smarter than that.

My dad's dad was a milk farmer, his wife a housewife. My dad never went to college, but became an accountant through self-study, is now a healthcare economist (heh.), artist and art teacher. My mother's father was a carpenter, his wife a housewife. My mother never went to secondary school and is a housewife, artist and art teacher. I am a lexicographer. My sister is an English teacher. My brother is a general dogsbody for a bedsheet design company.

How come I am not a carpenter, milk farmer or housewife; and nor are my parents or siblings?

AZRogue

03-23-2010, 11:59 AM

What she's saying isn't that big plumbers have little baby plumbers. She's saying that, for the most part, dead-beat dads who go from woman to woman having kids--because they can't be bothered to use a condom--and the women who allow them and end up having children they can't support, no future other than living on ever-increasing welfare checks and foodstamps, no time or inclination to find a career, tend to have kids who grow up to continue their parent's behavior.

Behavior, especially in this context, is something largely learned. They're already coming from a disadvantage due to their parents' decisions and lifestyle, and it's not helped by the fact that those negative traits are more likely to be embraced, rather than used as a benchmark to avoid.

It's not difficult to see, if you look. Hell, you don't even have to leave the family most of the time. Most of my cousins began having kids when they were 15 or so and, surprise surprise, their kids are now having kids, one as young as 13. They aren't doing that badly, either, as evidenced by their efforts to sell me foodstamps. :mad:

obryn

03-23-2010, 12:08 PM

So, government-enforced euthanasia of jobless people's kids?
Sure. Sounds good.
Yeah, what's the big deal?
Cool! That dovetails nicely with the government's new mandatory nazi abortion bill that just passed the House!

-O

tleilaxu

03-23-2010, 12:38 PM

Apple trees make apples and it is not as often as you might think that those baby apples becomes something else.

how aristocratic of you

tleilaxu

03-23-2010, 12:42 PM

That behavior won't change, they'll still go to the emergency room. Getting to your point, it probably won't change much. I'll still be paying their bill, which leads me to ask why we did all this in the first place. At least hospitals could write off some of those bills, now they'll pass them on entirely to the government. No way in hell will this be less expensive in the long run.

if you pay for a kid to see a dentist regularly, it is much less likely they will need some sort of major and expensive dental surgery.

if you pay for a kid to get an immunization, you don't have to pay for the disease, and the kid won't be infecting Your kids.

etc etc. it's called preventive medicine and it WILL save money.

Brynja

03-23-2010, 12:50 PM

how aristocratic of you

How bohemnian of you to think otherwise.

Cat-

What AZ said, I dont mean plumbers make plumbers. I am talking more about quality of character than profession in life. Shitty is as shitty does quite often, thats why when we hear stories of people doing otherwise we consider them so inspirational and wonderful.

Enk

03-23-2010, 12:50 PM

if you pay for a kid to see a dentist regularly, it is much less likely they will need some sort of major and expensive dental surgery.

if you pay for a kid to get an immunization, you don't have to pay for the disease, and the kid won't be infecting Your kids.

etc etc. it's called preventive medicine and it WILL save money.

I'd have been happier if the package had only covered preventative and maintenance care, and left acute care to insurance (because, really, preventative medicine isn't something you need "insurance" for; its regular and planned expenditure).

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-23-2010, 01:00 PM

how aristocratic of you

How naive of you.

tleilaxu

03-23-2010, 01:15 PM

Brynja

03-23-2010, 01:21 PM

I am not saying that but why can't you be willing to admit there are sizeable portion that are?

tleilaxu

03-23-2010, 01:26 PM

I am not saying that but why can't you be willing to admit there are sizeable portion that are?

i have always maintained that every generation, and every nation will have some proportion of people who, despite not being disabled somehow, will never be of any use to anyone else. frankly 1.28% seems rather low to me.

so what do you do? tell 'em to fuck off and starve? now you have a bunch of people with no character who are also desperate on your hands. what do you think the result would be? is this a pre,ferable situation?

tleilaxu

03-23-2010, 01:29 PM

it seems like right-wingers think liberals enjoy paying for people's welfare. of course we don't! i resent the people who take advantage as much as you do. i'm just pragmatic.

The Winslow

03-23-2010, 01:30 PM

obryn

03-23-2010, 01:31 PM

I am not saying that but why can't you be willing to admit there are sizeable portion that are?
I don't think anyone's arguing that. I'm not, at least.

I'm arguing that, just because a kid's parents are deadbeats, doesn't mean that kid should die of an easily-treatable illness because they have no health care. I think that's a fairly reasonable expectation, honestly.

-O

Brynja

03-23-2010, 01:32 PM

I would say it is more than 1% - really. I am not sure where you get that figure.

First of all do not label me, I am generally moderate.

Secondly- if you resent it? Why do it? I am not suggesting fuck em and let em starve but you know what- I am fucking tired of getting nickleand dimed to death why I struggle to make it all happen.

Brynja

03-23-2010, 01:32 PM

Brynja

03-23-2010, 01:33 PM

I don't think anyone's arguing that. I'm not, at least.

I'm arguing that, just because a kid's parents are deadbeats, doesn't mean that kid should die of an easily-treatable illness because they have no health care. I think that's a fairly reasonable expectation, honestly.

-O

We have that now in NJ

It is called NJ Family care.

Droid101

03-23-2010, 01:42 PM

I would say it is more than 1% - really. I am not sure where you get that figure.

In 2007, there were a total of 3,866,581 recipients of welfare. This works out to 1.28 per 100 people. --This was listed in his post. He posted his source.

And, of that 1.28%, do you think 100% of them are deadbeat losers, and 0% have just fallen on hard times and will be able to (with some welfare help) work their way out of it? 50/50? What do you think?

Brynja

03-23-2010, 01:44 PM

I don't know.

What I also wonder are how many who are not longer on welfare due to "end of benefits" but are scraping by or scamming for foodstamps. Which you can do, as I worked as a food stamp worker I do know it is possible.

So then can anyone answer me - why the fuck do we have so much debt over this? Benefits etc. 3million out of our populace isnt much- so where is it coming from?

Droid101

03-23-2010, 01:45 PM

I don't know.

I know that unemployment pay was a godsend when I lost my job. I kept up with all my debts, and then got a new, better job. I know that's not "welfare" but it is a nice program that helps working citizens stay on their feet.

Name Lips

03-23-2010, 01:53 PM

From what I understand, a huge portion of the annual US budget goes to Social Security. It's the most expensive thing we pay for. Like around a third of our budget. Rivaling that is the miliatary budget. A very close second, almost another third.

Every other program you can think of, from various forms of welfare to school funding to grants... everything else is competing for a tiny slice of the remaining third.

Droid101

03-23-2010, 01:59 PM

From what I understand, a huge portion of the annual US budget goes to Social Security. It's the most expensive thing we pay for. Like around a third of our budget.

This is what we should be focusing on then. Mandate that everyone start a personal retirement account... kind of like the SS payment from your paycheck. Except that it accrues for just yourself. And pays out for just yourself. I think that would serve the population better, no?

Name Lips

03-23-2010, 02:10 PM

This is what we should be focusing on then. Mandate that everyone start a personal retirement account... kind of like the SS payment from your paycheck. Except that it accrues for just yourself. And pays out for just yourself. I think that would serve the population better, no?

There's been talk about this. The trick is switching from the system we have to that one. What do we do with the people who are currently on social security? The people due to retire in 1-5 years who have been counting on it? The people who've been working 20 years, but probably have another 20 left? Are they half in one system and half in the other? What about homemakers who never work -- if their working spouse dies, do they get anything? What if they divorce after 30 years of her not working - does she get anything when she reaches retirement age?

Nobody wants to address these sorts of questions. I tend to think we could benefit from an honest debate, but we haven't been doing a lot of that these days. Instead we draw battlelines.

tleilaxu

03-23-2010, 02:12 PM

So then can anyone answer me - why the fuck do we have so much debt over this? Benefits etc. 3million out of our populace isnt much- so where is it coming from?

social security and defense. those two account for almost 40% of expenditures.

the only reason social security is so expensive is that FICA is capped at a certain income level (for some reason the number $250,000 comes to mind). if we removed that cap POOF problem solved.

another solution: raise the age you start collecting social security. POOF problem solved.

another solution: cut social security payments. POOF problem solved.

no one is willing to do any of these three things. my solution is to do all three a little bit.

Droid101

03-23-2010, 02:33 PM

the only reason social security is so expensive is that FICA is capped at a certain income level (for some reason the number $250,000 comes to mind). if we removed that cap POOF problem solved.

Wow.

For 2009, the employee's share is 6.2% of gross compensation up to a limit of $106,800 of compensation (resulting in a maximum tax of $6,621.60). That is fucking ridiculous. Get rid of that cap entirely, for serious. Why the fuck are the billionaires getting off so damn easy?

Utrecht

03-23-2010, 02:42 PM

Wow.

That is fucking ridiculous. Get rid of that cap entirely, for serious. Why the fuck are the billionaires getting off so damn easy?

Because their benefits are also capped.

Droid101

03-23-2010, 02:50 PM

Because their benefits are also capped.

So?

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-23-2010, 02:56 PM

Let's be real here for a second: "Baby Mommas as the Cause of U.S. Downfall" has always been bunk.
You Right-wingers whine about Welfare waaay too much. Let's look at some numbers:

U.S. 2010 GDP: $14.623 trillion
The government's 2009 budget was about 4 trillion dollars (3.997 or something)
In 2009, welfare accounted for 395.4 billion of this. Keep in mind this includes unemployment payments. (Just under 10% of expenditures)
The 2009 Women and Children portion, which was the specific canard pulled out earlier, accounted for 80.1 billion in 2009 (or 2% of expenditures)
In 2007, there were a total of 3,866,581 recipients of welfare. This works out to 1.28 per 100 people.

Maintain some perspective, this isn't destroying America. And surely no one would say everyone on welfare is lazy and worthless, as so often described.

http://USgovernmentspending.com
http://sourcebook.governing.com/topicresults.jsp?sub=173

Of course nothing about the SSI these "baby mommas" (as you say) demand of their children in school, whether they qualify or not. If you don't think a lot of them are gaming the system for it, think again. They can and they do. They don't care that their kids are now in special education classes when they probably shouldn't be there.

What about the cost to society when these kids hold up a liquor store when they turn 18 or are caught dealing drugs? Oh wait, that's all free, right? Somebody else pays for the prosecution and incarceration.

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-23-2010, 02:58 PM

That is fucking ridiculous. Get rid of that cap entirely, for serious. Why the fuck are the billionaires getting off so damn easy?

Because their benefits are also capped.

So?

Why not let the rich opt out of the system entirely with the provision that while they can't get a dime from SS, they don't have to pay in any more, either?

Better yet, why can't I do that.

The Winslow

03-23-2010, 03:09 PM

Good idea. Let's make it so that only the people who need financial help have to pay.

Dacke

03-23-2010, 03:11 PM

This is what we should be focusing on then. Mandate that everyone start a personal retirement account... kind of like the SS payment from your paycheck. Except that it accrues for just yourself. And pays out for just yourself. I think that would serve the population better, no?
That's pretty much the system we have in Sweden, actually. Well, not for most of the current seniors, since we only started with that system like 10 years ago when we realized that the system we had at the time wasn't going to work out. So people born after 1953 will have their pensions based on how much they paid into the system, while those born before are on some sort of sliding scale between the new and old systems.

There's probably some stuff about being able to inherit your spouse's pension as well, I'm not too up on the details.

Enk

03-23-2010, 03:31 PM

social security and defense. those two account for almost 40% of expenditures.

the only reason social security is so expensive is that FICA is capped at a certain income level (for some reason the number $250,000 comes to mind). if we removed that cap POOF problem solved.

another solution: raise the age you start collecting social security. POOF problem solved.

another solution: cut social security payments. POOF problem solved.

no one is willing to do any of these three things. my solution is to do all three a little bit.

I've been saying that for years - tie benefits to the mean lifespan, raise the collection limit slightly, and skip every other year's cost of living adjustment for the next decade.

Black Angel

03-23-2010, 03:50 PM

That's pretty much the system we have in Sweden, actually. Well, not for most of the current seniors, since we only started with that system like 10 years ago when we realized that the system we had at the time wasn't going to work out. So people born after 1953 will have their pensions based on how much they paid into the system, while those born before are on some sort of sliding scale between the new and old systems.

There's probably some stuff about being able to inherit your spouse's pension as well, I'm not too up on the details.

We also have this - called superannuation. I'm not sure how long we've had it, but it's longer than 10 years, probably more like 20 years (and it has gradually changed over that time). It's compulsory for employers to make a 9% contribution of your wage into a fund of your choice, and you can make additional personal contributions at a reduced tax rate. Of course you can't touch it until you're 50ish, so at our current age it's better to invest in the stock market at we have quicker access to the proceeds. However, we'll also have that nest egg sitting there for when we do retire, and at least we have the choice of where the super is put.

If a person dies, there an option of who receives the fund that you choose when you sign up - you can nominate kids, spouse, other family etc.

For those that won't receive enough benefit, due to age when the policy was implemented or not working, etc, there is still the pension, which is means-tested, so can get some benefit from your super, but topped up by the pension if necessary.

Personally, we will probably have too many savings to qualify for the pension & so will be living off our super & savings, as most people of our generation will be (at least I think that's the government's plan).

Droid101

03-23-2010, 04:11 PM

Why not let the rich opt out of the system entirely with the provision that while they can't get a dime from SS, they don't have to pay in any more, either?

Better yet, why can't I do that.

I don't use public transportation. Can I opt out of all taxes that go toward that?

I don't travel to San Fransisco. Can I opt out of all taxes that will go toward Northern California?

I'm not disabled. Why should I be paying disability taxes?

AZRogue

03-23-2010, 04:36 PM

Of course nothing about the SSI these "baby mommas" (as you say) demand of their children in school, whether they qualify or not. If you don't think a lot of them are gaming the system for it, think again. They can and they do. They don't care that their kids are now in special education classes when they probably shouldn't be there.

What about the cost to society when these kids hold up a liquor store when they turn 18 or are caught dealing drugs? Oh wait, that's all free, right? Somebody else pays for the prosecution and incarceration.

SSI is, indeed, usually counted by Congress as part of the cost of "Welfare." Source (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Faspe.hhs.gov%2Fhsp %2Findicators07%2Fch1.htm%23Data)

Also, you can, and should, include Earned Income Tax Credit in the mix. Not paying taxes is one thing, but receiving additional income based on a sliding scale that measures income level along with number of qualifying children certainly has to count as "aid." Or, as it's sometimes fondly called, the Three P's Credit (the Plasma TV, Playstation 3, and Pot Credit).

Of course, I'm more financially conservative than that, as I'd rather do away with, or at least make optional, Social Security and Medicare, too. Not reform, remove. But that's just me. Hell, I'm even willing to continue to pay into it for a while, with no return, just so long as there could be an end date to to the charade.

Speaking of the EITC, I always wondered why this couldn't be used to cover healthcare costs for low-income families who are struggling. It would have to help quite a bit.

Utrecht

03-23-2010, 05:58 PM

I don't use public transportation. Can I opt out of all taxes that go toward that?

I don't travel to San Fransisco. Can I opt out of all taxes that will go toward Northern California?

I'm not disabled. Why should I be paying disability taxes?

Your analogy fails.

Remember that Social Security "Tax" was something expressly set up for individuals to pay into over the course of their working lives and then GET IT BACK LATER. The idea being that some folks will die before getting it and others live longer - all things being equal it will even out.

So, it is not the same as other taxes that go to the general fund.

However, lets continue on with the class warfare "Rich people don't pay enough!!!!" meme after all the dirty "rich" are the source of all the problems and should instead act as all of our personal ATMs

Pigs in Space

03-23-2010, 06:09 PM

Nope. Employer-based healthcare, despite how insane and illogical the system is, still exists.

-O

Why is it insane? Isn't it just an extra benefit of your job? Like effectively having a slightly higher salary?

Droid101

03-23-2010, 06:20 PM

However, lets continue on with the class warfare "Rich people don't pay enough!!!!" meme after all the dirty "rich" are the source of all the problems and should instead act as all of our personal ATMs

So, a guy who makes $300,000 is only going to pay $6,000 into Social Security.

Personally, if I made $300,000 bucks, I wouldn't mind having to pay $12,000 into Social Security, as long as all the other rich folks had to, and it would get us out from under Social Security as such a drain on the budget.

Either way, the analogy doesn't "fail;" they are both expenditures coming out of my pocket. I don't give a shit where they originate from.

Pigs in Space

03-23-2010, 06:28 PM

The preferable situation is to have everyone pass regular "usefulness to society" evaluation made by a panel of the most reactionary social conservatives you can find in the area. Anyone deemed not useful enough is then terminated. This is how the society could be sure to be efficient and offer blissful prosperity for all.
Also, housing prices would drop dramatically.
This is what we should be focusing on then. Mandate that everyone start a personal retirement account... kind of like the SS payment from your paycheck. Except that it accrues for just yourself. And pays out for just yourself. I think that would serve the population better, no?
Don't you guys have 401k or something?

Isn't this what you are talking about?
Of course nothing about the SSI these "baby mommas" (as you say) demand of their children in school, whether they qualify or not. If you don't think a lot of them are gaming the system for it, think again. They can and they do. They don't care that their kids are now in special education classes when they probably shouldn't be there.

What about the cost to society when these kids hold up a liquor store when they turn 18 or are caught dealing drugs? Oh wait, that's all free, right? Somebody else pays for the prosecution and incarceration.

I'm not sure what your solution is to this then Stannis?

Droid101

03-23-2010, 06:33 PM

Don't you guys have 401k or something?

Isn't this what you are talking about?

Yes, you can choose to put money into a tax-free 401k account. However, it's not mandated, so people can just not do it, banking on Social Security to bail them out once they retire.

My parents went about it the right way. They have a huge 401k, big retired-military benefits, all kinds of rental incomes, as well as a (at this point very, very small) social security benefit. They live large in Hawaii.

tleilaxu

03-23-2010, 06:45 PM

having lived in the laissez-faire paradise that is hong kong, which has no social security, and having seen old women with osteoperosis collect cardboard to sell at weight because they had no kids to support them, i mock all who suggest this is a good way of doing things.

Harry

03-23-2010, 07:11 PM

I don't use public transportation. Can I opt out of all taxes that go toward that?

I don't travel to San Fransisco. Can I opt out of all taxes that will go toward Northern California?

I'm not disabled. Why should I be paying disability taxes?

This is what bugs the fucking HELL out of me when conservatives hold shit up because there's nothing banning abortions. "I don't want my money going to...." shut your piehole. I don't want MY taxes going to pay for propping up fascists and training government gunmen in Central America, but do I get to choose?

Harry

03-23-2010, 07:12 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36005852/ns/politics-washington_post/

'Dad, the unfinished business is done'

The political odyssey of health care reform in many ways is the story of Ted Kennedy, and as President Obama signed the historic bill into law Tuesday, Kennedy's gravesite was a place of quiet celebration and poignant reflection.

The late senator's widow, Vicki Reggie Kennedy, spent hours on Sunday at the simple white cross at Arlington National Cemetery marking where her husband was laid to rest only seven months ago. Ted Kennedy's youngest son, Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (D-R.I.), visited on Monday morning and left a hand-written note that read: "Dad, the unfinished business is done."

And on a dreary Tuesday morning, dozens of school children and health care advocates paused at Kennedy's tombstone to commemorate the man who for decades made overhauling the nation's health-care system his life's mission.

Kennedy's legacy was not lost on anyone who filled the East Room of the White House for Obama's bill-signing ceremony. Members of Congress wore blue "TedStrong" wristbands in his honor and posed for pictures with Patrick Kennedy. Caroline Kennedy, the senator's niece, sat in the front row, with other members of the storied family. Vicki Kennedy walked into the room with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).

Obama received a thunderous applause when he evoked the ghost of Ted Kennedy near the climax of his speech.

"I remember seeing Ted walk through that door in a summit in this room a year ago, one of his last public appearances, and it was hard for him to make it, but he was confident that we would do the right thing," Obama said.

When Obama sat to sign the bill, Patrick and Vicki Kennedy stood behind him. Finally, Ted Kennedy's dream became the law of the land.

obryn

03-23-2010, 07:48 PM

Why is it insane? Isn't it just an extra benefit of your job? Like effectively having a slightly higher salary?
It's a benefit for very quirky historical reasons. Logically, there's no reason why health care should be a benefit instead of something separate like auto insurance.

-O

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-23-2010, 10:13 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36005852/ns/politics-washington_post/

'Dad, the unfinished business is done'

Yep, the unfinished business is done. Misguided and unconstitutional liberal policies will finally bankrupt this country!

Utrecht

03-23-2010, 10:50 PM

So, a guy who makes $300,000 is only going to pay $6,000 into Social Security.

Personally, if I made $300,000 bucks, I wouldn't mind having to pay $12,000 into Social Security, as long as all the other rich folks had to, and it would get us out from under Social Security as such a drain on the budget.

Either way, the analogy doesn't "fail;" they are both expenditures coming out of my pocket. I don't give a shit where they originate from.

So you have no issues with effectively 3% of your income just vanishing?(assuming the insolvancy of SS occurs) Tell you what, feel free to send that check over to me - because I sure as hell do.

and yes, the analogy fails - because for example any taxes that you paid into fixing roads - you will will never see again. However, you are *supposed* to get the money you paid into SS back - that is the effective contract (And one that the US Gov reinforces every year when they send me my benfits calculation).

Now I *might* be willing to go along with your idea of uncapped Social Security Payments if it comes with the following:

1) Uncapped benefits
2) a ironclad garuntee that I/my spouse will get my money back out.

I again reiterate - just because someone is wealthy is no excuse that they should pay a higher % of taxes than anyone else.

Utrecht

03-23-2010, 10:52 PM

Yep, the unfinished business is done. Misguided and unconstitutional liberal policies will finally bankrupt this country!

Well, As of right now, 14 states are suing to stop it - citing unconstitutionality - and reading some constitutional scholars, they do have a leg to stand on.

Oh, and 33 states have stated that they will pass some legislation contradicting portions of the Bill - this fight (for better or worse) is only getting started.

tleilaxu

03-23-2010, 11:09 PM

Well, As of right now, 14 states are suing to stop it - citing unconstitutionality - and reading some constitutional scholars, they do have a leg to stand on.

Oh, and 33 states have stated that they will pass some legislation contradicting portions of the Bill - this fight (for better or worse) is only getting started.

let them spend their strength thus.

Hatter

03-23-2010, 11:51 PM

Well, As of right now, 14 states are suing to stop it - citing unconstitutionality - and reading some constitutional scholars, they do have a leg to stand on.
I've read scholars who say the opposite, but they'll get their day in court no doubt. Transparent political ploy is transparent.

Oh, and 33 states have stated that they will pass some legislation contradicting portions of the Bill - this fight (for better or worse) is only getting started.

And this flat out won't work, federal law trumps state law.

Name Lips

03-24-2010, 12:07 AM

Yep, the unfinished business is done. Misguided and unconstitutional liberal policies will finally bankrupt this country!

You're aware, aren't you, that the health care bill included a provision for paying for itself? Simply raised the taxes on a marginal, fairly insignificant minority (the very wealthy) and voila! No bankruptcy! Hell, you could tax those people 75% of their income and they'd still be in the top 5%. So it's not like they're losing anything.

Enk

03-24-2010, 07:34 AM

I've read scholars who say the opposite, but they'll get their day in court no doubt. Transparent political ploy is transparent.

And this flat out won't work, federal law trumps state law.

Unless the federal law is declared invalid due to Constitutional conflicts - that's what the states are going for here, a legal challenge.

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-24-2010, 07:36 AM

You're aware, aren't you, that the health care bill included a provision for paying for itself? Simply raised the taxes on a marginal, fairly insignificant minority (the very wealthy) and voila! No bankruptcy! Hell, you could tax those people 75% of their income and they'd still be in the top 5%. So it's not like they're losing anything.

I love the smell of class warfare in the morning.

Maybe you should thank those top 5% for paying well over 50% of all income taxes. And before you get all chippy with "well, they probably earn 50% of all the money", they don't. They earn less than 40% I believe. They're already picking up more than their share, but hey, let's pin all our problems on them for earning more money on us so we can give everyone a free handout. :rolleyes:

If anyone has ever called themself a libertarian and yet supports this bill, they should feel ashamed of themselves.

tleilaxu

03-24-2010, 07:58 AM

I love the smell of class warfare in the morning..

another canard.

why would bush altering the tax curve for the benefit of the wealthy not be class warfare, while arguing for the opposite is? hmm???

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-24-2010, 08:43 AM

another canard.

why would bush altering the tax curve for the benefit of the wealthy not be class warfare, while arguing for the opposite is? hmm???

It was only benefitting them because it was out of whack in the first place. Correcting a wrong is not class warfare. I firmly believe, like Bush, nobody should have to pay more than a third to the government in taxes.

Utrecht

03-24-2010, 09:02 AM

I've read scholars who say the opposite, but they'll get their day in court no doubt. Transparent political ploy is transparent.

Agreed - my point was more that this thing is on shaky constitutional ground and its opponents know it. They will be able to wrap themselves in the flag and say that they are defending the consiturion.

In the end HC may end up validated or it may end up thrown out - like I also said, this is just beginning.

And this flat out won't work, federal law trumps state law.

True - but the point of bringing it up is that there are enough states out there pissed off that some manner of constitutional amendment could come out of this. This does represent a pretty significant extension of federal power over something that has traditionally been a states right.

Further, if 66% of the States are willing to give the Feds some flavor of the "fuck you" it points to some significant issues with the legislation. Perhaps they will be addressed through reconcilliation/follow on legislation.

Finally, I think that this truly lays bare the bais that this board has - contrary to any claims of "moderate". This legislation represents the single largest expansion of federal power in 50 years (even more so than the Patriot act) - but apparently that is OK because Obama/Dems passed it. Had Bush/GOP did this, the board would have been in an uproar.

-not a single word of outrage about the consideration of deem and pass
-no outrage about clearly ignoring the will of the people (and no, the civil rights comparisions are not valid)
-no outrage about massive expansion of federal power
-no outrage about individual freedoms getting trampled

So in that case, thanks for showing what complete hypocrites most of you are (and don't worry, you labled me with that canard loooooong ago)

tleilaxu

03-24-2010, 09:10 AM

I again reiterate - just because someone is wealthy is no excuse that they should pay a higher % of taxes than anyone else.

ok, let's play this game. you want the flat tax, because you are ideologically committed to the idea that this is 'fair'. set aside for the moment this is a very questionable sense of fairness to have, despite the political impossibility and thus absurdity of a flat tax, let's pretend you get what you want.

what would be a fair rate? how about 10%? what does america look like in this dream (or is it a nightmare)?

immediately the budget of the federal government shrinks from 3.997 trillion to 1.462 trillion. what are the results of this? well, ignoring for now the distinction between discretionary and non-discretionary spending, if you want to cut all programs equally this means an across the board reduction of ~63.4%. That is to EVERYTHING: highways, public schools, social security, medicare, medicaid, military defense, government pensions, national science foundation, army corp of engineers, center for disease control, the justice department: EVERYTHING.

of course, you probably have some sort of plan i can't think of that will make all these numbers work and allow the libertarian paradise you envision to emerge.

so let's say you want to target your cuts. the first candidate is obvious: get rid of welfare ($395.4b). then we can follow with the republican dream of axeing some government departments, let's just get rid of the departments of health and human services ($78.7b), transportation ($72.5b), housing and urban development ($47.5b), and education ($46.7b). For good measure let's also get rid of the departments of energy ($26.3b) and agriculture ($26b), NASA ($18.7b), the departments of commerce ($13.8b), labor ($13.3b), the interior ($12b) and the EPA ($10.5b).

of the $2.535 trillion you need to cut from the budget, you gotten more than a third of the way there (total cuts so far: $761.4 billion dollars, not a bad start)!

but we're not there yet, we've got to cut another $1.774 trillion dollars from the budget! so lets get rid of medicare ($453b) and medicaid ($290b). That's another $743 billion dollars! Only $1.031 trillion more to go!

we don't want to touch defense, since libertarians admit this is one of the few legitimate functions of gov't, and republicans never saw a military program or excursion they couldn't find money for.

Unfortunately, looks like we can't afford social security (sorry grandma!), so that has to go ($695b). Now, we can almost balance the budget (we're now only spendig $336b more than we take in to support our remaining gov't departments of defense, veterans affairs, state, homeland security, justice, and treasury (the essentials, right?)). this works out to spending $1.21 for every $1 taken in. So let's just cut all those remaining departments by 18.7%.

Huzzah, we're there, but at what cost? What is Flat-Tax America like? I'm not going to go through an exhaustive list of all the changes, but here are a few:

- the population doesn't have basic immunizations: america is rife with cholera and influenza epidemics
- airplanes crash into one another since no one is keeping track of our commercial airspace
- our highway system rots away, but that's ok because
- there are no more trains or buses, which is good, since no one is keeping track of where hazardous materials are sent
- millions are made homeless
- the is no public education system to speak of.
- those with children who have developmental disabilities are on their own. sucks to be you.
- as the gov't is no longer collecting reliable and neutral agricultural statistics, wall street investors have no idea how much they should pay for agricultural products. zany hijinks ensue. but it's not that big of a deal becuase
- absent subsidies from the government, the agricultural sector of the economy collapses in the first year of drought or early freeze. (ain't nature a bitch?)
- china, europe, and russia now own space. if you want to send a satellite into orbit, talk to them.
- as we no longer have NOAA or the National Weather Service, America can no longer prepare for natural disasters (Katrina Part Deux)
- nor is there any point in innovating or inventing things, as there is no patent office (works for China, why not us?)
- no more faith based initiatives, sorry
- 19th century style exploitation and child labor make a return
- people are paid different amounts for the same work based on who they are (sex, race, religion, class, etc)
- workplace safety declines as OSHA rules no longer need to be followed, which among other things results in
- miners dying in mineshafts as regularly here as in china
- any remaining treaties we haven't already broken with Native Americans are broken as we eliminate the Bureau of Indian affairs
- no more national parks.
- populations of fish and deer collapse as there are no longer any limits on hunting and fishing (plus there's now millions of starving people who have to eat somehow!). unfortunately,
- your food and water are no longer safe to eat or drink
- as corporations gleefully dump their waste into the environment, more kids are born without brains, develop asthma, etc
- millions can't get medical care, and
- when they get old, they're on their own! (hope you saved up!)

congrats, you've destroyed america!

but that's ok, cause you've got principle. and that is what is important, right? not pragmatics, not what actually works.

you clearly haven't seriously thought about the consequences of your own ideas, preferring instead jerk-off dreams that make you seem principled.

game over, you lose. now that your idea has been exposed as crazy and stupid, please come up with a better one.

tleilaxu

03-24-2010, 09:18 AM

Correcting a wrong is not class warfare.

i completely agree! (not really, i think class warfare is constantly going on)

I firmly believe, like Bush, nobody should have to pay more than a third to the government in taxes.

this is arbitrary, justify it.

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-24-2010, 09:19 AM

tleilaxu

03-24-2010, 09:25 AM

Nobody I've seen with any legitimacy has proposed a flat tax at 10%, tleilaxu. You just wasted a whole bunch of energy concocting a scenario that nobody would consider.

I think the Armey flat tax proposal was 17 or 19%, unless I'm mistaken.

i took 10% because even the kookiest libertarians don't suggest a tax rate lower than 10%. so this is the most extreme situation. the results of a 20% flat tax, if you had the priorities expressed by the right, would be similar (albeit less intense and hyperbolic).

i'm tired of hearing about people's ideological wet dreams. we're all adults, time to grow up and be serious about stuff.

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-24-2010, 09:42 AM

i'm tired of hearing about people's ideological wet dreams. we're all adults, time to grow up and be serious about stuff.

You mean like admitting the country doesn't have the money to pay for stuff like this and that we should be tightening our belts, not giving healthcare to everyone in perpetuity?

I agree.

Hatter

03-24-2010, 09:42 AM

True - but the point of bringing it up is that there are enough states out there pissed off that some manner of constitutional amendment could come out of this. This does represent a pretty significant extension of federal power over something that has traditionally been a states right.

You are overestimating the outrage they would need 75% of states to pass such an amendment. This won't happen.

Further, if 66% of the States are willing to give the Feds some flavor of the "fuck you" it points to some significant issues with the legislation. Perhaps they will be addressed through reconcilliation/follow on legislation.
66% of the States are angry? Source?

Finally, I think that this truly lays bare the bais that this board has - contrary to any claims of "moderate". This legislation represents the single largest expansion of federal power in 50 years (even more so than the Patriot act) - but apparently that is OK because Obama/Dems passed it. Had Bush/GOP did this, the board would have been in an uproar.
Hello,
-not a single word of outrage about the consideration of deem and pass
-no outrage about clearly ignoring the will of the people (and no, the civil rights comparisions are not valid)
-no outrage about massive expansion of federal power
-no outrage about individual freedoms getting trampled

So in that case, thanks for showing what complete hypocrites most of you are (and don't worry, you labled me with that canard loooooong ago)
Or, and I'm just going to throw this out there, some of us actually think that the health care system is broken and this has been the best attempt to fix it. You can't say that had Bush/GOP done it that we would have stood against it because Bush/GOP would not have done it. The expansion of federal power under Bush was done to enhance government policing capabilities and the outrage was focused. Your assertion of our hypocrisy does not make it so. I personally supported Bush and the GOP when they took actions I agreed with, so fuck you very much.

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-24-2010, 09:48 AM

You are overestimating the outrage they would need 75% of states to pass such an amendment. This won't happen.

66% of the States are angry? Source?

Or, and I'm just going to throw this out there, some of us actually think that the health care system is broken and this has been the best attempt to fix it. You can't say that had Bush/GOP done it that we would have stood against it because Bush/GOP would not have done it. The expansion of federal power under Bush was done to enhance government policing capabilities and the outrage was focused. Your assertion of our hypocrisy does not make it so. I personally supported Bush and the GOP when they took actions I agreed with, so fuck you very much.

Then you are in the minority among democrats or liberals. Bush passed no child left behind, largely a democratic initiative, and he got lambasted for it from *drumroll* liberals.

Same old shit, no party is going to let the other off the hook, whether they originally supported it or not.

My problem with healthcare, beyond its unconstitionality and its "nanny-state" brick in the wall, is the fact that we simply can't afford it. This president is bound and determined to spend more money than any American president ever has. How I do long for the days of Clinton's balanced budgets.

Utrecht

03-24-2010, 09:49 AM

...poorly constructed strawman...

Wow, just wow - so flat tax will be responsible for everything from killing babies to turning over space the Russians to abandoning the elderly.

Now I realize that you are positioning things for dramatic effect. But you are combining several memes here under a single branch. Highlighted in your post are the following ideals

- flat tax
- limited (in your case bare bones) government

These are not the same thing - and are not even related.

OK, now addressing some of your specific points

I would argue that the flat tax rate needs to be higher than 10% Currently, I pay approximately 32% in State, Local and Federal Taxes. Note that this does not include Fees, sales taxes or property taxes. When these are added, I am getting pretty damn close to 40% (39 and some change).

So using the idea of 10% as the number is pretty disingenious. While I don't know what the final number is, but it is more than double what you are suggesting. Further, the Flat Tax should closes ALL Tax loopholes - so those dirty rich folks suddenly are paying more - but at a "fairer" rate. Make the damn tax code 1 page long.

OK, I think that addressed your Flat Tax canard.

Lets look at your skeleton government. I am going to ignore the numbers due the fact that they are invalid due to the above.

I whole heatedly disagree with you concept of limited government (but that is a debate we have had multiple times)- but my government looks a whole bunch more robust than yours. However the fact that government has been GROWING over the recessions shows that it does need fat trimmed.

But even leaving that aside - you assume that as soon as the govermnet stops providing a service nothing will step in to replace it (SS, education, space or even social services (through charitible organizations)). Now one can argue the effectiveness of one versus the other - but different discussion.

Continueing, you seem to assume that the US turns into some kind of totalitarian state where public opinions matters not - consdierable pressure can be brought to bear addressing some (if not all) of the concerns about public health. Hell look at the environmental movement during the Bush administration - it was able to excert considerable pressure on the US gov even when it was ostensibly anti-enviro.

So in short take your stupid little "destoy america game for principals" game away and come back when you are willing to have a legitamate discussion.

Hatter

03-24-2010, 09:52 AM

Then you are in the minority among democrats or liberals. Bush passed no child left behind, largely a democratic initiative, and he got lambasted for it from *drumroll* liberals.

I actually supported NCLB when it was first passed. I also supported updating the measure to help redress problems with it. I would do the same for the health care bill. If we find problems with it I would like to see it updated and revised to address those problems. The fact is that 40-49% of American voters (depending on the polls you read) support the measure. This is not something that is only supported by the far left.

tleilaxu

03-24-2010, 10:09 AM

Utrecht

03-24-2010, 10:23 AM

You are overestimating the outrage they would need 75% of states to pass such an amendment. This won't happen.

I agree, it won't get there. But it does not take away the fact that the outrage here is real. I think you would have to look back to the civil rights era to see a similar response from States (and before others pile on this statement - I do not see healthcare and civil rights in the same catagory)

66% of the States are angry? Source?

Angry is not quite the word I would use for it - but the range from states has been pretty strong in a minority and disspointed in a lot . I would need to dig up the source (was something like the Heritage Foundation)- so it could be a bit of conservative wet dreaming with a wide interpretation of unhappyness.

Or, and I'm just going to throw this out there, some of us actually think that the health care system is broken and this has been the best attempt to fix it. You can't say that had Bush/GOP done it that we would have stood against it because Bush/GOP would not have done it. The expansion of federal power under Bush was done to enhance government policing capabilities and the outrage was focused. Your assertion of our hypocrisy does not make it so. I personally supported Bush and the GOP when they took actions I agreed with, so fuck you very much.

I actually exempt you out of the hypocracy elements. Historically, you have been one of the few to look at both sides with objectivity - and I beleive my karma rewards demonstrate this.

I agree the expansions of powers between the two administrations are different (but it should be noted that Obama has kept pretty much all of Bush's expansions so they must not be all that bad :)) But IMO, they are not inequal, just different. The government enhancing policing capabilities is just as bad as the government telling me how to behave/what is best for me - both represent a to large movement in governmental control.

Now I will vehemently disagree with folks who call HC socialism, it is nothing of the sort - but it is a mild flavor of totalitarianism.

Further, I also beleive that some manner of HC reform was necessary - and it is entirely possible that this bill can get there - but there is so much crap in it as to be hard to see the good (btw, did you know that Obama and senior adminstration officials are excemt from this?)

obryn

03-24-2010, 10:27 AM

Enk

03-24-2010, 10:42 AM

Enk

03-24-2010, 10:47 AM

Of course a graduated income tax makes sense. We live in a society which allows people to amass personal wealth, thank goodness. And the government protects individual wealth both through the legal system and by force.

I must have missed where the gathering of wealth became a universal human right, rather than a function of government and society. :)

-O

Oh yeah - I don't get why people resist the notion that our current system is geared toward protecting the wealthy. It's pretty blatant that the Constitution was at least in part a response to Shays' Rebellion.

The Winslow

03-24-2010, 11:17 AM

No Child Left Behind was criticized for its failings. The intent seems good, the predicted results, bad. In many ways, this is exactly the same thing for the current object of debate.

Obama's health care reform plan has been lambasted by Democrats as well as by Republicans. People on one side think it doesn't go far enough, and on the other that it goes too far. This reform is certainly far from perfect. But the status quo was broken as well anyway. This may end up improving things -- or worsening them.

This is harder to argue for, say, the Patriot Act, which still seems pretty superfluous despite the threat of terrorism.

There is no simple and fair tax possible. The flat tax would not be that much fairer than a poll tax. It would be directly proportional to income, great... But costs of living are not! So it would affect the people on the lower end of the income scale actually a lot more than the others. Part of the issue, though, is that "fairness" is not defined in the same way by everyone.

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-24-2010, 11:17 AM

gotta go...

3 drive-bys

1. flat tax means either
a)rich people will pay less % of their income than now,
b)everyone else will pay a greater % of their income from now, or
c)government services shrink to a greater or lesser degree based on what the final % decided on is.

You say those as if they are bad. I know I won't pay more, I'll be paying less than I am, and I'm just plain old middle class. Government services should decrease, because it's not the government's job to make your life leisurely. For what few services remain, the folks who utilize them the most should have to pay something towards them, which is why I like the flat tax.

2. if you get anything out of my strawman (which of course it is, it's if the kookiest right-wing flat tax ideas suddenly came true), recognize that government provides a lot of services that allow commerce to flourish and protects the population from the worst excesses of capitalism. when you talk about shrinking government, there will be negative results for the population. recognize this.

Government is inefficient. It has a place, but it should be a whole lot less than it is now.

2. where is this shangri-la where people take care of one another with charity and without compulsion from the government? show me this place and i will follow you to the ends of the earth.

The U.S. and our "out of control capitalism" is a very generous nation as far as charitable giving. People took care of each other during the depression, before government put it's hand in every part of our lives. I think if people didn't have the mindset of "that's what my tax dollars are for" as far as giving, you'd see a lot more done as far as helping the poor.

Trainz

03-24-2010, 11:18 AM

It was only benefitting them because it was out of whack in the first place. Correcting a wrong is not class warfare. I firmly believe, like Bush, nobody should have to pay more than a third to the government in taxes.

Then explain how come we (Can) are more heavily taxed across the board than the U.S. but have less poverty.

tleilaxu

03-24-2010, 11:38 AM

You say those as if they are bad. I know I won't pay more, I'll be paying less than I am, and I'm just plain old middle class. Government services should decrease, because it's not the government's job to make your life leisurely. For what few services remain, the folks who utilize them the most should have to pay something towards them, which is why I like the flat tax.

Government is inefficient. It has a place, but it should be a whole lot less than it is now.

so your political platform is: "you should get less services so rich people can keep more of their money, because i don't need such services and i look down on the people who do need such services"

so what should we cut? make your case, and don't deny it when i and others point out the real-life negative consequences of your choices.

come on, be specific... or is your plan to just cut taxes while maintaining services thereby increasing the debt (as every republican president since reagan has done)?

what don't we need? you're an accountant, do the math.

Harry

03-24-2010, 11:47 AM

Finally, I think that this truly lays bare the bais that this board has - contrary to any claims of "moderate". This legislation represents the single largest expansion of federal power in 50 years (even more so than the Patriot act) - but apparently that is OK because Obama/Dems passed it.

Bullshit. If Bush had passed this legislation, I'd be voting Republican.

Oh, and I'm a "flat-taxer", but with one caveat - everyone and every company, corporation and so on, pays the same percentage. No loopholes, no exemptions, no deductions, no tax havens of any kind.

[Etc: And I can guarantee you that in the current system, at the end of the day the middle class and upper lower class pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes of all kind that anyone at the higher end.]

Utrecht

03-24-2010, 11:50 AM

so your political platform is: "you should get less services so rich people can keep more of their money, because i don't need such services and i look down on the people who do need such services"

so what should we cut? make your case, and don't deny it when i and others point out the real-life negative consequences of your choices.

come on, be specific... or is your plan to just cut taxes while maintaining services thereby increasing the debt (as every republican president since reagan has done)?

what don't we need? you're an accountant, do the math.

Nice twisting of words there. How about a platform of "everyone should pay the same % since this is a representative democracy and 1 vote = 1 vote". It is crap like this that make it hard to take anything you have seriously.

Now to your second portion. I believe that we should start to cut back on EVERY program that encourages dependency and INCREASE all programs that encourage self sufficiency.

this means, cutting back on handing a check out every week to folks and increasing education/training for people to find jobs/aquire new skills.

Now before you howl - this obviously won't work for everyone out there - there is (number completely pulled out of my ass) 10% of current welfare/dependency reciepients do need complete state support - and they should be take care of. My objection (and likely Stannis' too) is that this line is currently drawn completely wrong place now.

Further, I believe that the US Gov should get out of the entitlements/benefits business - SS - privatize it. Medicare/Medicaid - privitaize it. Now that is never going to happen, and I accept that - but that does not mean that I should accept the ever increasing womb that is the US Government entitlement system.

Utrecht

03-24-2010, 11:52 AM

Bullshit. If Bush had passed this legislation, I'd be voting Republican.

OK, so effectively, what you are saying is that you are OK with Govement intrusion in some areas but not others - that is fair

I for one, think it is a bit hypocritical - but hey - that is why we are all not clones.

Oh, and I'm a "flat-taxer", but with one caveat - everyone and every company, corporation and so on, pays the same percentage. No loopholes, no exemptions, no deductions, no tax havens of any kind.

[Etc: And I can guarantee you that in the current system, at the end of the day the middle class and upper lower class pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes of all kind that anyone at the higher end.]

No arguments there. If corporations were able to get a definition as a "person" than they should also suffer the consequences of it.

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-24-2010, 11:57 AM

Then explain how come we (Can) are more heavily taxed across the board than the U.S. but have less poverty.

You have 30 million people in your country, not 300 million. Many of your immigrants come from asia and are more educated, many of our immigrants come from Mexico and are not well educated. You have a system that redistributes money from wealthier provinces to less wealthy ones. So you have a built in population that is smaller and less prone to poverty to begin with. The higher taxation is unnecessary, but that's your problem.

The Winslow

03-24-2010, 12:01 PM

Government is inefficient.
Then I wonder why the most prosperous and powerful nations in the world, without exception, have strong governments; whereas anarchic countries are desolate shitholes. http://gez117.free.fr/smilies/shrug.gif

Reality is too complex and too subtle to be summed-up by a simple and definitive statement such as "government is inefficient". Efficiency depends on a lot more factors than being government-run or not. Could give plenty of examples of things that were more efficient when run by the government than after being privatized. This is not to say that the reverse is true, either. Plenty of examples as well where something gov't-run was less efficient than the equivalent run by private hands.

So being governmental or not is not a determining factor. Might not even be a factor at all.

The U.S. and our "out of control capitalism" is a very generous nation as far as charitable giving. People took care of each other during the depression, before government put it's hand in every part of our lives. I think if people didn't have the mindset of "that's what my tax dollars are for" as far as giving, you'd see a lot more done as far as helping the poor.
A good way of putting this to the test would be to entirely remove the tax deductions for donations to charities. Then it would truly tell that tax dollars are not for charity purposes, since you cannot pay your taxes directly to a charity as if the state was just a middleman between your wallet and the charities.

AZRogue

03-24-2010, 12:03 PM

Harry's correct: companies and rich individuals spend large amounts of money making sure they avoid the worst our current tax system can throw at them. A reasonable Flat Tax system would have to eliminate such loopholes and just subtract a flat rate across the board, no exceptions. You would, of course, couple that with Targeted taxation, that collects money needed from those using the service that needs the money.

Also, I read a comment above, sarcastically stated, that people don't take care of one another without being compelled by the government, and to that I have only one answer: Bullshit.

It's an insult to the people who volunteer their time and their money to help people every day, even during tough times. It happens every second, all around us, and I haven't seen a shithole shitty enough for this to not be the case. I mean, for fuck's sake, what kind of world do some people see that they only see others helping each other when they're forced? Do you stare at the ground, avoiding eye contact, as you push your way past the lady and her kids sitting outside your grocery store? Because if you looked you'd see people helping her, and those are just the average guys out there and not the really dedicated people running shelters, delivering food, and donating money. Hell, that kind of help has more value than governmental aid because it costs more and you can't avoid the fact that it's coming from a person instead of coming from a "magic bucket of money" we're entitled to. I know, from experience. The pride does sting, to be sure, but that itself is valuable and ensures the aid is sought only in need and rarely abused.

tleilaxu

03-24-2010, 12:40 PM

Nice twisting of words there. How about a platform of "everyone should pay the same % since this is a representative democracy and 1 vote = 1 vote". It is crap like this that make it hard to take anything you have seriously.

let's be clear: you are the one expressing support for radically changing the tax structure. you are the one who is expressing fringe beliefs that no serious politican or thinking person who has looked at the budget would suggest. it it you who is difficult to take seriously. all i propose are pragmatic fixes to problems. there are no easy choices, and in order to have a serious conversation we should stop pretending there are.

Now to your second portion. I believe that we should start to cut back on EVERY program that encourages dependency and INCREASE all programs that encourage self sufficiency.

this means, cutting back on handing a check out every week to folks and increasing education/training for people to find jobs/aquire new skills.

Now before you howl - this obviously won't work for everyone out there - there is (number completely pulled out of my ass) 10% of current welfare/dependency reciepients do need complete state support - and they should be take care of. My objection (and likely Stannis' too) is that this line is currently drawn completely wrong place now.

congratulations, by eliminating welfare, unemployment, housing benefits, and all other public welfare institutions you have reduced the federal budget by almost 10%!

wait, i'm not being fair: you're not eliminating welfare, you're just deciding only X% of welfare users deserve it, and we should get rid of everything else, so you save 10% - X% of those who deserve/need it.

as evidenced by the numbers i have posted earlier, this does not solve the budget crisis. and do you think eliminating unemployment benefits is wise? money going to unemployment is one of the fastest possible ways to spur growth and consumption in the economy.

Further, I believe that the US Gov should get out of the entitlements/benefits business - SS - privatize it.

GWB tried and failed. then when the stock market crashed most people said, "good thing we didn't do that, or we'd have a bunch of old people out on the street". there is no political will to do this.

further, you can believe "gov't shouldn't do entitlements" all you want, but the reason we have entitlements is because this is the arrangement we have decided for ourselves democratically. so, unless you want to become a dictator and go against the will of the people, you should come up with another solution.

Medicare/Medicaid - privitaize it. Now that is never going to happen, and I accept that - but that does not mean that I should accept the ever increasing womb that is the US Government entitlement system.

b/c the free market has provided us such great and affordable medical services. oh wait, it hasn't. other nations spend less and have longer life spans, and most opponents of health reform admit the status quo does not work. america has the best health care in the world: for the rich.

tleilaxu

03-24-2010, 12:48 PM

Also, I read a comment above, sarcastically stated, that people don't take care of one another without being compelled by the government, and to that I have only one answer: Bullshit.

no one says there aren't nice, generous people. i am saying you can't craft social policy assuming people will take care of one another out of the generosity of their hearts. when taken as a whole, the wealthy classes only contribute as much as they are forced to contribute.

the suggestion that leaving social welfare up to charity would work as well as government welfare is just ridiculous. i find it hard to believe anyone here would defend such a position.

Enk

03-24-2010, 12:52 PM

...further, you can believe "gov't shouldn't do entitlements" all you want, but the reason we have entitlements is because this is the arrangement we have decided for ourselves democratically. so, unless you want to become a dictator and go against the will of the people, you should come up with another solution.

This is pretty patently incorrect - we have entitlements at a federal level because our representatives made it happen. While this is the way things work in a republic (and thank god for that!), to say Joe and Jane Voter decided to make it happen isn't accurate.

tleilaxu

03-24-2010, 12:55 PM

No where in there is the acknowledgment of a sensible libertarianism that decries remote federal governments while building up more local forms.

A desire to reduce the size of the federal government doesn't necessarily mean less government. It can (and at least in my case does) mean different government.

if south carolina and the other states who get more money from the federal gov't than they pay want to give those funds up, fine with me! i live in new york now, and would love to see my tax money spent here to improve things (like cleaning up the subway, for example).

the irony is that most states benefitting from federal largesse are so-called 'red states'. which just proves the disingenuousness of 'states rights' republicans. they'll rile up the base by decrying to gov't, but they'll still cash the check.

but frankly, the way we do things is fine for me. states like california, new york, illinois etc which create a lot of wealth should send some of it to our lesser developed and more pathetic neighbors.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

This is pretty patently incorrect - we have entitlements at a federal level because our representatives made it happen. While this is the way things work in a republic (and thank god for that!), to say Joe and Jane Voter decided to make it happen isn't accurate.

we don't elect the president either, electors do. why does this matter? only plebescites represent the will of the people?

tleilaxu

03-24-2010, 01:01 PM

and btw, these are the states thay pay for everyone else (in ascending order):
Florida, Texas, Oregon, Michigan, Washington, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Colorado, New York, California, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Nevada, and New Jersey

you're welcome.

Schizm

03-24-2010, 01:09 PM

Tlielaxu, that's per capita, not gross dollar ammount.

tleilaxu

03-24-2010, 01:11 PM

Tlielaxu, that's per capita, not gross dollar ammount.

how does that change the numbers? do you have data showing 'gross dollar amount'? would that negate my point?

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-24-2010, 01:36 PM

A good way of putting this to the test would be to entirely remove the tax deductions for donations to charities. Then it would truly tell that tax dollars are not for charity purposes, since you cannot pay your taxes directly to a charity as if the state was just a middleman between your wallet and the charities.

Most of the rich who give do so without a great tax benefit. Personal exemptions begin to get phased out after a certain point.

Freedom Canadian

03-24-2010, 07:30 PM

I have a question for those who claim that a flat tax would make taxes simple and avoid tax dodges. Would you tax companies on income rather than profits ?

Hatter

03-24-2010, 09:40 PM

In a brief chat with the Huffington Post on Tuesday, National Republican Senatorial Committee chair John Cornyn (R-Tex.) implicitly acknowledged that Republicans are content with allowing some elements of Obama's reform into law. And they'd generally ignore those elements when taking the fight to their Democrat opponents as November approaches.

"There is non-controversial stuff here like the preexisting conditions exclusion and those sorts of things," the Texas Republican said. "Now we are not interested in repealing that. And that is frankly a distraction."

What the GOP will work to repeal, Cornyn explained, are provisions that result in "tax increases on middle class families," language that forced "an increase in the premium costs for people who have insurance now" and the "cuts to Medicare" included in the legislation.

The remarks seemingly put Cornyn at odds with the head of all Senate Republicans, Mitch McConnell (R-Ky), who signaled on Tuesday that he would support a legislative effort by fellow Republican lawmakers to fully repeal the health care bill. Cornyn himself had previously suggested that he'd support a full repeal campaign as well.

The senator's comments on Tuesday also included a push to restore funds for Medicare Advantage -- an odd political moment, considering the GOP's self-promotion as the party that trims the fat off entitlement programs.

The passage of Obama's health care plan into law, indeed, has already had a drastic affect on the electoral landscape. Cornyn applauded the fact that the vast majority -- if not the entirety -- of Senate Republican candidates were on board the health care repeal effort.
Story continues below

"I haven't had to encourage them," he said. "A lot of them have taken the gauntlet up and I think their instincts are correct. But I think it has got to be a place of repealing the bad and replacing it with something better."

So Cornyn's plan is to keep the benefits while repealing the mechanism to pay for them? There's some fiscal sanity. At least the rest of the GOP Senators are just pulling for total repeal, which is at the very least internally consistent. I don't think it's a good idea, but I can't fault them for trying.

The electoral bid for 2010 just got really muddy, imo. There's no telling how this will play out.

edit: source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/23/nrscs-cornyn-we-wont-call_n_510232.html?ref=twitter)

TiQuinn

03-24-2010, 09:51 PM

So Cornyn's plan is to keep the benefits while repealing the mechanism to pay for them? There's some fiscal sanity. At least the rest of the GOP Senators are just pulling for total repeal, which is at the very least internally consistent. I don't think it's a good idea, but I can't fault them for trying.

The electoral bid for 2010 just got really muddy, imo. There's no telling how this will play out.

edit: source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/23/nrscs-cornyn-we-wont-call_n_510232.html?ref=twitter)

Pare that up with this article: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/grassley-look-how-great-this-health-care-bill-is.php

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has long been a vocal critic of the Democrat's health reform efforts, but today he started taking credit for some provisions of the bill, and talking up his own role in crafting the legislation.

In a release sent out by his staff to reporters today, Grassley says the bill will "hold tax-exempt hospitals accountable for the federal tax benefits they receive" thanks to his work

I think the wheels on the "Repeal" bus are going to come off sooner rather than later.

Utrecht

03-24-2010, 09:59 PM

One thing to keep in mind.

IF (and it is a big IF) this thing does get to the Supreme Court - remember Obama pretty much called them out during the State of the Union. Now one hopes that personal revenge never enters into decisions - but I am suspecting that Obama wishes he had that paragraph back :).

Oh, and Freedom - yes on income NOT profits. Corporations fought to have the same rights as individuals, they should have the same obligations...

Harry

03-24-2010, 10:48 PM

Hatter

03-24-2010, 11:51 PM

Pare that up with this article: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/grassley-look-how-great-this-health-care-bill-is.php

I think the wheels on the "Repeal" bus are going to come off sooner rather than later.

Oh yeah, even conservatives down here in our local paper started jumping off that bandwagon once they realized that they'd get coverage that they couldn't get before. Repeal is a hard tack to take and I don't think it will sell with the public come election day. But repealing the measures in the bill that pay for the bill while keeping all the expenses is the exact opposite of fiscal conservatism.

Name Lips

03-24-2010, 11:55 PM

One of the immediate benefits of the bill is reduced prescription costs for seniors.

By this year's election day, candidates aren't going to want to be "the one who's taking away Grandma's heart pills."

Obama was savvy to push it through now, since there's still plenty of time for people to cool off on the issue before they hit the ballots.

Hatter

03-25-2010, 12:16 AM

Also, the opposition to the bill was generally split between two groups: those on the right who opposed the bill for going too far and those on the left who opposed it for not going far enough. While the former group will certainly back all attempts to repeal the bill, the latter is going to want to take measures to make it stronger. I think the Republicans are overestimating how important a repeal is to independent voters.

tleilaxu

03-25-2010, 07:31 AM

woke up this morning to find out the house needs to vote on it again. joy.

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-25-2010, 09:07 AM

I have a question for those who claim that a flat tax would make taxes simple and avoid tax dodges. Would you tax companies on income rather than profits ?

It's an income tax, right? Income, not profits.

Dear lord, no. If you tax companies on their gross revenue you'll put about half the companies in this country out of business.

Businesses are taxed on TAXABLE INCOME. That's gross revenue less allowable expenses.

DarwinOfMind

03-25-2010, 09:21 AM

So then there will continue to be loopholes and thus businesses will continue to make everything look allowable in order to pay less than their share.

Harry

03-25-2010, 09:29 AM

Gee, I wonder if - if it's good for business then it's good for the Country ain't it? So maybe the citizens can get taxed only on their profits... income after expenses, "development", losses, reinvestment....

The Winslow

03-25-2010, 09:37 AM

Dear lord, no. If you tax companies on their gross revenue you'll put about half the companies in this country out of business.

Guess they're not efficient, then.

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-25-2010, 09:44 AM

You could do a flat tax on business revenue, but the rate would have to be very low. A prime example is insurance companies and their taxation by states. States tax insurance companies on their direct premiums written revenue, which is usually about 2%. It's very easy to administer, actually.

But if you did it for federal purposes on every business you'd have knuckleheads screaming that they're paying 17% and a business is paying 5%, when really you're comparing apples and oranges to an extent.

Enk

03-25-2010, 10:13 AM

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-25-2010, 10:17 AM

I'm curious as to why this is apples and oranges. Can you explain this POV?

A person is not a business.

Enk

03-25-2010, 11:11 AM

A person is not a business.

You know very well that's not what I'm looking for (for one, LLCs bridge the person/business gap in some ways). I'm looking for rational reasons that a business should play by different rules than a family.

I don't doubt that there are some, but for the life of me I can't think of what those are.

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-25-2010, 11:50 AM

You know very well that's not what I'm looking for (for one, LLCs bridge the person/business gap in some ways). I'm looking for rational reasons that a business should play by different rules than a family.

I don't doubt that there are some, but for the life of me I can't think of what those are.

You can get too clever by half thinking of similarities. Indeed, the old "mom runs the household like a business" is a well worn saying. But they're different entities legally. Pens, papers and desks for employees to work at are legitimate expenses. Are we going to argue that PS3's are legitimate expenses of the family? I'm not going through the ridiculous excercise of listing every little difference such as that. I will just say that a reasonable person with a modicum of intelligence will realize the differences from a legal and tax perspective.

Schizm

03-25-2010, 11:53 AM

I will just say that a reasonable person with a modicum of intelligence will realize the differences from a legal and tax perspective.

This follows then that you would find the supreme court decision about freedom of speech for corporations, as it applies to campaign financing, to be faulty?

Enk

03-25-2010, 11:56 AM

You can get too clever by half thinking of similarities. Indeed, the old "mom runs the household like a business" is a well worn saying. But they're different entities legally. Pens, papers and desks for employees to work at are legitimate expenses. Are we going to argue that PS3's are legitimate expenses of the family? I'm not going through the ridiculous excercise of listing every little difference such as that. I will just say that a reasonable person with a modicum of intelligence will realize the differences from a legal and tax perspective.

Would you be in favor of right-sizing taxation for families based on legitimate expenses? If so, how would we do that? Are we back at sales tax again?

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-25-2010, 12:06 PM

Would you be in favor of right-sizing taxation for families based on legitimate expenses? If so, how would we do that? Are we back at sales tax again?

If you think there's widespread cheating now, can you imagine when people are able to dream up legitimate household expenses? How would you administer and police such a system.

The system right now does that sort of, with personal exemptions, deductions and credits. But it's also very Byzantine, too. This coming from your humble CPA.

Dacke

03-25-2010, 12:18 PM

If you think there's widespread cheating now, can you imagine when people are able to dream up legitimate household expenses? How would you administer and police such a system.
But if "legitimate expenses" are OK for corporations, why are they not OK for individuals?

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-25-2010, 12:27 PM

But if "legitimate expenses" are OK for corporations, why are they not OK for individuals?

I don't know, smartypants. As long as we're mixing the two, though, I guess that means I can slander, libel and defame you without fear of legal repurcussions. That's because all of the sudden I'm no longer an individual but magically covered by the corporate veil and my personal assets are protected. :rolleyes:

Fuck, now I know how Brynja must feel teaching her SS class.

Name Lips

03-25-2010, 12:35 PM

Speaking of which...

GOOGLE FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!1

TiQuinn

03-25-2010, 12:43 PM

It's not like there aren't "legitimate expenses" for individuals as it is right now.

Any given year, I'm getting tax deductions for my mortgage, my kids, student loans, etc.

DarwinOfMind

03-25-2010, 01:05 PM

How about we all just pay 10% of income, without a deduction for our kids or our house and my business pay 10% of income without a deduction for whatever the fuck we deducted.

We don't need to make excuses for loopholes.

AZRogue

03-25-2010, 01:24 PM

I've seen ideas put forth regarding Corporations not being taxed directly in a Flat Tax environment, and those have always included the logic that the income is taxed once, instead of multiple times. The income comes into a corporation and is taxed as it is distributed to employees, investors, shareholders, and so on. The idea is that you shouldn't tax their revenue as it will be taxed again as it is distributed, across the board, so there's no need to focus on them and tax them once, then again as the revenue is distributed.

I don't really feel strongly on the matter, one way or another. I can see the logic, but am unsure of all the implications.

Of course, I'm not a pure Flat Tax guy as I believe there's some value in not beginning to tax until Income hits Poverty level, then slapping the Flat 15% to 20% Flat Tax on it.

Lower would be better, of course, provided the States begin picking up some of the services currently provided by the Fed. Some States may want them and they should run with it if that's the case. Just so long as the Fed is put on a diet so its political power can be diffused across a larger area.

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-25-2010, 01:36 PM

It's not like there aren't "legitimate expenses" for individuals as it is right now.

Any given year, I'm getting tax deductions for my mortgage, my kids, student loans, etc.

Sure. Flat tax proponents would say that it all gets evened out by the lower rate.

Enk

03-25-2010, 02:05 PM

I don't know, smartypants. As long as we're mixing the two, though, I guess that means I can slander, libel and defame you without fear of legal repurcussions. That's because all of the sudden I'm no longer an individual but magically covered by the corporate veil and my personal assets are protected. :rolleyes:

Fuck, now I know how Brynja must feel teaching her SS class.

You're not doing so well yourself, smartypants - if you really wanted to equate businesses and people, you wouldn't be covered by the corporate veil (as you'd be a corporation of 1). :p

Look, if I can agree that corporations need to be taxed at a different rate simply because they have a (supposedly) lower net profit margin than individuals, can you agree that we should tax families based on their profit margin?

DarwinOfMind

03-25-2010, 02:29 PM

I've heard the only people really against flat tax is H&R Block, and they have enough money to push congress.

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-25-2010, 02:32 PM

You're not doing so well yourself, smartypants - if you really wanted to equate businesses and people, you wouldn't be covered by the corporate veil (as you'd be a corporation of 1). :p

So you're telling me that there aren't corporations out there with only one principal, either as a president-employee in a C-Corp or a sole shareholder as an S-Corp. You also seem to be saying that the corporations aren't distinct entities from the individuals (or other organizations) who own them. Interesting. My experience says you're full of shit, but hey, believe what you want.

Look, if I can agree that corporations need to be taxed at a different rate simply because they have a (supposedly) lower net profit margin than individuals, can you agree that we should tax families based on their profit margin?

No. You can think whatever you wish. My 10+ years as a CPA says you don't know what the hell you're talking about in any area of taxation or incorporation, though. Nothing personal.

obryn

03-25-2010, 02:34 PM

I've heard the only people really against flat tax is H&R Block, and they have enough money to push congress.
I'm really against a flat tax, and I don't seem to be H&R Block.

-O

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-25-2010, 02:35 PM

As a tax professional I have no problem saying that I am for a well researched, fair and workable flat tax.

Enk

03-25-2010, 02:49 PM

So you're telling me that there aren't corporations out there with only one principal, either as a president-employee in a C-Corp or a sole shareholder as an S-Corp. You also seem to be saying that the corporations aren't distinct entities from the individuals (or other organizations) who own them. Interesting. My experience says you're full of shit, but hey, believe what you want.

I also believe in the tooth fairy, but I don't think that invalidates my point, which is that if erase the china wall between sole shareholder shells and individuals, you no longer have the corporate veil. In the real world, that's not true (as you pointed out, and - yes - I already know), but in the fantasyland we're talking about where there's no difference between the two.

I think this is a situation where you started throwing together a strawman to prove a point and in response I dumped a hay bale on it and set it on fire. If that's what it is, mea culpa.

No. You can think whatever you wish. My 10+ years as a CPA says you don't know what the hell you're talking about in any area of taxation or incorporation, though. Nothing personal.

No offense taken. I know you're the person with the expertise here (really, its why I asked the questions in the first place - I actually did want to understand where you were coming from).

For what it's worth, I like the flat tax as well, but I either want a minuscule tax every time funds change hands OR a way to tax only profits (regardless of source or recipient). If I can't have that, I'd settle for stripping corps of pseudo-personhood to even the playing field.

That's quite likely because I don't, so no offense taken. Part of the disconnect is that I really don't give a shit about what we have right now when I talk about "should be"s.

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-25-2010, 02:58 PM

I also believe in the tooth fairy, but I don't think that invalidates my point, which is that if erase the china wall between sole shareholder shells and individuals, you no longer have the corporate veil. In the real world, that's not true (as you pointed out, and - yes - I already know), but in the fantasyland we're talking about where there's no difference between the two.

I think this is a situation where you started throwing together a strawman to prove a point and in response I dumped a hay bale on it and set it on fire. If that's what it is, mea culpa.

Perhaps it's best to stop the "what if" scenarios, then. They will get more and more complex, with the line between real world and hypothetic situations blurred. Suffice it to say the US Government will not stop treating or taxing corporations as separate entities. We should probably leave it at that.

No offense taken. I know you're the person with the expertise here (really, its why I asked the questions in the first place - I actually did want to understand where you were coming from).

For what it's worth, I like the flat tax as well, but I either want a minuscule tax every time funds change hands OR a way to tax only profits (regardless of source or recipient). If I can't have that, I'd settle for stripping corps of pseudo-personhood to even the playing field.

That's quite likely because I don't, so no offense taken. Part of the disconnect is that I really don't give a shit about what we have right now when I talk about "should be"s.

Good - sorry if I came across as a bit crass.

I will say that smarter people than you or me decided that the corporate veil is a good idea. In general, it is. It's imperfect, but our legal system would be quite literally a nightmare without it. For every quasi substantiated personal claim against a CEO (Enron, et.al) you'd have 1,000 other ones from lazeabouts looking to get rich quick from a settlement against a totally innocent CEO. The president of GE, for instance, would have to spend 300 days a year in court fighting to keep his personal estate. Not good.

Enk

03-25-2010, 04:17 PM

..I will say that smarter people than you or me decided that the corporate veil is a good idea. In general, it is. It's imperfect, but our legal system would be quite literally a nightmare without it. For every quasi substantiated personal claim against a CEO (Enron, et.al) you'd have 1,000 other ones from lazeabouts looking to get rich quick from a settlement against a totally innocent CEO. The president of GE, for instance, would have to spend 300 days a year in court fighting to keep his personal estate. Not good.

I agree in general - the veil is necessary just to keep the morons in check. It does, however, stick in my craw when a corp gets both the protections associated with the veil AND a slew of benefits originally presented as being strictly for people. I'd be far less cranky, for example, if corps didn't have constitutional rights of their own (as opposed to the individuals that own the corporation), or if they didn't follow the same rules on intellectual property.

tleilaxu

03-25-2010, 04:22 PM

As a tax professional I have no problem saying that I am for a well researched, fair and workable flat tax.

i don't doubt your credentials, just your underlying assumptions and priorities.

by my quick and dirty method of dividing 4/14 (current budget/current GDP) the government would need to tax about 29% across the board to maintain all services. Does that make sense? Am i using the correct measures? I dunno.

AZRogue

03-25-2010, 04:50 PM

i don't doubt your credentials, just your underlying assumptions and priorities.

by my quick and dirty method of dividing 4/14 (current budget/current GDP) the government would need to tax about 29% across the board to maintain all services. Does that make sense? Am i using the correct measures? I dunno.

To tell the truth, I have no idea, but I doubt your numbers are correct because I've seen Forbes put the number at 17% and then another group changed it by adding a much more progressive arrangement (I think I have both articles bookmarked so I'll try to find them) that didn't tax until after income reached $10,000, and they managed to balance with a 14% Flat Tax. I don't they're both wrong, but I'm not sure what they did with the numbers.

Of course, I also believe we spend too much on services, from a Federal standpoint, and should leave those services up to the States--those States with more entitlements can raise their taxes as they see fit--but that's just my personal opinion, and isn't necessarily a part of the Flat Tax debate.

Geez, this thread really has wandered, though, heh.

TiQuinn

03-25-2010, 06:44 PM

To tell the truth, I have no idea, but I doubt your numbers are correct because I've seen Forbes put the number at 17% and then another group changed it by adding a much more progressive arrangement (I think I have both articles bookmarked so I'll try to find them) that didn't tax until after income reached $10,000, and they managed to balance with a 14% Flat Tax. I don't they're both wrong, but I'm not sure what they did with the numbers.

Of course, I also believe we spend too much on services, from a Federal standpoint, and should leave those services up to the States--those States with more entitlements can raise their taxes as they see fit--but that's just my personal opinion, and isn't necessarily a part of the Flat Tax debate.

Geez, this thread really has wandered, though, heh.

From what I've read, the number would have to be something higher than 20% (don't remember the exact %) to make it revenue neutral, otherwise we'd have a substantial shortfall.

The Winslow

03-25-2010, 06:48 PM

I'd wager that most of the Flat Tax proponents are also highly sympathetic to "drown the beast" ideals.

Dacke

03-25-2010, 07:12 PM

by my quick and dirty method of dividing 4/14 (current budget/current GDP) the government would need to tax about 29% across the board to maintain all services. Does that make sense? Am i using the correct measures? I dunno.
Some portion of the government's functions would probably still be powered by fees rather than taxes. Also, a fairer method of calculating the tax rate would be governmental income, not total budget size. You can probably assume that the government would deficit spend just as much under a flat tax scheme as it does now.

Harry

03-25-2010, 08:18 PM

Freedom Canadian

03-25-2010, 09:31 PM

Oh, and Freedom - yes on income NOT profits. Corporations fought to have the same rights as individuals, they should have the same obligations...

Then you are right, this would simplify taxes considerably and save tons on IRS staff.

Dear lord, no. If you tax companies on their gross revenue you'll put about half the companies in this country out of business.

Not necessarily. The economy would need to adjust, true. Like groceries would cost more since grocery stores have low gross profit margins (1-2% over here).

Businesses are taxed on TAXABLE INCOME. That's gross revenue less allowable expenses.

Aka profit.

Gee, I wonder if - if it's good for business then it's good for the Country ain't it? So maybe the citizens can get taxed only on their profits... income after expenses, "development", losses, reinvestment....

That's what I would do. No need for a complicated system, though. Profit is simple to measure. Year 2 assets - Year 1 assets = profits.

Pens, papers and desks for employees to work at are legitimate expenses.

Technically, desk depreciation is a legitimate expense. The desk is an asset. ;)

All kidding aside, my point is that a flat tax can have other purposes (like conservative-type social justice) but it's not going to simplify taxes much unless you also simplify corporate taxes since a lot of people get home businesses to write stuff off.

Random Encounter

03-25-2010, 10:17 PM

I think this fits the thread.

tleilaxu

03-26-2010, 09:44 AM

apparently the Frum article hatter(?) posted got him shitcanned at the American Enterprise Institute:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/26/fridays-intriguing-people-2/?hpt=T2

Hatter

03-26-2010, 10:01 AM

apparently the Frum article hatter(?) posted got him shitcanned at the American Enterprise Institute:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/26/fridays-intriguing-people-2/?hpt=T2

That sucks, Frum was readable and reasonable most of the time. I hope he finds a place to continue writing.

TiQuinn

03-26-2010, 10:03 AM

apparently the Frum article hatter(?) posted got him shitcanned at the American Enterprise Institute:

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/26/fridays-intriguing-people-2/?hpt=T2

I'm not surprised. Think tanks aren't really there to promote alternative thoughts to their charter.

Name Lips

03-28-2010, 11:02 AM

AZRogue

03-28-2010, 06:31 PM

Polls are showing that the most important issue for voters in November remains the economy. I think that if the dems hit economic issues hard in the next 6 months they'll come out fine.
The health care issue mostly pissed off the section of the right that wasn't going to vote democrat anyway. The reports that 55% or whatever don't approve of it include the liberals who want a single-payer system and are mad they got a conservative package. They're still going to vote dem though.

I think you're right, actually. While there are about 30 seats that will probably revert back to GOP hands, it's only because they are traditionally GOP territories that slipped away by the large "Get Out the Vote" initiative, which is not going to be a large factor for this election. The Dems, after all, have a much larger number of seats than the GOP has had when they had control of the House (70 seats more, roughly, I think, in comparison). That pretty much guarantees they lose some seats no matter what happens, but I don't think that means they will necessarily lose their majority.

What's unfortunate is that I had hoped this would all spark a third party--all the partisan politics in Washington so prominently on display lately--but it seems those initiatives have long since been infiltrated by parts of the GOP and there's no longer enough energy left that is unassociated enough to allow a third party to gain any prominence.

Which sucks, in my opinion. We are stuck with two groups of thieves: one who wants to steal money that isn't theirs, gain in power, and line the pockets of themselves and their friends, and a group who wants to steal money that isn't theirs, gain in power, and give it to people who didn't earn it in the hopes of buying enough gratitude to secure reelection.

TiQuinn

03-28-2010, 08:10 PM

What's unfortunate is that I had hoped this would all spark a third party--all the partisan politics in Washington so prominently on display lately--but it seems those initiatives have long since been infiltrated by parts of the GOP and there's no longer enough energy left that is unassociated enough to allow a third party to gain any prominence.

Not to single you out in particular, but I just don't understand why people think this is possible in any way.

The amount of money it would take to bring a true third party into any kind of national prominence is considerable.
It would take a good amount of time for a party to develop a platform, and without that platform, it's unlikely that it'd attract large donors.
Any third party would likely be seen as cannibalizing either the Democrats or the Republicans. Those parties would react, and they would still have substantial advantages over the third party in war chest, donors, and voter base.
Ross Perot managed to draw 19% of the vote in 1992. It was probably the closest we've had to a legit third party choice. And instead of snowballing into the beginning of a third party, it fizzled out.

I understand why people want a third party, but it just seems to me to be an incredibly insurmountable task. Any third party would probably have to come at the expense and complete destruction of one of the other two, IMO.

Name Lips

03-29-2010, 12:32 AM

A third party needs an issue to rally behind. The Whigs were viable for a time, as the strong legislative branch, anti-Jackson party. But when their leaders died and they couldn't form a cohesive party stance on slavery, they fizzled out.

But they are proof we're not stuck in the Democrat-Republican model.

We're stuck with:

High-tax/High-spend
big government
Social programs
pro-worker
anti-war
anti-gun
pro-abortion
pro-gay

vs.

low-tax/low-spend
small government
No social programs
pro-business
pro-war
pro-gun
anti-abortion
anti-gay

So whatever your personal pet issue is, the thing you think is most important, there's one party that agrees with you and one that doesn't. I know a lot of one-issue voters. They'd vote for the worst candidate available with the worst record if he was the only anti-abortion one on the ballot.

To be viable, a third party would have to find an issue that is enough people's "pet issue" that currently don't have a party aligned with them. Take as a random example Sweden's Pirate Party. Both democrats and republicans have come out as anti-piracy, because it's against the law and steals revinue from legitimate businesses. So if we had enough pro-piracy people, for whom that was the most important possible issue in their lives, we could form a successful third party based around that "unclaimed" issue.

But I can't think of anything right now that fits in that category for America. Most issues are either agreed on by the majority and thus a non-issue, or have been "claimed" by one party or the other.

Maybe if both parties decided that religious nutjobs were dangerous, and the Democrats weeded out their hippy-new-agers, and the republicans weeded out their crackpot creationists, then we'd have an "unclaimed issue" that a third party could exploit.

The Winslow

03-29-2010, 03:30 AM

vs.

low-tax/low-spend
small government

From the rest of that list I assume you meant the GOP here, but I don't see how it is the case. The Conservative Party is all about high spend and big government; if you look at the facts and numbers rather than the cheap rhetorics.

The difference is not in quantity, but in quality -- how the tax burden is shared, what the budget is preferably spent on, in which area does the government get more power and influence...

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-29-2010, 08:00 AM

You people keep missing the point of a true Flat Tax. I recall that Spoony was a Flat-Taxer who's theory took an hour to assimilate and measure. That's not a Flat Tax.

Flat tax = I don't give a flip what the rate is. Pick it, and let it be the law of the land. 10%, 20%, 50% whatever. But it's the same rate for every citizen who earns a wage and the same rate for corporations as citizens. There are huge benefits to being a corporation. This is the downside.

No loopholes. No tax shelters. No deductions. No exemptions. No hiding money in tax shelters, charities, or retirement plans. All income, taxed at the same rate for everyone. Capital gains taxes are lumped in with income.

That's my plan. Yes, it would put a lot of accountants out of business. We need more farmers anyway.

Here's the kicker, and this is what should make it appealing to all - no other taxes. No taxes cleverly hidden as fees, no sales taxes, no consumption taxes, no nothing. No inheritance taxes, no gas taxes, no wheel taxes. No tariffs, no tolls, no value added taxes, no property taxes.

There should be levels of taxation - Federal, State and Local income taxes. All income taxes, no sales taxes or otherwise. If people feel their local income tax is oppressive, move or fight it in the polling places. If people feel they make too much money and are losing their shirts even if they are quadrillionaires, let them move to Bongo Bongo - but they never get to earn another untaxed penny in the U.S.A.

Edit to add - I consider fees for specific rights, permits, or permissions to be different and allowable. A fee to get into the Washington Monument, that's OK. A fee to go slaughter ducks, that's cool.

I'll pay you myself to slaughter geese.

That will not work. It's simply a fallacious theory that sounds good on paper but would lead to the utter ruin of this country. Pretty quick, too. Taxing businesses on gross revenue at the same rate as individuals means that that money will be double taxed. You're not allowing an offset for salaries expense, so it gets taxed by the government there, and then again from the employee when they file their return.

This is why you should leave taxation to the big boys. You can write all the masturbatory tax fantasies (sounds like a new column in the Journal of Accountancy) you want, but when you actually think about the nuts and bolts of these things you simply don't have a clue how things really operate.

A flat tax would work for individuals (not ones who file a Schedule C for an unincorporated business) because their "deductions" and "exemptions" are often just a mandated amount that can be retconned into the flat tax rate. It's not really that complicated for them, actually.

Harry

03-29-2010, 08:17 AM

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-29-2010, 08:27 AM

Money is already double, triple, quadruple etc taxed at every step in the chain, you idiot. By that argument, I shouldn't have to pay a dime in taxes. Oh wait, I'm not a corporation, and only corporations can claim individual AND business privileges, right?

Well, you are the expert, so I guess I'll defer to you.

Oh, wait, we're not talking about how to become a pill-popping hillbilly, so that means you're actually not an expert in taxation. Neither am I, but I'm a lot closer than you will ever be. So why don't you do yourself a favor and not ever type, speak or think about your embarrassing, moronic tax scheme again.

Harry

03-29-2010, 08:34 AM

Oh, wait, we're not talking about how to become a pill-popping hillbilly, ....

Fuck you all the way to hell and back. Now, this is something like the third time in recent months you've called me a hillbilly. Whatever. But you have NO business harassing me to taking necessary medicines, unless you are a doctor of some sort, or unless you are prepared to lay that shit on any number of others here as well.

Go fuck yourself hard.

The Winslow

03-29-2010, 08:59 AM

Theo used Appeal to Authority.
The attack was not very effective.
Harry used sarcasm.
The attack was effective.
Theo is now angry.
Theo used Argumentum ad Hominem.
The attack was super-effective!
Harry is now super-angry.

Varaj

03-29-2010, 09:02 AM

The Theocrat of Poon-Tang

03-29-2010, 09:52 AM

Fuck you all the way to hell and back. Now, this is something like the third time in recent months you've called me a hillbilly. Whatever. But you have NO business harassing me to taking necessary medicines, unless you are a doctor of some sort, or unless you are prepared to lay that shit on any number of others here as well.

Go fuck yourself hard.

There are people here who I don't agree with politically, but like personally. There are people I don't agree with politically, but I don't really know. I give them the benefit of the doubt. Then there's you. You hate me, I don't care for you. So it is. But when you antagonize someone don't be surprised if you don't get treated with kid gloves.

Oh, and by the way, I had degenerated discs in my back. I know all about pain, seeing as the years before my spinal fusion surgery were filled with it. I chose to get through it a different way. So fuck you very much yourself.

Hillbilly.

p.s. Your flat tax plan is still juvenile and won't work.

King Vyper

03-29-2010, 11:39 AM

wow!:shock:

Trainz

03-30-2010, 09:38 PM

Echoes of NTL...

:grey:

It's funny, I was telling Teflon Billy last week (Diehard Murphy) that I now hang out on Kay and that it was much tamer than the previous "incarnations" of our community.

Harry

03-31-2010, 12:32 AM

Hillbilly.

Izrador wannabe.

Seriously. I see fewer intentional trolls on the right-wing forums I wander. Since when does the place I live and my medical problems have a god-damned thing to do with my ideas on taxation? They don't. You bring them up because you are bereft of solutions of your own and are mentally incapable of just keeping your hands off your keyboard even if you don't have anything to add. You just vote "No" as things just keep falling apart.... wait, that's your party schtick - my bad. Go beat up a gay welfare mother or something, moron.

Scutisorex Shrewlord

03-31-2010, 06:48 PM

After years of seeing and participating in these kinds of discussion-arguments, I learned something very valuable... none of it fucking matters. For just about every issue under the sun, there are facts and opinions to back up every position, and people will believe whatever the hell they want, often regardless of whatever well-intentioned anecdotes you throw their way. Politics devolves into a tirade of pseudo-religious babble where only true believers need apply. I just wanted to interject for a moment. Please continue.

Name Lips

03-31-2010, 11:16 PM

The ability to believe in what we want, picking and choosing facts and discarding others in order to justify our beliefs, is very much human.

I think that was one of the greatest achievements of the Enlightenment and the advancement of science - to convince people that sometimes what you believe is simply false, and that you have absolutely no options other than to change what you believe.

Observable physical science is easy enough to use for this, but "soft" or "social" sciences are a lot harder. The proofs are abstract enough people can feel safe ignoring them.

DarwinOfMind

04-01-2010, 10:15 AM

I had someone tell me one time that Everything he believed he believed with such conviction that nothing anyone ever said or did would ever cause him to change his believes on anything.

At that point I realized there was no point talking to him, he already believed himself to be a god i guess. so why bother

tleilaxu

04-01-2010, 12:07 PM

Below is a link to "The Fixation of Belief" by C.S. Peirce

http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html

In it he lays out four methods people use to arrive at belief: the methods of tenacity, authority, a priori and science.

The method of tenacity is to decide on a belief and to stick to it
The method of authority is to adapt a belief for survival
The a priori method is to arrive at a belief one can demonstrate the truth of to oneself
The method of science is to find a belief one can demonstrate the truth of to others

Mistwell

04-07-2010, 12:19 PM

Scutisorex Shrewlord

04-08-2010, 11:24 PM

Defeatist.

Nope, realist.

AZRogue

04-10-2010, 02:39 PM

By the way, this November is going to be interesting, with the Arizona Health Care Freedom Act that we passed last year going onto the ballot. And this isn't even considering the drama to be played out in elections across the country.

Basically, the AHCFA will amend the Arizona Constitution to guarantee Arizonans two things:

-That all Arizonans have the right to spend their own money to obtain legal health care services.

-That all Arizonans have the right NOT to participate in any health care system, of any type.

Of course, this is just a small percentage of the "push back" being shown to the Federal Government. Arizona also passed a bill to nullify Cap and Trade and a bill that declares that any light bulb built and sold only in Arizona does NOT have to follow any Federal guidelines whatsoever.

The most interesting of these, so far, is the Arizona Firearms Freedom Act, which was signed into law this last Monday. This law declares that any firearm built and sold only in Arizona (and clearly saying Made In Arizona on a metallic part, such as the receiver) does NOT have to follow Federal regulations or restrictions concerning firearms. Does. Not. Have. To. Follow. Any. Federal. Restrictions. Concerning. Firearms. Wow. Of course, there are still State restrictions, but that still allows for a lot of leeway. And the ATF is not going to be happy, which breaks my heart hehehehehehe. Okay, it makes me giddy and happy, but you know what I mean.

Also, the Concealed Carry bill was just passed, which does away with the requirement that we have a permit to carry a concealed firearm (we already do not need a license or permit to own, or openly carry a firearm in Arizona) in Arizona. I feel like someone wished upon me that old Asian curse (I think that's what it is): "May you live in interesting times." :)