Politics Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caf

ytmb

---

Caf, you need to read X-Man's post history to understand why I end rebuttals to him with that line on occasion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Nope, reading comprehension appears to be hard for you. In fact, I've stated multiple times in this thread I don't mind if states run these programs. I hope CA gives 1 govt payer a shot. It has a population similar to Canada so maybe we can learn things before we subject ~300 million people to a govt run system. Consider it a pilot program. Again, thanks for playing.

---

Brew, here is your statement on welfare (redistributive) programs: "Finally yes, sometimes we do work for others but in this country it should be voluntary."

Please explain how this squares with your claim that you are OK with states running welfare programs funded by taxes. Are state taxes "voluntary" but federal taxes are not? Is a legislative majority vote decision at the state level to create tax-funded programs "voluntary" but a legislative majority vote to do the same not? As usual, you are inconsistent suggesting that you don't understand what you are saying or you just want to muddy the argument. As I stated before, I would repeat your inane "Thanks for playing" ditty, but you refuse to "play".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by X-man

Brew, here is your statement on welfare (redistributive) programs: "Finally yes, sometimes we do work for others but in this country it should be voluntary."

Please explain how this squares with your claim that you are OK with states running welfare programs funded by taxes. Are state taxes "voluntary" but federal taxes are not? Is a legislative majority vote decision at the state level to create tax-funded programs "voluntary" but a legislative majority vote to do the same not? As usual, you are inconsistent suggesting that you don't understand what you are saying or you just want to muddy the argument. As I stated before, I would repeat your inane "Thanks for playing" ditty, but you refuse to "play".

---

Federalism, enumerated powers, oh my! What difficult concepts to understand.

Trump this week:

Creates a voter fraud panel for an "imaginary problem" that's been disputed by every governor in the country and fires the guy whose job it was to enforce election integrity.
Coined the phrase "prime the pump". "I came up with it a few days ago and thought it was good." Somebody notify the Surgeon General . This guy is looney tunes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Nope, reading comprehension appears to be hard for you. In fact, I've stated multiple times in this thread I don't mind if states run these programs. I hope CA gives 1 govt payer a shot. It has a population similar to Canada so maybe we can learn things before we subject ~300 million people to a govt run system. Consider it a pilot program. Again, thanks for playing.

---

This would be in interesting exercise, although it would be insanely difficult to execute. Once you move past the high level talking points you would experience a host of issues that would make something like this virtually impossible to execute on a state level. For one thing, I would argue that for that to really have a shot you would have to somehow either (1) compensate taxpayers in those states for the portion of their federal taxes that they pay toward Medicare/Medicaid since they won't be a part of that program anymore or (2) Credit that state back for that amount so that they can use it to partially fund their single payer healthcare. You can't 'double dip' and have people/companies in those states pay taxes to fund federal programs that they then opt out of. You would also have to watch out for fraud, since our states have open borders. It would be difficult to stop people with preexisting conditions from flooding into the state(s) with single payer to received health care. This would create a risk pool that is not representative of the population and would add significant cost to the system.

If it worked, it would then potentially create another problem. Much of the South and Midwest are generally the states with the highest rate of subsidization from the federal government, a significant amount of which comes in the form of Medicare and Medicaid expenses. They are also the least educated states and often the least productive states. Let's say California adopts a state run single payer and it works. Much of the Northeast would likely follow suit. We already have a problem with educated people leaving the Midwest / Southeast moving to the coasts. This would stand to further exacerbate that flight and could create a pocket of almost 'third world' states within the U.S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boozehound

This would be in interesting exercise, although it would be insanely difficult to execute. Once you move past the high level talking points you would experience a host of issues that would make something like this virtually impossible to execute on a state level. For one thing, I would argue that for that to really have a shot you would have to somehow either (1) compensate taxpayers in those states for the portion of their federal taxes that they pay toward Medicare/Medicaid since they won't be a part of that program anymore or (2) Credit that state back for that amount so that they can use it to partially fund their single payer healthcare. You can't 'double dip' and have people/companies in those states pay taxes to fund federal programs that they then opt out of. You would also have to watch out for fraud, since our states have open borders. It would be difficult to stop people with preexisting conditions from flooding into the state(s) with single payer to received health care. This would create a risk pool that is not representative of the population and would add significant cost to the system.

If it worked, it would then potentially create another problem. Much of the South and Midwest are generally the states with the highest rate of subsidization from the federal government, a significant amount of which comes in the form of Medicare and Medicaid expenses. They are also the least educated states and often the least productive states. Let's say California adopts a state run single payer and it works. Much of the Northeast would likely follow suit. We already have a problem with educated people leaving the Midwest / Southeast moving to the coasts. This would stand to further exacerbate that flight and could create a pocket of almost 'third world' states within the U.S.

---

State run is interesting. I think the biggest question is the FDA and if states would create their own administrations for regulating drugs. My guess is they wouldn't be allowed to. That coupled with what you mentioned about federal programs would probably nullify their ability too successfully implement single payer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OH.X.MI

Federalism, enumerated powers, oh my! What difficult concepts to understand.

---

You are missing the point, both here and in your earlier post. When Brew says all redistributive programs should be "voluntary", he is not talking about federalism or states rights or powers enumerated in the Constitution. He is saying that all working for others should be voluntary. This means unless you believe that paying state taxes is voluntary but federal taxes is not, taking the states rights line as the basis for his position makes no sense. Neither does your piling on comments.

[QUOTE=X-Man] Too bad XU87 can't respond to the question I specifically asked of him, the one which Brew answered. We now know that Brew is against all welfare programs covering food and shelter, tax subsidies for education (including all publicly supported college and universities), and any healthcare programs funded by taxes such as Medicaid and Medicare. XU87's comments suggest that he is in the same camp but unlike Brew, he doesn't appear to have the balls to admit it on this board.



Are you turning into an internet stalker? As I said several times, I am not interested in engaging in some lengthy discussion regarding my views on the role of government, although I believe in limited government. In addition, I work long hours and I have found that these political discussions can consume a lot of my time, and I now try to stay away from them, albeit not always. I realize long work hours may be a foreign concept to you since you're a college professor, but please try to understand my position here. Finally, having an adult discussion with you is challenging since you usually just get mad at me and call me names.

Gotta go. I have people to sue today.

Two Dead Canaries in the Coal Mine

Odd post, 87. If anyone is stalking, it's you. You jumped into two different conversations I was having with other posters...see your post #1211 and post #1279 in this thread. And for someone so much more busy than I, you have 2.5 times more posts to this board than I in the same time frame. But hey, logic has never been your strong suit, at least on this board when political discussions are occurring.