Government folly

[A Man In Black]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

If you show up and can't afford treatment for something they can treat they'll help you sign up for medicare. Medicare is functionally catastrophic healthcare coverage if you're not going to live to see 65.

"Medicare is how hospitals should help people who can't afford coverage. But that bill that massively expanded Medicare's coverage and tax base? Yeah, f&@$ that."

Quote:

Poor people wind up paying a higher PERCENTAGE. Same with social security and medicare.

A regressive tax is a tax imposed in such a manner that the tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases.-wiki

using This Obamacare cost calculator

That calculator doesn't take into effect that the FICA income cap was raised as part of the ACA (and the addition of a Medicare tax to non-FICA-applicable capital gains over a certain amount), nor the excise tax on more-expensive health plans. In fact, increasing the Medicare tax on higher incomes is half of the intended funding for the entire ACA. (Also, Mitt Romney is paying more than Hank for health insurance anyway because he's 65 years old, just sayin'.) If Steve is on Medicare, he's being paid for by Mitt. If Steve isn't, he's being paid for by healthy Hanks (which is how insurance has always worked).

Would I like it to be even more progressive? Yes. Is it fair to call a progressive tax regressive because it's not progressive enough? Don't be an ass.

Quote:

Your idea is to get everyone insured. But they're doing that using people who's idea is "How much money can i possibly make off this..." the idea of "enough" simply doesn't enter into it.

I don't know how many times I can say, "It sure is a shame that for-profit insurers are involved at this" before you'll notice it, but maybe this time will do it.

But, at the very least, their profit and administrative costs are fairly strictly capped, effective in 2014. Once that provision kicks in, insurance plans need to maintain a medical loss ratio of at least 80% (and most must maintain 85%): basically, they can collect no more than $1 in premiums and other costs for every $0.80 they pay in claims.

So what do you want the ACA to do that it doesn't do now, BNW? If you want medicare to cover everyone based on an income-adjusted tax, then I totally agree with you. If you want German/Swiss-style insurance with mandated non-profit Blue-Cross-like coverage pegged to ability to pay, again, agreement. If your point is that the ACA should be improved, again, no disagreement here.

If your argument is that the ACA is flawed and thus should be done away with, then what do you propose as an alternative?

BTW.

Quote:

It is in fact possible NOT to fully agree with one side or the other. I hate how the [blah blah]

These tangential rants full of sweeping generalizations make it very difficult to carry on a conversation with you.

[Gendo]

Sanakht Inaros wrote:

Gendo wrote:

What BNW just illustrated above with the 3 people insurance set up is exactly why I am against universal healthcare. Hank and Mitt aren't paying for their own just in case care, they are paying for care for Steve. That is wrong plain and simple.

Dude, we're already doing that. We've BEEN doing that. Why do you think your insurance is so high?

One of the proposals for Universal Healthcare showed that it would actually save us (the individual) money if it were a tax. When I was working, one of my co-workers was passing it around. As a tax it would have put $60 back into my paycheck. (I was paying $107 a week for basic coverage.)

My wife pays $125 every two weeks into HSA that covers whole family. It doubles as a pretax savings account. Once money in account is empty expenses come out of pocket. This suits me just fine. In essence we are paying for our own healthcare without burdening anyone else. If something happens that the money runs out I will figure out what to do as I always have.

[Doug's Workshop]

I'm gonna do what I can to get the thread back on-topic, which was "Government Folly."

Government Folly: Sure, government housing is crime-ridden and vermin-infested, and sure the largest Ponzi scheme in history is going bankrupt, and I know we failed on the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs, and the housing market is in the tank because we kept interest rates artificially low, and green energy jobs turned out to be nothing more than a massive payoff to certain campaign contributors, and we can't even balance our own budget . . . but trust us to control the health insurance industry.

[A Man In Black]

Doug's Workshop wrote:

Government Folly: Sure, government housing is crime-ridden and vermin-infested, and sure the largest Ponzi scheme in history is going bankrupt, and I know we failed on the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs, and the housing market is in the tank because we kept interest rates artificially low, and green energy jobs turned out to be nothing more than a massive payoff to certain campaign contributors, and we can't even balance our own budget . . . but trust us to control the health insurance industry.

Federally funded government housing hasn't been built in 40 years, Social Security is emphatically not a Ponzi scheme, what War on Poverty, the housing market is in the tank because of a speculation bubble that was masking personal debt being used to make up the difference in falling real wages, Solyndra was just one of many failed businesses, and the government owes the bulk of its debt to itself on paper.

I'll give you the war on drugs and arguably Solyndra.

See, when you start with the premise that "everything the government does or does not do is a failure", then it's easy to assume that something the government does or does not do is a failure. Circular reasoning is so easy and reassuring that way.

[Doug's Workshop]

A Ponzi scheme isn't a Ponzi scheme if it's run by the government? At least I could say "No" to Bernie Madoff. The government doesn't take no for an answer. Despite Media Matters' mutterings to the contrary, Social security meets all the definitions of a Ponzi scheme, including the inevitable crash when there aren't enough new investors. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, stands on webbed feet, and has feathers . . . yep, it's a duck.

And it's not just Solyndra. Abound Solar is just the latest green energy company to file bankruptcy after taking taxpayer backed loans. Pat Stryker gave $50k to our president. Nice coincidence. If this were a Republican, the left would be up in arms.

The housing bubble was fueled by artificially low interest rates. Stupidity just added accelerants.

See, I never said "Everything the government does or does not do is a failure." As I said to a previous poster, you should read what I wrote instead of what you think I wrote.

To conclude: Government folly = the idea that the government can run the health insurance industry, given the government's lack of success with financial matters.

[Captain Brittannica]

Doug's Workshop wrote:

A Ponzi scheme isn't a Ponzi scheme if it's run by the government? At least I could say "No" to Bernie Madoff. The government doesn't take no for an answer. Despite Media Matters' mutterings to the contrary, Social security meets all the definitions of a Ponzi scheme, including the inevitable crash when there aren't enough new investors. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, stands on webbed feet, and has feathers . . . yep, it's a duck.

And it's not just Solyndra. Abound Solar is just the latest green energy company to file bankruptcy after taking taxpayer backed loans. Pat Stryker gave $50k to our president. Nice coincidence. If this were a Republican, the left would be up in arms.

The housing bubble was fueled by artificially low interest rates. Stupidity just added accelerants.

See, I never said "Everything the government does or does not do is a failure." As I said to a previous poster, you should read what I wrote instead of what you think I wrote.

To conclude: Government folly = the idea that the government can run the health insurance industry, given the government's lack of success with financial matters.

This isn't the government, it's America. You really need to come back to the Empire if you want things done right. If you grovel enough, we might accept you back. We, at least, can run a health service (dentistry excepted). Tally ho.

[A Man In Black]

Doug's Workshop wrote:

A Ponzi scheme isn't a Ponzi scheme if it's run by the government? At least I could say "No" to Bernie Madoff. The government doesn't take no for an answer. Despite Media Matters' mutterings to the contrary, Social security meets all the definitions of a Ponzi scheme, including the inevitable crash when there aren't enough new investors. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, stands on webbed feet, and has feathers . . . yep, it's a duck.

Your reading comprehension is really bad, and that article is entirely made of excerpts from other articles. But, if you need a summary: Ponzi schemes offer wildly impossible returns, while SS offers (and does) just pays a modest amount to the elderly. Ponzi schemes are not transparent to hide their lack of functionality, while SS is completely transparent. Ponzi schemes involve a huge rake to the operators, while Social Security is revenue neutral. Ponzi schemes are inherently deceptive, while SS serves a clearly identified public interest. The only thing that Ponzi schemes have in common with SS is that they both collapse if people stop paying, but unlike Ponzi schemes, SS has the power to compel payment because it is in the general interest to keep poor elderly from becoming completely destitute. If all you have is "PENSIONS ARE PONZI SCHEMES BECAUSE I SAID SO" then there's no conversation here.

You're picking an 75-year-old, wildly successful and popular government program as your flagship example of government failure. It's more of the same circular reasoning: the government fails at everything because I know SS is unsustainable and doomed. Why do I know that SS is unsustainable and doomed? Well, the government fails at everything! I also like "The failure of these private companies and private markets is more evidence that the government is incompetent." The government is involved at any point? Obviously that involvement is the entire cause, and it can't have anything to do with the inherent instability of tech startups or a thirty-year old housing market trend. Nope, government.

You want evidence that the government can run health care? Look at every nation that isn't the US and their lower costs and better outcomes.

[thejeff]

If SS is a Ponzi Scheme so is the rest of the economy. Capitalism requires unending growth to survive in the long run.

[Sanakht Inaros]

Gendo wrote:

Sanakht Inaros wrote:

Gendo wrote:

What BNW just illustrated above with the 3 people insurance set up is exactly why I am against universal healthcare. Hank and Mitt aren't paying for their own just in case care, they are paying for care for Steve. That is wrong plain and simple.

Dude, we're already doing that. We've BEEN doing that. Why do you think your insurance is so high?

One of the proposals for Universal Healthcare showed that it would actually save us (the individual) money if it were a tax. When I was working, one of my co-workers was passing it around. As a tax it would have put $60 back into my paycheck. (I was paying $107 a week for basic coverage.)

My wife pays $125 every two weeks into HSA that covers whole family. It doubles as a pretax savings account. Once money in account is empty expenses come out of pocket. This suits me just fine. In essence we are paying for our own healthcare without burdening anyone else. If something happens that the money runs out I will figure out what to do as I always have.

Dude...When Steve can't pay for his hospital stay, the hospital passes the costs on to the insurance companies and others. The insurance companies pass those cost increases on to their users, i.e. you. So you're already paying for Steve. Would you rather pay $250 a month for insurance that may or may not cover you when you really need it? Or would you rather pay $100 a month for insurance that covers you no matter what?

[BigNorseWolf]

thejeff wrote:

If SS is a Ponzi Scheme so is the rest of the economy. Capitalism requires unending growth to survive in the long run.

Capitalism as we have it now is more like wile coyote levitation: as long as no one looks down it will keep working.

A ponzi scheme WILL work as long as you can keep finding enough new suckers. The government can find more suckers by forcing people into the plan... so it actually works.... unless of course you have a lot of people looking to cash out but a decreasing populatati.... oh crap.

[BigNorseWolf]

Sanakht Inaros wrote:

The insurance companies pass those cost increases on to their users, i.e. you. So you're already paying for Steve.

HE's not... because he exercised his choice not to get insurance.

[Grey Lensman]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Capitalism as we have it now is more like wile coyote levitation: as long as no one looks down it will keep working.

The human race is still trying to figure out a really good economic system, since everything else tried has been a failure.

Capitalism results in wildly disparate income levels.

Socialism results in stagnation based on what has been referred to as "an equal distribution of misery."

The two when combined at the proper ratios seem to work somewhat well, but what the proper ratio is varies depending on who you ask.

[thejeff]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

thejeff wrote:

If SS is a Ponzi Scheme so is the rest of the economy. Capitalism requires unending growth to survive in the long run.

Capitalism as we have it now is more like wile coyote levitation: as long as no one looks down it will keep working.

A ponzi scheme WILL work as long as you can keep finding enough new suckers. The government can find more suckers by forcing people into the plan... so it actually works.... unless of course you have a lot of people looking to cash out but a decreasing populatati.... oh crap.

All I'm saying is that you have to stretch the definition of Ponzi scheme so far to make it cover SS, that it covers pretty much everything else in the economy. So if you're going to trash SS as a Ponzi scheme, everything else should go with it.

[BigNorseWolf]

The Jeff wrote:

All I'm saying is that you have to stretch the definition of Ponzi scheme so far to make it cover SS, that it covers pretty much everything else in the economy.

Many things yes. I would apply the term to the stock market to a fair degree. It doesn't apply to farming (turning dirt and sunlight into food), manufacturing (turning useless metal into something usable), and services (cash goes in, good goes out)

[thejeff]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

The Jeff wrote:

All I'm saying is that you have to stretch the definition of Ponzi scheme so far to make it cover SS, that it covers pretty much everything else in the economy.

Many things yes. I would apply the term to the stock market to a fair degree. It doesn't apply to farming (turning dirt and sunlight into food), manufacturing (turning useless metal into something usable), and services (cash goes in, good goes out)

It doesn't apply to the basic building blocks of the economy, but it does to the thing as a whole. Once you start getting financing to build your factory or whatever and your investors need to be repaid and make a profit, then you're part of the growth trap.

The stock market helps drive it, in addition to just being a casino on it's own. Constant growth is demanded to keep your stock price from tanking. Even manufacturing and service businesses are not immune.

There's more to it. It involves fractional reserve banking and the need to pay back the fake money just lent with real money. I'm too fuzzy on the macro-economics to really explain it.

[Sanakht Inaros]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Sanakht Inaros wrote:

The insurance companies pass those cost increases on to their users, i.e. you. So you're already paying for Steve.

HE's not... because he exercised his choice not to get insurance.

Well...His wife is.

[BigNorseWolf]

The Jeff wrote:

It doesn't apply to the basic building blocks of the economy, but it does to the thing as a whole. Once you start getting financing to build your factory or whatever and your investors need to be repaid and make a profit, then you're part of the growth trap.

Yup. I think this is a large reason why the financial center of the world had to move from Amsterdam (wind power) to London (naval might/coal power) to the United states (massive military industrial complex run by an oligarchy) and will soon/is in the process of moving to china (a powerful centralized government that can act with uniform purpose)

(i realize that move is an oversimplification since all of those locations still have financial sectors, but the relative importance matters)

[Doug's Workshop]

A Man In Black wrote:

Your reading comprehension is really bad, and that article is entirely made of excerpts from other articles. But, if you need a summary: Ponzi schemes offer wildly impossible returns, while SS offers (and does) just pays a modest amount to the elderly. Ponzi schemes are not transparent to hide their lack of functionality, while SS is completely transparent. Ponzi schemes involve a huge rake to the operators, while Social Security is revenue neutral. Ponzi schemes are inherently deceptive, while SS serves a clearly identified public interest. The only thing that Ponzi schemes have in common with SS is that they both collapse if people stop paying, but unlike Ponzi schemes, SS has the power to compel payment because it is in the general interest to keep poor elderly from becoming completely destitute. If all you have is "PENSIONS ARE PONZI SCHEMES BECAUSE I SAID SO" then there's no conversation here.

So Bernie Madoff wasn't running a Ponzi scheme because he didn't offer unrealistic returns?

Social Security is so transparent because . . . they take the money coming in to pay for people who already paid in. How is that different from a Ponzi scheme?
Social Security does offer a huge rake to the operators. It's called "reelection." Every time there is an election, politicians try to scare the elderly and say their opponents want to cut SS benefits.
Social Security isn't revenue neutral; it is now paying more money out than it is taking in. Just like a Ponzi scheme.
Social Security serves government interest, not the public interest. It offers dependency on a government program. If you were to take the 12% that SS withholds from your paycheck and invest it in a simple index fund, you'd not only have more money, but you'd have something to leave to your heirs. And if it really served the public interest, why do people want to get out of it?

Ponzi. Scheme. That you are forced to pay into. Not even Bernie Madoff had that kind of power.

[A Man In Black]

Doug's Workshop wrote:

So Bernie Madoff wasn't running a Ponzi scheme because he didn't offer unrealistic returns?

No, it was a Ponzi scheme because he lied to people about returns he never intended to pay, then took their money and ran. Social Security promises to take your tax money and give it to old people and does, for going on 75 years now. See, one is a dishonest and fraudulent scam, and one is a perfectly functional and honest program that you don't like.

If you'd like a list of further differences, feel free to reread my previous two posts at any point.

Quote:

If you were to take the 12% that SS withholds from your paycheck and invest it in a simple index fund, you'd not only have more money, but you'd have something to leave to your heirs.

Well, let's do some math on this.

This plan's clusterf~@! potential = ([the amount of a clusterf$!# you think the green energy loan guarantees were] + [the clusterf&@# that speculative index funds made of the housing, stock, and commodities market in the past 5 or so years]) * [the amount of money in the Social Security trust fund]

Anyway, I'm done arguing with circular reasoning. If you want something to yell at, here's some classic copypasta.

Quote:

A typical day in Doug's life...

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the U.S. Department of Energy.

I then took a shower in the clean water provided by a municipal water utility.

After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC-regulated channels to see what the National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like, using satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

I watched this while eating my breakfast of U.S. Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the drugs which have been determined as safe by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time, as regulated by the U.S. Congress and kept accurate by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the U.S. Naval Observatory, I get into my National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal Departments of Transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the Environmental Protection Agency, using legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank.

On the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the U.S. Postal Service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the USDA, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and Fire Marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables, thanks to the local police department.

And then I log on to the internet -- which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration -- and post on Paizo forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can't do anything right.

Anyone who responds to that seriously will be shot.

[Doug's Workshop]

A Man In Black wrote:

A typical day in Doug's life...

Well, that's proof you don't know what you're talking about.

This morning I woke up about the time the sun peeked through my curtains. Or when my son woke up. Alarm clocks are things of the past.
I then took a shower in clean water provided by a water utility . . . that is privately owned. They even send me an annual testing report, something the municipal water company never did.

After that, I logged onto weather.com to check the forecast. You know, that not-a-government website? And they use lots of satellites that weren't launched by NASA.
I ate my breakfast that was made more expensive by the USDA conducting inspections that I don't want on bacon that is pretty tasty, but not as tasty as the eggs I purchased off my neighbor that didn't go through FDA/USDA inspection. Surprisingly, I haven't died yet.

My automobile is far outside of current safety standards, and definitely won't meet California's emission requirements. Which is good because I don't live in California. As for the time I leave . . . Greenwich Mean Time is outside of the NIST scope, and up until a few years ago my state didn't recognize Daylight Savings Time. Surprisingly, the world didn't end.

When I stop to purchase fuel, I pay extra money because the government decided that gasoline taxes need to be embedded into the price so that unsuspecting consumers don't realize that the government is earning more money from a gallon of gasoline than the company selling it to me. Legal tender is nice, but inflation caused by the government's continual printing of money means that I have less purchasing power than last year.

I don't drop my kids off at public school. I don't believe in child abuse. Instead, I make sure they get a quality education. Mail isn't dropped in the local post office; bills are paid via online transactions and packages are mailed via FedEx or UPS. Private shipping companies get things done faster and have never lost one of my packages, unlike the USPS. Post offices are so 20th century.

After another day of boring safety presentations mandated by OSHA (because the government believes I'm too stupid to know what's dangerous), I drive back home to a house that the fire inspector hasn't been to in twenty years, so doesn't know about frayed wiring. Luckily, I have a friend who knows how to fix that stuff, and we don't bother telling the inspector to come out and take a look because he'd just want a bribe anyways. None of my stuff is stolen not because of the police, but because I live out in the country next to a bunch of bitter clingers who will make sure trespassers are suitably punished. Neighbors are far better at preventing crime than the police, who only arrive after a crime has been committed. Dinner is some beef from a farmer down the street (no USDA inspection), or maybe some fish I caught last weekend from the lake behind my house, and vegetables from my garden (no USDA inspection).

And then I log onto the internet, which started as a CERN project, coopted by DARPA, and which the government continues to try and control because it just can't handle people having the freedom to think for themselves. I get to read this and this and this, and try to understand how so many people think government control of the health care industry is a good thing.

But then I realize that they made poor choices throughout their lives and depend on government for their care and feeding, which the government does by taking almost half my earnings away because I chose to live responsibly and make good decisions.

Government folly : Trust us on healthcare because we've totally learned what NOT to do from pretty much every other entitlement program we've put out.

[A Man In Black]

Doug's Workshop wrote:

trying to respond seriously

*bang*

[Sanakht Inaros]

Doug's Workshop wrote:

Mass of stupid

[Alzrius]

Doug's Workshop wrote:

This morning I woke up about the time the sun peeked through my curtains. Or when my son woke up. Alarm clocks are things of the past.

Doug makes a good point here - this does undercut AMIB's point about electricity (which is only used in alarm clocks), and in doing so completely invalidates his larger point.

You tell 'em, Doug. You tell the world.

Doug's Workshop wrote:

And then I log onto the internet, which started as a CERN project, coopted by DARPA

This is incorrect. The internet itself was invented by DARPA. The World Wide Web was invented at CERN several decades later by Tim Berners-Lee and Robert Cailliau.

[Moro]

A Man In Black wrote:

Doug's Workshop wrote:

trying to respond seriously

*bang*

Anyone who posts that (ancient, for the intardwebz) drivel needs shot as well, so turn the barrel towards yourself, AmiB! That silly thing has been around for ages, but I did read a pretty decent refutation of it once. The following are not my words, so keep the weapon holstered:

The Department of Energy has little to nothing to do with the energy used to power your alarm clock - you are probably thinking of your State or Regional Public Utilities Commission, which are by and large very poorly run organizations whose policies are largely bought and sold by those in the energy business, supporting localized monopolies that help keep your energy bills high.
Oh, but the DoE (or rather, the politicians who set the agenda for the DoE) is largely responsible for upholding policies that were very much in favor of big oil for decades, policies that until recently were tailored to make it next to impossible and highly unprofitable for potential green energy startups. Also, I wouldn't hold much faith in a Department of Energy that fails it's own Energy Audits.

As for the water for your shower, chances are that your municipality built and owns it's own water treatment plant and distribution system, but I can guarantee you that if they haven't already, they are taking a serious look at bringing in a private business to run that plant and system. All over the country this trend of privatization of water maintenance is picking up steam, because by and large the communities that have tried it have found it to be cheaper and more efficient.

The FCC has quite a few responsibilities, mostly including management and division of the airwaves, so that multiple signals being broadcast too closely to each other do not cause interference. On the plus side, they do help enforce competition - Ma Bell, we hardly miss ye. On the negative side, censorship is bad, mmkay?

The National Weather Service is a division of the NOAA, hooray for news! Government funded scientific research and reporting? Awesome! Can't really complain here. Same goes for NASA, although one could argue that privately-funded satellite programs are more efficient.

The USDA and the FDA both have issues far too numerous to get into here, particularly with regards to past instances of discrimination, and limiting competition. Also the FDA is practically owned by big businesses, who can rush almost anything they like through the system with the proper application of the right amount of money.

The NIST, again, yay for science! Getting everybody on the same page when it comes to weights and measures is a good thing.

The DoT/NHSTA is good for safety and oversight, though one could argue that they could do a much better job of planning. Traffic sucks. Politics has unfortunately seeped into the workings of the DoT to hinder the development of mass transit systems for years, though. Privately owned and maintained toll roads have proven to work far better than public roadways in many areas throughout the country for quite some time.

EPA - see my comments on the FDA.

Federal Reserve Bank - After the debacles of the past few years, you really want to bring up goverment interference and oversight of our banking systems as an argument of SUPPORT for more government?!? No comment.

USPS - lawl, another bankrupt government organization being outperformed by private industry.

Let's toss a few government agencies out there that you forgot; you tell me which of these work so well that they should convince me that more government is a good thing: (some of my favorites, taken from http://www.usa.gov/Agencies.shtml )

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (formerly the Health Care Financing Administration)

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)

Citizenship and Immigration Services Bureau (formerly Immigration and Naturalization Service)

Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

My personal favorite dysfunctional government agency - Congress
Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

Lol No Child Left Behind - Department of Education (ED)

Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

Employee Benefits Security Administration (formerly Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration)

Executive Office for Immigration Review

Federal Election Commission

Woohoo Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - Federal Housing Finance Board

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Perhaps the greatest joke on the list - Government Accountability Office (GAO)

You can ask any Native American how well this one works - Indian Affairs, Bureau of

Interagency Council on Homelessness

And let's not forget this one - Social Security Administration (SSA)

[A Man In Black]

Moro wrote:

What is this strange thing you humans call humor?

*bang*

Let this be a lesson to people who think jokes need refuting, or anyone who can't tell the difference between a serious post and a joke even when it is clearly labeled for their benefit.

I did enjoy Doug's joke about supporting himself through subsistence farming, though.

That was a joke right?

[ciretose]

A Man In Black wrote:

You want evidence that the government can run health care? Look at every nation that isn't the US and their lower costs and better outcomes.

Why do we fight when we are both so correct about so many things, sir?

[TOZ]

Why do you and I fight? :P

[ciretose]

TOZ wrote:

Why do you and I fight? :P

Et tu TOZ, et tu?.

[TriOmegaZero]

Don't ask questions you don't want to know the answer to. :)

On the subject of healthcare.

[BigNorseWolf]

ciretose wrote:

TOZ wrote:

Why do you and I fight? :P

Et tu TOZ, et tu?.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlFjpDtPTUA

[Doug's Workshop]

A Man In Black wrote:

*bang*

And once again the left replies with violence. Color me shocked.

[Doug's Workshop]

Government folly: And then his face slammed into my fist.

[TriOmegaZero]

Doug's Workshop wrote:

A Man In Black wrote:

*bang*

And once again the left replies with violence. Color me shocked.

He was standing his ground.

[Doug's Workshop]

Government folly: Let's spend a bunch of money to let people know about the food stamp program.

Throw a Great Party. Host social events where people mix and mingle.
Make it fun by having activities, games, food, and entertainment, and
provide information about SNAP. Putting SNAP information in a game
format like BINGO, crossword puzzles, or even a “true/false” quiz is
fun and helps get your message across in a memorable way.

Because when I think of BINGO, I think of government programs.

[A Man In Black]

Doug's Workshop wrote:

Government folly: Let's spend a bunch of money to let people know about the food stamp program.

Quote:

Still, more than one in four Americans eligible for food stamps do not participate, according to USDA records.

And the rate is much lower among the the elderly and people just above the poverty line. Nearly two-thirds of folks in these categories aren't enrolled.

Yes! Damn those selfish elderly and working poor, don't they know they don't deserve help? Why don't they just get a jo- Oh.

[Sanakht Inaros]

Doug's Workshop wrote:

Government folly: And then his face slammed into my fist.

Did you actually read the article? Given your track record, I doubt it. He was driving on a suspended license. He failed to keep at least one of his children safe. Then he got the bright idea of "You can't give me a ticket if I'm not here" and tried to get away.

[Sanakht Inaros]

Doug's Workshop wrote:

Government folly: Let's spend a bunch of money to let people know about the food stamp program.

Throw a Great Party. Host social events where people mix and mingle.
Make it fun by having activities, games, food, and entertainment, and
provide information about SNAP. Putting SNAP information in a game
format like BINGO, crossword puzzles, or even a “true/false” quiz is
fun and helps get your message across in a memorable way.

Because when I think of BINGO, I think of government programs.

And this is wrong how?

[Doug's Workshop]

I'm not sure if this falls under "Government Folly" or "Russian Ingenuity." But it brought a smile to my face nonetheless.

[Alzrius]

Doug's Workshop wrote:

I'm not sure if this falls under "Government Folly" or "Russian Ingenuity." But it brought a smile to my face nonetheless.

That's how I feel about the Dead Hand. Except without the smile.

[TriOmegaZero]

I see the Russian military is no different from the American military when you get right down to it.

[Gendo]

Sanakht Inaros wrote:

Gendo wrote:

Sanakht Inaros wrote:

Gendo wrote:

What BNW just illustrated above with the 3 people insurance set up is exactly why I am against universal healthcare. Hank and Mitt aren't paying for their own just in case care, they are paying for care for Steve. That is wrong plain and simple.

Dude, we're already doing that. We've BEEN doing that. Why do you think your insurance is so high?

One of the proposals for Universal Healthcare showed that it would actually save us (the individual) money if it were a tax. When I was working, one of my co-workers was passing it around. As a tax it would have put $60 back into my paycheck. (I was paying $107 a week for basic coverage.)

My wife pays $125 every two weeks into HSA that covers whole family. It doubles as a pretax savings account. Once money in account is empty expenses come out of pocket. This suits me just fine. In essence we are paying for our own healthcare without burdening anyone else. If something happens that the money runs out I will figure out what to do as I always have.

Dude...When Steve can't pay for his hospital stay, the hospital passes the costs on to the insurance companies and others. The insurance companies pass those cost increases on to their users, i.e. you. So you're already paying for Steve. Would you rather pay $250 a month for insurance that may or may not cover you when you really need it? Or would you rather pay $100 a month for insurance that covers you no matter what?

I shouldn't have to pay for Steve and NO ONE ELSE SHOULD EITHER. I'd rather not have insurance at all...if my wife wasn't so stubborn I still wouldn't be on her policy. It cost me less money for service in a clinic when and if I chose to seek out treatment. I have insurance now, covered by my wife's company plan. Quite frankly, I'd rather suffer and die in agony than be forced to have insurance. Even if that means leaving my wife and kids behind...I have life insurance for just such an eventuality. A selfish and heartless perspective to be sure, but one I feel quite vehemently due to my own experiences. Other than children (17 years of age and younger), no one should be a burden to anyone else EVER. Spreading out the cost Steve over more people just means more people are taking on a burden for which they should not be forced to in the first place.

Now, as for the SS talk. I'm someone who wanted to see the Bush junior 'promise' of privatized SS. I have 7% of every paycheck stolen and deposited into a fund for retirement and entitlement programs. 7% of everything I earn from the time I start getting a paycheck until I retire and I won't see a cent. Why? Because even if the SS administration calls in all the notes from the Fed for the loans when SS was used as a rainy day fund, with the Baby Boomer generation retiring there isn't enough money to keep it solvent. I'm 39, been paying into SS since I was 14, and I am setting up my retirement so that the lack of SS will be irrelevant...until some jackass in congress or dumbass President says that everyone's life time savings are to be claimed for the general welfare of all the citizens of this country.

[thejeff]

You realize, of course, that your life insurance works the same way?
Assuming you don't die young, your premiums pay for those who do. Just like if you don't need expensive medical treatment, your premiums pay for those who do.

[BigNorseWolf]

Gendo wrote:

I shouldn't have to pay for Steve and NO ONE ELSE SHOULD EITHER.

So either 1) everyone has 50,000 or 100,000 dollars under the mattress in case they get sick 2) We have some reaaaaly altruistic billionaires or 3) We just let steve die.

Why on earth should we operate that way?

Quote:

Quite frankly, I'd rather suffer and die in agony than be forced to have insurance.

Insurance is bad. not THAT bad.

Quote:

Even if that means leaving my wife and kids behind...I have life insurance for just such an eventuality.

Most of them don't cover suicide.

Quote:

Spreading out the cost Steve over more people just means more people are taking on a burden for which they should not be forced to in the first place.

Done right its a light and almost negligible load. No one gets buy on this planet alone. No man is an island. It has always been, and will always BE, a compromise between individual rights and group effectiveness. The question is where to set the bar.

[A Man In Black]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

So either 1) everyone has 50,000 or 100,000 dollars under the mattress in case they get sick 2) We have some reaaaaly altruistic billionaires or 3) We just let steve die.

Why on earth should we operate that way?

He's already said that he feels that Steve should die in agony rather than compromise his self-reliance.

Quote:

Insurance is bad. not THAT bad.

Insurance is a pretty awesome invention. For-profit insurance is full of problems, but that's more about the "for-profit" than the "insurance".

[TriOmegaZero]

Gendo wrote:

I shouldn't have to pay for Steve and NO ONE ELSE SHOULD EITHER. I'd rather not have insurance at all...if my wife wasn't so stubborn I still wouldn't be on her policy. It cost me less money for service in a clinic when and if I chose to seek out treatment. I have insurance now, covered by my wife's company plan. Quite frankly, I'd rather suffer and die in agony than be forced to have insurance. Even if that means leaving my wife and kids behind...I have life insurance for just such...

So you object to health insurance but not life insurance? What about auto insurance? You're paying to fix other peoples cars when they get drunk and crash into telephone poles. In fact, your auto insurance pays for their medical bills when that happens. Why the difference?

[Gendo]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

...

Gendo wrote:

Even if that means leaving my wife and kids behind...I have life insurance for just such an eventuality.

Most of them don't cover suicide.

I'm not depressed and have no plans to be a coward and not face the problems and challenges that are in my life. Allowing nature to run its course and kill me when my number is up is not suicide, its nature. I'll die when I'm supposed to, not before. When that is I don't know. It could be in the next few seconds, the next few minutes, hours, days, weeks, montsh, years, or decades. It just doesn't matter to me. I'll live as long as I'm supposed and not one day more.

[thejeff]

Gendo wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

...

Gendo wrote:

Even if that means leaving my wife and kids behind...I have life insurance for just such an eventuality.

Most of them don't cover suicide.

I'm not depressed and have no plans to be a coward and not face the problems and challenges that are in my life. Allowing nature to run its course and kill me when my number is up is not suicide, its nature. I'll die when I'm supposed to, not before. When that is I don't know. It could be in the next few seconds, the next few minutes, hours, days, weeks, montsh, years, or decades. It just doesn't matter to me. I'll live as long as I'm supposed and not one day more.

Or you may wind up injured but not dead or dying, but requiring expensive care to get back to any kind of functionality. It's easy to go bankrupt from medical expenses in this country even with insurance and depending on the situation refusing care may either not be an option or void your life insurance.

[BigNorseWolf]

Gendo, there are some really nasty, long, slow, and agonizingly painful ways to die out there. Its ridiculous to have someone with a hole burning through their intestines spend years writhing in agony until they beg for death when we can just get them some drugs and send them about their merry way.

[A Man In Black]

thejeff wrote:

Or you may wind up injured but not dead or dying, but requiring expensive care to get back to any kind of functionality. It's easy to go bankrupt from medical expenses in this country even with insurance and depending on the situation refusing care may either not be an option or void your life insurance.

Are you suggesting that someone paralyzed in an accident can't pull themselves up by the bootstraps?

[Kirth Gersen]

A Man In Black wrote:

Are you suggesting that someone paralyzed in an accident can't pull themselves up by the bootstraps?

It's their choice to be paralyzed. Whining about how it isn't their fault is just a liberal ploy to justify being on the dole. We should never be sympathetic to people when they make stupid personal decisions like getting into accidents or being paralyzed.