Woo-hoo!!!! Got me a government check!!! [Archive]

sabotai

07-25-2003, 03:03 PM

hey brad...they might have gone out really early this morning. If Grant is near one of the places that prints out the checks, that might explain how he got it.

"what is the return this time? $300 per person again?"

No, it's a certan amount ($400?) per child that you have.

So I'm getting nothing.

"So we are getting a tiny bit of our money back that they took from us? Imagine that."

Well, some people are. :)

"How much debt can we get into before we starting hitting "tough times". "

I don't know, but if it's $6.73 trillion, we're in trouble (as of yesterday, the national debt is $6.727 trillion. The debt has increased over a trillion dollars since Bush took office 2 1/2 years ago.)

(Note, before one of you right-wing nutcases jumps on me, I'm not passing blame onto Bush, just simply stating a fact.)

GrantDawg

07-25-2003, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
So we are getting a tiny bit of our money back that they took from us? Imagine that.

Actually, I haven't paid a dime of federal taxes in about 3 years. They have exactly 0 amount of dollars from me this year, and I just got a $400 dollar check from them. I guess I'm officially on the dole now. :)

WillyWTE

07-25-2003, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by GrantDawg
Actually, I haven't paid a dime of federal taxes in about 3 years. They have exactly 0 amount of dollars from me this year...

GD, isn't that illegal? :eek:

Willy

GrantDawg

07-25-2003, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by WillyWTE
GD, isn't that illegal? :eek:

Willy

Nope. I filed returns, but haven't owed a dime. It has something to do with my income, but a whole lot more to do with a huge tax break I get as a minister.

JeeberD

07-25-2003, 06:39 PM

I wonder if I have any kiddies wandering around out there... ;)

WussGawd

07-25-2003, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by Fritz
yea. all these social programs are costing a fortune.

Hmm. Didn't know they called dropping bombs on Iraq a social program.

DolphinFan1

07-25-2003, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by The Afoci
In related news, the richest man in the world is now Revrew.

Actually the richest man in the world is the new GM of the El Paso Busters, JeeberD. Thanks to the generous signing bonus he got playing for the Milwaukee Muscle Men.

JeeberD

07-25-2003, 07:40 PM

Well, yes, thanks to you the Busters are now a dream realized. And thanks to the huge signing bonus I didn't have to worry about doing anything stupid like playing hard. I might have got injured doing something like that. I much prefer being in the luxury box watching my creation on the field, rather than being on the field myself... :D

DolphinFan1

07-25-2003, 07:47 PM

Originally posted by JeeberD
Well, yes, thanks to you the Busters are now a dream realized. And thanks to the huge signing bonus I didn't have to worry about doing anything stupid like playing hard. I might have got injured doing something like that. I much prefer being in the luxury box watching my creation on the field, rather than being on the field myself... :D

That's why I have "He's not JeeberD" now playing CB. I needed a CB who would give 100%. I know I can't go back, but if I could do it all over again I would have.....probably screwed up and done the same thing. :rolleyes:

JPhillips

07-25-2003, 07:47 PM

So do bastards qualify for the credit?

Dutch

07-26-2003, 02:09 AM

Damn, those Democrats sure did take a lot of money from us in the past! And for what???? Clinton didn't do anything with it. Thank God Bush got in just in time to save the vaults and give the people their hard earned money back.

Anrhydeddu

07-27-2003, 09:43 AM

Our check came yesterday and it shocked the hell out of my wife since she had no idea. I think we may be getting a 36" flat screen HDTV.

sabotai

07-27-2003, 12:30 PM

"Thank God Bush got in just in time to save the vaults and give the people their hard earned money back."

Yup, and thank you Bush for ensuring that the government will take this money back and much much more in the future. And he didn't save the vault, he emptied it.

MizzouRah

07-27-2003, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Our check came yesterday and it shocked the hell out of my wife since she had no idea. I think we may be getting a 36" flat screen HDTV.

Wow, aren't you lucky!

I'm trying to convince my wife why a Plasma costs so much, but needed for entertainment, ps2, and pc!

Can't wait to get our $800, a nice boost to the bank account.

Todd

bbor

07-27-2003, 01:12 PM

Money back???From the government???

I gotta move to the states

JPhillips

07-27-2003, 03:08 PM

sabotai: Can we agree now? The current gov took tax and spend and made it better, borrow and spend plus interest.

Raiders Army

07-27-2003, 08:56 PM

I got back $1,200 on Saturday. :)

BishopMVP

07-27-2003, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by Dutch
Damn, those Democrats sure did take a lot of money from us in the past! And for what???? Clinton didn't do anything with it. Thank God Bush got in just in time to save the vaults and give the people their hard earned money back.

I like Bush a lot, and think the Democrats tax too much, but I don't think Fiscal Conservatism is something Bush or the Republicans can/should be bragging about.

Anrhydeddu

07-27-2003, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by BishopMVP
I like Bush a lot, and think the Democrats tax too much, but I don't think Fiscal Conservatism is something Bush or the Republicans can/should be bragging about.

I agree without a doubt. But I do view one being more socialistic than the other.

If you want to see why any type of national health care system will be an expensive disaster, just look at the way the VA has run their national program for all of the vets. The bottom line in my mind is that there is no better incentive for acheiving excellence than private enterprise.

SunDancer

07-27-2003, 10:42 PM

I think we better see Bush to tighten the beltstraps.

Blackadar

07-28-2003, 06:02 AM

Woo-hoo!!! Got me some government cheese!

Oh, wrong decade. :)

GrantDawg

07-28-2003, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by Blackadar
Woo-hoo!!! Got me some government cheese!

Oh, wrong decade. :)

That's na-cho' cheese, man!

Tekneek

07-28-2003, 06:55 AM

We're using the proceeds from our check, which should arrive in a couple of weeks, to finance leaving early for our vacation and spending a couple of days at the Universal parks before going to Disney for a week.

Already got the HDTV, a year and a half ago. :)

I'm sure you guys know this, but there is nothing wrong with getting money back that has been taken from you.

Subby

07-28-2003, 07:06 AM

I'll take the $1,600, but I still have a sinking feeling about this rebate in the long term...

Ksyrup

07-28-2003, 07:20 AM

I got the....notice that I'll be receiving a check. Bastards!

QuikSand

07-28-2003, 07:27 AM

Apparently, I haven't done enough for my country to merit a tax refund check this year. I failed to add to our population. *sigh*

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
The bottom line in my mind is that there is no better incentive for acheiving excellence than private enterprise.

I am hard-wired to agree with this statement, in general.

However, most would agree that health care (the context you raised yourself for your criticism of "socialistic" Democrats) is different. One of the consequences of a purely free market is that you have clear rationing of goods and services based on ability (or willingnes) to pay. If you're talking about who's willing or able to pay for immunizations, cancer screenings, or even treatment for a serious condition - most would say that it's simply not right to leave some people out because they lack the resources to do this. Then, even the most staunch economist would generally argue that you need some sort of market intrusion to take care of this kind of "public good." While the measure and means of doing so is worthy of serious debate - I don't think the health care issue is one that we can just declare "let the market sort it out" and walk away from. Most would agree.

Tekneek

07-28-2003, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by QuikSand
If you're talking about who's willing or able to pay for immunizations, cancer screenings, or even treatment for a serious condition - most would say that it's simply not right to leave some people out because they lack the resources to do this.

Show me someone who can't afford these services who is saving every penny they can get to give it a shot, and I would agree they probably deserve a little help getting over the top. Show me somebody with cable TV, CD players, new car, cigarette habit, etc, and I don't think they deserve any extra help getting access to these services.

Fritz

07-28-2003, 08:24 AM

Tekneek

07-28-2003, 09:09 AM

Originally posted by Fritz
Dude, those are inalienable rights and part of your guaranteed happiness!

Hmmm. Which government agency is in charge of guaranteed happiness? Seems they've mishandled my paperwork.

ice4277

07-28-2003, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by GrantDawg
Actually, I haven't paid a dime of federal taxes in about 3 years. They have exactly 0 amount of dollars from me this year, and I just got a $400 dollar check from them. I guess I'm officially on the dole now. :)

If you don't pay any taxes to the feds during the year, I don't see why you should get money back from them.

cuervo72

07-28-2003, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by ice4277
If you don't pay any taxes to the feds during the year, I don't see why you should get money back from them.

That's exactly what the Republicans' point is regarding the low income families.

Anrhydeddu

07-28-2003, 09:53 AM

QS, it seems the mess between lawyers-doctors-politicians-employers can be best described as Chaos Theory. That's realism and the reason for the kludge mess (and solutions). However, I speaking of more of a general mindset of not accepting status quo (which as everyone knows, is my purpose in life). The basis for market-driven belief is incentive. Not only the incentive for practicioners (or any other providers of service) to meet market demands but the incentive for those consuming such services to be able to obtain those services. I can speak from person experience of the great desire to get over being dirt poor (as I was in grad school) and get into a job that I could afford to pay rent and get needed medical services. However, not everyone will have the same opportunity or be able to acheive such goal. Perhaps govt should provide some form of temporary safety net but not only do I strongly perceive that such temporary safety net has become a crutch for many (political blackmail, imo) but also that it should be up to individuals, ecumenical services, ministries, charitable services, to make up the difference - not some bloated, bureaucratic program. We, as a society as a whole, have become to depended upon solutions from govts and accept the promise of politicians of a better life through federalism. I believe history has generally shown the opposite.

Butter

07-28-2003, 10:01 AM

QuikSand

07-28-2003, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by Tekneek
Show me someone who can't afford these services who is saving every penny they can get to give it a shot, and I would agree they probably deserve a little help getting over the top. Show me somebody with cable TV, CD players, new car, cigarette habit, etc, and I don't think they deserve any extra help getting access to these services.

Rather than debate the marits of the entire argument, there's sometimes something more complicated than that.

Poor parents, do dumb things like you suggest - they decide to spend their money on cable TV rather than getting their kid immunized. Their kid comes to your kid's public school, thereby exposing your children and family to some sort of disease.

At some point, isn't there something here that qualifies as being in the public interest?

And in health care, most human beings will say that we won't just let people die because they are indigent, even if it's a function of making bad decisions. If you walk into the ER with a serious illness, you get treatment - even if it ends up being "uncompensated care" (which we all end up paying for, as it's gets worked into the various costs of medical care that we do pay for).

If you agree to that - then it's pretty hard (I think) to argue against public support for things like age-appropriate cancer screening and prenatal care for expectant mothers. What you spend, in public dollars, on such services comes right back in savings - only multifold, according to pretty much all research.

Of course, the most economically prudent thing to do is just let the poor people die without receiving treatment. But unless that's the decision we'd make as a society, then we have to deal with the practical realities that health care is just different than other things.

JPhillips

07-28-2003, 10:13 AM

Tekneek: Even if someone has spent all of their money on something as frivolous as Pokemon cards, do you refuse them treatment when they show up with a life threatening trauma? Medical conditions show up often without warning and need to be treated relatively quickly. This isn't to excuse their poor financial choices, but to point out that it isn't easy to just eliminate those that don't make good choices.

Ice: Of course when you say federal taxes you are only saying federal income taxes not payroll taxes which the poor and middle class pay a far larger percent of their income than the wealthy.

Even without this though its a myth that the poor recieve a huge amount of handouts while everyone else suffers. The difference between the parties is not income redistribution or not, its who gets the redistribution. We're looking at another round of farm subsidies, bipartisan lunacy btw, and just recently the House Repubs proposed 50 billion in loan guarantees to nuclear power companies so they can navigate the waters of deregulation. So now the power companies demand dereg and then demand money because of dereg. Its great work if you can get it.

Anrhydeddu

07-28-2003, 10:20 AM

JPhillips - that's just following the Robert Byrd way of doing business. Also, don't just use the Galt tactics of providing only one-sided examples, how about adding the billions Teamsters bribe to prevent pollution controls on trucks.

Fritz

07-28-2003, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by QuikSand
Rather than debate the marits of the entire argument, there's sometimes something more complicated than that.

Poor parents, do dumb things like you suggest - they decide to spend their money on cable TV rather than getting their kid immunized. Their kid comes to your kid's public school, thereby exposing your children and family to some sort of disease.

At some point, isn't there something here that qualifies as being in the public interest?

And in health care, most human beings will say that we won't just let people die because they are indigent, even if it's a function of making bad decisions. If you walk into the ER with a serious illness, you get treatment - even if it ends up being "uncompensated care" (which we all end up paying for, as it's gets worked into the various costs of medical care that we do pay for).

If you agree to that - then it's pretty hard (I think) to argue against public support for things like age-appropriate cancer screening and prenatal care for expectant mothers. What you spend, in public dollars, on such services comes right back in savings - only multifold, according to pretty much all research.

What you describe is social extortion (at leaqst to some extent.) Rather than choose to use their own resources to cover needs, a person chooses to aquire wants, knowing that the needs will be provided for.

cuervo72

07-28-2003, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by Fritz
What you describe is social extortion (at leaqst to some extent.) Rather than choose to use their own resources to cover needs, a person chooses to aquire wants, knowing that the needs will be provided for.

The problems are the children of these people, who don't make the choices but are affected by them.

Anrhydeddu

07-28-2003, 10:28 AM

Fritz, which is the basis for my perception that Democrats encourages larger govt entitlements and payrolls for the reason of political bribery. If they extort protection (e.g., welfare) on your behalf, than certainly you owe them favors (i.e., votes).

Butter

07-28-2003, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Fritz, which is the basis for my perception that Democrats encourages larger govt entitlements and payrolls for the reason of political bribery. If they extort protection (e.g., welfare) on your behalf, than certainly you owe them favors (i.e., votes).

And Republicans don't? (i.e. tax cuts, looser restrictions for business, etc.)

JPhillips

07-28-2003, 10:34 AM

Amxn666wded: I don't really understand your point, but if your trying to say both sides are guilty, I completely agree. I'm afraid the gov, both parties included, is almost hopelessly corrupt. It won't catch on with the majority of voters, but I'd vote for a guy that made cleaning up the corruption a priority.

Both parties use the government money as a campaign tool. I'll certainly agree the Dems do it, but you should also agree that the Repubs do as well.

Fritz

07-28-2003, 10:38 AM

I don't exactly have centerist thinking on most social topics. For instance, sterilzation is not of the table in any solution set I might entertain.

cuervo72

07-28-2003, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Fritz
I don't exactly have centerist thinking on most social topics. For instance, sterilzation is not of the table in any solution set I might entertain.

How about mandatory intelligence/common sense testing in order to obtain your reproductive license? :)

Anrhydeddu

07-28-2003, 10:46 AM

Jphil: Not historically. This goes back to the Tammany Hall days (buying votes on behalf of immigrants) and then extending into the powerful unions as well as the Great Society programs of the 20th century. Republicans have historically been more laisez-faire, good or bad. Take a look at Butter's list: tax cuts - less money for the govt, more for non-govt and individuals; looser restrictions for business - less regulatory costs for govt, more money for non-govt and individuals. That is not to say that there shouldn't be any taxes, regulations, entitlements, etc. but instead of coming up with more excess on top of excess, how about reversing that, even just a little? Most people work for private companies and as corrupt as that can be sometimes, the nature of private enterprise is preferable to federal taxes and bureaucracy, as designed in the Constitution. We have become to apathetic and complacent to accept this, imo.

Subby

07-28-2003, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by cuervo72
How about mandatory intelligence/common sense testing in order to obtain your reproductive license? :) Yeah because smart, successful people make the best parents :rolleyes:

Butter

07-28-2003, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Jphil: Not historically. This goes back to the Tammany Hall days (buying votes on behalf of immigrants) and then extending into the powerful unions as well as the Great Society programs of the 20th century. Republicans have historically been more laisez-faire, good or bad.

So, you're actually saying that tax cuts when you're in a budget deficit is not an attempt to buy people's votes? Wow, someone's naive.

EDIT: Yes, that sentence is irretrievably awkward.

Anrhydeddu

07-28-2003, 10:56 AM

Govt has always been in a deficit since the Great Society programs (despite manipulating figures otherwise). Kennedy before that proved that cutting taxes can raise more revenues (more disposable income, higher wages/salaries, etc.). But it is all premise on cutting spending and that's my point. If tax cuts can spur spending cuts, that can only be a good thing. Don't you think that you spending or donating $100 can be more beneficial than $100 to the feds where up to $90 of it goes to bureaucracy?

cuervo72

07-28-2003, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by Subby
Yeah because smart, successful people make the best parents :rolleyes:

I'm not actually advocating this Subby......:)

Subby

07-28-2003, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by cuervo72
I'm not actually advocating this Subby......:) Woody Allen is smart and succ...D'OH!

;)

Fritz

07-28-2003, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Subby
Woody Allen is smart and succ...D'OH!

loving too...

JPhillips

07-28-2003, 11:28 AM

Azxmnferretsdke: I guess my argument would be that this admin is most certainly not conservative in many ways. For all the talk about cutting spending to balance the tax cuts, they just don't do it. The only cuts they have made are marginal at best and will be more than offset by increases in defense and the prescription drug benefit.

I tend to lean more conservative with government spending than most on the left. I'd like to see a review of each department with reccomendations to streamline and eliminate unneeded services. I'd also like to review all of the regs in every department and see what can be cut without a lot of debate. Maybe on a straight up or down vote ala base closings.

My problem is not tax cuts per se, but where the tax cuts go. I would like to see a reduction in payroll taxes of up to 5% offset if need be by raising the limit on wages subject. The problem, as I see it, with the current plan is not the deficit this year. The problem is hundreds of billions of deficit for years to come with no plan to get out of it. I don't think this year's deficit is a big deal, but keep it going for ten years and we have a real problem.

Dutch

07-28-2003, 11:32 AM

Don't you think that you spending or donating $100 can be more beneficial than $100 to the feds where up to $90 of it goes to bureaucracy?

As an employee of the US Government....good friggin' question!

The reality is that tax refund money we could "give back to the feds" would buy about 4 toilet seats, a can opener, and with the spare change about 1.84 billion dollars in house and senate pay raises....

When we the people get it back, we spend it on other peoples businesses.

Here in Turkey, they pay like 30 or 40% tax and have to pay it 4 times a year! All to keep the pockets of their politicians fat. It's sickening really while the country busts their asses for a enough money to buy bread, milk, and chicken....(oh and cigarettes).

Anrhydeddu

07-28-2003, 11:40 AM

JPhillips, I agree with you. On the minor issue of tax refunds, I think getting a little of our money and having a huge deficit is more beneficial than the feds keeping our money and having a huge defecit.

I'd like to see a review of each department with reccomendations to streamline and eliminate unneeded services. I'd also like to review all of the regs in every department and see what can be cut without a lot of debate. Maybe on a straight up or down vote ala base closings.

When Reagan and Bush tried to do exactly that, they were met with loud shrillings about people dying, scare tactics and media slams. The force to keep all programs intact and growing is strong unfortunately - until we can filter out the politicians, media and lobbyists and demand common sense. Look what W had to do in increasing Medicare Prescription by hundreds of billions of dollars - to get more votes. Why can it be the other way around - cutting excess to get more votes?

Fritz

07-28-2003, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by JPhillips
I tend to lean more conservative with government spending than most on the left. I'd like to see a review of each department with reccomendations to streamline and eliminate unneeded services. I'd also like to review all of the regs in every department and see what can be cut without a lot of debate. Maybe on a straight up or down vote ala base closings.

While I mostly agree with you. The cost of a strenuous review often costs more than the savings. Just the nature of the beast.

A side note, nothing is stopping YOU from reviewing "all of the regs in every department."

My problem is not tax cuts per se, but where the tax cuts go. I would like to see a reduction in payroll taxes of up to 5% offset if need be by raising the limit on wages subject. The problem, as I see it, with the current plan is not the deficit this year. The problem is hundreds of billions of deficit for years to come with no plan to get out of it. I don't think this year's deficit is a big deal, but keep it going for ten years and we have a real problem.

It seems like one of your big gripes with govt (in many places) stems from planning. As an economist friend of mine says, "only the past is in black and white."

Butter

07-28-2003, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Don't you think that you spending or donating $100 can be more beneficial than $100 to the feds where up to $90 of it goes to bureaucracy?

It CAN be more beneficial. But often, it isn't. The government needs to be pared down, but there are some areas that will always need and demand more money. The larger the population gets, the more social spending will be demanded. Trying to cut that spending is only naturally going to raise the hackles of those who would be affected. It just seems to me that too often the poor (the truly needy, not the food stamp abusers) are neglected in this country, and I find it sad that we refuse to spend money to possibly improve the quality of life for all, while we are more than willing to spend billions on tax cuts for whom all it is going to mean is the ability to replace a 32 inch TV with a 46 inch one.

EDIT: I is a good spllr.

Tekneek

07-28-2003, 01:02 PM

So, if a parent blows all their money on junk, the rest of us pick up the tab. If you blow all your money on junk, the rest of us should pick up the tab. So, by being responsible and taking care of things properly, you end up paying for those who don't. Doesn't anyone see something wrong with that picture? What incentive is there for anybody to do the responsible thing if we decide that we are going to bail everyone out who is not responsible?

The example about the person blowing all their money and showing up with an unexpected life threatening disease/sickness is a weak point. I doubt ANYBODY expects to contract such a thing, so I feel that is not a valid point to make at all.

Butter

07-28-2003, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Tekneek
So, if a parent blows all their money on junk, the rest of us pick up the tab. If you blow all your money on junk, the rest of us should pick up the tab. So, by being responsible and taking care of things properly, you end up paying for those who don't. Doesn't anyone see something wrong with that picture? What incentive is there for anybody to do the responsible thing if we decide that we are going to bail everyone out who is not responsible?

Your argument seems to assume that all poor people are irresponsible because they are unable to "take care of things properly", which seems to mean that they pay for everything themselves, and what they can't pay for, they can't have, including health care. You don't see anything wrong with that? I think you should stop speaking in absolutes and consider that some people actually do need help.

JPhillips

07-28-2003, 01:09 PM

Fritz: As if I could devote the next thirty years of my life to reviewing all of the governments regs!

I'd say my two main gripes with the government are that it isn't transparent enough and that it is flat out corrupt. While I would obviously disagree with a lot of ideas from Asdwdf or Cam or whomever, I genuinely trust the people to make good decisions over the long haul. I don't trust a government run by people who want to hide things from the public or worse believe the public can't be trusted.

Sure the public is going to make bad decisions from time to time, but I'll trust the collective will of the people over the will of the oligarchy every time.

JPhillips

07-28-2003, 01:12 PM

Tekneek: Answer this, do you refuse to treat illnesses or injuries when people can't afford to pay? Do you let them die on the street because they made poor financial choices?

I don't like paying for people who throw away their money either, but I'd much rather do that then live in a country where the poor die on the streets because they are refused care.

Fritz

07-28-2003, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by JPhillips
Tekneek: Answer this, do you refuse to treat illnesses or injuries when people can't afford to pay? Do you let them die on the street because they made poor financial choices?

I don't like paying for people who throw away their money either, but I'd much rather do that then live in a country where the poor die on the streets because they are refused care.

what about the not as poor? What if a rich guy "hid" his money to get "free" medical treatment? It is really the same thing.

edit:

Also, how much treatment do you give them? Everything possible, no matter the cost? At anything less than this you are putting a cap on treatment. Why not set that cap low, at nothing?

JPhillips

07-28-2003, 01:18 PM

Fritz: I agree. The system will never work perfectly. For me I'd rather waste some money and save lives than save money and let people die.

Fritz

07-28-2003, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by JPhillips
Fritz: I agree. The system will never work perfectly. For me I'd rather waste some money and save lives than save money and let people die.

you know they are going to die anyway, right?

Anrhydeddu

07-28-2003, 01:21 PM

I trust government on a more local level instead of coming up with one-size-fits-all solutions from the federal level. There was a very good and logical reason for the 10th Amendment. Once at the federal level, you lose the collective will of the people, just as the impetus for the American Revolution. I believe it had ceased to be something "for" the people when it became a power unto itself ruled by special interests from every facet of life.

"deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

This has been mocked by those in federal power and the consent of many of the governed is to keep encouraging that.

Anrhydeddu

07-28-2003, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by JPhillips
Tekneek: Answer this, do you refuse to treat illnesses or injuries when people can't afford to pay? Do you let them die on the street because they made poor financial choices?

I don't like paying for people who throw away their money either, but I'd much rather do that then live in a country where the poor die on the streets because they are refused care.

That's the crux of the debate, imo. You speak of two solutions: letting the poor die or give it to a government. For much of our history, there had been a third solution that worked reasonably well: that society take upon themselves to care for the poor and the needy through donation of time, labor, money, services, etc. We have gotten away from that because 1) less disposable income, 2) mockery of faith-based institutions and 3) reliant on the feds to solve the problems. My position is to turn each of those three around.

JPhillips

07-28-2003, 01:35 PM

Fritz: Some of them certainly will. If that doesn't bother you, fine. It does bother me. I don't think this is something we are likely to ever agree upon.

Acsdkunollc: Your name can be fun! As shocked as you might be, I generally agree. I will probably want some federal standards on things you wouldn't, but I too trust local government more. I do think that the federal government could be much more responsive if it was more open and honest. The government generates way too many secrets that have nothing to do with real national security interests. If we could change this and hold the upper levels of the government to the same levels of accountability as the lower I think things would be better.

And yes I know I'm dreaming.

Butter

07-28-2003, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
For much of our history, there had been a third solution that worked reasonably well: that society take upon themselves to care for the poor and the needy through donation of time, labor, money, services, etc. We have gotten away from that because 1) less disposable income, 2) mockery of faith-based institutions and 3) reliant on the feds to solve the problems. My position is to turn each of those three around.

It's worked reasonably well in very limited instances. Instituting such a thing on a grand scale would be a nightmare. Perhaps we should consider moving more responsiblity to the local level, but by doing so, we also have to move the means to fund any programs to the local level as well, and that seems to be where the problem has come in, especially with this year's state budgetary crises.

Fritz

07-28-2003, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by JPhillips
Fritz: Some of them certainly will. If that doesn't bother you, fine. It does bother me. I don't think this is something we are likely to ever agree upon.

Would you treat everyone to the full extent of our medical capablility, regardless of cost?

Anrhydeddu

07-28-2003, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
It's worked reasonably well in very limited instances. Instituting such a thing on a grand scale would be a nightmare. Perhaps we should consider moving more responsiblity to the local level, but by doing so, we also have to move the means to fund any programs to the local level as well, and that seems to be where the problem has come in, especially with this year's state budgetary crises.

Shouldn't the priority be for taxes 1) local, 2) state and 3) federal? It used to be that way until the feds started taking a greater share.

JPhillips

07-28-2003, 02:03 PM

Fritz: Nobody on any insurance plan gets treated without consideration of cost. The doctors and actuaries and bean counters make reasonable decisions based on cost and effect. I don't see how this is different. Call me hypocritical if you want, but all I'm saying is that I believe even those who have been incredibly irresponsible deserve at least a minumum level of healthcare. I know you think differently and I doubt we can ever agree.

But we can at least agree that the death of that colossal, dog-eating catfish is a good thing, can't we?

Butter

07-28-2003, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
Shouldn't the priority be for taxes 1) local, 2) state and 3) federal? It used to be that way until the feds started taking a greater share.

It would seem that should be the priority. There are a lot of complications involved in just breaking it down that way, though. But on a regular basis, most people deal with their local governments more often than the state gov't, and the state more than the feds. Some programs are too massive to be handled locally, though. Not everything can be simplified to this extent.

Anrhydeddu

07-28-2003, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
Some programs are too massive to be handled locally, though.

One can argue whether any programs should be "massive". We seem to accept that they have to be and I'd argue otherwise. Yes, this does include the military which is one of the few things the federal govt is constitutionally authorized to fund.

Fritz

07-28-2003, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by JPhillips
Fritz: Nobody on any insurance plan gets treated without consideration of cost. The doctors and actuaries and bean counters make reasonable decisions based on cost and effect. I don't see how this is different. Call me hypocritical if you want, but all I'm saying is that I believe even those who have been incredibly irresponsible deserve at least a minumum level of healthcare. I know you think differently and I doubt we can ever agree.

What is "a minimum level of healthcare?"

Originally posted by JPhillips
But we can at least agree that the death of that colossal, dog-eating catfish is a good thing, can't we?

Alas no. We will have to find a different subject to agree on.

Butter

07-28-2003, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
One can argue whether any programs should be "massive". We seem to accept that they have to be and I'd argue otherwise. Yes, this does include the military which is one of the few things the federal govt is constitutionally authorized to fund.

One could argue that. I'm really not interested, though. Problems are inherent with both locally implemented and federally implemented systems, and I think we have the lesser of two evils right now. I think you honestly believe that your plan is the correct one, but I believe it would cause more problems than it would ultimately solve. I'm willing to leave it at that, seeing as I'm tired and all.

JPhillips

07-28-2003, 02:35 PM

Fritz: Hell I can't define every medical procedure that should and shouldn't be done. That's why we have doctors. An example of the basic minimum might be using a defibrillator on a heart attack patient.

We just see things fundamentally differently and I don't think it benefits us to keep arguing.

cuervo72

07-28-2003, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by JPhillips
Fritz: Hell I can't define every medical procedure that should and shouldn't be done. That's why we have doctors.

No, that's why we have insurance companies and HMO's. :rolleyes:

Fritz

07-28-2003, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by JPhillips
Fritz: Hell I can't define every medical procedure that should and shouldn't be done. That's why we have doctors. An example of the basic minimum might be using a defibrillator on a heart attack patient.

Are you suggesting that the professionals in a field should determine how much service should be minimally provided?

We just see things fundamentally differently and I don't think it benefits us to keep arguing.

I was not making an argument, I was asking a question. I would think that my question is the essential one in any discussion of provided healthcare.

Butter

07-28-2003, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Fritz
I would think that my question is the essential one in any discussion of provided healthcare.

Of course you would. :p

JPhillips

07-28-2003, 03:00 PM

Fritz: If you believe we shouldn't pay for any of it, why does it matter?

QuikSand

07-28-2003, 03:06 PM

Okay, Fritz. If your question (I presume you mean "what is in, what is out") is so essential - let's try to be fair about answering it. (Rather than trying to hold people who have just decided to join in this conversation to task for every single detail of an obviously complicated issue)

Let's assume that we/someone could appoint a panel of medical experts - people whose intergity was underfstood to be high, and whose partisanship or motivations were not a concern to people of any persuasion. Assemble these experts together, and have then come up with a battery of medical procedures, tests, and so forth that represent "what is necessary for proper human health." No elective items, nothing frilly - just basic, essential health care and emergency service.

In concept, at least (and forgiving whatever places that my attempt at a please-everyone definition or charge failed to suit your personal needs) isn't this a reasonable enough answer to get by your "essential" question?

If someone wanted to say "I think people should be entitled to medically necessary service, but not anything optional or elective" - shouldn't that be enough to get past this point in the debate? Or do we simply have to wring our hands and walk away from the argument because this particular group of people (myself anf yourself included) lack the expertise to determine hom many mammograms are necessary, and whether someone should get a Type II hemoglobin extract done at age 40 or 50?

If you want to engage in a debate about whether extraordinary treatments (like transplants, perhaps) ought to be included in a public package - I think there's a fair debate to be held there. And you might make a general point about a broad coverage versus a narrow coverage. But what's the point of going beyond that unless there's a specific matter that connects to a policy-worthy issue?

Tekneek

07-28-2003, 09:18 PM

Originally posted by Butter_of_69
Your argument seems to assume that all poor people are irresponsible because they are unable to "take care of things properly", which seems to mean that they pay for everything themselves, and what they can't pay for, they can't have, including health care. You don't see anything wrong with that? I think you should stop speaking in absolutes and consider that some people actually do need help.

I was responding to a specific example...

"Tekneek: Even if someone has spent all of their money on something as frivolous as Pokemon cards, do you refuse them treatment when they show up with a life threatening trauma? Medical conditions show up often without warning and need to be treated relatively quickly. This isn't to excuse their poor financial choices, but to point out that it isn't easy to just eliminate those that don't make good choices."

Tekneek

07-28-2003, 09:27 PM

In order to support those who cannot (or will not) pay their own ways, you must depend on the ability to confiscate by force the money from those who have it, write off that expense, or depend on enough suckers with deep pockets to 'keep doing the right thing' and willingly writing the checks. This actually seems like a good foundation for society to some of you? Let it be optional. You can choose to pick up the bills for those who cannot pay, or just pay for yourself.

Let's look at it with a case by case basis. If I was allowed to effectively 'see the books' for anyone not paying their medical bills, I would give some of my money to help them out. If you want someone else to pay your bills, you must surrender some of your privacy. I should not be compelled to give up cash for people who don't have their priorities straight, or without them owing me something in return. I don't think I have an obligation to financially support people who refuse to even attempt to be responsible.

I am not saying everyone who cannot pay is irresponsible, I am specifically speaking out about people who intentionally put themselves in the position of not being able to take care of responsibilities.

JPhillips

07-28-2003, 09:46 PM

Aside from the fact that these individual audits will have a pretty large cost, you can't wait for an audit before performing emergency medical treatment. And you can't just write off the expense. Most hospitals already recieve less for medicare/medicaid than from other insurance packages. There is some cost that can't just vanish.

You can't have an optional taxation structure. If its optional to pay taxes for medicaid would it also be optional to pay taxes for farm subsidies or 7.62 mm ammo? I hear this optional taxation argument a lot and it really is ridiculous.

You either have to accept some form of indigent care that will inevitably be picked up by the rest of us or endorse care for only those that can pay and be willing to allow those unable to pay to die without treatment. We can argue about what specific procedures get covered, but when it comes down to it there are really only two options.

Fritz

07-28-2003, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by QuikSand
Okay, Fritz. If your question (I presume you mean "what is in, what is out") is so essential - let's try to be fair about answering it. (Rather than trying to hold people who have just decided to join in this conversation to task for every single detail of an obviously complicated issue)

Let's assume that we/someone could appoint a panel of medical experts - people whose intergity was underfstood to be high, and whose partisanship or motivations were not a concern to people of any persuasion. Assemble these experts together, and have then come up with a battery of medical procedures, tests, and so forth that represent "what is necessary for proper human health." No elective items, nothing frilly - just basic, essential health care and emergency service.

First, that is a mighty big assumption. Too big perhaps. (big insurance, pharmaceuticals, etc) Second, and more important, it does not matter what is "essential" when it comes down to dollars. Dollars and how many we are willing to commit to keep the public healthy if they are unable or unwilling to self fund is the issue.

If someone wanted to say "I think people should be entitled to medically necessary service, but not anything optional or elective" - shouldn't that be enough to get past this point in the debate? Or do we simply have to wring our hands and walk away from the argument because this particular group of people (myself anf yourself included) lack the expertise to determine hom many mammograms are necessary, and whether someone should get a Type II hemoglobin extract done at age 40 or 50?

I don't think what I wrote earlier was calling for an itemized list. If it came across that way you will have to forgive my lack of clarity. There is a potential for a fiery debate about what constitutes "essential" and "minimal" and I am not so sure you have to be a medical professional to be part of that debate.

It seems to me that until you present a definition of services (broadly at least) and their associated costs, you have no common point for debate. You may want to beat your (or perhaps my) head into a wall, but you must have some common ground.

If you want to engage in a debate about whether extraordinary treatments (like transplants, perhaps) ought to be included in a public package - I think there's a fair debate to be held there. And you might make a general point about a broad coverage versus a narrow coverage. But what's the point of going beyond that unless there's a specific matter that connects to a policy-worthy issue?

There are two extremes, no public health care and total public health care. Since you and JPhillips had removed zero from consideration by "most", I was seeing if "all" was coming off as well. I expected it to, but there are plenty of folks who think any procedure should be available to anyone if it can save their life. That, I think you agree, is a somewhat different discussion.

Tekneek

07-29-2003, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by JPhillips
Aside from the fact that these individual audits will have a pretty large cost, you can't wait for an audit before performing emergency medical treatment.

[snip]

You can't have an optional taxation structure. If its optional to pay taxes for medicaid would it also be optional to pay taxes for farm subsidies or 7.62 mm ammo? I hear this optional taxation argument a lot and it really is ridiculous.

Keep in mind, I was not talking about the government doing audits on these people. I was talking about ME doing the audit myself if they want MY money to be used to cover THEIR expenses. I was not talking about taxes at all.

Ksyrup

07-29-2003, 09:38 PM

Got my $400 today. And I get paid every other week, and August is a 3-check month.

That deserves a double "Woo-hoo!"

Anrhydeddu

07-30-2003, 10:51 AM

There is one fundamental difference I see. I got a letter from the IRS yesterday saying that I will be getting a check (got the check three days before the letter arrived - typical government efficiency). What I did not know was the name of the law, something about "economic stimulation" or other. Under Clinton, economic stimulation met more government initiatives that does not create any extra economic revenues. Now economic stimulation can mean put money back in the hands of the citizens, the ones that can directly effect consumer-based economies.

By the way, the statement of this refund is "the new law would help 25 million families with children. He added: "There are many people who don't qualify -- because their income levels are too high -- to even get a dollar's worth of a child credit, and they pay a considerable amount of income taxes." Under federal law, the credit is phased out for families with an adjusted gross income of more than $110,000."

But Comrade Pelosi's response was "Faced with a choice between giving a tax break to an elite few or helping millions of working families, the Republicans once again chose to help their wealthy friends," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif."

I guess all of us in the middle income brackets, $22,000 to $110,000 are the elite few. I didn't know that.

Finally, if you are upset that those that paid no income taxes did not get refund, donate some of your refund directly to needy families or ecumenical organizations. It would make more of a difference than any bureaucratic governmental organization.

Tekneek

07-30-2003, 01:08 PM

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
I guess all of us in the middle income brackets, $22,000 to $110,000 are the elite few. I didn't know that.

I believe Bill Clinton once put forth the idea that any household with income over $42,000 per year was "rich." I guess it really depends on what you would call rich. I wouldn't even consider a househould income of $90k a year to be "rich."

QuikSand

07-30-2003, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
There is one fundamental difference I see. I got a letter from the IRS yesterday saying that I will be getting a check (got the check three days before the letter arrived - typical government efficiency). What I did not know was the name of the law, something about "economic stimulation" or other. Under Clinton, economic stimulation met more government initiatives that does not create any extra economic revenues. Now economic stimulation can mean put money back in the hands of the citizens, the ones that can directly effect consumer-based economies.

President Clinton made a major initiative out of increasing the Earned Income Tax Credit, the program that directs each and every dollar directly to the hands or lower-income working people. (The class who, by any reconciliation, immediately put most of their income directly back into the economy) Yes, I know, it's much more exciting to talk about fellatio uder the desk and then somehow translate that to public policy - but to just paint all your political foes with a big black brush tends to obscure a fact or two from time to time.

By the way, the statement of this refund is "the new law would help 25 million families with children. He added: "There are many people who don't qualify -- because their income levels are too high -- to even get a dollar's worth of a child credit, and they pay a considerable amount of income taxes." Under federal law, the credit is phased out for families with an adjusted gross income of more than $110,000."

But Comrade Pelosi's response was "Faced with a choice between giving a tax break to an elite few or helping millions of working families, the Republicans once again chose to help their wealthy friends," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif."

Apples, oranges, what's the difference, right? As long as you can attack the people whose policies you don't like what does it matter?

Don't you think that in any kind of reasonable context, Pelosi was talking about the entire Bush tax cut package -- you know, including the multi-billion dollar drastic reduction in taxes on dividend income, which is undeniably something that disproportionatley benefits the upper income classes?

But no, rather than give a fair context, let's cleverly juxtapose that comment alongside a statement that focuses on just one portion of the tax package, that way we can make our point even more firmly.

I really don't have a partisan affiliation when it comes to tax policy, and happen to think that reducing the income tax on dividend income makes sense -- albeit not for the stated reasons of immediate economic stimulus. However, it's just offensive to me when either side flouts any kind of fair debate to take unwarranted potshots.

There are plenty of perfectly warranted potshots out there to be had, including plenty against Pelosi and other Democrats. I think you weaken those legitimate gripes when you descend into this kind of thing.

Anrhydeddu

07-30-2003, 01:55 PM

That's what I get for copying parts of an Internet news article.

QuikSand

07-30-2003, 02:07 PM

Please feel free to substitue "they" for "you" in my rambling above, in that case.

Sybot

07-31-2003, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by Anrhydeddu
I guess all of us in the middle income brackets, $22,000 to $110,000 are the elite few. I didn't know that.

Finally, if you are upset that those that paid no income taxes did not get refund, donate some of your refund directly to needy families or ecumenical organizations. It would make more of a difference than any bureaucratic governmental organization.

Don't forget that this is not a refund. This is an advance on your Child Care Tax Credit for 2003. If you have a child, as long as you are not above the income level for phasing out the credit. You should have gotten this advance.

Now as it stands, I'm only allowed to take $600 Credit for my child next year instead of $1000. If the credit were done as it should. Everyone that took the credit last year should have gotten the check, or no one should have gotten the check.

All this so that I could pump a few dollars into the economy, what am I doing. Paying down my debt, doesn't help the economy a bit. If they really wanted to stimulate the economy, they should have given it to those people that would have spent it, those low income families that had to have it, to buy their kids school clothes and the like.

As it stands now, they won't get their credit until they fill out their returns in April.