Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Eh who needs FEMA right now anyway
Comments
-
That text is from the article (I'm too dumb to figure out why I can't scroll up to hit the italics on chrome on my phone) And you used that $500 million to state that Medicare should be $4 billion now..... So you translate that for me.SFGbob said:
You're such a lying dumbfuck Hondo. Now where did I say that the $500 Million figure was a prediction of what it would cost in each year going forward.2001400ex said:
Wut? Why am I not surprised you didn't fact check your own claim.SFGbob said:
We'll just have to disagree on how great Medicare and Medicaid have worked out. Both programs are financial disasters. The cost of Medicare alone in 1965 was estimated by the government to be $500 million a year. In 1965 dollars that would be a little less than $4 billion a year today. Last year we spent over $700 billion on Medicare up from $425 Billion just ten years early. Yeah, that's worked out just fucking great.Squirt said:
I dunno, I think a lot of federal insurance programs have worked out okay, considering all the pros and the cons:SFGbob said:Wow, who would have ever guessed that Federal government would create perverse incentives that cost the tax payers billions. If you can't get private insurance there is no fucking way that the Federal Government should be offering it. Thanks liberals.
FDIC
Medicare
Medicaid
Terrorism Risk Insurance Program
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
There are a lot of fair criticisms to be made of many federal insurance programs and the perverse incentives or moral hazards they might create. Of course, that's true for private insurance programs too. Economic theory has long recognized these problems in the private-insurance context. But it doesn't follow that federal (or private) insurance programs should be eliminated.
Our biggest Federal expenditure right now is for Medicare and Medicaid.
As for DeMint’s other figure, he uses the slippery word “likewise” to suggest that his next figure is a similar comparison. But what he is actually doing is plucking a 1965 figure — $500 million a year — and suggesting that was also a prediction for 1990. The quote — that Medicare Part B would require “federal appropriations of about $500 million a year from general tax revenues” — is not from a budget document but appears to come from an obscure and relatively minor New York Times article that appeared on March 11, 1965. But it was not a 50-year estimate, like the previous statistic.
Califano also mentions the $500 million number in his article. He says that this was the price of getting the Medicare bill out of the Senate Finance Committee — to “agree to pay hospitals on a cost-plus basis, and doctors’ fees that were ‘reasonable,’ ‘customary’ and ‘prevailing’ in their communities, thereby giving physicians the power to raise their own fees.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/21/jim-demints-claims-about-medicare-cost-estimates-from-1965/ -
Great, the SCOTUS also has said that slavery was legal and that it was okay to put American citizens into interment camps during WWII. Do you agree with the SCOTUS position on Citizen United Hondo? You're as stupid as your arguments.2001400ex said:
SCOTUS disagrees with you.SFGbob said:
We've already been over this. General Welfare were things like canals, roads and ports. Not grandma's hip replacement. Paying for someone's hip replacement isn't part of any "general" welfare. You think because they used the word "welfare" they were talking about Food stamps.2001400ex said:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;SFGbob said:
I do not believe that we constituted a Federal Government to pay for the certainties in life. You will get old, you will get sick and you will die. The Founders faced all of these same realities when they created our Constitution and there were no provisions for the Federal government to pay for grandma's hip replacement today and or leeches and mercury enemas then.Squirt said:
Why not? Is it skepticism about costs and results? Or are there additional reasons (freedom of individual choice, concerns about government dictating care and behavior)? Some combination?SFGbob said:As do I. We'll just have to disagree on whether Medicaid and Medicare are the best systems to do that. Personally, I don't believe that the Federal government should have any involvement in healthcare.
-
Beyond the federalist argument, as I have argued ad nauseam elsewhere, the government is stupidly inefficient. Centrally planned, or socialist, markets time and again fail to deliver efficient results. They produce higher costs, poorer service, lower utility, and less access. They lead to all kinds of moral hazards, free riders, and perverse incentives. It's also a prime way to create incentives for corruption in government and rent seeking among many other pitfalls.Squirt said:
Why not? Is it skepticism about costs and results? Or are there additional reasons (freedom of individual choice, concerns about government dictating care and behavior)? Some combination?SFGbob said:As do I. We'll just have to disagree on whether Medicaid and Medicare are the best systems to do that. Personally, I don't believe that the Federal government should have any involvement in healthcare.
I just illustrated yesterday? how correlated rising healthcare costs(both public and private) are with the passage of medicaid, medicare, and government involvement in the market. It's called crowding out.
P.s. I am pretty sure that I can make arguments against every insurance program you cited and that many of the failings you most likely subscribe to the free market are actually stage 2 or higher economic effects of those very government programs. -
This is a more promising path for this thread than discussing Medicare while Hondo is interjecting.PurpleThrobber said:
Let's just hope #mycocks stay safe.
So:
-
I saw another post about you being in Construction. Hope you don't have a construction management degree and read my post on my opinion of thatUW_Doog_Bot said:
Beyond the federalist argument, as I have argued ad nauseam elsewhere, the government is stupidly inefficient. Centrally planned, or socialist, markets time and again fail to deliver efficient results. They produce higher costs, poorer service, lower utility, and less access. They lead to all kinds of moral hazards, free riders, and perverse incentives. It's also a prime way to create incentives for corruption in government and rent seeking among many other pitfalls.Squirt said:
Why not? Is it skepticism about costs and results? Or are there additional reasons (freedom of individual choice, concerns about government dictating care and behavior)? Some combination?SFGbob said:As do I. We'll just have to disagree on whether Medicaid and Medicare are the best systems to do that. Personally, I don't believe that the Federal government should have any involvement in healthcare.
I just illustrated yesterday? how correlated rising healthcare costs(both public and private) are with the passage of medicaid, medicare, and government involvement in the market. It's called crowding out.
P.s. I am pretty sure that I can make arguments against every insurance program you cited and that many of the failings you most likely subscribe to the free market are actually stage 2 or higher economic effects of those very government programs.
I'll be blacklisted from futures pods -
Citizens United was tried once.SFGbob said:
Great, the SCOTUS also has said that slavery was legal and that it was okay to put American citizens into interment camps during WWII. Do you agree with the SCOTUS position on Citizen United Hondo? You're as stupid as your arguments.2001400ex said:
SCOTUS disagrees with you.SFGbob said:
We've already been over this. General Welfare were things like canals, roads and ports. Not grandma's hip replacement. Paying for someone's hip replacement isn't part of any "general" welfare. You think because they used the word "welfare" they were talking about Food stamps.2001400ex said:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;SFGbob said:
I do not believe that we constituted a Federal Government to pay for the certainties in life. You will get old, you will get sick and you will die. The Founders faced all of these same realities when they created our Constitution and there were no provisions for the Federal government to pay for grandma's hip replacement today and or leeches and mercury enemas then.Squirt said:
Why not? Is it skepticism about costs and results? Or are there additional reasons (freedom of individual choice, concerns about government dictating care and behavior)? Some combination?SFGbob said:As do I. We'll just have to disagree on whether Medicaid and Medicare are the best systems to do that. Personally, I don't believe that the Federal government should have any involvement in healthcare.
Slavery....a SCOTUS decision was a catalyst for ending slavery.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
Internment camps....
The decision in Korematsu v. United States and the legal precedent it established have remained controversial.[2] Constitutional scholars like Bruce Fein and Noah Feldman have compared Korematsu to Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson, respectively, in arguing it has become an example of Richard Primus's "Anti-Canon",[6] a term for those cases which are so flawed that they are now taken as exemplars of bad legal decision making.[7][8] The decision has been described as "an odious and discredited artifact of popular bigotry"[7] and as "a stain on American jurisprudence".[9]
All that being said. The SCOTUS has upheld the welfare clause for 200 years. While those were one time decisions. And I think citizens United will be overturned at some point as well. -
Go ahead and find for me the 200 year old SC case that upholds your belief that "General Welfare" included paying for an individuals healthcare or retirement or housing. Hell find me a ruling prior to the 1930s that supports that belief. Now go run and hide dumbfuck.2001400ex said:
Citizens United was tried once.SFGbob said:
Great, the SCOTUS also has said that slavery was legal and that it was okay to put American citizens into interment camps during WWII. Do you agree with the SCOTUS position on Citizen United Hondo? You're as stupid as your arguments.2001400ex said:
SCOTUS disagrees with you.SFGbob said:
We've already been over this. General Welfare were things like canals, roads and ports. Not grandma's hip replacement. Paying for someone's hip replacement isn't part of any "general" welfare. You think because they used the word "welfare" they were talking about Food stamps.2001400ex said:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;SFGbob said:
I do not believe that we constituted a Federal Government to pay for the certainties in life. You will get old, you will get sick and you will die. The Founders faced all of these same realities when they created our Constitution and there were no provisions for the Federal government to pay for grandma's hip replacement today and or leeches and mercury enemas then.Squirt said:
Why not? Is it skepticism about costs and results? Or are there additional reasons (freedom of individual choice, concerns about government dictating care and behavior)? Some combination?SFGbob said:As do I. We'll just have to disagree on whether Medicaid and Medicare are the best systems to do that. Personally, I don't believe that the Federal government should have any involvement in healthcare.
Slavery....a SCOTUS decision was a catalyst for ending slavery.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
Internment camps....
The decision in Korematsu v. United States and the legal precedent it established have remained controversial.[2] Constitutional scholars like Bruce Fein and Noah Feldman have compared Korematsu to Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson, respectively, in arguing it has become an example of Richard Primus's "Anti-Canon",[6] a term for those cases which are so flawed that they are now taken as exemplars of bad legal decision making.[7][8] The decision has been described as "an odious and discredited artifact of popular bigotry"[7] and as "a stain on American jurisprudence".[9]
All that being said. The SCOTUS has upheld the welfare clause for 200 years. While those were one time decisions. And I think citizens United will be overturned at some point as well. -
Ok. For 80 plus years. (I'm not going to research it. For 80 plus years my point still stands. )SFGbob said:
Go ahead and find for me the 200 year old SC case that upholds your belief that "General Welfare" included paying for an individuals healthcare or retirement or housing. Hell find me a ruling prior to the 1930s that supports that belief. Now go run and hide dumbfuck.2001400ex said:
Citizens United was tried once.SFGbob said:
Great, the SCOTUS also has said that slavery was legal and that it was okay to put American citizens into interment camps during WWII. Do you agree with the SCOTUS position on Citizen United Hondo? You're as stupid as your arguments.2001400ex said:
SCOTUS disagrees with you.SFGbob said:
We've already been over this. General Welfare were things like canals, roads and ports. Not grandma's hip replacement. Paying for someone's hip replacement isn't part of any "general" welfare. You think because they used the word "welfare" they were talking about Food stamps.2001400ex said:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;SFGbob said:
I do not believe that we constituted a Federal Government to pay for the certainties in life. You will get old, you will get sick and you will die. The Founders faced all of these same realities when they created our Constitution and there were no provisions for the Federal government to pay for grandma's hip replacement today and or leeches and mercury enemas then.Squirt said:
Why not? Is it skepticism about costs and results? Or are there additional reasons (freedom of individual choice, concerns about government dictating care and behavior)? Some combination?SFGbob said:As do I. We'll just have to disagree on whether Medicaid and Medicare are the best systems to do that. Personally, I don't believe that the Federal government should have any involvement in healthcare.
Slavery....a SCOTUS decision was a catalyst for ending slavery.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
Internment camps....
The decision in Korematsu v. United States and the legal precedent it established have remained controversial.[2] Constitutional scholars like Bruce Fein and Noah Feldman have compared Korematsu to Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson, respectively, in arguing it has become an example of Richard Primus's "Anti-Canon",[6] a term for those cases which are so flawed that they are now taken as exemplars of bad legal decision making.[7][8] The decision has been described as "an odious and discredited artifact of popular bigotry"[7] and as "a stain on American jurisprudence".[9]
All that being said. The SCOTUS has upheld the welfare clause for 200 years. While those were one time decisions. And I think citizens United will be overturned at some point as well. -
The Hondo method.
Talk out you ass, get called on it, back track, and now the strawman ass fuck is coming. Your "point" was that your interpretation of the meaning of "General Welfare" had been upheld by the SC since our founding.
You lied Kunt. -
My point was one time decisions versus a long standing history of multiple decisions. A point you can't fathom because it doesn't follow your narrative.SFGbob said:The Hondo method.
Talk out you ass, get called on it, back track, and now the strawman ass fuck is coming. Your "point" was that your interpretation of the meaning of "General Welfare" had been upheld by the SC since our founding.
You lied Kunt.
