Frank J. Fleming:
Now conservatives have more reason to be angry these days, with liberals in charge and all the spending and government takeovers. But with Democrats having complete control of the government, you’d think liberals could be dismissive of
conservatives and be calm themselves. But no, they’re still crazy angry. Maybe even angrier than before. Biting-fingers-off angry. They’re screeching about how all the people opposed to Obama are racists and neo-Nazis and stupid, and they’re using sexual slurs against protesters and boycotting everyone who disagrees with them. They’re still nuts, but why?
See things from their point of view. The most fundamental principle liberals have is that they are all very, very smart, and everyone should listen to them. Nothing angers them more than something that challenges them to reexamine that core tenet. And that’s why they were so delighted by the election of President Obama and further wins in the House and Senate. For a moment they thought the American people had recognized liberals as their superiors and said to them: “Please! Smart people! Lead us and tell us what to do!”
Ann Althouse, quoting the Washington Post on the Baucus proposal, with Ann's comments italicized:
Drafting young adults into any health-care reform package is crucial to paying for it. As low-cost additions to insurance pools, young adults would help dilute the expense of covering older, sicker people. Depending on how Congress requires insurers to price their policies, this group could even wind up paying disproportionately hefty premiums — effectively subsidizing coverage for their parents...
An early draft of the proposal set the penalty at $750 or $950 per year for single people, depending on income. But according to various insurance experts, even the least expensive plan under the bill could cost more than $100 per month, making it cheaper for people to pay the fine than to buy insurance.
Yes, kids, why don't each of you throw about $800 into the pot and get nothing out of it, not even any insurance. Do your part. Remember what Obama said about being responsible:
Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those -- especially the young and the healthy -- who still want to take the risk and go without coverage... The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money.
Yeah, you little jerks. Step up and contribute.
Go ahead and start refutin'. And enjoy!
21 comments:
You mean it's like the Social Security I've been taxed for for 35 years and for which I will likely never see a dime?
It's an add-on, NW. Baucus also would be happy to talk to you about an extended warranty, if you're interested.
Fleming isn't writing anything that can be refuted. It's not an argument. It's just a series of insults (purposely misconstruing the liberal agenda, and even why liberals are liberals) designed to assuage conservative-leaning voters, and to cheerlead for ways to manipulate the emotions of the greater population in the next election.
As for the other, is there some kind of argument that people who don't seek preventative healthcare when they are younger DON'T end up costing more money down the road? At any rate, the "WaPo" article linked is a good read; it brings up important questions. I don't like the idea, either, of forcing people to pay, if they actively seek to NOT have coverage. But I disagree with nasty comments from blogging law professors that there is some implication of hatred from the administration toward this group.
Oh, NW, I think you'll get about a dime out of it--at least after the Fed makes today's dime worth a penny or less. :^)
And Amanda, what Althouse does there is an implied argument--your response is one as well. To flesh it out as a syllogism:
Paying for services not received is an unfair thing.
In the Baucus option, young people would be people who pay for services not received.
Hence, the Baucus option is an unfair thing.
Your response is essentially that they ARE receiving that care and "storing up health" for the future; you deny the second premiss.
However, they are not storing up health for the future; they are enjoying what God has given them and not using much medical care. Hence the liberal Althouse is correct, and it is unfair to young people.
Just like, for what it's worth, employer paid health insurance.
Bike Bubba,
I can't speak for Ann Althouse, but I am pretty certain she'd be surprised to find out that she is a liberal. Take a look at her blog. If she is a liberal, I am Che Guevarra;)
Regards,
Rich
Mark,
There really is nothing here to refute. Fleming writes a screed about "crazy angry" leftists and I am supposed to refute that? Sorry, not in the mood for tit-for-tat. There are a lot of crazies on the right and the left, and arguing over which side has more sounds about as futile as reading the Summa Thelogica in its original Latin form.
Regarding the Racism meme that has sprung up all over the place in the last few weeks, I will note two things: 1) Along with President Carter, Mount Rushbo and Michelle Malkin managed to put their feet in their mouths by incorrectly calling a non-racial incident a race based one. 2) The White House agrees with you and thinks that Carter was out of line. I am still waiting for retractions from all three (although Malkin may have admitted she jumped the gun).
Lastly, regarding Althouse's comments, I do think that making folks pay for something they can't receive is morally wrong. At the same time, something should be done about young adults who are working, can afford insurance, and don't take it. They are taking a gamble that they won't need the insurance, and would rather have the money. But they also know that it's everyones money that they are gambling with, since they will be treated for any serious illness or injury. 18 to 30 year olds are not exactly the best long range planners. Most don't own tangible assets that they can lose to bankruptcy, and their primary concern is what they are doing this weekend, and how can they afford a new iphone. (This is not a criticism...I am jealous.) So they have to be incentivized in some manner to help to pay for health insurance. So I agree that this part of Bauscus' package needs to be re-done, and my hope is that it was placed there as a place-holder to be re-worked in reconciliation. So if someone's got a better idea, and I am sure someone does, let's hear it. But one way or another, we all need to spread the risk and help to pay for healthcare.
Regards,
Rich
Night Writer,
I am 45. If I live to see 65, and I have no reason to believe I won't, I am quite certain that I will receive the Social Security that is coming to me. In fact, I am so certain of it that I am willing to wager my current projected first years Soc Sec payments. So if you are up for a long term wager, let me know.
Regards,
Rich
Amanda and Rich,
Fair enough on Fleming. Just thought I'd see how you (and any other portsider so inclined) might react.
On SS, here's what I wonder, Rich. Yeah, you might get the money you paid in, but will it be worth anything? If we get hyperinflation in the next few years (a distinct possibility), the current promised benefits won't get you too far. And I think there's reason to be worried that future generations may want to renege, in whole and in part, on an agreement that they were never party to in the first place. Social Security has always been a Ponzi scheme and most members of our generation (and those who have followed) have not produced enough children to keep it going. If I remember correctly, you've done your part, though. :)
Mark,
I don't mean to completely dismiss your inflation concerns. I just want to temper them a bit.
In the past century, we (the U.S.) has had one sustained bout withserious inflation. It was when we were kids, in the seventies. I would hope that with a record like that, we would have a little more faith in our central bankers. Their track record is pretty solid, and they usually act pretty responsibly. There timing may be off at times, but they have shown that they know how and when to correct, in spite of pain.
Also, healthy and mature industrial economies are not that prone to inflationary spirals. History has shown this.
In spite of this, the other shoe is always about to drop. We are always about to do a repeat of the early to mid seventies. So last year, when energy spiked, we were inundated with stagflation warnings. Today, natural gas is at its lowest price in a century, oil is behaving, and coal is dirt cheap. We were being warned about the possibility of deflation a few months ago. So i take the inflation hawks with a grain of salt. We are always on the verge, the sky is always falling, etc. You yourself made a wager that gasoline would drop precipitously last year, and you were dead on.
Rich
Rich,
I want to be wrong about inflation. Oh my, I want to be wrong. There are flashing warning lights all over the economy right now. We'll see what happens. I suspect it's going to get ugly about 12-18 months from now.
All I can say regarding inflation fears is Weimar Republic Baby. The government unlike those of us in the private sector has the ability to print money. Hyper inflation is most definitely a realistic fear, and out of control government spending will ultimately lead to this. Rich, please tell mw how this will not happen as you seem to know everything and are an apologist for everything democratic. How can we keep spending more than we make over the long haul? Tell me please so you can allay my fears that both of our lives savings will be laid to waste.
Anon,
I am an apologist for everything Democratic? Please validate that. In this thread, I implied that Jimmy Carter was out of line, and I noted that both the right and left has their fair share of crazies. And if you meant to imply that government overspending is a democratic issues, you must have been asleep for the last 8 years. So please explain how that makes me an apologist for everything democratic.
And why are you always flaming me. That crack about knowing everything...what's up with that. I know very little. But I do like history an awful lot, and try to read as much of it as I can. But where have I claimed to know everything? Most of the people on here are a lot smarter than me, and that is why I read this blog. So I can learn something. Let's take the statement I made to Mark about tempering his concern about inflation. Do you know what tempering means? I didn't dismiss his claim. I noted that, in my opinion, folks tend to get too worked up about inflationary fears, and backed that claim up with a little history. Can you refute one single point that I made in regards to inflation? The Weimar Republic doesn't apply. It was anything but a healthy and mature industrial economy.
Lastly, I have never said that we can keep spending more than we make over the long haul. That was Dick "Deficits Don't Matter" Cheney. But our economy is strong and resilient, and is performing incredibly well considering where we were a year ago today. People are behaving as they should. Our collective savings rate is up dramatically. (It was actually negative 1 year ago), inflation is down dramatically, inventories are depleted, the flow of cheap, revolving credit has been staunched, and the amount of personal credit is shrinking at a slow but steady pace. The government is actually using the money that is alloted for stimulus sparingly, and has spent less than 20% of it to date, and almost no one is talking about a second stimulus plan. The CBO and OMB are projecting that the US economy will be humming along at 4 to 4.5% growth by the end of 2010. All of that in spite of the fact that we seem to have dodged the .44 magnum bullet that got fired at our collective economic heads last year. And I think we can thank Barack Obama and George W Bush for that. They put their necks out and did politically unpopular thing by passing the bailout and the stimulus bills. Because they believed that they had to.
Regards,
Rich
You personally defend yourself, but you don't answer the question. You can try to blame the deficit on Cheney. I'd ask him the same question: How can we keep spending more than we make without having major implications. You can transfer some blame to the Republicans, but in the end, Deficit spending is up substantially, and health care and other programs potentially increase the deficits.
Insults aside, what is your theory on the answer. I don't want blaming, I want an answer. Can anybody answer? This is essentially the core issue of why many people oppose many of the actions of the current administration. It's not racism, it's concern for all that we hold dear in the long term.
Rich,
Two things:
1) I believe, based on what the Sitemeter tells me, that I have more than one anonymous commenter who has engaged you on the blog over the past few months.
2) The anonymous commenter does make a very valid point -- while there's no disputing that Bush and Cheney were often pretty profligate, the scope of deficit spending under the new administration has increased exponentially. And while you are quite justified in hammering Bush and Cheney for being spendthrifts, Obama is worse. And given what he wants to do, it's going to be a big problem.
Folks,
your contention that:
"the scope of deficit spending under the new administration has increased exponentially. And while you are quite justified in hammering Bush and Cheney for being spendthrifts, Obama is worse."
is utter nonsense. Please review the Congressional Budget Office projections of the budget deficit for 2009-12, Obama’s current term, and explain to me how you can say that with a straight face. Remember too, that Obama walked into a total crap storm that required some serious short term stimulus.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/06/09/business/economy/20090610-leonhardt-graphic.html
Rich
Rich,
Here's one reason:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/17/AR2009091704594.html
Reinflating the housing bubble with FHA money? Brilliant!
In regards to SocSec, although we constantly hear the drumbeat about how the system is on the brink of disaster, in actuality, it isn't in nearly so bad a shape as conventional wisdom imagines. The current funds from our payroll taxes will cover payments until 2016. That number gets thrown around a lot because it sounds so dire. After 2016, the SSA will be able to cover benefits until 2037 by cashing in SocSec trust fund bonds, even if no other changes are made to the current program. And once the bonds run out, payroll taxes at current levels will cover 75% of payments for decades. At that point, we should be through the demographic bubble that is the Baby Boom.
I am not saying that this is ideal. I am saying that it is not nearly so bad as many people think. And remember, those numbers are if we do nothing, which, given the way both sides demagogue this issue, is a very realistic scenario. It's not great, but it's also not the Apocalypse.
Rich
In regards to why I am not as concerned about the deficit, and why I agree with Dick Cheney (to some extent). We are currently expected to grow the deficit to about 4% of GDP over the next 10 to 15 years, before it starts to contract. A budget deficit of 4% of GDP is not something to be elated about, but it's also not something that will necessarily cripple a large and robust economy like ours. The reason it doesn't is that inflation and economic growth place downward pressure on the value of debt. I would have to go back and read Laffer, but I believe the widely accepted premise is that if the deficit is less than inflation + GDP growth, we should be OK. Take that information with all of the very solid economic news that I cite above, and the information I cited about the actual shape of SocSec. Couple those with my faith in the American work ethic and our ability to meet and consistently overcome challenges, and that is why I am pretty upbeat about America's future.
Regards,
Rich
Rich,
I'd also have more confidence in where we're headed if Obama would abandon things like this:
http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE58H0HO20090918
The good news is that cap-and-trade is probably DOA.
Actually I thought that Cap & Trade was how he was going to reduce the deficit. Increased taxes, print up money, increase goverment's piece of the overall pie.
Rich actually agrees with Cheney on something. Mark it down. Seriously thank you for the response. I don't personally beleive that Obama's intentions are pure, and I really wonder about your analysis of Social Security, but I do appreciate that you back up assetions with something.
Anon,
Here's an article that pretty much backs up what I said about SocSec.
http://www.fool.com/personal-finance/retirement/2005/02/03/7-social-security-myths.aspx
Like the picture I painted, it's not that the fund is in great shape. It's just not in nearly as bas a shape as most would have us believe. And by saying that, I am not saying that we shouldn't do anything, I hope someone has the will and moxey to step up to the plate and get this done, but watching the reaction of seniors to small changes in Medicare doesn't make me think that is gonna happen.
Regards,
Rich
Post a Comment