Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And when did anybody cut Social Security recently? Or Medicaid? Did I miss something?

I know several states, including Texas, refused to accept increased Obamacare Medicaid funds because they did not want to be beholden to the feds. I do not remember a decrease in reimbursement.

And may I ask which charities you support with money and/or time?

I love Compassion International. With your passion for the poor it should be right up your alley.

And your skeptical attitude about private charities is well founded. As is my suspicion of government programs.

---

17% of Texas residents have no health insurance. The highest rate in the country. You should know how much of a problem that is.

---

Is health insurance a financial instrument or healthcare?

---

In the United States it is the prerequisite for access to regular and reliable healthcare.

---

As I recall it, the second Bush Admin started a massive clinic building program that Obama promptly cut off when he reached office. There were and remain various ways to get drug prices reduced but there has been a recurring problem with drug prices being manipulated upward by sellers and downward by countries rather than true market value being applied. Social Security has programs that provide for the poor and disabled but there is a tendency for providers to claim Social Security does not pay enough which results in an unwillingness to treat some and also an unfortunate tendency for extra billing outside of coverage.
Yes, it is tough if one is poor, but if new drugs are to be researched it really helps if the researcher can expect to get rewarded rather than shoved aside.
In Texas, the indigent have traditionally been served by going to the emergency room at the local county hospital. I'm not sure how that works under ObamaCare and practically unlimited immigration.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Beyond the problems with claiming the free market would solve drug prices (just look at what happened to insulin prices, hardly a novel drug), this:

Quote:

---

In Texas, the indigent have traditionally been served by going to the emergency room at the local county hospital

---

is not actually an example of good a healthcare system. It costs far, far more for us and for hospitals, people wind up going bankrupt (assuming they have anything), and it means people don't get seen for manageable problems until they reach crisis levels.

---

How can they go bankrupt if they are indigent already?
Yeah, the emergency rooms send out bills but that is so they can take tax deductions, rather than an expectation of payment.

Yes, some folks will never pay (and that debt can often follow them if they do try to improve their financial situation), but that's a small part of the overall point I was making.

Take it from a guy who once had to file bankruptcy, it is not hard to get out of a bad credit rating. If you just pay your bills for about two years, you will be getting new credit card offers.
What I hated was paying 10% interest on a mortgage for 15 yrs before I was able to pay it off. I have not had a loan or credit card in 30 yrs - but I understand well how hard it is to not have money for a candy bar when people all around you are blowing gobs of money.

Republicans do have an alternative - its free clinics.
Sorry, but the insurance companies bought and paid for Obamacare.
So, it is not a surprise insurance coverage went up as its main feature.

That's not what those show. Nice try.

And Texas AG Paxton's office at least slows Biden's misuse of ObamaCare...
https://texasscorecard.com/federal/biden-harris-administration-blocked-from-forcing-hospitals-to-conduct-gender-mutilation-surgeries/

Rongagin71 said:

---

Republicans do have an alternative - its free clinics.
Sorry, but the insurance companies bought and paid for Obamacare.
So, it is not a surprise insurance coverage went up as its main feature.

---

Free clinics have been around for decades. They don't meet the need and require substantial monetary support to be able to function.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Quote:

---

I could write a book on this

---

This guy Karl beat you to the punch. You should read it sometime.

---

again, when you have absolutely nothing, you go back to these dumb scaremongering tactics.

dermdoc said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Who pays for paid parental leave?

---

Just so you know, in 2023, Texas had a $32 billion budget surplus. The state could have easily used that money to fund school lunches, teacher pay raises, broadband infrastructure, rural healthcare, the foster system, and/or parental leave.

We have the money to invest in the public good. We just actively choose to not use it.

Several states and most developed countries have paid parental leave. It's worked out well and reflects the state's values, which are encouraging child rearing and valuing time spent with young children during the early years. In other words, it is a public good worth investing in.

When I hear conservatives condemn this as evil socialism, I can only conclude one thing: conservative states (and the USA as a whole, which is a very right wing country) do not value child rearing and spending time with children. Why? Because there's no money in it. No money to be made from parents taking time off to spend with their kids. On the contrary, it requires investment. The only thing we value is capital. If you go bankrupt from your hospital bill from giving birth and then not being able to provide for your child while taking unpaid leave, then you deserve to starve. That's the message our current system sends.

Of course, wealthy people don't have this problem so it's not seen as an issue

---

Texas has a free school lunch program.

https://everytexan.org/our-work/policy-areas/food-security/school-meals/national-school-lunch-program/

And please, lose the drama. No Texas mothers are starving to death from what you mentioned. It would be all over the news.

Zobel was right. This is not a serious discusssion.

Shalom.

---

it's worth noting that's a national program, and there's also a national program for summer lunches for low income families that Texas turned down this year. But it's still a positive thing in general. My question to you (and others) is whether you see this as a good thing, or if you oppose it. Because it is a social program.

I'm sorry that I'm challenging your views and being harsh about it. But I think your views really deserve some intense and harsh criticism because I believe them to be fundamentally wrong. If you think that means it's not a "serious discussion" then fine.

The point of my example was to show what we as a country value. The point of a social safety net is what exactly? To make sure people survive when faced with extremely difficult times. Yes, to make sure parents and kids don't starve in the event of job loss, unexpected medical emergency, or any other type of emergency. It's a good thing.

So if we take a poor single mom who gives birth, and then gets slapped with a $15k bill for giving birth (and she's otherwise ineligible for medicaid), and then has to go back to work immediately because she's in major financial stress, and can't find child care for her baby because it's too expensive, I look at all this and say it's unacceptable in the richest country on earth. We should be doing everything we can to make sure this mother is unburdened by medical expenses and has access to either parental leave or childcare during this time.

I take issue with people who dismiss her as "lazy" and "entitled," which is a trope I've heard too many times to count.

some people will nod and agree with me and say we can do better. others throw a hissy fit and call me a communist.

barbacoa taco said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

barbacoa taco said:

---

Zobel said:

---

Who pays for paid parental leave?

---

Just so you know, in 2023, Texas had a $32 billion budget surplus. The state could have easily used that money to fund school lunches, teacher pay raises, broadband infrastructure, rural healthcare, the foster system, and/or parental leave.

We have the money to invest in the public good. We just actively choose to not use it.

Several states and most developed countries have paid parental leave. It's worked out well and reflects the state's values, which are encouraging child rearing and valuing time spent with young children during the early years. In other words, it is a public good worth investing in.

When I hear conservatives condemn this as evil socialism, I can only conclude one thing: conservative states (and the USA as a whole, which is a very right wing country) do not value child rearing and spending time with children. Why? Because there's no money in it. No money to be made from parents taking time off to spend with their kids. On the contrary, it requires investment. The only thing we value is capital. If you go bankrupt from your hospital bill from giving birth and then not being able to provide for your child while taking unpaid leave, then you deserve to starve. That's the message our current system sends.

Of course, wealthy people don't have this problem so it's not seen as an issue

---

Texas has a free school lunch program.

https://everytexan.org/our-work/policy-areas/food-security/school-meals/national-school-lunch-program/

And please, lose the drama. No Texas mothers are starving to death from what you mentioned. It would be all over the news.

Zobel was right. This is not a serious discusssion.

Shalom.

---

it's worth noting that's a national program, and there's also a national program for summer lunches for low income families that Texas turned down this year. But it's still a positive thing in general. My question to you (and others) is whether you see this as a good thing, or if you oppose it. Because it is a social program.

I'm sorry that I'm challenging your views and being harsh about it. But I think your views really deserve some intense and harsh criticism because I believe them to be fundamentally wrong. If you think that means it's not a "serious discussion" then fine.

The point of my example was to show what we as a country value. The point of a social safety net is what exactly? To make sure people survive when faced with extremely difficult times. Yes, to make sure parents and kids don't starve in the event of job loss, unexpected medical emergency, or any other type of emergency. It's a good thing.

So if we take a poor single mom who gives birth, and then gets slapped with a $15k bill for giving birth (and she's otherwise ineligible for medicaid), and then has to go back to work immediately because she's in major financial stress, and can't find child care for her baby because it's too expensive, I look at all this and say it's unacceptable in the richest country on earth. We should be doing everything we can to make sure this mother is unburdened by medical expenses and has access to either parental leave or childcare during this time.

I take issue with people who dismiss her as "lazy" and "entitled," which is a trope I've heard too many times to count.

some people will nod and agree with me and say we can do better. others throw a hissy fit and call me a communist.

---

So what charities do you support with YOUR time and money?

Zobel said:

---

there's a big gap between agreeing with you and throwing a hissy fit. the reason people say it's not a serious discussion is precisely because you frame things in those terms while mostly engaging in emotional arguments yourself.

you have a naive approach to this which underlies why you come up with the conclusions you do. i see these issues:

- you don't seem to grasp that money, capital, is a finite resource. allocating it is a zero sum game between mutually exclusive options.
- this allocation is an exercise in choice
- this choice defaults to the individuals who own that capital
- the state may forcibly concentrate and direct capital through the use of taxation and the implied police power

- similarly, you don't seem to understand that the state also concentrates decisions
- these decisions are ostensibly concentrated by the will of the people, for the good of the whole
- in a democratic society (republic or otherwise) these decisions are made on a majority basis
- therefore at a first-pass analysis whatever the state does at least on paper is de facto the will of the people

we have to combine these two things - they are tied together. You may disagree with the will of the people, but you absolutely cannot argue the good over and against the will, unless you also add to it that people do not know the good.

do you see the problem? either people are free, and they can make good decisions... and the state is one avenue for those decisions... or people can't make good decisions, and therefore they should not be free to make those decisions, and the state becomes an arbiter of good in a parental action on their behalf.

in other words, in a democratic society, if the state does not forcibly concentrate money, taking it from people, and then reallocate it to other people, this means that the people do not think it is a good thing to do so.

---

Well stated. And from my reading, there is only one poster acting very emotional and capable of throwing a "hissy fit".

I will have to say I got a good laugh out of reading that term, so thanks.

Quote:

---

So what charities do you support with YOUR time and money?

---

exactly. this is the next question.

if a person truly believes something is good to do, it is reasonable to expect that before asking others to contribute to the cause financially, they would do it first. otherwise you run into the worst kind of hypocrisy.

there are many nonprofit organizations in Texas alone that support financial and medical assistance to low income people directly or to hospitals. barbcoa, which of these do you support?

if you don't think its good to support them, how can you suggest that anyone else should be forced to do it via the police power? especially when - due to the democratic nature of our society - the majority of people don't think that's the best use of their money?

I do understand that money is a finite resource, and your suggestion otherwise is an insult to my intelligence. I've never said anything of the sort and have not advocated for just printing more money to solve inequality.

but if we want to simplify this issue as much as possible, it's this way.

We can take the Reagan-esque conservative approach of cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans, and to a lesser degree cutting taxes of the middle class, cut spending on social programs, and justify it all invoking "freedom" and saying by cutting taxes of those at the top, the wealth will trickle down to the rest of us.

Turns out, when you cut taxes for those at the top (and have a system that allows them to pay even less by avoiding taxes), they mostly just hoard their money, buy themselves more houses and toys, cut their employees' pay and benefits, bust unions, and fund politicians that cut social programs and push policies that benefit them the most.

and my approach is: go back to higher marginal tax rates for the highest income earners, because I won't lose a wink of sleep if a billionaire has his income over $100 million taxed at a higher rate, prioritize spending and programs that actually do help Americans, don't dismiss all of them as lazy and entitled welfare queens, and stop spending money on useless crap like fighting dumb wars overseas, meddling in foreign affairs, and bailing out banks that crashed as a result of misbehavior and criminal activity, all driven by greed.

it really does puzzle me why any working class American would ever vote republican. Take a construction worker from a red state who gets paid peanuts, has no benefits or healthcare, boss won't let him take water breaks as needed (and Texas made it illegal for counties to mandate that). Trump or other GOP politician comes to town and says "I will fight for you" and then continues to support policies that keep in place the status quo. makes no sense to me. I guess that's why culture war issues are a thing.

I have done compassion international in the past, through the church I went to growing up, until my kid aged out of it.

I've served in and donated to local food banks.

and lately I've donated to aids for Palestinian refugees.

I know this was a gotcha attempt by you, but I do value charity and certainly think I should dedicate more of my time and money to it. But that doesn't exactly mean what I've been discussing with you is meaningless.

one of my favorite quotes from one of my favorite authors - "There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him."

and from the same book - "There must be a yearning deep in the human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws -- always for the other fellow."


You don't see barbacoa saying - a social safety net is a good thing, and I am too selfish and lazy to reliably contribute to charities on my own, so we need to tax people including me to force them to contribute for the public good.

dermdoc said:

---

Zobel said:

---

there's a big gap between agreeing with you and throwing a hissy fit. the reason people say it's not a serious discussion is precisely because you frame things in those terms while mostly engaging in emotional arguments yourself.

you have a naive approach to this which underlies why you come up with the conclusions you do. i see these issues:

- you don't seem to grasp that money, capital, is a finite resource. allocating it is a zero sum game between mutually exclusive options.
- this allocation is an exercise in choice
- this choice defaults to the individuals who own that capital
- the state may forcibly concentrate and direct capital through the use of taxation and the implied police power

- similarly, you don't seem to understand that the state also concentrates decisions
- these decisions are ostensibly concentrated by the will of the people, for the good of the whole
- in a democratic society (republic or otherwise) these decisions are made on a majority basis
- therefore at a first-pass analysis whatever the state does at least on paper is de facto the will of the people

we have to combine these two things - they are tied together. You may disagree with the will of the people, but you absolutely cannot argue the good over and against the will, unless you also add to it that people do not know the good.

do you see the problem? either people are free, and they can make good decisions... and the state is one avenue for those decisions... or people can't make good decisions, and therefore they should not be free to make those decisions, and the state becomes an arbiter of good in a parental action on their behalf.

in other words, in a democratic society, if the state does not forcibly concentrate money, taking it from people, and then reallocate it to other people, this means that the people do not think it is a good thing to do so.

---

Well stated. And from my reading, there is only one poster acting very emotional and capable of throwing a "hissy fit".

I will have to say I got a good laugh out of reading that term, so thanks.

---

you may find all of these things funny and make fun of people who care about these issues. I personally think it's beneath you to act like this, because I do give you the benefit of the doubt and think you at least have some principles, unlike most of the posters on F16.

what's the quote again? Something like "if I give the homeless a meal I am called a saint. If I ask why there are homeless people I'm called a communist."

Zobel said:

---

one of my favorite quotes from one of my favorite authors - "There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him."

and from the same book - "There must be a yearning deep in the human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws -- always for the other fellow."


You don't see barbacoa saying - a social safety net is a good thing, and I am too selfish and lazy to reliably contribute to charities on my own, so we need to tax people including me to force them to contribute for the public good.

---

I can donate to charities and I do, but obviously that's not going to solve this societal problem, is it?

We already have socialism for a lot of things and most people are fine with it. What I'm advocating for is not a classless society, but spending the money we do have on things that actually matter.

the trump tax cuts raised the threshold for the top income bracket and slashed the rate by 2.6%. if I simply say I want that to expire and to go back to where we were, because the tax cuts led to an increased deficit, I'm not forcing anyone to do anything.

because charities are a good thing but they still are very limited on what they can do. I can't afford to alleviate someone's medical debt. That's something that requires federal legislation. and you know this.

this whole back and forth about "freedom" is so silly to me. It's a buzzword. The same conservatives and libertarians who say it all the time don't seem to consider that the bottom 50% doesn't feel very free in this country. When you make low wages, have no benefits, can't ever afford to go on vacation, and consistently have things taken away from you by those at the top, life doesn't feel very free.

And it's really stupid when people say taxation is an infringement on freedom. Taxation is an enumerated power in the constitution. How much we are taxed is something that will be debated until the end of time.

I don't think I'll ever be convinced that a marginal tax rate of, say 50% on incomes over $1 million, is a violation of personal freedom.

barbacoa taco said:

---

this whole back and forth about "freedom" is so silly to me. It's a buzzword. The same conservatives and libertarians who say it all the time don't seem to consider that the bottom 50% doesn't feel very free in this country. When you make low wages, have no benefits, can't ever afford to go on vacation, and consistently have things taken away from you by those at the top, life doesn't feel very free.

And it's really stupid when people say taxation is an infringement on freedom. Taxation is an enumerated power in the constitution. How much we are taxed is something that will be debated until the end of time.

I don't think I'll ever be convinced that a marginal tax rate of, say 50% on incomes over $1 million, is a violation of personal freedom.

---

The top 50% of income earners/wealthy pay 97% of federal income taxes. If you are poor, then you are eligible for an astonishing array of benefits:
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP): Also known as food stamps, SNAP provides a benefits card that can be used to purchase food at participating grocery stores and farmers markets

Supplemental Security Income (SSI): A program that provides monthly benefits to people with low income and resources who are blind, 65 or older, or have a qualifying disability

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): A cash assistance program

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC): A cash assistance program

Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP): Provides no-cost internet

Housing assistance: Includes subsidized housing, housing vouchers, and public housing programs

Health insurance: Includes Medicaid and the Child's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)

Head Start: A program for low-income families

Federal Pell Grant Program: A program for low-income families
https://www.usa.gov/benefits