The Republican Thread

[Jenksismyhero]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report...ars_764582.html

 

New research from the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee shows that over the last 5 years, the U.S. has spent about $3.7 trillion on welfare. Here's a chart, showing that spending versus transportation, education, and NASA spending:

 

 

 

"We have just concluded the 5th fiscal year since President Obama took office. During those five years, the federal government has spent a total $3.7 trillion on approximately 80 different means-tested poverty and welfare programs. The common feature of means-tested assistance programs is that they are graduated based on a person’s income and, in contrast to programs like Social Security or Medicare, they are a free benefit and not paid into by the recipient," says the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee.

 

"The enormous sum spent on means-tested assistance is nearly five times greater than the combined amount spent on NASA, education, and all federal transportation projects over that time. ($3.7 trillion is not even the entire amount spent on federal poverty support, as states contribute more than $200 billion each year to this federal nexus—primarily in the form of free low-income health care.)

 

"Because the welfare budget is so fragmented—food stamps are only one of 15 federal programs that provide food assistance—it makes effective oversight nearly impossible, at the same time disguising the scope of the budget from both taxpayers and lawmakers alike. For instance, it is easier for anti-reform lawmakers to oppose food stamp savings by obscuring the fact that a household receiving food stamps is often simultaneously eligible for a myriad of federal aid programs including free cash assistance, subsidized housing, free medical care, free child care, and home energy assistance.

 

"In the UK, six of the nation’s welfare programs have been consolidated into a single credit and total benefits have been capped at £26,000 (about $42,100 per family) in an effort to both improve standards and decrease net expenditures. A similar reform concept in the United States—combining welfare spending into a single credit—would still result in a surprisingly large welfare benefit while reducing expenditures and allowing for reforms that encourage self-sufficiency. For instance, a CATO study found that an average household in the District of Columbia currently receiving the six largest federal welfare benefits (Medicaid, TANF, SNAP, etc.) receives assistance with a converted cash value of $43,000. In Hawaii, it’s $49,000. Hypothetically, if net benefits from these myriad programs were combined into a single credit and capped at even 95 percent of that very large amount, it would save taxpayers billions while enabling reforms to promote self-sufficiency, reduce the penalty for working, and make the system fairer for taxpayers."

Edited October 23, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[pettie4sox]

That is a lot of cheddar.

[Balta1701]

The obvious trick there is that they're not enumerating the programs they're counting. Clearly they're including Medicaid in that number since they use the phrase "means-tested", but if they wanted to write an honest article, they'd include the list of 15 programs they counted in it. When they don't do that, there's probably a reason.

[StrangeSox]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/

 

 

if they wanted to write an honest article

 

I think I spotted the problem!

Edited October 23, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Jake]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/report...ars_764582.html

 

Just shows you that we aren't spending nearly enough on education and research.

[Jenksismyhero]

The obvious trick there is that they're not enumerating the programs they're counting. Clearly they're including Medicaid in that number since they use the phrase "means-tested", but if they wanted to write an honest article, they'd include the list of 15 programs they counted in it. When they don't do that, there's probably a reason.

 

I figured you'd go for the "it's just a big number to scare you!" response.

 

And include Medicaid all you want, that's a gigantic f***ing number. Goes along with the 90 MILLION able bodied people in this country not working right now. So glad we got an extra 5 people insured in ObamaCare before focusing on that number.

[StrangeSox]

Goes along with the 90 MILLION able bodied people in this country not working right now.

 

CCC and WPA!

[Jake]

Shame on the government for trying to make sure everyone can have medical care. How is it that giving people the opportunity to literally be alive is somehow subordinate to "jobs legislation"? I put jobs legislation in quotes since the government has to do things that Republicans don't like in order to create jobs and is thus just a straw man for Republicans to talk about anyway

Edited October 23, 2013 by Jake

[Balta1701]

Shame on the government for trying to make sure everyone can have medical care. How is it that giving people the opportunity to literally be alive is somehow subordinate to "jobs legislation"? I put jobs legislation in quotes since the government has to do things that Republicans don't like in order to create jobs

Sick people should work harder.

[Jenksismyhero]

CCC and WPA!

 

Hey i've advocated that in the past. If you're getting some kind of federal aid and are able to work, get to work. Half of Detroit (and other major cities) could use some cleaning up.

[Jenksismyhero]

Shame on the government for trying to make sure everyone can have medical care. How is it that giving people the opportunity to literally be alive is somehow subordinate to "jobs legislation"? I put jobs legislation in quotes since the government has to do things that Republicans don't like in order to create jobs and is thus just a straw man for Republicans to talk about anyway

 

Yeah, shame on the government for passing a bill that took 4 years to be implemented (and still doesn't work) while people still aren't working and there's very little hope in the near future that they will be working.

 

I would have much preferred a massive job spending/tax saving plan than a broken healthcare plan that didn't help anyone for years and years, and will still cost us money in the long run despite its alleged savings.

Edited October 23, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

I would have much preferred a massive job spending/tax saving plan

 

The ARRA was passed a full year before the PPACA. Obama has since proposed additional jobs plans, but they have gone nowhere in the House. I suppose you could argue that the 2010 Republican wave would never have happened if the Democrats hadn't achieved the signature policy piece they've been perusing for decades and therefore they could have held Congress and passed additional jobs plans, but I'm skeptical given how much the ARRA had to be cut down and loaded with tax cuts to pass even when Democrats held both houses and the Presidency in the worst period of the recession.

[StrangeSox]

Yeah, shame on the government for passing a bill that took 4 years to be implemented (and still doesn't work)

 

The exchanges are one portion that is not working very well (at the federal level, I think most of the states that designed their own are doing okay). Many other parts have been implemented for a while (pre-existing conditions, coverage until 26, abolition of lifetime caps, Medicaid expansion) and are working fine.

[Jenksismyhero]

The ARRA was passed a full year before the PPACA. Obama has since proposed additional jobs plans, but they have gone nowhere in the House. I suppose you could argue that the 2010 Republican wave would never have happened if the Democrats hadn't achieved the signature policy piece they've been perusing for decades and therefore they could have held Congress and passed additional jobs plans, but I'm skeptical given how much the ARRA had to be cut down and loaded with tax cuts to pass even when Democrats held both houses and the Presidency in the worst period of the recession.

 

Most of Obama's claimed jobs programs were just more government spending without cuts. That was never going to fly. And then Obamacare didn't help. Had he supported a bill of increased short-term federal "investment" and huge tax breaks/cuts for small/medium sized business, businesses that kept (or increased) jobs in America, and/or businesses that simply hired full time employees, I would have fully supported it.

[Jenksismyhero]

The exchanges are one portion that is not working very well (at the federal level, I think most of the states that designed their own are doing okay). Many other parts have been implemented for a while (pre-existing conditions, coverage until 26, abolition of lifetime caps, Medicaid expansion) and are working fine.

 

By very well you mean "at all." It's a disaster right now, just admit it like Obama has.

 

And yes, those other parts are great, and i'm confident that had just those portions been passed the Repubs would have fought - as they do - but not near as much as they have because of the individual mandate.

 

Which, btw, didn't help anyone for the first 4 years, and still hasn't. We're still at square one with regards to the tens of millions who are dying in the streets from not receiving healthcare via cheap insurance premiums and low annual caps to which the rest of society is stuck footing the bill.

[StrangeSox]

I agree, instantaneous Medicare-for-all would have been substantially less complicated and better for society as a whole than this ham-handed market-based solution.

 

But, again, you can't have the pre-existing condition part without something like an individual mandate. And I really am struggling to see how Republicans would be less opposed to the substantial Medicaid expansion than they are to the individual insurance mandate.

[StrangeSox]

Most of Obama's claimed jobs programs were just more government spending without cuts. That was never going to fly. And then Obamacare didn't help. Had he supported a bill of increased short-term federal "investment" and huge tax breaks/cuts for small/medium sized business, businesses that kept (or increased) jobs in America, and/or businesses that simply hired full time employees, I would have fully supported it.

 

Why should a jobs program to get people back to work be tied to "huge tax breaks" for businesses?

[Jenksismyhero]

I agree, instantaneous Medicare-for-all would have been substantially less complicated and better for society as a whole than this ham-handed market-based solution.

 

But, again, you can't have the pre-existing condition part without something like an individual mandate. And I really am struggling to see how Republicans would be less opposed to the substantial Medicaid expansion than they are to the individual insurance mandate.

 

Given the CURRENT issues with Medicare I just don't see how any intelligent person could say this and not laugh at how ridiculous it sounds. 300 million+ receiving care paid for by the government would be the biggest clusterf*** in the history of the civilized world. Not to mention it would kill off the insurance industry and the millions of people employed in or related to it. We had to spend billions to save one stupid auto company because it was going to destroy the country, but now you want to get rid of every employee of insurance companies and people the insurance companies work with?

 

Oh, and the realistic chance that one day the government would be deciding your health care decisions because of cost concerns. Like the UK article Alpha posted. Would you really want moronic Republican tea partiers holding up a funding bill that would determine if you get that life saving operation or not? You want that option to be in the hands of a politician?

[Jenksismyhero]

Why should a jobs program to get people back to work be tied to "huge tax breaks" for businesses?

 

To push businesses to hire more people. We all know the companies are sitting on profits. They COULD hire more people, but they're not. So give them an incentive to do so.

Edited October 23, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

Oh, and the realistic chance that one day the government would be deciding your health care decisions because of cost concerns. Like the UK article Alpha posted. Would you really want moronic Republican tea partiers holding up a funding bill that would determine if you get that life saving operation or not? You want that option to be in the hands of a politician?

Medicare, by the way, is not funded through the normal appropriations process, so this setup actually doesn't really apply. Medicare has its own dedicated funding stream and does not need to be reauthorized every year.

[StrangeSox]

To push businesses to hire more people. We all know the companies are sitting on profits. They COULD hire more people, but they're not. So give them an incentive to do so.

 

Confiscate their capital and turn it over to workers' collectives!!! Their incentive will be to avoid the gallows.

 

Seriously, though, isn't that a pretty big flaw of our modern economic system? We've got untold amounts of idle capital and idle labor, but the people that control the capital won't let labor back to work unless they get to widen the wealth gap even more. What a waste of human potential and an enormous amount of additional human suffering through prolonged employment and impoverishment.

Edited October 23, 2013 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Given the CURRENT issues with Medicare I just don't see how any intelligent person could say this and not laugh at how ridiculous it sounds. 300 million+ receiving care paid for by the government would be the biggest clusterf*** in the history of the civilized world.

 

The entire rest of the civilized world doesn't have our previous clusterf*** of a system, nor do they have our new slightly-less-clusterf***y system.

 

Not to mention it would kill off the insurance industry and the millions of people employed in or related to it. We had to spend billions to save one stupid auto company because it was going to destroy the country, but now you want to get rid of every employee of insurance companies and people the insurance companies work with?

 

Private insurance companies are a leech on our society, extracting rents while adding no value that could not easily be replaced.

 

 

Oh, and the realistic chance that one day the government would be deciding your health care decisions because of cost concerns. Like the UK article Alpha posted. Would you really want moronic Republican tea partiers holding up a funding bill that would determine if you get that life saving operation or not? You want that option to be in the hands of a politician?

 

Well, the UK's NHS system is quite a bit different from a Medicare-for-all single-payer system or a public option. Also given that it's the Daily Mail I have to say I'm skeptical of the accuracy of what is reported. Additionally, the liberals in the UK lay the blame for the NHS's current problems and potential future funding problems at the foot of the Thatcherite Tories who have worked to privatize everything they can and undermine the NHS itself. The Daily Mail editorial staff would be included in that group as it's basically the UK version of the WSJ editorial pages.

 

But right now, moronic executives seeking to maximize their own bonuses get to decide my health care decisions. We already have "death panels."

Edited October 23, 2013 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

Medicare, by the way, is not funded through the normal appropriations process, so this setup actually doesn't really apply. Medicare has its own dedicated funding stream and does not need to be reauthorized every year.

 

The point remains that one party could hold the other party hostage during a negotation, and/or both parties could simply agree, to lower funding which would end up resulting in you not getting X treatment you may need. This is already happening although not with life/death care.

 

Also, the billing system is truly awful with Medicare. Doctors/clinics get paid MONTHS after the treatment was rendered. That's why a lot of places don't take medicare patients. That'd be another huge problem. Accurate billing and corruption would be a nightmare.

[Jenksismyhero]

Confiscate their capital and turn it over to workers' collectives!!! Their incentive will be to avoid the gallows.

 

Seriously, though, isn't that a pretty big flaw of our modern economic system? We've got untold amounts of idle capital and idle labor, but the people that control the capital won't let labor back to work unless they get to widen the wealth gap even more. What a waste of human potential and an enormous amount of additional human suffering through prolonged employment and impoverishment.

 

I agree generally with the sentiment here. Not sure small/medium size businesses are hoarding capital for themselves like the big companies are, but i'm sure some do. I'm just thinking if I run a small or medium business that really could use an extra employee or two, but I don't think I can afford it, having a big tax break waiting for me might be enough to push me over the edge to hire that person.

[Balta1701]

That's why a lot of places don't take medicare patients.

I believe the last numbers I saw suggested that something like 85% of current doctors accept medicare.