![]() |
Quote:
|
Quote:
"there's no way to really estimate this." Translation...when the CBO's conclusions do not paint Obama in a favorable light, we must dismiss the CBO's ability to do quantitative analysis. |
Quote:
Has nothing to do with potential government perks. -spence |
Quote:
-spence |
Quote:
Sounds like she might have benefited from allowing interstate insurance purchasing and tort reform and true competition among insurers. Of course, I'd go a lot farther than that. More like eliminating third party pay for health care except for those who might want to invest in some catastrophic plan. I don't see the necessity of creating a monstrosity such as the ACA. And given its various restrictions and qualifications, even some in situations like hers might find insurance too expensive. But that's small potatoes. The rest of my post which you skipped was more germane to the CBO discussion. |
Quote:
First, to quit the job which enabled her to have insurance in order to keep her insurance makes no sense. Unless she quits in order to get a better job. But quitting work altogether is not getting a higher paying or better job. Quitting work altogether in order to qualify for a government subsidy to pay for insurance would, to a rational mind, be quitting the job to receive government assistance in paying for insurance. Government assistance is, if I'm not mistaken, a form of government dole. In our current day progressive think, this is a rational, admirable decision. It is to be lauded. That's what the dole is for. It is no longer merely for indigents, but for the majority, common person, who may need a little hand-up not a hand-out. And what used to be a factor in American culture, shame, is eradicated in current progressive America. It used to be a mark of poor character to receive dole if you could possibly make do yourself. People worked in ways that were "uncomfortable," and even at subsistence wages to avoid that mark. And most, eventually, worked out of that status into a better one. That is the "ethic" which made viable the economic mobility that this country is, or was, famous for. It used to be referred to as the "work ethic." Somehow, maybe as a result of the usual consequence of success taken for granted, we have assumed that old ethic is no longer truly necessary. Not if it is too onerous. A great nation's success should lead to an easing of conditions for all of its citizens. Leisure time, ease and comfort in living, playful enjoyment, should not have to be strived for in difficult or demeaning ways, but entitlement to it should be a new liberating "ethic" defined and assisted, if not provided, by government. So the word "dole" is antiquated. "Offensive." Even "assistance" is a bit off color. "Subsidy," or even more so, "a right," is a more appropriate way to inoffensively speak. If there is a government program which can provide "subsidy" it is your "right" to it--even your duty to use it. This is the privilege of all (except for those who don't qualify). It is fair, and just, and the right of Americans to demand it. Some of these new privileges are even granted to many who are not actually Americans. So let us not "offend." Those in the past who didn't consider their life "going down the drain" when they struggled to provide for themselves rather than receive what used to be called a dole, were naïve. The pride they took in self-sufficiency was overblown ego to the detriment of their own well-being. Never again should any of us have to struggle as they did. We are greater than they because of understanding what is truly important in life. And our country will flourish and become greater in this knowledge. As an aside, when Representative Diane Blake asked the CBO director what effect the ACA would have on the economy, his response was "it is the central factor in slowing economic growth." So let's see--the ACA slows economic growth, it creates a disincentive to work, and it reduces income--But it creates more leisure time, time spent with family, a better life for those who are qualified. Eventually, even the rest of us may become qualified. The labor supply can be reduced to the small, ignorant, percentage of those who have a false pride. Not sure of what that does to other government programs to make our lives better, i.e. social security, Medicare, the ACA itself, food stamps, social and corporate welfare in general, government bailouts of failing businesses who can't compete without adequate labor supply and rising inflation--what happens to the tax base necessary to provide all the goodies? Not to worry. Some new progressive solution will evolve. Life is too good to waste it on work. And this new "ethic" can totally replace that old one, as progressive ideology replaces all that other musty old stuff like constitutions, rule of law, individual sovereignty, personal responsibility, and all those ancient associations which impede our "modern" administrative State's ability to define our liberty and provide it for us. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:16 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com