The no-vote vote is coming

[miir]

No, I get it.
You only get outraged at what the right wing pundits tell you to get outraged about.


You may fancy youself as a moderate... but you're really just the same as those gun lovin', god fearin', immigrant hatin', redneck, right-wing nutjobs on talk radio.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Listen toolbag...let me state this clear: I do not listen to any sort of Beck or Rush or any opinion or new radio....ever. I do not read Foxnews. The only way I would ever see any right or left leaning site is if I Googled something and a link showed there or on the rare occasions a board has a link to a page. I am not a follower. I form my own opinions and I am not afraid to state them....whether you like them or not I do not care.

[vn_Tanc]

Edit to repeat this: Our health care is broken because our citizens live unhealthy lifestyles. You can give me blah blah blah stories about your brother's uncle's cousin who has cancer and I don't really care. Everyone knows someone who is truly sick and that is not going away. Cancer is NOT the #1 killer in this country....heart disease is. And you know why heart disease is? Because we have the worst lifestyle choices in this country in its history and it is getting worse every year. Extreme obesity and smoking and drugs...you name it. If you had a country eating healthier and being active, the hospitals and doctors offices would not be clogged with people.....insurers would not be spending insane amounts of money every year just for the fatasses to be in emergency rooms and following your standard economic principles, health care costs would astronomically lower.

If they truly wanted to FIX healthcare, you attack it at the root. Charge people for their lifestyle.

We'll wait and see if your predictions about the finances come true. I suspect they'll be boradly correct but nowhere near as bad as you think. What I don't understand on the financial side is that the US all reay pays stupid amounts of money and VASTLY more per capita than other countries for worse healthcare. If this bill goes some way to addressing this structural problem then your country wins.

What I don't understand is your stance above. How do you police people's lifestyles? Isn't that some kind of big government nanny state prying big brother crap? Who defines what is and isn't a correct lifestyle? Every system I short of totalitarian intrusion that I can think of is ridiculously easy to game. It seems to me you need your entire country to fall out of love with all the things that make it what is is: cars, TV, and Everything In Abundance. Idealogically I agree with you but you're proposing a fix that's simply pie in the sky.

Also for Funk: "The Libs" didn't want to pay for the war in Iraq that was so popular among the right, but ended up being forced to. Quid pro quo, motherfucker. Gotta love Democracy.

[miir]

Yeah, yeah Kilmoll, we know... and you're also a moderate.

[vn_Tanc]

Oh and excuse my typos. I've switched to a natural keyboard in an attempt to tame my RSI and I'm still adjusting.

[Funkmasterr]

Edit to repeat this: Our health care is broken because our citizens live unhealthy lifestyles. You can give me blah blah blah stories about your brother's uncle's cousin who has cancer and I don't really care. Everyone knows someone who is truly sick and that is not going away. Cancer is NOT the #1 killer in this country....heart disease is. And you know why heart disease is? Because we have the worst lifestyle choices in this country in its history and it is getting worse every year. Extreme obesity and smoking and drugs...you name it. If you had a country eating healthier and being active, the hospitals and doctors offices would not be clogged with people.....insurers would not be spending insane amounts of money every year just for the fatasses to be in emergency rooms and following your standard economic principles, health care costs would astronomically lower.

If they truly wanted to FIX healthcare, you attack it at the root. Charge people for their lifestyle.

We'll wait and see if your predictions about the finances come true. I suspect they'll be boradly correct but nowhere near as bad as you think. What I don't understand on the financial side is that the US all reay pays stupid amounts of money and VASTLY more per capita than other countries for worse healthcare. If this bill goes some way to addressing this structural problem then your country wins.

What I don't understand is your stance above. How do you police people's lifestyles? Isn't that some kind of big government nanny state prying big brother crap? Who defines what is and isn't a correct lifestyle? Every system I short of totalitarian intrusion that I can think of is ridiculously easy to game. It seems to me you need your entire country to fall out of love with all the things that make it what is is: cars, TV, and Everything In Abundance. Idealogically I agree with you but you're proposing a fix that's simply pie in the sky.

Also for Funk: "The Libs" didn't want to pay for the war in Iraq that was so popular among the right, but ended up being forced to. Quid pro quo, motherfucker. Gotta love Democracy.

I was going to put in a note to say I wasn't using liberal agenda as a insult like you're implying, so if you took the tone of my post that way you misinterpreted. And you are totally right about the war thing.. Thing is, there are a ton of things popular amongst liberal folk right now (health care, all of the changes that go along with global warming/climate change, and on and on) that are going to require a lot of change and money from a lot of people world wide. A lot more than the war in the grand scheme of things.

[Forthe]

WTF Funk is making rational arguments now? I must have missed something during my absense.

[miir]

WTF Funk is making rational arguments now? I must have missed something during my absense.

He's mellowing out in his old age, haha!

[vn_Tanc]

And you are totally right about the war thing.. Thing is, there are a ton of things popular amongst liberal folk right now (health care, all of the changes that go along with global warming/climate change, and on and on) that are going to require a lot of change and money from a lot of people world wide.

You're definitely correct however on the climate change front all "is libs" are arguing for is an ounce of prevention rather than a pound of cure. Of course if you'd rather keep all your money then you're going to argue that clinate change is a myth but I think that argument is raging in other threads so no need to rehash it here.

If you want to improve society you've got to speculate to accumulate. My main issue with the opposition is that their immediate reaction is "I wanna keep all my money!" then the rest of their arguments are sophistry. Very harmful and dangerous sophistry in some cases.

edit: Fucking lol at the stupid M and N on this keyboard.

[Tyek]

Sueven, I was not upset. I thought it was funny.

As for being denied coverage, I believe, and I could be wrong, that there was already something in place that did not allow insurers to deny you coverage, if you bought it through your work coverage. If you get laid off, unless you have Cobra, which is expensive as hell, you are screwed, otherwise they have to cover you.

The reason I think this is my own case. I have a son who has to take growth hormone shots, which is expensive as hell. He had to take them from the age of 7 and he is 14 now. He will need to take them until he is 15 or 16. We looked at trying to go with another insurance away from employers and were denied. They wanted my wife and daughter, but with my arthritis and my son's issues, they would not extend coverage to me or him. They told me the only way I would be covered is through an employee program.

As for caps, I have changed insurance a couple times, but if anyone here has racked up medical bills it is probably me. I have a son who has the growth hormone issue. It also meant he has a eye problem, his lack of growth hormone somehow ties into his vision. He has limited stereo vision and no peripheral vision. He has had 3 eye surgeries and can now see pretty good, 20-25 and can see 3d, he also plays sports, so the surgeries worked, but were expensive.

I have had 9 knee, 1 foot, 2 shoulder, 1 nose, testicular cancer, a vasectomy, pneumonia twice and all the assorted expenses that go with it. I have never seen a threat to drop me. I know it is not treatment for cancer and all, but one knee surgery was 50K just for the procedures and most average out to 22k. I am not saying this for any reason, but personal experience.

I have had to fight insurance several times. The out of pocket thing is stupid. Mine is 1500, yet for the past 9 years I have averaged 14k in medical expenses. They say they do not cover certain things as out of pocket. Fortunately we are able to afford these expenses, but image what I could have done with even 7k less in expenses over that 9 years. How this new bill changes that stuff, I have no idea. Will out of pocket go up? no clue. I am just very concerned how we will pay for this. We are already too broke to afford education, now we have to develop and expand new governmental offices to pay for this? I don't quite hit the tax bracket of the people they are targeting with this, but I am in the next one and I know they are coming for more money from me soon.

I have seen some supporters say it is no big deal, they are only targeting the rich, but know this, they will eventually come for the other brackets too. We will see how liberal some of these people truly are when it comes out of their dime. I pay stupid amounts of tax, my last bonus I probably paid more then some on this board paid all year. It is assinine. I could have spent it into the economy and helped, instead it went to a bloated governmental system that just got bigger.

If Obama wants to impress me, his next target will be government auditing. I mean from the military on down. Eliminate the waste in these offices and I bet he could have paid for this program with existing income. This is why I think all the conservative/liberal crap is stupid. He will not ever do that beyond some meaningless promise, because in the end there really is only 2 parties, the politicians and the public. They will protect their feifdom forever at our expense, the rest is just one big production to keep us, the public, divided.

[Funkmasterr]

And you are totally right about the war thing.. Thing is, there are a ton of things popular amongst liberal folk right now (health care, all of the changes that go along with global warming/climate change, and on and on) that are going to require a lot of change and money from a lot of people world wide.

You're definitely correct however on the climate change front all "is libs" are arguing for is an ounce of prevention rather than a pound of cure. Of course if you'd rather keep all your money then you're going to argue that clinate change is a myth but I think that argument is raging in other threads so no need to rehash it here.

If you want to improve society you've got to speculate to accumulate. My main issue with the opposition is that their immediate reaction is "I wanna keep all my money!" then the rest of their arguments are sophistry. Very harmful and dangerous sophistry in some cases.

edit: Fucking lol at the stupid M and N on this keyboard.

I understand where you're coming from, however it isn't reasonable imo to expect people to be willing to offer up their beliefs and money for something they don't agree with/believe in. You could tell me that I'm going to hell because I don't believe in God and go to church every Sunday.. Does that mean I'm supposed to start going to church and change my heathen ways because you made a case and were well spoken? And does it make me ignorant if I don't?

[Tyek]

What I don't understand is your stance above. How do you police people's lifestyles? Isn't that some kind of big government nanny state prying big brother crap? Who defines what is and isn't a correct lifestyle? Every system I short of totalitarian intrusion that I can think of is ridiculously easy to game. It seems to me you need your entire country to fall out of love with all the things that make it what is is: cars, TV, and Everything In Abundance. Idealogically I agree with you but you're proposing a fix that's simply pie in the sky.

New York is trying to implement a "sugar tax". This would be an additional tax on all things like soda, candy etc. They are pretending it is a health issue. They say that it is being done to help with the high costs of medical care these sugars create. It's really just a money grab to help a completely broke state get some new income, which they will then spend incorrectly and come looking for more money.

[miir]

Canada has additional taxes on things like booze, cigarettes and gas.
I wouldn't be too terribly upset if they put extra tax on shit like chocolate bars, potato chips and soda.


None of that crap (except gas) is a necessity to anyone.

[vn_Tanc]

I understand where you're coming from, however it isn't reasonable imo to expect people to be willing to offer up their beliefs and money for something they don't agree with/believe in. You could tell me that I'm going to hell because I don't believe in God and go to church every Sunday.. Does that mean I'm supposed to start going to church and change my heathen ways because you made a case and were well spoken? And does it make me ignorant if I don't?

Nah what I'm saying is your REAL objection is the cost of the gas to drive you to church and the rest is just a smoke screen

Not a snoke screen like i typed twice damn this thing.

[vn_Tanc]

What I don't understand is your stance above. How do you police people's lifestyles? Isn't that some kind of big government nanny state prying big brother crap? Who defines what is and isn't a correct lifestyle? Every system I short of totalitarian intrusion that I can think of is ridiculously easy to game. It seems to me you need your entire country to fall out of love with all the things that make it what is is: cars, TV, and Everything In Abundance. Idealogically I agree with you but you're proposing a fix that's simply pie in the sky.

New York is trying to implement a "sugar tax". This would be an additional tax on all things like soda, candy etc. They are pretending it is a health issue. They say that it is being done to help with the high costs of medical care these sugars create. It's really just a money grab to help a completely broke state get some new income, which they will then spend incorrectly and come looking for more money.

Yeah I've been having a similar debate on another board. Taxing booze and sugar makes negligible difference to people's habits - it's just a cash grab dressed up as "for your own good".

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Edit to repeat this: Our health care is broken because our citizens live unhealthy lifestyles. You can give me blah blah blah stories about your brother's uncle's cousin who has cancer and I don't really care. Everyone knows someone who is truly sick and that is not going away. Cancer is NOT the #1 killer in this country....heart disease is. And you know why heart disease is? Because we have the worst lifestyle choices in this country in its history and it is getting worse every year. Extreme obesity and smoking and drugs...you name it. If you had a country eating healthier and being active, the hospitals and doctors offices would not be clogged with people.....insurers would not be spending insane amounts of money every year just for the fatasses to be in emergency rooms and following your standard economic principles, health care costs would astronomically lower.

If they truly wanted to FIX healthcare, you attack it at the root. Charge people for their lifestyle.

We'll wait and see if your predictions about the finances come true. I suspect they'll be boradly correct but nowhere near as bad as you think. What I don't understand on the financial side is that the US all reay pays stupid amounts of money and VASTLY more per capita than other countries for worse healthcare. If this bill goes some way to addressing this structural problem then your country wins.

What I don't understand is your stance above. How do you police people's lifestyles? Isn't that some kind of big government nanny state prying big brother crap? Who defines what is and isn't a correct lifestyle? Every system I short of totalitarian intrusion that I can think of is ridiculously easy to game. It seems to me you need your entire country to fall out of love with all the things that make it what is is: cars, TV, and Everything In Abundance. Idealogically I agree with you but you're proposing a fix that's simply pie in the sky.

Also for Funk: "The Libs" didn't want to pay for the war in Iraq that was so popular among the right, but ended up being forced to. Quid pro quo, motherfucker. Gotta love Democracy.

Well part of the problem is HOW do you address the real issue? I mean in my ideal situation, they would tax the hell out of things like fast food, snack foods, soda, tobacco, alchohol, etc. I truly also believe that people should pay for their health care based on criteria like tobacco and alchohol use and obesity. If you are a much higher liability, then you should pay more. That is how auto insurance works.....higher risk = higher premiums. It should not be you make more money so you pay for everyone else.....that is asinine. Sure, shit can happen to ANYONE not matter how fit you are, but I am sure all the assholes in here who like to quote all the scientific data can post 1000's of facts showing higher risk lifestyle choices will cause them to be more of a financial burden on the healthcare system.

[Funkmasterr]

I understand where you're coming from, however it isn't reasonable imo to expect people to be willing to offer up their beliefs and money for something they don't agree with/believe in. You could tell me that I'm going to hell because I don't believe in God and go to church every Sunday.. Does that mean I'm supposed to start going to church and change my heathen ways because you made a case and were well spoken? And does it make me ignorant if I don't?

Nah what I'm saying is your REAL objection is the cost of the gas to drive you to church and the rest is just a smoke screen

Not a snoke screen like i typed twice damn this thing.

Well, at the very least in my case I can tell you that isn't correct. I won't say it isn't part of the reason but it also isn't the sole reason, and it's not even the biggest part of the equation tbh.

[Winnow]

You can't put a price on world peace. The United States, as the World Police, should be paid enough money from the weak Western Countries we protect to pay for our heath care as well as the cost of Operation Freedom, working towards that world peace.

[Winnow]

Can one of you legal eagle types do a search and see if anyone has ever been severely beaten with an iPhone?

Thanks!

[pyrella]

[Forthe]

So Newt Gingrich is out there blasting the insurance mandate but the dude's 2005 and 2008 books call for an insurance mandate.

US politics is awesome for it's retardedness.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

some of the GOP are going to bitch about anything the Dems put into place and vice versa....those are the ones we need out of office.

[Xatrei]

Says the guy that bitches out of both sides of his mouth...

[Leonaerd]

You can't put a price on world peace. The United States, as the World Police, should be paid enough money from the weak Western Countries we protect to pay for our heath care as well as the cost of Operation Freedom, working towards that world peace.

And further world taxes on any non-agnostic country. Oh wait.

[Zaelath]

If they truly wanted to FIX healthcare, you attack it at the root. Charge people for their lifestyle.

Healthcare for everyone but the fatties then? What the fuck is your damage that you think this is the major cost of healthcare? Perhaps you should take some of your own advice and READ what the bloke that spends all day coding medical costs said was the actual bulk of the cost of medicine in the US?

Nah, never mind, read your talking points, cuddle up to your preconceptions, and masturbate to your Reagan posters.

[Fairweather Pure]

Obama just signed an executive order on abortion funding limits. I wonder what the Republicans will use as thier next tactic to needlessly stir up the fundies?

Don't look for this new on Hannity, Rush, Glenn Beck, or Ann Coulter's sites. They're not mentioning it, despite the topic being a major talking point for whiping thier sheep into a frenzy.

Religious people are too predictable and easy to control.

[Fairweather Pure]

Drudge Report isn't reporting it either. By "reporting", I mean linking of course.

[Boogahz]

because it isn't a big fucking deal

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

Obama just signed an executive order on abortion funding limits. I wonder what the Republicans will use as thier next tactic to needlessly stir up the fundies?

Don't look for this new on Hannity, Rush, Glenn Beck, or Ann Coulter's sites. They're not mentioning it, despite the topic being a major talking point for whiping thier sheep into a frenzy.

Religious people are too predictable and easy to control.

Why do they need to mention it on their shows/sites when Obama promised to do just this to get the bill passed? It was the central issue to even get the votes they needed.

[Gonzoie - Luclin]

Because they were yelling and screaming about it at rallies prior to the bill being signed, as if they had not been told he was going to do it?

[Sueven]

We are already too broke to afford education, now we have to develop and expand new governmental offices to pay for this? I don't quite hit the tax bracket of the people they are targeting with this, but I am in the next one and I know they are coming for more money from me soon.

Thanks for sharing your perspective, Tyek. I'll be interested to see how this affects you and your family, and I hope it helps.

To respond to this a little bit: Just a quick rundown of the basic fiscal dynamics of this bill.

There are two big chunks of expense in the bill. The first are the new regulations on insurance companies: rescissions, pre-existing conditions, and so on. Meeting these regulations costs money, and that burden falls on private industry. This burden will theoretically be offset by the individual mandate, which will bring more customers to the insurance companies and therefore give them more money to spend on meeting the regulations.

The second sort of expense falls on the government from the various subsidies and programs that are offered to provide health coverage for the poor, elderly, and otherwise needy, along with tax breaks to small businesses and so on. This expense is filled through two general funding sources: Increased taxes on wealthy folks are fancy health care plans, and by cutting waste in medicare (or "cutting medicare," depending on your perspective and your preferred cable news network).

That's a pretty simplistic overview, but it expresses the dynamic of the bill pretty well.

Also, on vice taxes:

DC recently instituted a 5 cent bag tax. Want a plastic bag with your groceries? 5 cents per. I think it's phenomenal. 5 cents is really not much. It costs me almost nothing to pay-- probably well under $1 per month. But it made me think about my plastic consumption. Anytime someone asks "want a bag," I ask myself "do I really NEED a bag?" And I almost never get bags. I carry things, or I put them in a backpack, or I bring my own bags. As a result, my plastic consumption has plummeted. That's good for the planet. And it's not just me-- DC's plastic bag consumption dropped like a stone when the measure went into effect. So the city raises a little of the money that it desperately needs and the population takes a real step toward a healthier planet: What's not to like?

More broadly, the effectiveness of vice taxes isn't really debatable. They work. You can argue about how well they work, and whether they're worth the tradeoff, and whether there are better ways to achieve the same end. But you can't really argue that they fail to reduce consumption of the taxed good.

[Zaelath]

DC recently instituted a 5 cent bag tax. Want a plastic bag with your groceries? 5 cents per. I think it's phenomenal. 5 cents is really not much. It costs me almost nothing to pay-- probably well under $1 per month. But it made me think about my plastic consumption. Anytime someone asks "want a bag," I ask myself "do I really NEED a bag?" And I almost never get bags. I carry things, or I put them in a backpack, or I bring my own bags. As a result, my plastic consumption has plummeted. That's good for the planet. And it's not just me-- DC's plastic bag consumption dropped like a stone when the measure went into effect. So the city raises a little of the money that it desperately needs and the population takes a real step toward a healthier planet: What's not to like?

More broadly, the effectiveness of vice taxes isn't really debatable. They work. You can argue about how well they work, and whether they're worth the tradeoff, and whether there are better ways to achieve the same end. But you can't really argue that they fail to reduce consumption of the taxed good.

You can't compare a vice tax on plastic bags to cigarettes...

BTW, to those that think they should just tax drinking and smoking out of fashion, you have to take care not to create a black market. A $10 bottle of vodka can be made in a backyard still for $1, but who can be bothered? If you change that shelf price to $50 via taxation, the answer becomes: a lot of people.

[Tyek]

Sueven, for me it goes back to the line that Thomas Jefferson said.

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson

At what point do we stop? I am all for helping out the masses, but you have to realize, you can't help them all and some don't want to be helped. This was a bill aimed at what the 10%-15% of the population not covered? They could have just implemented the restrictions on the insurance companies and it would have helped a percentage of that 10-15%. There will always be sad stories, people are always going to die. It is horrible and when I hear them I feel awful, but I don't think we need to spend BILLIONS to create a new department, expand other departments, etc.

As someone said, take us out of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq like you promised, save us the 12 billion there. Someone please audit the governmental offices, I guarantee they will find millions, possibly billions in salaries, contracts and other crap that they can save. Instead we want to add a new office and watch it get bloated with friends of friends of friends who supported the bill.

I think the Republicans are ruining a great opportunity here.

They should have said, "We fought the good fight, but we did not have enough seats because you voted us out. We told you this would happen. We will continue to battle for the people, but we need the seats in November to help you."

Instead we see offices of Senator being vandalized in the name of "Liberty" or whatever garbage I saw on that note. These people are accomplishing nothing. Senator McCain' pronouncement that he would not help anymore is also assinine. I think I have hit the point where I have given up on politics. All rational thoughts seem to have been eliminated on both sides. It is like watching two kids trying to have a knife fight with sporks. Futile, useless and ineffective.

[Siji]

Why do they need to mention it on their shows/sites when Obama promised to do just this to get the bill passed? It was the central issue to even get the votes they needed.

Because they're baby killers!

[vn_Tanc]

Says the guy that bitches out of both sides of his mouth...

Oh come on. We're the closest this place has been to a reasoned discussion in about 5 years let's not ruin it now.

[vn_Tanc]

Vice taxes work? We have preposterous levels of duty on cigarettes and booze in the UK and I'm pretty certain they haven't affected demand. They just shift people to the least-taxed option. In yesterday's budget cider duty went up 10% but wine and beer only ~2p. Guess what happens now. And that's not counting the industry responses (cheaper brands, absorbing the increase). Cigarettes are an addiction so tax make sod all difference. Rolling tobacco is less taxed than cigarettes so people switch.

This brin gs me back to the lifetyle policing. In theory I agree. I want those self-destructive idiots to pay for their idiocy. But other than the easily measurable obesity how do we go about it?
- How do you prove I smoke if I say I don't?
- Does the degree of smoking matter? If I have one cigarette when drunk do I lose my no-claims-bonus? Traffic fumes are as harmful as 1 cigarette a day in certain areas - do we factor that in?
- How do you measure someone's drinking habits? They become harmful at different levels for different people. If I say "non-drinker" on my insurance form how will you know if I'm lying?
- Even obesity is problematic. Crappy food is cheaper so do we discriminate? BMI is a useless measurement. Surely every fatarse will claim "glandular/genetic" problems instead of bad habits.

I just don't see how it can be made to work. Perhaps banning the manufacture and supply of shitty foodstuffs is the way forward, but then we not only have Big Government Intrusion Into My Goddamn Right To Eat Myself To Death but we're also threatening the profitabiliy of certain businesses. The political right would rupture themselves in indignation.

[Sueven]

Tyek:

I do think that the Republicans missed an opportunity here. There were many Democrats in both houses who were desperate for bipartisanship. This bill didn't gain any steam until it became abundantly clear that the Democrats were going to get zero Republican support, and so they turned inward to negotiate amongst themselves on a Democratic bill. If a group of even 5 or 10 Republican Senators, and a corresponding group of house folks, had offered a compromise package that consisted of, say, a more limited set of regulations on insurers, a modest expansion of medicare/medicaid/schip, and medical malpractice reform, coming in with a pricetag of 300-400 billion or so, they would have won. Seriously-- Ben Nelson would jump at that. So would Blanche Lincoln, and you'd probably begin to peel off Mary Landrieu, Evan Bayh, etc. So would the blue dogs in the house. Make it unambiguously pro-life and you'd get some of the pro-life Democrats, too. And it just would have required one Senator-- almost undoubtedly Ben Nelson-- to say "I won't vote for the basic package that Democratic leaders are proposing, but I can get on board with something like this compromise" and it's done.

Tanc:

They work in the sense that consumption of the taxed product falls when they are instituted. Whether that has any real practical policy benefit is another question. Many of your points-- people just shift their vices everywhere, etc, are valid. It's very plausible that vice taxes are not good public policy (although I think when used narrowly and in a targeted way they can be), so I won't argue that they "work" in that sense.

Zaelath:

Why can't I compare a bag tax to a vice tax? The basic structure is that the purchase or use of some commodity causes public harm, therefore the government taxes it to reduce use, and use is thereby reduced. What's the difference? Is it that plastic bags are going from free to costly instead of from costly to more costly?i

Kilmoll: Your post on page 4 in response to Tanc was a good one, although I disagree with most of it. I'll just respond to one thing: The notion that this bill has several "companion bills" waiting for enactment.

I assume that you're talking about (1) immigration reform and (2) the doc fix. Neither of these bills are companions. Immigration reform is a completely separate legislative initiative. It may be the next big item on the legislative agenda (or not-- that may be climate change or financial regulation), but the fact that it's passed in the same congress as healthcare reform doesn't mean that they're related. It's possible that immigration reform could conceivably have some effect on healthcare reform-- especially if the bill just immediately naturalized all illegal aliens, which it won't come anywhere remotely close to doing-- but that doesn't make them "companions.

The doc fix is separate and has been passed independently every year since, I believe, 1997. At that time, Congress made some tinkering-around-the-edges changes to medicare. But they wrote the legislation poorly, and a new formula that they put into place drastically cut the payments that medicare doctors were to receive for their services. This was an unintended consequence. So, that same year, Congress passed the "doc fix," which fixes that formula and keeps reimbursement rates at their historical levels. The doc fix has been passed by every Congress since. You are correct that it will be passed this year. But it's wholly independent of healthcare reform, and would have been passed whether or not healthcare reform passed, just like it is every year.

[Kilmoll the Sexy]

I am not specifically referring to either of those bills. There actually was a companion bill where they stripped a couple of things off of the major healthcare bill and it had a pricetag of something like $200 billion. I don't remember the exact specifics and there has been so much put out in a short time on health care that searching with Google puts up so many hits that it has been ridiculous to find.

But with that in mind, the CBO's study does not take that bill or any other political reality into account. The reality is that this is not going to reduce the deficit because of what really happens in Congress. I cannot even fathom what is going to happen if Obama gets to push through his immigration reform and then follows it up with the cap and trade. To compare, Bush spent $2.931 trillion in his 8 years in office. Obama has already spent $2 trillion. The country cannot keep up with that kind of insanity.

[Sylvus]

To compare, Bush spent $2.931 trillion in his 8 years in office. Obama has already spent $2 trillion.

Are you sure your math is right?

[miir]

I think he's confusing defecit with expenditure.

[vn_Tanc]

Obama has already spent $2 trillion. The country cannot keep up with that kind of insanity.

The vast majority of it going to prop up the world's financial system. You don't seriously think that that kind of one-off expenditure is going to be a continuing trend do you?

We're hearing similar rubbish in the UK now in the run-up to the election "ong look at the deficit they've run up". It's not like they spent it on toys. Yeah you can argue they should have just let the banks implode, I suppose, but using the last 2 years to imply a trend is just obtuse IMO.

[Sylvus]

I'm also curious as to how much of that bill you're putting in front of Obama, when the first part of the stimulus was approved and began at the end of Bush's last term.

[Spang]

Woohoo! They rammed it down our throats again!

[Zaelath]

Why can't I compare a bag tax to a vice tax? The basic structure is that the purchase or use of some commodity causes public harm, therefore the government taxes it to reduce use, and use is thereby reduced. What's the difference? Is it that plastic bags are going from free to costly instead of from costly to more costly?i

Because as Tanc pointed out, the demand many of these vices are inelastic, where as for plastic bags they are very elastic; i.e. there's cheap simple alternatives from reusable canvas bags to just not bothering to get a bag for the three items they would have bagged by default before there was a price.

Also, as I said, if you hike tax too far or too fast on tobacco and alcohol you create a viable black market. (Yes, I've seen people with 2 pound bags of black market tobacco in their homes).

Back to inelastic demand: the amount we tax on tobacco is quite a bit higher than the US (a pack of 25 cigarettes here costs in the order of $12-14) but the smoking rates are almost the same (around 21% as at 2007)

[Gonzoie - Luclin]

Someone posted this on another forum I frequent, he didn't give a link so I don't have one.

Yo,

This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US department of energy. I then took a shower in the clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the TV to one of the FCC regulated channels to see what the national weather service of the national oceanographic and atmospheric administration determined the weather was going to be like using satellites designed, built, and launched by the national aeronautics and space administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of US department of agriculture inspected food and taking the vitamins which have been determined as safe by the food and and drug administration.

At the appropriate time as regulated by the US congress and kept accurate by the national institute of standards and technology and the US naval observatory, I get into my national highway traffic safety administration approved automobile and set out to work on the roads built by the local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the environmental protection agency, using legal tender issued by the federal reserve bank. On the the way out the door I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the US postal service and drop the kids off at the public school.

After work, I drive my NHTSA car back home on the DOT roads, to a house which has not burned down in my absence because of the state and local building codes and fire marshal's inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the local police department.

I then log on to the internet, which was developed by the defense advanced research projects administration and post on freerepublic.com and fox news forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because it's impossible for the government to do anything right.

-Anonymous

[Winnow]

This is the biggest shamockery in the history of our great nation!

PS. It turns my stomach to see photos like this displaying the evil grinning thing beside the Obamanation!

[Spang]

This is the biggest shamockery in the history of our great nation!

It's tyranny! Even though they voted on it a bunch of times!

[Tyek]

This is the biggest shamockery in the history of our great nation!

It's tyranny! Even though they voted on it a bunch of times!

I always guessed she was a tranny, thanks for confirming it.

[Spang]

[Kluden]

BTW, to those that think they should just tax drinking and smoking out of fashion, you have to take care not to create a black market. A $10 bottle of vodka can be made in a backyard still for $1, but who can be bothered? If you change that shelf price to $50 via taxation, the answer becomes: a lot of people.

Sorry, this one made me laugh, because it reminded me of a law here in Virginia. While gun carrying in the open (non concealed) is perfectly legal, and so is concealing with a permit, it is against the law to do either when working your booze still in the back yard / woods / etc.