Reply With Quote
@ talking about the "benefit" of it when we still don't know how much it will cost.
In an analysis released yesterday in Politico, three officials from the Kaiser Family Foundation claim that the health care law could disproportionately benefit GOP-represented districts, particularly in lower income Southern and rural areas where residents face higher uninsurance rates and more difficulty finding affordable health care. The authors — Larry Levitt, Drew Altman, and Gary Claxton — note than 233 congressional districts are expected to see a greater percentage of their residents gain insurance coverage from the law than the nationwide average of 17 percent. As seen in the chart below, 142 of those districts are currently represented by Republicans, and 91 by Democrats:
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012...can-districts/
getting care to uninsured people before they go to taxpayer ER has to save tax payer money.
Adding 30 million to the insurance rolls will be paid by SOMEONE. THAT'S the cost we don't know yet.
So you REALLY think they will cut our local hospital taxes?
Of course they will. How can costs not go down once you interject an incredibly efficient federal bureaucracy into the mix?So you REALLY think they will cut our local hospital taxes?
no, not at all. You said that, I didn't.
VA, Medicare, Medicaid, SS all operate with much lower overheads/expenses than for-profit bureuacracies (and probably with better employee salaries and benefits).Of course they will. How can costs not go down once you interject an incredibly efficient federal bureaucracy into the mix?
And other countries with national insurance and even govt doctors deliver health care to everybody at up to 50% per capita $$ than USA's "most efficient free market" perfection.
LOL... Excellent!
Chief Sponsor of Virginia ‘Personhood’ Bill Calls The Affordable Care Act ‘Rape’
As the Government admits, the individual mandate is designed specifically to “internalize” the risks and costs of health care, which it has the temerity to call “classic economic regulation of economic conduct.” In fact, the mandate is classic sumptuary legislation, prohibiting personal spending choices which offend the moral or religious beliefs of Congress. Thus, the Government’s individual mandate is not a regulation of commerce; it is a compelled societal duty. Indeed, the individual mandate is not voluntary commercial intercourse; it is forcible economic rape.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...care-act-rape/
Common, dude, up your game. It's NAZI rape.
And can't you offer any suggestions to upgrade ACA to Ron Paul's "honest rape"?
This is true. Although the overhead/expenses are tougher to compare than most think and a little closer than what is commonly believed.
Speaking of rape in VIRGINia "
State Rape in Virginia: New Law Just Like Texas's Intrusive Ultrasound Requirement
This bill will require many women in Virginia to undergo vaginal penetration with an ultrasound probe against their consent in order to exercise their cons utional right to an abortion, even for nonsurgical, noninvasive, pharmaceutical abortions. This kind of government intrusion shocks the conscience and demonstrates the disturbing lengths Republican legislators will go to prevent women from controlling their own reproductive destiny.
I offered an amendment that would have protected women from the unwanted vaginal penetration required by this bill. House Republicans rejected that amendment. The next time Virginia Republicans speak the words ‘government intrusion’ I hope voters will remember this vote and hold them accountable for their hypocrisy.
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews...d_requirement/
STATE RAPE, indeed
. I am not so sure. National health insurance would have a built in premiums function in the form of the I.r.s. so that is an existing already borne cost that is,in essence, not part of the overhead. Neither is there a need to tack on twenty to forty percent over the cost of the coverage to provide a profit for shareholders.
there is a reason private insurance does not like the government compe ion. The government gets some compe ive efficiencies of scale.
I'm refering mainly the analysis of overhead in Medicaid/Medicare vs Private Insurance and the hidden cost reductions inherent in Medicaid/Medicare. There are other agencies carrying some of their administrative burdens....those never seem to be factored into some of the more shallow analysis populating the talking points web.
Overall, they are still more efficient than the private model. I'm just saying the disparity isn't quite as large as we are often told.
More on Red State hypocrisy about being self-reliant Tough Guys who hate govt handouts.
Moochers Against Welfare
the regions of America most hooked on Mr. Santorum’s narcotic — the regions in which government programs account for the largest share of personal income — are precisely the regions electing those severe conservatives. Wasn’t Red America supposed to be the land of traditional values, where people don’t eat Thai food and don’t rely on handouts?
The article made its case with maps showing the distribution of dependency, but you get the same story from a more formal comparison. Aaron Carroll of Indiana University tells us that in 2010, residents of the 10 states Gallup ranks as “most conservative” received 21.2 percent of their income in government transfers, while the number for the 10 most liberal states was only 17.1 percent.
Now, there’s no mystery about red-state reliance on government programs. These states are relatively poor, which means both that people have fewer sources of income other than safety-net programs and that more of them qualify for “means-tested” programs such as Medicaid.
By the way, the same logic explains why there has been a jump in dependency since 2008. Contrary to what Mr. Santorum and Mr. Romney suggest, Mr. Obama has not radically expanded the safety net. Rather, the dire state of the economy has reduced incomes and made more people eligible for benefits, especially unemployment benefits. Basically, the safety net is the same, but more people are falling into it.
But why do regions that rely on the safety net elect politicians who want to tear it down? I’ve seen three main explanations.
First, there is Thomas Frank’s thesis in his book “What’s the Matter With Kansas?”: working-class Americans are induced to vote against their own interests by the G.O.P.’s exploitation of social issues. And it’s true that, for example, Americans who regularly attend church are much more likely to vote Republican, at any given level of income, than those who don’t.
Still, as Columbia University’s Andrew Gelman points out, the really striking red-blue voting divide is among the affluent: High-income residents of red states are overwhelmingly Republican; high-income residents of blue states only mildly more Republican than their poorer neighbors. Like Mr. Frank, Mr. Gelman invokes social issues, but in the opposite direction. Affluent voters in the Northeast tend to be social liberals who would benefit from tax cuts but are repelled by things like the G.O.P.’s war on contraception.
Finally, Cornell University’s Suzanne Mettler points out that many beneficiaries of government programs seem confused about their own place in the system. She tells us that 44 percent of Social Security recipients, 43 percent of those receiving unemployment benefits, and 40 percent of those on Medicare say that they “have not used a government program.”
The message I take from all this is that pundits who describe America as a fundamentally conservative country are wrong. Yes, voters sent some severe conservatives to Washington. But those voters would be both shocked and angry if such politicians actually imposed their small-government agenda.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/op...gewanted=print
Repugs' political brilliance is shameless lying and slandering (why not? there are no negative consequences in their "moral" universe) while convincing the bubba dumb s to vote repeatedly against their own best interests.
LOL...
I wonder how much spin is going on here?
Why don't they list these 20 states? Could the 10 conservative states have so much more population than the 10 liberal states that the per person numbers would be different?
There are many in this study who do not consider SS or Medicare as a government handout/program (the two seem to be used interchangeably at the whim of the authors) since they pay into these programs. Of course, there is no factoring or weighting in that regard.
There are are Repugs and conservative who don't consider the military to be a government program, when it, and the eternal bogus wars and garrisoning the planet, really are corporate welfare for mooching corporations, redistributing taxpayer wealth to the corps.
yeah...ok.
"since they pay into these programs"
but it's clear that ey don't pay enough into these programs to offset how much they programs HAND OUT to them, so they are in fact "hand out" programs.
As I stated, that's how they consider the issue. Thanks for repeating me.
Well, I don't know what the article is counting as programs. If they are income based programs, it makes sense. The ten most conservative states have an average $35,405 per capita income compares to liberal states of $45,104. Higher income means less Earned income tax receivers, as well as other social handouts. I used this census data for per capita income, 2010 census population data, and this gallop poll data.
Since these top 10 conservative states make ~$10k less per capita income, it makes sense they get more in subsidies.
Poor Repugs poll as wanting govt to do more to help them, while rich Repugs want govt to do less.
The class warfare is not left vs right, but Have vs HaveNot, the 1% vs 99%.
this depends on your viewpoint now, doesn't it. these are not social welfare programs like others. All three of these are insurance programs, though they are sponsored by the government.Finally, Cornell University’s Suzanne Mettler points out that many beneficiaries of government programs seem confused about their own place in the system. She tells us that 44 percent of Social Security recipients, 43 percent of those receiving unemployment benefits, and 40 percent of those on Medicare say that they “have not used a government program.”
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
