GOP Nightmare, Obamacare Popularity Soars

[Glen Contrarian]

I don't care even a little bit about bankruptcies. There should probably be more. Bankruptcy is an efficient reallocation of assets.eace

Jack, I suspect you're thinking of it more as a Socratic morality issue...but the thing is, the more bankruptcies there are, the greater the financial burden on society. There would be more homeless, which directly translates not only into higher crime rates but also higher insurance rates for business and a lower percentage of the population who can perform skilled labor. Not only that, but those who are homeless have a very, very hard time getting back into the workplace - even if one gets an interview ("where did you say your permanent residence is?"), then there's the challenge of being able to show a good work history, and then - if one even gets hired - there's the matter of being able to reliably show up every day in clothes that have been washed and ironed.

Again, Jack, a greater number of bankruptcies directly causes a greater degree of homelessness, which directly results in higher crime rates, higher insurance rates, and a greater number of people who are permanent burdens on society.

Here's a story - my brother-in-law from the PI arrived last summer. There, he was what we would call here a deadbeat - in and out of jail, had a problem with alcohol, hadn't finished school...you name it. Most people would look at him and assume that he was a train wreck waiting to happen. However, this week I'll be helping him with his very first tax return. He's become an important part of our crew - forthright, dependable, trustworthy...and his skills are growing by the month. Most of his family never dreamt he'd make it this far. I figured he'd do okay and that's what I told the family beforehand, but he's surprising even me. He is now a productive member of American society, and we're all doggone proud of him.

What I'm getting to is this: most of the time, those who are homeless or are down on their luck aren't there just because of their personal failings - all too often it's because they got dealt a rotten hand in life, and all they really need is a chance, a hand up, one real chance to grab at that brass ring.

And that's just it, Jack - you pay either way. You can either pay in the form of higher crime, higher insurance, and a perpetual burden on society...or you can pay to give the people a chance to rejoin as productive members of society...

...but you will pay either way.

You've seen first-hand - to a much greater degree than I have - what society is like when a significant segment of society is homeless or has no access to education, to that part of the social safety net that's there to give people a chance to dig themselves out of whatever hole they may be in, whose only joy in life is making more babies who are thus trapped in the same cycle of poverty. Do you really think America would be better off if we were like those nations, if we allowed society to diverge between the haves who think themselves modern-day versions of John Galts, and the have-nots who have little or no opportunity, and who have no clue how to point their children in the right direction?

 

[imagep]

.

And that's just it, Jack - you pay either way. You can either pay in the form of higher crime, higher insurance, and a perpetual burden on society...or you can pay to give the people a chance to rejoin as productive members of society...

...but you will pay either way.

.

And that's just it, Jack - you pay either way. You can either pay in the form of higher crime, higher insurance, and a perpetual burden on society...or you can pay to give the people a chance to rejoin as productive members of society...

...but you will pay either way.

.

And that's just it, Jack - you pay either way. You can either pay in the form of higher crime, higher insurance, and a perpetual burden on society...or you can pay to give the people a chance to rejoin as productive members of society...

...but you will pay either way.

.

And that's just it, Jack - you pay either way. You can either pay in the form of higher crime, higher insurance, and a perpetual burden on society...or you can pay to give the people a chance to rejoin as productive members of society...

...but you will pay either way.

I just thought that part deserved to be repeated a few times.

 

[Jack Hays]

Jack, I suspect you're thinking of it more as a Socratic morality issue...but the thing is, the more bankruptcies there are, the greater the financial burden on society. There would be more homeless, which directly translates not only into higher crime rates but also higher insurance rates for business and a lower percentage of the population who can perform skilled labor. Not only that, but those who are homeless have a very, very hard time getting back into the workplace - even if one gets an interview ("where did you say your permanent residence is?"), then there's the challenge of being able to show a good work history, and then - if one even gets hired - there's the matter of being able to reliably show up every day in clothes that have been washed and ironed.

Again, Jack, a greater number of bankruptcies directly causes a greater degree of homelessness, which directly results in higher crime rates, higher insurance rates, and a greater number of people who are permanent burdens on society.

Here's a story - my brother-in-law from the PI arrived last summer. There, he was what we would call here a deadbeat - in and out of jail, had a problem with alcohol, hadn't finished school...you name it. Most people would look at him and assume that he was a train wreck waiting to happen. However, this week I'll be helping him with his very first tax return. He's become an important part of our crew - forthright, dependable, trustworthy...and his skills are growing by the month. Most of his family never dreamt he'd make it this far. I figured he'd do okay and that's what I told the family beforehand, but he's surprising even me. He is now a productive member of American society, and we're all doggone proud of him.

What I'm getting to is this: most of the time, those who are homeless or are down on their luck aren't there just because of their personal failings - all too often it's because they got dealt a rotten hand in life, and all they really need is a chance, a hand up, one real chance to grab at that brass ring.

And that's just it, Jack - you pay either way. You can either pay in the form of higher crime, higher insurance, and a perpetual burden on society...or you can pay to give the people a chance to rejoin as productive members of society...

...but you will pay either way.

You've seen first-hand - to a much greater degree than I have - what society is like when a significant segment of society is homeless or has no access to education, to that part of the social safety net that's there to give people a chance to dig themselves out of whatever hole they may be in, whose only joy in life is making more babies who are thus trapped in the same cycle of poverty. Do you really think America would be better off if we were like those nations, if we allowed society to diverge between the haves who think themselves modern-day versions of John Galts, and the have-nots who have little or no opportunity, and who have no clue how to point their children in the right direction?

Bankruptcies reallocate capital efficiently, and thereby add to society's overall prosperity. eace

 

[imagep]

Bankruptcies reallocate capital efficiently, and thereby add to society's overall prosperity. eace

So not requiring that people pay their debts is an efficient capital allocation? How so? Seems almost like theft to me.

heck, then the subprime collapse would a good thing, and our economy is now BOOMING. Who would have ever thunk.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Bankruptcies reallocate capital efficiently, and thereby add to society's overall prosperity. eace

If that were the case, then America should have been prosperous as all get-out in 1929-1933....

 

[Jack Hays]

So not requiring that people pay their debts is an efficient capital allocation? How so? Seems almost like theft to me.

heck, then the subprime collapse would a good thing, and our economy is now BOOMING. Who would have ever thunk.

Their assets are shared out among their creditors.eace

 

[Jack Hays]

If that were the case, then America should have been prosperous as all get-out in 1929-1933....

That could have been the result with better economic leadership and management.eace

 

[imagep]

That could have been the result with better economic leadership and management.eace

Hmm, who was president back then and what party did he represent? I flunked US history.

 

[Jack Hays]

Hmm, who was president back then and what party did he represent? I flunked US history.

That would have been Herbert Hoover, a Repub.eace

 

[Glen Contrarian]

That could have been the result with better economic leadership and management.eace

You know where this is going, don't you? Either Keynesianism...or austerity. Hoover tried both...and failed miserably. FDR came in and started out great, but backslid in '37-'38. But the thing is, if the austerity crowd was right, then instead of pulling us out of the Depression and setting us up as the world's economic leader, FDR's massive build-up for WWII - financed entirely by taxes and deficit spending, and was the greatest economic stimulus in American history - should have driven us even deeper into the Depression.

But it didn't, did it?

That's the elephant in the room that the austerity crowd cannot explain away, Jack. Keynesian economics works and works well. It's not perfect, but it works a heck of a lot better than austerity alone.

 

[Jack Hays]

You know where this is going, don't you? Either Keynesianism...or austerity. Hoover tried both...and failed miserably. FDR came in and started out great, but backslid in '37-'38. But the thing is, if the austerity crowd was right, then instead of pulling us out of the Depression and setting us up as the world's economic leader, FDR's massive build-up for WWII - financed entirely by taxes and deficit spending, and was the greatest economic stimulus in American history - should have driven us even deeper into the Depression.

But it didn't, did it?

That's the elephant in the room that the austerity crowd cannot explain away, Jack. Keynesian economics works and works well. It's not perfect, but it works a heck of a lot better than austerity alone.

I agree. The situation called for a massive Keynesian response, far larger than either Hoover or FDR attempted until the WW2 build-up.eace

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I agree. The situation called for a massive Keynesian response, far larger than either Hoover or FDR attempted until the WW2 build-up.eace

Doggone it - there you go with that logical judo again, zigging when I expected you to zag.

Okay...then I'll go in a different direction. When the Great Recession hit, was it a good thing that so many people (eventually including myself - bankruptcy and foreclosure) went bankrupt? If you and I were discussing a mere 'market correction' like the dot-com bust was, I think we would have been in complete agreement. No, I don't think for a moment you're saying that the more people that go bankrupt, the better...but where we're disagreeing is whether having more people go bankrupt is good for the nation and its economy. You might feel that the social safety net is wealth redistribution...and I strongly agree with you - call it what you will, ALL taxation is effectively wealth redistribution. Thing is, in the macroeconomic sense, are the increased taxes that a socialized democracy require a bad thing? I say it is certainly not. I point to the success of the world's first-world democracies - and the failure of libertarian-by-nature-if-not-design third-world economies - as my proof.

When it comes to you're-on-your-own austerity or nanny-state socialized democracy, we all pay anyway - it's just a choice as to which one we want to pay for. And if the success of the first-world socialized democracies are any indication, the former costs a heck of a lot more than the latter.

Signing off - see ya tomorrow.

 

[Jack Hays]

Doggone it - there you go with that logical judo again, zigging when I expected you to zag.

Okay...then I'll go in a different direction. When the Great Recession hit, was it a good thing that so many people (eventually including myself - bankruptcy and foreclosure) went bankrupt? If you and I were discussing a mere 'market correction' like the dot-com bust was, I think we would have been in complete agreement. No, I don't think for a moment you're saying that the more people that go bankrupt, the better...but where we're disagreeing is whether having more people go bankrupt is good for the nation and its economy. You might feel that the social safety net is wealth redistribution...and I strongly agree with you - call it what you will, ALL taxation is effectively wealth redistribution. Thing is, in the macroeconomic sense, are the increased taxes that a socialized democracy require a bad thing? I say it is certainly not. I point to the success of the world's first-world democracies - and the failure of libertarian-by-nature-if-not-design third-world economies - as my proof.

When it comes to you're-on-your-own austerity or nanny-state socialized democracy, we all pay anyway - it's just a choice as to which one we want to pay for. And if the success of the first-world socialized democracies are any indication, the former costs a heck of a lot more than the latter.

Signing off - see ya tomorrow.

Third World economies are Hobbesian, not Libertarian. There's a difference. Economic medicine is best taken quickly and completely.eace

 

[Fenton]

So not requiring that people pay their debts is an efficient capital allocation? How
so? Seems almost like theft to me.

heck, then the subprime collapse would a good thing, and our economy is now BOOMING. Who would have ever thunk.

Loans/ Debts are always paid. Either by the debtor or the creditor.

If the Debtor refuses to pay, then the Creditor pays. The money still went out into the economy and it was still used to purchase Goods and services.

The Debt from the Sub-Prime Collapse is still there, it didnt disappear.

The entire Housing Market sits in a Sea of debt.

The GSEs were taken into Conservatorship with over 5 Trillion in debt wrapped up in Loans and securities.

Conservatorship is a nice way of saying the tax payers got stuck with the debt.

The FEDs QE policy was initially in response to what happens when Creditors have to pay instead of the debtors.

Credit dried up, and the collapse of private sector industries and secondary industries tied to the bubble left allot of people jobless and lowered overall demand.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Third World economies are Hobbesian, not Libertarian. There's a difference. Economic medicine is best taken quickly and completely.eace

Okay, I admit I had to look up Hobbes and his philosophy. Nauseating stuff IMO (but then, philosophy is one of the few major subjects which I truly abhor studying - probably due to my own hubris). But after having read it, I see arguments for and against your statement that TW economies are Hobbesian, not Libertarian. So would you please expound upon what you said? I'd appreciate it.

 

[jaeger19]

Maybe they should try to make it a law instead of just a plan.

Again an irony but various bills have been introduced by the republicans over the years. The individual mandate was proposed as a bill in the 1990's by republcans and was shot down.

 

[tres borrachos]

Again an irony but various bills have been introduced by the republicans over the years. The individual mandate was proposed as a bill in the 1990's by republcans and was shot down.

Senator John Chafee's bill in 1993. It was the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act. The mandate itself wasn't the bill but was part of the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act. Had a lot of GOP and Democrat support. Never went anywhere. I think it also included vouchers for the poor to purchase insurance.

Chafee was a Rockefeller Republican. I remember him well. Very moderate.

 

[jaeger19]

Since all the links echoed what I said, and your claim of what I said was false, I think it's clear you've been on the wrong side of this.eace

Actually that's not how it played out.. but you know that...

You stated that the mandate was about forcing young healthy people that didn't have health insurance to buy into obamacare and that without them.. "the arithmetic doesn't work"..

I then pointed out that this was not true.. that the arithmetic worked because of the 85% that had insurance and that the reason for the mandate was so that pre existing conditions would work so that the 85% could not get rid of insurance and then sign up when they got sick.

You then spent several posts calling me a "shill" (paid?) for the ACA.. then basically called me a liar for stating I was a medical provider and worked with insurances which you thought were lies.

You then posted a link and pulled the sentences from it that you liked... that you THOUGHT supported your position.

I then went to your link and pulled the context of the link and posted it and guess what?.. IT AGREED WITH EVERYTHING I HAD SAID ORIGINALLY.

Now you have tried a classic "backflip with a Mcjack twist" and changed your narrative.

Thats the facts here... whether you wish to acknowledge that reality is your choice.. eace

 

[jaeger19]

Senator John Chafee's bill in 1993. It was the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act. The mandate itself wasn't the bill but was part of the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act. Had a lot of GOP and Democrat support. Never went anywhere. I think it also included vouchers for the poor to purchase insurance.

Chafee was a Rockefeller Republican. I remember him well. Very moderate.

Yep..that was one as I pointed out to MR. Hays who claimed it was not a republican idea.

it was also co sponsored or supported by a number of other republicans.. including Orrin Hatch (who years later came out against the same mandate in Obamacare).

 

[Jack Hays]

Okay, I admit I had to look up Hobbes and his philosophy. Nauseating stuff IMO (but then, philosophy is one of the few major subjects which I truly abhor studying - probably due to my own hubris). But after having read it, I see arguments for and against your statement that TW economies are Hobbesian, not Libertarian. So would you please expound upon what you said? I'd appreciate it.

Libertarianism requires Rule of Law to ensure civil liberties and contract enforcement. A Hobbesian society is rule of the strongest, with life being famously "nasty, brutish and short."eace

 

[Jack Hays]

You stated that the mandate was about forcing young healthy people that didn't have health insurance to buy into obamacare and that without them.. "the arithmetic doesn't work"..

I then pointed out that this was not true.. that the arithmetic worked because of the 85% that had insurance and that the reason for the mandate was so that pre existing conditions would work so that the 85% could not get rid of insurance and then sign up when they got sick.

The sentence in blue is true and is supported by all linked sites.
The sentence in red is false and is supported by no linked site.eace

 

[tres borrachos]

Yep..that was one as I pointed out to MR. Hays who claimed it was not a republican idea.

it was also co sponsored or supported by a number of other republicans.. including Orrin Hatch (who years later came out against the same mandate in Obamacare).

The mandate idea did not originally come from Republicans. It came from The Heritage Foundation.

 

[sangha]

The mandate idea did not originally come from Republicans. It came from The Heritage Foundation.

The republican supported mandates

Until they didn't

 

[jaeger19]

The sentence in blue is true and is supported by all linked sites.
The sentence in red is false and is supported by no linked site.eace

The facts don't support that.. the facts and your links support the reverse of what you just stated...

 

[jaeger19]

The mandate idea did not originally come from Republicans. It came from The Heritage Foundation.

You've got to be kidding me...

I see..so even though republicans introduced it in congress, and sponsored laws for it... it wasn't them.. it was the heritage foundation..

I guess now the Heritage Foundation is made up of democrats huh?

Come ON.