Comment sections debate
Anything is more affordable especially when someone picks up the tab..
I sorry Ms Mahar, but you are a dolt for the administration…
Yes Hans that is exactly how upper middle class people afford health insurance – someone else picks up the tab. And the person/company that does pick up that tab actually gets a tax deduction for doing so, meaning that THEIR tab is partially picked up by every taxpayer. In fact the people who are really getting screwed under the current deal are those who make enough to actually pay taxes but whose employers provide them sub-standard plans with high deductibles even as executives routinely get what are known as ‘Gold Plated Plans’.
Now perhaps you can deliver a reasoned and data filled argument as to why tax incentives for giving health insurance to Taco Bell corporate honchos are appropriate but using what are really the same tax dollars to provide subsidies via the exchanges to Taco Bell line employees is just free-loading on the part of the latter. But until then perhaps you should keep the content free ad homs to yourself.
Because while you might not come off to everyone as doltish, I am sure I am not the only one who finds you coming off as dickish. And not even with enough of a track record here at AB to be given forbearance as “well that is just Hans”. Who are you to be passing judgement here? Do you have some established level of proven authority that I just missed? In other words why should anyone care about your opinion?
If you have a reasoned argument then provide it. If it is well enough done then certain contributers here, including me, might well consider putting it up as a guest post for discussion. But there is not a lot of respect for random drive by shootings.
– See more at: http://angrybearblog.strategydemo.com/2013/09/reverse-sticker-shockwhy-are-insurance-rates-in-the-state-marketplaces-lower-than-expected-part-i.html#comments
“And the person/company that does pick up that tab actually gets a tax deduction for doing so, meaning that THEIR tab is partially picked up by every taxpayer”
Misleading. EVERY business expense is a tax deduction: from wages, to staples, to health insurance premiums, to advertising etc. etc.
So all these other things are subsidized by the taxpayer?
Only comes from the perspective that all money is owned by government, and they deign to let you keep what they choose is the right amount.
Who was it who said: Tis better to stay silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt?
Re: “So all these other things are subsidized by the taxpayer? ”
Yes, they are. We treat businesses differently from individuals by allowing them to deduct their expenses arguing that all their costs should be subsidized while only certain individual’s business costs should be. In theory, food, clothing, shelter, and even some entertainment costs should be subsidized for individuals as these are as necessary for for work as buying gold fixtures for the executive lavatory.
Alternatively, now that we have corporations as individuals under Citizens United, we should require that they file individual tax returns and stop all the bogus deductions.
I believe it was Abe Lincoln. Whenever I say something foolish I refer to it as violating the Abraham Lincoln rule.
Sometimes it is useful to realize your comments are being read by more than just the writer who triggered your thoughts. As I said in a private email last night, “I think of my responses as not to him, but to any lurkers who are concerned after reading what he says.”
And so too are your, or anyone’s, responses to a fool useful to all those who may be holding the same point of view as the fool. So your reply does double duty. It addresses those who have read a fool’s comments and it addresses those who may simply share the fool’s beliefs.
On the other hand there may be merit in limiting how many times a comment is entitled to be repeated by the same author in a single thread. Lies and even a fool’s interpretation of the universe have the troubling effect of beginning to sound like conventional wisdom when repeated often enough. Refutation seems to have a limited effect in such cases. Extremists and reactionary politicians rely upon the ignorance of the listener leading to his being easily duped by successive presentations of even the most ludicrous ideas. Texas is a good example. Ripped from the headlines of today’s NY Times:
“Creationists on Texas Panel for Biology Textbooks”
From the state that brought us Rick Perry and Ted Cruz. ‘Nough said.
Jack except that refutations ultimately have the same currency as lies, especially if more pointed and fact based. You might note that relatively few of the cruder Social Security trolls even bother showing up at Angry Bear. Because over the last half decade plus we have whupped their asses. I mean even some current AB trolls have conceded defeat on that narrow front. Leaving only more superficially sophisticated opponents like Bruce Krasting in the field. But many of the folk who still venture opinions on every other aspect of the Right Agends and who confidently laid down the law on what “everyone knows” about Social Security are silent on THAT.
To that degree silence is progress. And I for one am more than happy to see Maggie, Linda and Ed taking the battle to new sectors. Leaving folk like me Dale and Arne to mop up the die-hards.