One of the things that should be made clear is that the ACA would result in a redistribution of who pays. by moving to gender neutral community rating for example young men pay more then on gender specific tables (true until about age 62). Also the 3 x factor means that the young pay more then they would have under a different system. However those with preexisting conditions pay less,
Of course in addition the ACA policies do cover more.
Perhaps this should have been made clearer but then there would have been objections because many seem to not understand the whole idea of insurance, that you need large pools because of the law of large numbers. In one sense that shows up in large group policies by employeers where the law of large numbers works but does not work for small companies where the numbers are not large enough for the law to work, thus the problem of skyrocketing premiums to small employeers. Pre aca both parties had ideas on this but could never reach any agreement on letting small businesses get together and say put together a pool (although many professional organizations did so) By bringing enough small businesses into the pool you could possibly have gotten the number of folks in the pool up to where the law of large numbers works.
Of course back in the Golden Age that Conservatives hearken to it was precisely working age men who were SUPPOSED to support everyone else. Men worked, wives kept house, children knew their place, and Dad lived in the little house at back after HIS working days were over.
And in particular it was the job of the young unmarried strong male to do the heavy work for his father as he built up a stake for his own ultimate marriage and establishment as Head of Household. Plus young men in Conservative Fantasyland ALSO fought all the wars for everyone else.
Now the REALITIES of the “Free White Male and 21” being the backbone and support of the whole country were a little different, but it is not Conservatives who tout the contributions of women and children and people of color to society the economy, we Liberals are not the people who festishize Manhood and Fatherhood.
So it is a little sociopathic for Conservatives to be adopting Young Male Invincible Carefree Slackers as their model citizen here. one being imposed on by providing food, shelter and health care to ‘their’ ‘dependents’. That isn’t Traditional Family Conservatism that is the adoption of very Dude for himself Libertarian Objectivism.
I mean what is the message here: A Man Should Take Care of His Family – Unless they are Old, Young or Female -Then They are On Their Own.
Sheesh, live by the patriarchy or give it up as the ideal, what kind of Family Values are being exhibited here? Of COURSE the young provide for the old and the weak, that is all part of the Aren’t You a Big Strong Man! imaging so beloved by young Conservatives.
Harkening back to Bruce’s and others analyses of the ACA we can see just how accurate their understanding was of those who would lose coverage and be FORCED into the new ?lower cost and better? system. Now that ACA is in operation, we see how the general populace reacts to what was know by these early analysts. It aint pretty to watch, eh?
We constantly hear that the GOP has not presented a counter solution to ACE. I contend that they have always presented a solution, but liberals can not even understand it s it does not require government as an active participant.
One basic difference between liberals and conservatives is the belief that government should be THE key participant. (government is the solution for nearly everything), and conservatives believe that the individual IS the key participant (government is the biggest problem). Bruce’s “sociopathic” comment is a direct reflection of this difference.
ACA is fast approaching the point where it will be THE CASE STUDY of government failed ideas. It was doomed because of Bruce’s “sociopathic” examples.
We were founded on the belief to distrust the government. ACA flew in the face of this fundamental mindset. Worse it was passed by a liberal partisan Congress and based upon deception. All of these made ACA the failure the GOP predicted.
You are (not surprisingly) conflating “family” with “government.”
Most who are strong, in an economic sense, willingly support those in need where there is a personal connection. It starts with the immediate family and radiates out to extended families, friends, associates, and acquaintances. Charity is freely extended and provides a whole host of societal benefits.
Government, on the other hand, takes money by force to give to unknown others, where it is impossible to determine how deserving are the recipients, and how efficiently the government transfers it. Pile on top of that that the government is often just buying votes.
Finally it creates the surly, entitled, attitude that you exhibit in your post.
Government is not Family. The sooner you realize that, the less you will be disappointed.
I never knew George Will was that interesting — on Warren outflanking Hillary for the Democratic presidential nod:
“Between Warren, hot in pursuit of malefactors of great wealth, and Clinton, hot in pursuit of great wealth, which candidate would be more fun for the kind of people who compose the Democrats’ nominating electorate?”
There is probably no family that can resist the power of organized thugs all by itself. Families learned about ten thousand years ago that they needed to organize themselves to fight the thugs or the thugs would become their rulers. That organization of families is what we call “government.”
I don’t know of any other solution, but the problem is of course that often either the thugs take over the government, or the government becomes thuggish. The men who founded America knew this and they took precautions to prevent the government from becoming thuggish, or being taken over by thugs.
We all know this. But you two keep calling for us to just give up our one defense against thugs so your friends, the thugs, can take over the government with not so much trouble.
That is your choice. You will ALWAYS have government. You can work to keep it on your side, or you can let the thugs fool you and then you become slaves of the people who are always warning you against becoming slaves. They are not very smart, but they seem to be smarter than you.
Of course there are people on the other side who seem to be completely unaware of the dangers of government and keep calling for “the government” to do things to people that they would not like to have done to themselves.
All the rest of us can do is hope that you and they fight each other to a kind of draw, so the rest of us can get some work done in something like peace and relative safety from both your houses.
If you like to read at all, Dumas in The Three Musketeers shows a character who reminds me of you. Monsieur Bonacieux (If I remember) is easily fooled by Richilieu into become a spy against his wife.
One of the things that should be made clear is that the ACA would result in a redistribution of who pays. by moving to gender neutral community rating for example young men pay more then on gender specific tables (true until about age 62). Also the 3 x factor means that the young pay more then they would have under a different system. However those with preexisting conditions pay less,
Of course in addition the ACA policies do cover more.
Perhaps this should have been made clearer but then there would have been objections because many seem to not understand the whole idea of insurance, that you need large pools because of the law of large numbers. In one sense that shows up in large group policies by employeers where the law of large numbers works but does not work for small companies where the numbers are not large enough for the law to work, thus the problem of skyrocketing premiums to small employeers. Pre aca both parties had ideas on this but could never reach any agreement on letting small businesses get together and say put together a pool (although many professional organizations did so) By bringing enough small businesses into the pool you could possibly have gotten the number of folks in the pool up to where the law of large numbers works.
Of course back in the Golden Age that Conservatives hearken to it was precisely working age men who were SUPPOSED to support everyone else. Men worked, wives kept house, children knew their place, and Dad lived in the little house at back after HIS working days were over.
And in particular it was the job of the young unmarried strong male to do the heavy work for his father as he built up a stake for his own ultimate marriage and establishment as Head of Household. Plus young men in Conservative Fantasyland ALSO fought all the wars for everyone else.
Now the REALITIES of the “Free White Male and 21” being the backbone and support of the whole country were a little different, but it is not Conservatives who tout the contributions of women and children and people of color to society the economy, we Liberals are not the people who festishize Manhood and Fatherhood.
So it is a little sociopathic for Conservatives to be adopting Young Male Invincible Carefree Slackers as their model citizen here. one being imposed on by providing food, shelter and health care to ‘their’ ‘dependents’. That isn’t Traditional Family Conservatism that is the adoption of very Dude for himself Libertarian Objectivism.
I mean what is the message here: A Man Should Take Care of His Family – Unless they are Old, Young or Female -Then They are On Their Own.
Sheesh, live by the patriarchy or give it up as the ideal, what kind of Family Values are being exhibited here? Of COURSE the young provide for the old and the weak, that is all part of the Aren’t You a Big Strong Man! imaging so beloved by young Conservatives.
Harkening back to Bruce’s and others analyses of the ACA we can see just how accurate their understanding was of those who would lose coverage and be FORCED into the new ?lower cost and better? system. Now that ACA is in operation, we see how the general populace reacts to what was know by these early analysts. It aint pretty to watch, eh?
We constantly hear that the GOP has not presented a counter solution to ACE. I contend that they have always presented a solution, but liberals can not even understand it s it does not require government as an active participant.
One basic difference between liberals and conservatives is the belief that government should be THE key participant. (government is the solution for nearly everything), and conservatives believe that the individual IS the key participant (government is the biggest problem). Bruce’s “sociopathic” comment is a direct reflection of this difference.
ACA is fast approaching the point where it will be THE CASE STUDY of government failed ideas. It was doomed because of Bruce’s “sociopathic” examples.
We were founded on the belief to distrust the government. ACA flew in the face of this fundamental mindset. Worse it was passed by a liberal partisan Congress and based upon deception. All of these made ACA the failure the GOP predicted.
Bruce,
You are (not surprisingly) conflating “family” with “government.”
Most who are strong, in an economic sense, willingly support those in need where there is a personal connection. It starts with the immediate family and radiates out to extended families, friends, associates, and acquaintances. Charity is freely extended and provides a whole host of societal benefits.
Government, on the other hand, takes money by force to give to unknown others, where it is impossible to determine how deserving are the recipients, and how efficiently the government transfers it. Pile on top of that that the government is often just buying votes.
Finally it creates the surly, entitled, attitude that you exhibit in your post.
Government is not Family. The sooner you realize that, the less you will be disappointed.
I never knew George Will was that interesting — on Warren outflanking Hillary for the Democratic presidential nod:
“Between Warren, hot in pursuit of malefactors of great wealth, and Clinton, hot in pursuit of great wealth, which candidate would be more fun for the kind of people who compose the Democrats’ nominating electorate?”
Bored with Hillary Clinton, looking to Elizabeth Warren
They say a man is best known by the enemies he makes.
So I couldn’t be more proud.
Thanks CoRev and Sammy! You guys are the best!
CoRev and Sammy
you’ve only got half of the story.
There is probably no family that can resist the power of organized thugs all by itself. Families learned about ten thousand years ago that they needed to organize themselves to fight the thugs or the thugs would become their rulers. That organization of families is what we call “government.”
I don’t know of any other solution, but the problem is of course that often either the thugs take over the government, or the government becomes thuggish. The men who founded America knew this and they took precautions to prevent the government from becoming thuggish, or being taken over by thugs.
We all know this. But you two keep calling for us to just give up our one defense against thugs so your friends, the thugs, can take over the government with not so much trouble.
That is your choice. You will ALWAYS have government. You can work to keep it on your side, or you can let the thugs fool you and then you become slaves of the people who are always warning you against becoming slaves. They are not very smart, but they seem to be smarter than you.
Of course there are people on the other side who seem to be completely unaware of the dangers of government and keep calling for “the government” to do things to people that they would not like to have done to themselves.
All the rest of us can do is hope that you and they fight each other to a kind of draw, so the rest of us can get some work done in something like peace and relative safety from both your houses.
If you like to read at all, Dumas in The Three Musketeers shows a character who reminds me of you. Monsieur Bonacieux (If I remember) is easily fooled by Richilieu into become a spy against his wife.
So much for family.