“But I never thought leopards would eat my face” cries woman who voted for the “leopards eating your face” party.
So is the system that granted access to affordable healthcare for only those with the “right” employer/profession/union membership and penalized self-payers and individual insurance consumers.
Where did I say I was a fan of what we had before? It looks better now after Obamacare, I’d agree, and if it were possible I’d revert back to it tomorrow (thinking about my own interests and well being like the left says I should). But what we had before wasn’t without it’s problems.
nm
I like that last sentence- very understated. Almost British- stiff upper lip and all that.
Do you remember the hue and cry about denials, exclusions, and cancellations in the run up before ACA?
The requirement should never have existed in the first place, so this is a good thing.
And the issue here is what? There will be minimal impact on ANWR, so that can’t be it. It will lessen our dependence on foreign oil; that’s a good thing. So…?
Why?
Because he’s a selfish, greedy asshole who can’t stand to see one dollar go to help someone other than himself.
Remember, despite the fact that insurance (other peoples’ money) helped fix the window at his McDojang, he still bitched about his deductible. I guess he wanted others to pay the whole thing.
No it’s not.
[ul]
[li]Insurance works by spreading the risk over many people.[/li]
[li]People that don’t have insurance have more of a tendency to wait to get treatment until they get critical. That costs us all money.[/li]
[li]People with out insurance are more likely to get so bad they end up in the ER. This is a waste of resources and drives health care costs up. And it can overcrowd ER’s.[/li][/ul]
I’m sure this has been explained a dozen times already.
IMHO, I think we should concentrate on reducing carbon emissions, try to save wildlife refuges and National Monuments. It also sets a bad precedent. Utah is another instance of this. We should instead focus on research and renewables.
By all means, continue to degrade and mock those cracker states you don’t need or are beneath you. The states you need are above all that.
The smart states.
You sound kinda grumpy for a guy that’s gloating.
And as usual you completely miss the point for the sake of a quick drive-by quip.
But you’re “winning”! in your mind.
Somehow.
To all my liberal friends aruging against the stupid, error-filled tax bill: making this about donor state/taker state is BULLSHIT.
The overwhelming reason why some states are donor and others are takers is Social Security and Medicare. It has nothing to do with left/right politics, has nothing to do with great states versus shitty states.
States that are “takers” have a bigger percentage of retirees. And there isn’t anything wrong with retirees getting the Federal benefits that they have worked an entire lifetime to earn. Stop making it out like greedy Republicans are raiding the Federal Treasury that is filled by the good graces of hard working Democrats.
Taxpayers in places like California and New York will be totally screwed over by this plan. They are already ‘donor states’. For example, New York receives 70¢ in federal money for every dollar they send. Taxpayers in states that receive more federal dollars than they put into the system will be the winners.
Is it really fair, or does it even make sense, to make people in four states pay higher taxes for states that are already takers?
Hmm…
So, blue, purple, blue, blue, light blue, blue, purple, light blue, red. (CITE)
So no, it is not old people retiring in Mississippi and Alabama making them taker states.
It is relevant, because the bill is written and voted on by representatives of states. Those representatives do have an interest in getting more for their state than for others. The current disparity is not just in retirees, many military bases are located in republican leaning states, as well as defense contractors. They were put there back in the days when earmarks were a thing.
Even if you could argue that the democratic leaning states are not supporting the republican leaning states, they are specifically doing things that will cost the democratic leaning states more, and benefit the republican leaning states. So, if your argument were true before (which I disagree with), then it would no longer be.
In the end, and for whatever reason you choose to justify it, tax dollars are, in fact, coming out of the more urban left leaning states, and going into the more rural right leaning states.
I don’t think the liberals on the board (myself included) are arguing that there shouldn’t be this discrepancy in public spending. The money goes to the poorer states because they are generally the ones who need it the most. What we are complaining about is the hypocrisy of the populations of those states complaining about how awful and useless government is while at the same time making more use of it than anyone else. “The government does nothing good and should be small enough to drown in a bathtub! and I’ll call vote to make it so as soon as I cash my farm subsidy check!”
Defense bases/contractors are not all that signficant in this measurement. California’s share of annual defense spending is somewhere in the $80-$100 billion range, if my memory serves. Out of $4 trillion in annual government spending, that’s hardly a blip.
I consider it a fact that the tax bill is targeting blue states to pay more, and increase the benefits of tax cuts to red states. However, this has nothing to do with donor/taker states.
This cartoonish view of right wing voters shouldn’t be taken very seriously. Those voters are totally in favor of cuts to welfare and education (which I think is fucking stupid), but if you want to cut their Social Security or Medicare (cough cough get the government out of Medicare cough cough) they will freak out.
And since I’m telling you that Social Security and Medicare are the two top contributors to the whole donor/taker state calculation, I reject the point that you’re trying to make. Because it is false.
Before I provide my cites, please tell me what types of Federal funding make these states “taker” states, in your opinion.
Big blip.
Of course, I didn’t even get into things like agricultural subsidies (which is not just direct payments, but is crop insurance, food stamps, foreign aid, etc…)and other favorable tax treatments to family farms.
So, you agree that it increases the tax burden on the blue states, and gives those benefits to red states, but do not consider that relationship to be donor/taker.
Could you clarify that position? Not trying to be snarky, but it seems as thought here is some nuance I am missing.
But they are going to get cuts to their SS and medicare. The republicans have all but promised this. They may freak out, but given that due to these tax cuts, we will not be able to afford those entitlements anymore, there’s not much they can do.
It seems that that is the case for florida, and maybe arizona. Not so much alabama or mississippi, or kansas, or oklahoma…