A minimum income could rescue the GOP

The concern that haunted the economist Friedrich Hayek, and should be the driving force behind the Republican Party, is the stifling impact of an ever-growing, ever more powerful regulatory state. The current Republican obsession with an imaginary 47% who are sucking the blood of good, hard-working white people may help energize an aging, frightened political base, but it is crippling any effort to fight this trend. The Republican Party is drowning in the sick notion that the poor (and in particular minorities) are pulling off some sort of grift in the form of the Welfare State. This delusion is destroying the center-right majority coalition the party built late in the last century behind the campaign to streamline government.

Republicans’ insensitive statements about the poor and minorities are a gift to the Democrats. The biggest rhetorical obstacle to limiting the size and scope of government is the fear that such an effort conceals a secret plan to destroy the protections against poverty that the country built in the fifty years after the Great Depression.We have helped to convince the public that a permanently expanding central state is necessary to guarantee a minimum standard of living for all.

Taking food stamps away from the working poor is not a plan. It does nothing to address the problem of expanding government or to increase personal liberty. Along the way, it creates a lasting tie in the public mind between those who talk about liberty and selfish jerks who resent the less fortunate. The social safety net is not a problem that needs to be fixed. The long-term problem grinding away liberty is the permanent, incremental expansion of the central state. The social safety net is merely a screen that protects those who would keep that expansion rolling. Attacking the screen means abetting the problem.

Looking back at Hayek’s support for a minimum income sheds light on this problem and helps explain why Libertarians have generally favored the idea. From Mark Zwolinski at Libertarianism.org:

A slave is unfree because his every decision is subject to interference at the will of his master. To be free, in contrast, is to be able to act according to one’s own decisions and plans, without having to seek the approval of any higher authority (CL p. 59).

[…]

A basic income gives people an option – to exit the labor market, to relocate to a more competitive market, to invest in training, to take an entrepreneurial risk, and so on. And the existence of that option allows them to escape subjection to the will of others. It enables them to say “no” to proposals that only extreme desperation would ever drive them to accept. It allows them to govern their lives according to their own plans, their own goals, and their own desires. It enables them to be free.

Of course, a basic income would need to be funded by taxation (or would it?), and so would seem to involve the imposition its own kind of coercion. Hayek recognized this fact, but like most in the classical liberal tradition, Hayek did not believe that all taxation was incompatible with freedom. What makes the coercion of the slavemaster, or the monopolist, so worrisome for Hayek is that it involves the arbitrary imposition of one person’s will on another. By contrast, a tax system that is clearly and publicly defined in advance, that imposes only reasonable rates for genuinely public purposes, that is imposed equally upon all, and that is constrained by democratic procedures and the rule of law, might still be constitute interference, but not arbitrary interference.

If Republicans could shake loose from the bounds of the culture wars and start thinking about practical solutions, we could pick up where we left off politically in the ’90’s. A minimum income offers the opportunity to take the subject of the safety net completely off the table when talking about efforts to roll back central government power. No one should be able to claim that endless government expansion into personal decision-making is necessary to protect the poor.

If we could overcome our strange envy for those who depend on food stamps to feed their families, Republicans could eliminate that line of argument overnight. A bit of of political jujitsu could improve everyone’s lives and change the playing field in the battle over personal liberty. Republicans should stop fighting the trim the scraps handed out by the welfare state and start looking for creative ways to replace it with something better.

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Uncategorized, Welfare State
101 comments on “A minimum income could rescue the GOP
  1. Amelia says:

    This post is very informative but it took me a long time to find it in google.
    I found it on 21 spot, you should focus on quality backlinks building, it will help you
    to increase traffic. And i know how to help you, just type in google –
    k2 seo tips and tricks

  2. […] That must be some hefty fine. Now that you will have teh debt paid off, can we install a minimum income for Americans? Really, we will all be indebted to you. __________________ ___________________ […]

  3. […] have a reasonable voice… …in the GOP who advocated for a minimum income, the thread about it is here. Now he expands his thinking (and at least he's thinking about the […]

  4. John Galt says:

    “A basic income gives people an option – to exit the labor market, to relocate to a more competitive market, to invest in training, to take an entrepreneurial risk, and so on.”

    It also gives people the option to blow the cash on drugs and alcohol, questionable tattoos, and stupid get rich quick schemes. We are still not going to let people starve in the streets (or, at least, not the children that fall victim to their parents’ idiocy), so a minimum income still doesn’t remove the need for some social safety net. The bureaucratic hodgepodge of programs presently in existence seeks to ensure that at least some of the benefits be targeted to necessities: food, shelter, utilities, children’s health care. A minimum income without strings attached relies on the personal responsibility of the beneficiaries to make choices that maximize utility of that money. This sounds great in libertarian pamphlets, but we all know what would happen in reality.

    That said, there are some successful conditional cash transfer schemes that could be imported. Brazil’s Bolsa Familia provides cash to families (basically on a debit card). Interestingly, the benefit is legally in the name of the mother (so dad better make nice) and requires that children be in school and receive proper health care. I don’t know all the details, but it has received raves for its success.

  5. Tuttabella says:

    OV, my friend, keep up the good fight, especially with respect to the accusations of elitism and lack of empathy. I would venture to say that all of us lack empathy, in that no one can truly understand the experience of another. We all come from different backgrounds, different circumstances, etc. Some don’t understand the difficulties others have had to face, and others go to the opposite extreme and in some cases assume there is more hardship in others’ lives than there really is. A lot of these beliefs seem to be media driven, combined with a need for personal narratives that fit in with our worldview. I see it in the comments about Obamacare. For some, it’s reduced to complaints about parasite minorities, especially illegals. For others, it’s about the violation of our personal liberties.

    We spend way too much time judging our neighbor, but I guess politics demands it — not just politics, but living in the same society, and everything that entails, including paying taxes — demands it. Were there a way to separate oneself completely from bothering with what our fellow man and woman are doing! I prefer to be apolitical, or at least to vote into office the least intrusive politicians, while in the meantime just go about my business, live my own life, and do my best not to be a burden on others, which also means staying out of THEIR business.

    • objv says:

      Tuttabella!!!! So good to hear from you! I know I shouldn’t be using so many exclamation points, but I am extremely happy to see your comments and I can’t help myself!!!! …. And another ! for good measure.

      As you can see from the comments below, that rascal, bubbabobicat, has been dogging me with the same persistence that Gollum showed in tracking Frodo along the way to Mordor. Or, perhaps, I am Gollum. No matter. Both of your excellent comments will be taken to heart.

      Yes, it is important to try to understand one another and not develop narratives based on preconceived notions. I often see myself portrayed as an entitled, spoiled, white woman who lacks compassion and has never known hardship (and, bizarrely, wants to be in the kitchen barefoot). I need to remember not to build narratives about other people, since the narratives about me bother me greatly.

      All the best to you and Cap. I hope that you had a very, Merry Christmas!

      • Tuttabella says:

        !!!!!!!!!

        OV, I thought you might actually be Bart/Serious Cynic, considering you’re receiving the same level of unnatural attention from that certain poster.

        I finally took that oft promised “vow of silence.” i’ve spent the last couple of months on an Ingmar Bergman film marathon. I even got Cap to watch The Seventh Seal with me. Much more productive than bickering about politics, considering all the Swedish words and phrases I’ve picked up along the way while immersed in the world of Bergman. I’ve been doing a lot of background reading, so I feel like I’m in a film studies seminar.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Apparently everyone has their biases based on their own preconceived notions and political affiliations trumps honesty and objectivity Tuttabella. As you ironically noted of others.

        This “unnatural attention” for Objective View was precipitated by OV INITIATING the “discourse” with me on a discussion with another poster that was none of her business to start with this opening missive:

        “DanMan, You’ll have to excuse bubba’s personal attacks. I fear he may be getting delusional.”

        Unnatural intention indeed Tuttabella. No biases whatsoever in your perspective I see.

        As for Bart-1/Seriouscynic/USincrisis, I have documented his 2nd grade level sockpuppet trolling pathetically failed attempt at bullying ad nauseum and if you choose to ignore that then that is your problem. If you approve of multiple identities to bully those you disagree with and initiating “debate” (when it wasn’t even her conversation) with whiny faux victimization name calling and clueless lies, then that is your issue, not mine. I respond when attacked. And make no apologies for it. As for “personal attacks”, I see that both you Tuttabella and not surprisingly OV are OK with DanMan hurling unsubstantiated accusations of “plagiarism” that he refuses to provide evidence of. Which was my original discussion with DanMan and him only.

        Again I see political affiliation trumps honesty and apparently normal civil discourse from the right. As usual.

      • objv says:

        Throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps the loudest is usually the one that got hit. ~ Old saying of unknown origins

        —————————————————————

        Tuttabella, Thanks for the Ingmar Bergman film recommendation. Once my son leaves to go back to college, I will have to talk my daughter into watching some old movies with me.

        With two offspring who are science majors, the fare on the big screen at our house has been geeky rather than romantic. My son and daughter have already completed The Lord of the Rings Trilogy and the first Hobbit movie after seeing the second Hobbit at the theater – hence the Gollum analogy in my last reply.. They are currently plowing through all of the original Star Trek episodes.

        I wish bubba would invent an imaginary housekeeper for me. I have to confess that although I love to garden in the “searing heat,” it would be nice to have someone to blame if housework doesn’t get done. Bubba, are you still out there? Please, please invent an imaginary housekeeper for me. I promise to pay her a “pittance” and treat her with the same disdain as my imaginary yard man.

      • Tuttabella says:

        OV – Ingmar Bergman is NOT known for romantic movies.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Ingmar Bergman is NOT Ingrid Bergman. Not even the same gender.

        Just like lesbian hater Liz Cheney is NOT lesbian Mary Cheney.

        But keep posting your “scintillating knowledge” of all things NOT bedpans OV.

      • objv says:

        Thank you for the correction Tuttabella and bubba. Unlike some people (bubba), I am perfectly willing to admit when I have made a mistake. I was upfront when I indicated that I have never watched any of Ingmar Bergman’s movies – or any movies with INGRID Bergman in them for that matter. I also freely admitted when I got the Cheney girls mixed up. What can I say? I was wrong. Anyone up for a game of Star Trek trivia?

        Truth to be told, when Ingrid Bergman was mentioned, I went back to my post to see if I had made a typo. My mother’s name is Ingrid and that is also my middle name. And, yes, Tuttabella, since you know my real first name (also Scandinavian), the combination my parent’s chose was unconventional to say the least. 🙂

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Objective View wrote: “Unlike some people (bubba), I am perfectly willing to admit when I have made a mistake.”

        You lie yet again OV. Do you EVER think or use your brain before you post? No, you are not ever willing to admit you are wrong even when you claim you do because you will always throw a caveat or snark in to qualify that “admission” as evidenced in your comments here. And you are WRONG yet AGAIN in your mischaracterization of me. As a matter of fact, Tuttabella can tell you that I have publicly acknowledged on the boards to Cap when proven wrong and apologized to him directly, openly, honestly, and WITHOUT EQUIVOCATION or snark despite our differences.

        Can’t say the same for you OV. Ever. Thank you for proving you are a gutless coward though, OV.

        But please do continue to post OV to prove your “intelligence” and “class”.

      • objv says:

        bubba, I have never known you to admit that you were wrong. I’ll have to take your word that you apologized to Cap. As for “snark” … What about the bedpan comment? Sure, as a nurse’s aide – and even when working as an RN – I had to change the occasional bedpan as well as doing other messy, menial work. Why do you look down on that type of job? You seem to have plenty of sympathy for a nonexistent yard man.

        It takes intelligence to become a registered nurse. I worked in the OR for years. If you ever have to have emergency surgery, RNs would be part of the team working to keep you alive. Believe me, you would not be interviewing the surgical team and asking them if they had ever watched any Ingmar Bergman movies before you were wheeled into the operating room.

        Sure, I have gaps in my cultural knowledge. Who doesn’t? bubba, it is remarkable that someone such as yourself who constantly insults and demeans conservatives would become thin skinned when I would add a bit of “snark” to my own replies.

      • DanMan says:

        I can say with certainty nothing is better than a bubbabobcat comment.

    • Tuttabella says:

      OV, I see you have your Bergmans confused. Kind of like those who confuse the Objectives of this blog? (ObjectiveView, Objective1, etc.)

      Good grief, Bubba. Everyone makes mistakes (some more than others). In any case, I suggest our esteemed audience watch “Autumn Sonata,” which was directed by INGMAR Bergman and stars INGRID Bergman. That way, everyone is correct, even those who have confused the Bergmans, and everyone can feel good about themselves. Now there’s a solution. No need to get out my sword and cut the movie in two.

      And since OV brought up romantic comedies, I would suggest the two of you get a room, as has often been suggested to Bubba and Bart, but I think OV’s husband would “Object.”

      • objv says:

        Tuttalbella: Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Tuttabella wrote: “Good grief, Bubba. Everyone makes mistakes (some more than others).”

        Yes I know and that was my point. Especially when some are wrong more often than not and willfully so.

        And OV lied, “bubba [sic], I have never known you to admit that you were wrong.”

        Thank you Tutt for demonstrating and proving political affiliation trumps honesty. Yes I know OV agrees with your views and that precludes you from calling a spade a spade when dealing with her and her histrionic lies and willful ignorance.

        And for the record OV, my posts to Cappy on the Chron:

        “You’re right cappy, I totally screwed up the calculations and counted your 4 week salary as a biweekly salary and doubled the actual annual salary from what it should have been. And at the correct projected annual salary of $31,200, your marginal tax rate would have been 15% and not 28-31% and so 21% would have been correct for Federal and Social Security taxes. My apologies.”

        And:

        “I stand corrected Cappy. Thank you.

        Yes there was a Democratic supermajority in the Senate for approximately 4 months as Turtles also noted.”

        One more time, thank you for proving you are a gutless coward, OV.

        But please do continue to post OV to prove your “intelligence” and “class”.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Objective View wrote:

        “I don’t know who DanMan is, so I’m not quite sure why bubba thinks I should be calling him out for any of his comments…”

        It’s called honesty and ethics OV. Thanks for posting and continuing to pointing out your own cluelessness and lack of such.

        And speaking of willful ignorance, Buzzy posts a nasty whine unprompted with such “pleasantly polite” missives as “crap storm”, “echo chamber”, “tedious and boring” and “Their main job is to make Chris look good.”

        And Blinder View responds with a lot of gall and a total lack of irony or awareness with ” You (Buzzy) can always be counted on to treat everyone with respect.”

        One more time, wow, just wow.

        More proof wingnuts and guns are a bad mix. Lots of ER visits for missing foot digits.

    • Tuttabella says:

      Seriously, OV, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Don’t worry about what Bubba thinks of you. You’re an intelligent, diplomatic, classy lady — an RN, tax preparer, wife, and mother — usually backing up your comments with statistics and links, and often providing personal anecdotes as illustrations — and you’re witty as heck. If there’s snark in your tone, there’s usually good reason for it.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        OV, great job going through the crap storm the echo chamber employs when opposing views arise. Their main job is to make Chris look good. I have not been frequenting these parts because…well, it became tedious and boring. Formula: Chris writes a post, echo chamber defends and attacks all conservatives.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Let’s see, DanTroll makes unsubstantiated accusations of plagiarism without proof even when requested. Objective View joins the fray also without acknowledging DanTroll’s scurrilous lies and starts with personal attacks on me and the tiresome faux victimization whines. I defend myself and highlight OV’s ignorance and disdain for facts, Tuttabella joins in and supports OV without acknowledging DanTroll’s lies or OV initiating unprompted personal attacks, and now the coup de grace, Buzzy joining in (unprompted) on the faux victimization wingnut whine about how “conservatives get attacked unfairly”.

        Wow, just wow. Wingnuts must be vampires as they seem to avoid all mirrors with absolute abject fear.

        The hypocrisy is strong with these wingnuts.

        And a Happy New Year to you too.

      • objv says:

        Tuttabella: You should definitely be laughing. I agree with DanMan when he wrote “there nothing is better than a bubbabobcat comment” – for a good chuckle. I don’t know who DanMan is, so I’m not quite sure why bubba thinks I should be calling him out for any of his comments, but we definitely need more conservatives in the “echo chamber.” (Hi there, Kabuzz!)

        Thanks for your kind comment. You can always be counted on to treat everyone with respect. Has Cap also taken a vow of silence?. (I have been hoping that he has taken a vow of a different sort.)

        In any case, Happy New Year to the two of you!

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Objective View wrote:

        “I don’t know who DanMan is, so I’m not quite sure why bubba thinks I should be calling him out for any of his comments…”

        It’s called honesty and ethics OV. Thanks for posting and continuing to pointing out your own cluelessness and lack of such.

        And speaking of willful ignorance, Buzzy posts a nasty whine unprompted with such “pleasantly polite” missives as “crap storm”, “echo chamber”, “tedious and boring” and “Their main job is to make Chris look good.”

        And Blinder View responds with a lot of gall and a total lack of irony or awareness with ” You (Buzzy) can always be counted on to treat everyone with respect.”

        One more time, wow, just wow.

        More proof wingnuts and guns are a bad mix. Lots of ER visits for missing foot digits.

      • Turtles Run says:

        @kabuzz

        What conservatives? Certainly not you.

  6. Tuttabella says:

    I understand how it’s necessary to have one’s basic needs met in order to be free to live one’s life, but when you give someone a minimum income, whether through equal taxation or outright charity, it will come with strings — formal conditions, or at the very least, expectations. It makes sense, but a person cannot truly be free when there are strings attached.

    It’s not just about certain people being expected to use their minimum income for food, shelter, and utilities. What about people who are already able to meet their basic necessities? Should their use of the money also be dictated? Personally, I would first pay off my credit card bills and save the rest for a rainy day. Others might choose to start a business, go back to school, renovate their home, or give it away to charity. It should be their own choice, but as has been pointed out, money usually comes with strings.

    Heck, even money that is earned comes with certain strings. How many people are beholden to their jobs, feeling that they can’t say no to certain demands, spending more time on work than with their families or doing what they truly love, lest they lose their livelihoods?

    This may sound simplistic, and even lacking in empathy, but what works best for me is to keep my needs and wants to a bare minimum, so that I’m not beholden to any job, person, or institution. I know stuff happens, there are circumstances beyond our control, and we all make mistakes, but it makes sense to keep the upper hand over what we can control.

  7. Turtles Run says:

    I think GOPlifer’s idea has some real merit to it. First if this is payable to everyone then it helps streamline the government and gives everyone a floor in which they cannot fall below. The GOTP will hate this idea for two reasons. first the tea party faction will have an aneurysm from the fact that someone that is needy may actually get help. Second, the GOP faction will lose their mind knowing the takers vs makers argument will be taken away.

    In case you are wondering the Democrats will hate the plan for the exact same reason the GOP will.

    • salt_fly says:

      The takers vs. the makers argument will not be taken away because those unable to provide for themselves (takers) will still receive from the productive members of society (makers). The guaranteed income will have to come from taxes on the makers and be redistributed to the takers. That is essentially what is happening now just in the form of many government programs instead of one.

  8. Glenn Koks says:

    I am not totally against something like a UBI if it came with taxpayer protections and was properly funded. By “protections” I mean something like vouchers. For example a 350.00 a month voucher that can only be used for rent. 250.00 worth of foodstamps and 100.00 energy voucher that can only be used and accepted by utility companies.

    No way in hell I would support a government issued check every month to do with as you want. I like to think I am rational enough to realize we need a social safety net but wise enough to know that “charity” comes with strings attached.

    • DanMan says:

      I nominate Glenn Chairman of the UBI Board. He can be UBI One. I’ll lend him his first stipend. So UBI One can owe me.

    • fiftyohm says:

      Hey Glenn- What you suggest here is not different in substance with the current social welfare system. At the heart of the UBI concept is the notion that unfettered access to, and unrestricted use of money provided by the state is, (as opposed to food stamps, for example), the pixie dust.

      While I admit the concept is attractive from a Libertarian perspective on its face, I think it would be as much a disaster in practice as completely unfettered and regulation-free market capitalism.

      The problem, (as well as the solution), is a realistic view of human nature – a thing that no government or concept of governance, has ever, or will ever, successfully influence or alter in any lasting or material manner.

      • DanMan says:

        fiftyohm I suggest you read Mark Levin’s ‘Liberty and Tyranny’. You will quickly discover there actually was that concept of government conceived. The fact it won’t last is because that concept is being tossed aside. It is a very fast read as well.

      • Glenn Koks says:

        Fifty,

        Completely unfettered and regulation-free market capitalism did not work out so well for us during The Great Depression. SS and Medicare are putting us on the path to bankruptcy. The key is a means tested social safety net that does not morph into a retirement plan for the masses.

        My term life insurance policy is not my retirement plan. It is a safety net “just in case”. SS should be as well. Not everyone should have a claim. While it may mean increases to “welfare” are needed to pick up some slack the scope of SS needs to be changed and the onus for ones retirement placed back on the individual.

        The cost of providing a minimum safety net for the truly needy should cost a fraction of what it is to provide a retirement for everyone.

      • fiftyohm says:

        DanMan- I put it on the list. But what I said was “no government or concept of governance, has ever, or will ever, successfully influence or alter” human nature – a statement I stand by. That a successful theory of governance that recognizes and works with human nature as it is, is indeed possible. Marxism obviopusly ignored this, which is in my opinion, its fatal flaw.

        Glenn- While there really wasn’t ‘completely unfettered’ market capitalism, even during the Great Depression, and the causes of it were manifold, I take no strong exception to your statements.

  9. DanMan says:

    whewie! speaking of obsessive…Hey bubba, what does Hayek have to say about a persistent check engine light?

    and this begs the question. Should UBI include a stipend for transportation? I mean how in hey can a person get his EBT card to the grocery store without transportation? would a person get enough for basic wheels? a bus pass? maybe an extra amount for preserving an older rig in order to reduce the squandering of resources to build new cars? an annual rim stipend maybe?

    I see the need for an IPAB type board to mete out fairness as only a committee with no stake in the outcome can provide.

    • bubbabobcat says:

      Why do wingnuts always want to control the conversation and determine for everyone else what to say? Eh Sparke Dan?

      You provide proof of your unsubstantiated accusations and I might think about discussing what you insist on discussing. If I feel like it. First Amendment thingy you know? Deal DannyLiar?

  10. bubbabobcat says:

    Sorry, the previous comment was in response to a snarky (and factually inaccurate) whine by Objective View and incorrectly posted as a general comment. I reposted it correctly as a reply below so you can delete this copy Chris if you would like. Thanks.

  11. bubbabobcat says:

    IgnorantView wrote:

    “…but, hey anyone who insists that it’s OK to ignore a check engine light can’t be expected to make much sense anyways.”

    Awww, “Objective” View continues to rant cluelessly out of context yet again.

    Here is my original ACCURATE comment in full and IN CONTEXT:

    “Maybe you should have found a better, more accurately ‘nuanced’ clip to illustrate your point OV.

    And I guess you are acknowledging your original point and debunked ‘fact’ and source are pure crap if you are resorting to arguing about a clip from a TV show? That you didn’t accurately utilize to support your ‘point’?

    By the way, my car has a check engine light persistently on. For the past 3 years.

    Though I did get it checked out by a mechanic I trusted. He could have replaced part after part that would have cleared it. Temporarily. But not resolve the problem. And cost me lots of $$$ unnecessarily. But my trusted mechanic said he couldn’t find anything not working and his best guess from the error code was the sludge in my gas tank (12 year old car) gets sucked in the injectors when the tank is near empty and screws up the injector and oxygen/fuel mix because you know, the idiot light doesn’t say what’s wrong with the car. Even with the error codes the mechanic pulls. So 3 years later after we did nothing, the car still runs fine.

    Sheldon isn’t always right. Especially in the real world.

    Nuance, OV. Nuance.”

    So yes I “ignored” a check engine light. After a good mechanic confirmed it was an inaccurately simplistic and meaningless “warning”.

    Using your brain a little is way more efficient than ignorantly obsessing over something you have no clue about. You should try it sometime. And that applies to more than auto mechanics for you OV. There’s a good reason you have a thick skull to protect it you know.

    And the person who “ignores a check engine light” makes way more sense than a persistently factually incorrect (and annoyingly whiny) wingnut yet again.

    Surprise! Not.

  12. flypusher says:

    The story behind Reagan’s “welfare queen”:

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2013/12/linda_taylor_welfare_queen_ronald_reagan_made_her_a_notorious_american_villain.html

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/12/20/255819681/the-truth-behind-the-lies-of-the-original-welfare-queen

    So she was real, but as an accomplished professional con-artist, not very representative of the typical welfare recipient. Also her race is quite ambiguous. While I certainly don’t condone welfare fraud, that was the leat of her transgressions.

    • DanMan says:

      I predict UBI royalty emerging in a new sharing utopia where everybody is equal. Except for the upper crust UBI decision makers. Oh, and their protectors. And their doctors. And of course there should be some extra consideration for the artists and entertainers because it takes special talent and lots of sacrifice to remain perpetually creative.

      But everybody else would be equal. Which is what we want. And it would eliminate crime since everybody would have the same stuff. Who would ever want to upset that scenario?

      uh-oh, I think I answered my own question. Foreigners would swamp our borders wanting some of the action. But I guess that would be okay as long as they only wanted what everybody else had and everybody accepted getting a little less in order to maintain equality. So yeah. I suppose it should work.

      Why has this never been tried before?

  13. Anse says:

    I like the idea of a minimum income. I think the problem is more practical than anything else. Could we possibly fund such a thing adequately for 300 million people? And let’s be honest. A huge portion of our economy is based on capitalizing on the desperation of people. For all of the terrible press Walmart gets (and deserves, in this liberal’s opinion), they still get 50 or 100 job applications for every opening precisely because desperate people will take whatever they can get. So much of our economy rests on this. And the welfare state subsidizes it. Could Walmart do what they do if food stamps didn’t exist? Not only is the government effectively subsidizing Walmart’s payroll via food assistance and subsidized housing, a lot of those food stamps are paying for the groceries people buy at Walmart. I’m just picking on them here, the problem is bigger than that one company. It’s the thing that gets me frustrated about typical Republican arguments about big government. For every “welfare queen” there are probably 20 people and a private business or two who could not meet their bottom line without those subsidies. A minimum income would be very liberating, but it would also help overcome the thing that unions in America lack these days. It would give individuals leverage. Each American would be able to demand more and be free to have real choices. Would our economic powers-that-be allow for this? Imagine what would happen to the labor market if people weren’t so desperate.

    • DanMan says:

      You’ve obviously thought about this very thoroughly. Care to give us an idea of how much income should be provided?

      • Anse says:

        That’s one of those practical questions that would be tough to answer, wouldn’t it? Another idea that I’ve come across is simply writing a check to every newborn on the day of their birth. Either the parents could be guardians of the child’s fund, or it could be untouchable until the child’s 18th birthday, or whatever. A little seed that could be used to help get a jump-start on retirement saving, or to help pay for high education, or whatever. And like the minimum-income idea, it could make it possible to either eliminate or drastically reduce the welfare state. But that idea has practical obstacles, too.

      • Bart-1 says:

        recent study by PhD’s concluded the AVERAGE American needs about $75K per year. So let’s just give that to EVERY American over 18. No discrimination and everybody will then be “happy” right? Well, not “everybody” there is someone here who obviously is filled with anger and hate and I don’t ever see him changing.

  14. fiftyohm says:

    Where to begin?

    Hayek and I ‘go way back’, as you know, but his view on a UBI, (Universal Basic Income), was decidedly without much in the way of details.

    For example, let’s say one is receiving the UBI. Does it go away when his earnings from legitimate sources exceeds that amount? If real earnings exceed it only marginally, what is the incentive to work? Does everyone receive it without regard to other income? (Such is the only way it would be truly ‘universal’. Is it then taken back in taxes to pay for everyone else’s? Seems little more than a slight of hand.

    But more to the point, the notion that the ‘freedom’ given the individual otherwise not capable of actually earning the UBI would be expressed as increased mobility, entrepreneurship, risk-taking, and all those other delights is entirely suspect. Is the social safety net to be replaced by a UBI? If one blows it on a failed trip to greener employment pastures, or a failed business venture, or a ‘calculated risk’ like playing the horses, what then? Well, we can’t very well let him starve now can we? So we still need the net.

    Implicit in the assumption that a UBI would enhance the economy, reduce direct government welfare expenses, and all the rest, is that humans behave in a particular manner. Many obviously do not. Furthermore, and quite contrary to the conventional risks associated with say, starting a business, failure of a business started with a UBI, (assuming the continued existence of the safety net), is utterly without consequence. In other words, failure is really undefined. It doesn’t exist. If failure doesn’t exist, then neither does success – and that’s the essence of the problem.

    • goplifer says:

      The idea is that the UBI would replace the safety net entirely. If a monthly guaranteed income payment above some notional poverty level isn’t enough to keep people from poverty then I’m not sure what good the rest of the safety net can possibly do.

      The structure of such a program matters, but at the stage we’re at now the structure is hardly the point. Where we are now we have one side arguing the state needs to be deeply involved in every aspect of personal economic decisionmaking in order to alleviate suffering and create greater economic opportunity. We have another side who seems to think that the threat of poverty is the only thing that makes our economic system run. In their view, the government should be deeply involved in personal decisionmaking, but only on sexual matters. On economic matters winners should take all and only private charities have any business offering assistance.

      A minimum income in some form short-circuits that standoff. Republicans would acknowledge the value of safety net while gutting the regulatory state. Democrats would get the poverty elimination they say they want, while giving up the complex network of patronage on which the party depends. We would get a vastly more libertarian culture without having to throw the sick and needy in the gutter.

      Would many people turn lazy under a UBI? Maybe. I doubt it, but I don’t really care. In my estimation, there isn’t a lot of socially valuable economic activity that has roots in the fear of penury. The people who make our economy run aren’t doing it because they are afraid they might otherwise starve. I think things would change very little in that regard.

      What would change is that young people would probably have space to make smarter decisions about how to start their careers. They would be vastly more entrepreneurial. They would probably take longer to go through college and rack up less debt. It would probably make for an even more dynamic, innovative economy. And despite the wealth transfer, it would probably be an even more unequal economy in income terms as a result. And we wouldn’t care.

      To embrace this plan, both sides would have to abandon the idea that government needs to be making deeply personal choices on behalf of its benighted citizens. We would provide a compassionate and reliable safety net without trying to tell everyone how to live. This is the direction we were headed before the Religious Right derailed the GOP in the ’90’s. This could bring us a much more prosperous and free culture.

      • DanMan says:

        nothing would change with UBI, it would just go from arguing about giving away money without strings to how much is given away and whether strings would “help”

      • fiftyohm says:

        The Achilles heel of all of this is, in my view, the simple fact that many will make bad decisions – and that we won’t allow them to starve on the streets. We’ll end up with another safety net, and even greater government involvement.

      • lomamonster says:

        The plan that Chris has advanced is the most feasible, and with the addition of foreign aid pouring into the United States from third world countries in sympathy with our plight, we just might have a chance!

        Just kidding about the latter…

    • Bobo Amerigo says:

      I think we need to ask ourselves why we think we, the not poverty stricken, are more capable of good decision-making than those who are poverty-stricken.

      1-What Happens When You Just Give Money To Poor People?

      http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/10/25/240590433/what-happens-when-you-just-give-money-to-poor-people

      (You might like the comments, too.)

      2-Poverty strains cognitive abilities, opening door for bad decision-making, new study finds

      “Picture yourself after an all-nighter. Being poor is like that every day.”
      and
      “Mullainathan said previous research often has assumed that poor people are poor because they are somehow less capable than others, whether inherently or because of past trauma or other environmental factors in their lives. But, he said, what the latest study suggests is that the strain of poverty can tax the cognitive abilities of anyone experiencing it — and that those abilities return when the burden of poverty disappears.”

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/poverty-strains-cognitive-abilities-opening-door-for-bad-decision-making-new-study-finds/2013/08/29/89990288-102b-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html

      3-Some Consequences of Having Too Little

      https://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6107/682

      • fiftyohm says:

        Bobo- The NPR piece is a cross-cultural comparison, (assuming the topic here is life in the United States, and not the lives of subsistence farmers in Africa), and is therefore not particularly useful here.

        The second link is possibly supported by some recent research that suggests financial stress can have an impact on I.Q. scores. The causal theory is that such stress consumes mental “bandwidth” that would be otherwise available for other activities. On the other hand, what constitutes “financial stress” is quite broadly defined, and absolutely not restricted to those groups we normally categorize as ‘poor’.

      • Bobo Amerigo says:

        50, here’s a link to a free copy of the 3rd one:

        http://theslab.uchicago.edu/anuj/wp-content/uploads/sci.pdf

      • fiftyohm says:

        Bobo- Thanks. In fact, it was some of the other stuff published by Eldar Shafir to which I was in reference.

        But all of this, I think, assumes a uniformity amongst humans that does not exist. While it may well be true that poverty, “having too little” may, in itself, and to some extent, affect decision-making, it is far from the complete picture. The realistic view is not whether want can be eliminated in any viable society. It is rather by how much, and at what cost wholesale redistribution can accomplish this. There is little doubt that some people are poor simply as a result of always having been so. There is also no doubt that some are ‘rich’, having once been poor, some are poor having once been rich, and everything in between. People will make poor life decisions, and I much doubt that removing, (were such a thing even remotely possible), “want” from our lives will ever change that.

  15. Well, Chris, I believe our disagreement here is one of degree, not kind. I view myself as a classical liberal, and agree wholeheartedly with most of what Hayek espouses. The problem is not the social safety net, per se, it is rather a social safety net run amok.

    “The long-term problem grinding away liberty is the permanent, incremental expansion of the central state.” This statement is absolutely correct. Unfortunately, much of this expansion is ineluctably tied to the expansion of the welfare state (as opposed to a minimal social safety net). We have reached what has become a codependent utopia for our Democrat friends, one in which pervasive wealth redistribution is traded for votes. The social ills generated by this perversity are too numerous to list here, but suffice it to say that our current welfare state poses egregious problems to the well being of our republic.

    Rather than a set minimum wage, I would overhaul the tax system to a simple two-bracket system in which the tax rate for the first income bracket is 0%, i.e. nobody pays any tax at all on any income of any sort up to some small multiplier of the poverty level. That’s a better way to protect the poor than instituting a centrally planned minimum wage the turns employment for the poor into a lottery in which the lucky few get a menial job at an artificially inflated wage, and the unlucky majority are made wards of the, ahem, social safety net.

    • fiftyohm says:

      TT- Something like 45% of Americans pay no federal income tax right now – Medicare and Social Security aside. Is this what you’re talking about?

    • goplifer says:

      This is a good idea that has more or less failed to work out in reality. You are basically describing the compromise Nixon embraced when his basic income proposal failed, the earned income credit.

      We disagree on an important point. I don’t think the welfare state is a problem in and of itself. The idea of providing some form of income support or whatever you want to call it for the poor or the needy does not create the kind of harm we once thought it did. That said, it is possible to build a safety net in a way that specifically de-incentivizes personal initiative and cripples people.

      Our problem is the way the welfare state has developed, as a sort of governmental nanny. It is intrusive, expensive, administratively bulky, and bent toward endless expansion. Getting access to welfare is practically a full time job. Staying on it while working is so complex that few people bother. It is unnecessarily debilitating. This approach would fix the bug, radically shrink the federal bureaucracy, expand personal liberty, and end poverty.

  16. Bobo Amerigo says:

    Guaranteed income is such a freeing thought that it’s actually difficult to contemplate.

    It breaks so many ‘rules’ that we’ve been told we must enforce.

    As someone who had zero income after an illness, and who has been on the cusp of zero income more than once, thinking about guaranteed income brings on a failure of imagination.

  17. geoff1968 says:

    I signed up for the ACA the other day. Took about 20 minutes. The Bronze Plan costs me 63.39 a month, after the credit. The only reason that the federal government intervenes is because the free market does not promise as delivered. It simply does not work. It’s a wonderful fantasy, but it does not work.

  18. […] we go again, a reasonable voice in the GOP A minimum income could rescue the GOP Especially truthful is his quote from Mark Zwolinski at Libertarianism.org: A slave is unfree […]

  19. Craig says:

    It’s the truth. What difference does it make who said it?

  20. DanMan says:

    “The current Republican obsession with an imaginary 47% who are sucking the blood of good, hard-working white people may help energize an aging, frightened political base, but it is crippling any effort to fight this trend.”

    plagiarizing Melissa Harris-Perry. wow

    • Texan5142 says:

      Prove it.

      • Owl of Bellaire says:

        He won’t.

        He can’t.

        You’ll just get more feckless fulmination.

      • DanMan says:

        Check out Wiki while your at it, I prefer you chase geese.. Did you believe Obama’s lies or do you justify them as necessary for the cause? I’ve been asking that question of the rucas posse since Chris opened his blog up and have yet to get an answer. You first.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        And there you have it. Dan the Richard refuses to even try to back up his slanderous lies.

        Why does that not surprise me?

      • bubbabobcat says:

        OV,

        And verbatim from your first source: “CBS News reports that the federal government originally ESTIMATED [as in no hard numbers] that millions of workers WOULD BE [as in NOT happened] dropped from their health plans that employers provide because the policies did not meet the minimum standards of the Affordable Care Act.”

        One more time (your willful ignorance is REALLY getting tedious) : “And where is proof of your ‘millions of middle class people who HAVE BEEN (as in past tense, already done, fait accompli, etc.) kicked off of EMPLOYER PLANS OV?”

        Your second link is yet again, ANOTHER OPINION PIECE from a right winger. And totally irrelevant to my question.

        And as for your made up idiot “friend of your husband” just so you can appear “right”. Reread my situation AGAIN. For comprehension this time.

        Nuance OV, nuance.

        And reading comprehension. Try it sometime.

        Still not using that brain of yours I see. There’s a first time for everyone though. I hold out hope for even you.

        And since you like to deal in fake reality OV, let me paraphrase a classic line from “Animal House”:

        Wingnutty, ignorant, and stupid is no way to go through life OV.

    • bubbabobcat says:

      I just Googled DanTroll’s excerpted claim of plagiarism and found no mention of Melissa Harris-Perry whatsoever in all 7 pages and 468 entries. Chris’ blog entry was the first search result.

      Of course Gutless Dan conspicuously didn’t provide a link to his unfounded accusations. He knows he lies pathologically just to be a jerk. The day after Christmas from a purported “Christian”.

      Jesus loves you Danny but not gays. Bwahahahahahahaha.

      • Texan5142 says:

        Yep! i also Googled it before I posted knowing there was no way he/she could prove it. Dan is just an ass, my apologies to asses.

      • DanMan says:

        you’re gay bubba? Bless your heart, why did I need to know that?

      • bubbabobcat says:

        And as a Texan5142 noted, you’re an ass as indicated by all your postings. Why do WE need to know that? That’s just between you and your God and your Beelzebub. But you grace as with your “assness” incessantly.

        And your narrowmindedness and ignorance knows no depths.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Correction,

        “But you [DanAss] grace US with your “assness” incessantly.”

      • flypusher says:

        Not to be confused with “AssDan”:

        http://snl.wikia.com/wiki/Ass_Dan

      • DanMan says:

        try Lexis-Nexus

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Try putting your money where your mouth is and providing proof instead of a wild goose chase. You made the unsubstantiated claim Dan the Richard. The burden of proof is on you.

      • objv says:

        DanMan, You’ll have to excuse bubba’s personal attacks. I fear he may be getting delusional. In our last interaction, bubba claimed to know that I was paying my yard man a “pittance” for working in the “searing heat.” Does he have visions? Hallucinations? Was he stalking the wrong yard? What yard man? My family and I lived in Texas for approximately 20 years. Except for four months between moves – where we had no access to a lawn mower – my husband, my son (once he entered his teens) and I mowed our own lawn the entire time.

        Then, there was another post of his where he accused me of wanting children to starve. Paradoxically, he made the comment after I posted a link about kids throwing away food in school cafeterias. I have no idea how he made the connection about kids throwing food away (because they weren’t hungry) with me wanting them to starve, but there you have it – no logic – only a desire to make a personal attack.

        Next, bubba will probably remind me that I need to head back to the kitchen (barefoot) to serve him sandwiches (another delusion of his), but, hey anyone who insists that it’s OK to ignore a check engine light can’t be expected to make much sense anyways.

        .

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Awww, “Objective” View (bwahahahaha) has to chime in with her “scintillatingly” thin skinned 2 cents.

        This from the “genius” who cluelessly claimed wingnut gay hater Liz Cheney was the lesbian daughter of Dick Cheney. That must be one self loathing lesbian eh “Objective” (but never factually correct) View?

        And where is proof of your “millions of middle class people who HAVE BEEN (as in past tense, already done, fait accompli, etc.) kicked off of employer plans” OV?

        You never responded because it is not factually correct and just your usual frothing wingnut hysteria masquerading as “dialogue”.

        That is more than enough evidence to prove that she has absolutely nothing intelligent to add to the conversation.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        IgnorantView wrote:

        “…but, hey anyone who insists that it’s OK to ignore a check engine light can’t be expected to make much sense anyways.”

        Awww, “Objective” View continues to rant cluelessly out of context yet again.

        Here is my original ACCURATE comment in full and IN CONTEXT:

        “Maybe you should have found a better, more accurately ‘nuanced’ clip to illustrate your point OV.

        And I guess you are acknowledging your original point and debunked ‘fact’ and source are pure crap if you are resorting to arguing about a clip from a TV show? That you didn’t accurately utilize to support your ‘point’?

        By the way, my car has a check engine light persistently on. For the past 3 years.

        Though I did get it checked out by a mechanic I trusted. He could have replaced part after part that would have cleared it. Temporarily. But not resolve the problem. And cost me lots of $$$ unnecessarily. But my trusted mechanic said he couldn’t find anything not working and his best guess from the error code was the sludge in my gas tank (12 year old car) gets sucked in the injectors when the tank is near empty and screws up the injector and oxygen/fuel mix because you know, the idiot light doesn’t say what’s wrong with the car. Even with the error codes the mechanic pulls. So 3 years later after we did nothing, the car still runs fine.

        Sheldon isn’t always right. Especially in the real world.

        Nuance, OV. Nuance.”

        So yes I “ignored” a check engine light. After a good mechanic confirmed it was an inaccurately simplistic and meaningless “warning”.

        Using your brain a little is way more efficient than ignorantly obsessing over something you have no clue about. You should try it sometime. And that applies to more than auto mechanics for you OV. There’s a good reason you have a thick skull to protect it you know.

        And the person who “ignores a check engine light” makes way more sense than a persistently factually incorrect (and annoyingly whiny) wingnut yet again.

        Surprise! Not.

      • objv says:

        My, my, my, Bubba …. I didn’t realize that you don’t read newspapers or watch the news. Here’s a link about millions losing employer coverage and having to go on exchanges. In addition, the article states: “And for the people who’ve gotten the letters, the broken website is a real problem, Crawford added on “CTM.” They don’t know what to do. They don’t know if they get subsidies. And then there are others getting the letters who have very good insurance but are being told they can’t keep it.”

        http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/11/26/cbs-news-federal-government-knew-millions-would-lose-employee-health-plans-due-to-obamacare/

        Here’s another link concerning even more millions of people who previously bought health on their own and lost coverage:

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/12/20/utter-chaos-white-house-exempts-millions-from-obamacares-insurance-mandate-unaffordable-exchanges/

        P.S. I am sincerely glad that your engine is not causing you problems. However a friend of my husband was not so lucky. He continued his trip home with the engine light on because the engine sounded fine. His mistake cost him thousands of dollars. So, yes, continue to ignore your engine light just as you continue to ignore facts which do not suit your political worldview.

        And – in an effort to sound more compassionate to you – is it all right to tell the imaginary yard man you claim I have that he has the day off? It’s 22 degrees outside where I live and the heat is not quite “searing” enough for him to work.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        OV,

        And verbatim from your first source: “CBS News reports that the federal government originally ESTIMATED [as in no hard numbers] that millions of workers WOULD BE [as in NOT happened] dropped from their health plans that employers provide because the policies did not meet the minimum standards of the Affordable Care Act.”

        One more time (your willful ignorance is REALLY getting tedious) : “And where is proof of your ‘millions of middle class people who HAVE BEEN (as in past tense, already done, fait accompli, etc.) kicked off of EMPLOYER PLANS OV?”

        Your second link is yet again, ANOTHER OPINION PIECE from a right winger. And totally irrelevant to my question.

        And as for your made up idiot “friend of your husband” just so you can appear “right”. Reread my situation AGAIN. For comprehension this time.

        Nuance OV, nuance.

        And reading comprehension. Try it sometime.

        Still not using that brain of yours I see. There’s a first time for everyone though. I hold out hope for even you.

        And since you like to deal in fake reality OV, let me paraphrase a classic line from “Animal House”:

        Wingnutty, ignorant, and stupid is no way to go through life OV.

      • objv says:

        Bubba, unlike the imaginary yard man you claim I underpay, my husband’s friend is real and he had to pay thousands to rebuild his engine. I suppose you will demand proof, but I’ve come to realize that no proof will ever be enough for you. You’ll continue on your sad, deluded way ignoring any evidence that doesn’t fit in with your preconceived notions.

        You claim that I am not compassionate, but where is your compassion for the Americans who had to deal with a nonfunctional website? Where is your compassion for those who were kicked off of insurance plans they were happy with and will face higher premiums and deductibles? How about the cancer patients currently receiving treatment who have to switch to a different plan and will have to find new doctors?

        I’m afraid that your compassion extends mainly to imaginary yard men and to imaginary children who you claim I want to starve. Please get a grip on your obsessiveness and for crying out loud, if your doctor has prescribed meds, please take them!

      • DanMan says:

        hey objv, some of the newer engines can be pretty expensive to rebuild, especially those DOHC Japanese and German ones. I’ve had very good luck with an outfit called LKQ. They are a nationwide supplier of used engines. The prices are based on the mileage of the engines and they all come with guarantees that include labor costs for mechanics they supply engines to.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Objective View wrote:

        “…continue on your sad, deluded way ignoring any evidence that doesn’t fit in with your preconceived notions.”

        Thank you for the reminder OV. I also forgot your total lack of irony.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        Objective View wrote:

        “…my husband’s friend is real and he had to pay thousands to rebuild his engine.”

        I figured the more details were released your “premise” would fail the sniff test. Again. He needed a total engine overhaul? Just from a short drive?

        Your “husband’s friend” apparently ignored the more important warning signs (oil on driveway, constantly needing oil, blowing blue or black smoke, noisy valves, lifters, etc.) if it got to the point of a check engine light to tell him his engine is shot.

        The guy needed an engine overhaul long before the light told him something was wrong. Or he didn’t and got ripped off.

        As I already noted, they don’t call them idiot lights for nothing.

        And no response to the fact that your links didn’t support your factually incorrect statements/premise?

        Your recurring ignorance continues to astound OV. Thank you for proving it over and over and over again.

        And I’m sorry but my compassion for those who would die because they are refused insurance trumps your “inconveniences” of the privileged. I bet you were screaming because you didn’t get your presents delivered by UPS or FedEx before Christmas too huh?

      • Turtles Run says:

        objv compassionately or is it severely compassionately writes:

        “Where is your compassion for those who were kicked off of insurance plans they were happy with and will face higher premiums and deductibles? How about the cancer patients currently receiving treatment who have to switch to a different plan and will have to find new doctors?”

        1. Where was were your compassion for those that were kicked off plans but did not have any other alternative?

        2. If cancer patients have insurance that actually pays for cancer treatments then that plan probably passes Obamacare muster. But again where was your compassion when they could not get insurance at all?

        Please spare us the fake concern for people

      • Turtles Run says:

        Bubba

        I have rebuilt a “modern” engine (nissan altima 2.4L – top half) and I can assure you that objv’s comment on the friend’s engine is bogus. Modern engines are extremely resilient and it takes a lot to destroy them to the point of needing a total rebuild.

      • DanMan says:

        I don’t know about that Turtlehead. The last one I did was an Isuzu 3.2 V6. I was able to determine the oil had not been changed in about 12,000 miles. Light never came on when it spun two crank bearings. Good motor design but it wasn’t worth rebuilding. It doesn’t get much easier than neglect.

      • objv says:

        Turtles: All I remember is that it was an old Ford and this happened years ago. I don’t know if it was a modern engine. In any case, I’m way out of my leauge as far as understanding any kind of engine!

        However, as a former RN, I do understand healthcare, and I find it highly insulting that you would say that I lack compassion for people who are ill and need help.

        Far from being an elitist, I worked near minimun wage as a nurse’s aide for three summers and part-time evening shift during high school and part of nursing school. I was truly grateful for a job that enabled me to help older adults as well as earning money to pay for nursing school expenses.

        Honestly, turtles, if you have ever had a comparable job changing soiled bedding and adult diapers for hours each day without complaining, I would say that you had a right to critize me. Otherwise, you and bubba really need to stop the personal attacks about my supposed and completely imaginary lack of compassion.

      • objv says:

        bubba, Thank you for the concern about my Christmas gifts. They all came in on time. Possibly, the people who work for UPS were distraught since 15,000 of their spouses will no longer be receiving their health insurance coverage through UPS. The higher costs due to Obamacare were cited as the reason.

        http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/21/news/companies/ups-obamacare/

      • bubbabobcat says:

        So Objective View, when backed into a corner you now admit you are clueless about what you speak of.

        And thank you Turtles (AND DanTroll for inadvertently) poking holes in OV’s lies and reinforcing my point. 12,000 miles without an oil change and NOT a short drive seizing an engine. OV busted again.

        And to follow up on Turtles’ point, please provide proof that someone with cancer had been dropped from their plan because of their cancer diagnosis and treatment. And as Turtles noted, your “compassion” would prefer the previous status quo where we DO have innumerable documented cases of people unable to obtain health insurance and treatment because of a pre existing condition?

        And speaking of busted again, OV don’t you tire of embarrassing yourself and proving over and over and over again your reading comprehension?

        VERBATIM from YOUR source. AGAIN:

        ” UPS said it will discontinue coverage for all WORKING spouses WHO ARE ELIGIBLE FOR INSURANCE WITH THEIR OWN EMPLOYER. ”

        How “convenient” of you to “neglect” to note that in your Chicken Little hysterics.

        And “Spouses of UPS employees who don’t work — or who are not offered coverage by their own employer — will get to stay on the UPS plan.”

        No one is actually losing coverage. And it was because of PERCEIVED higher costs of Obamacare and no real causal effects.

        “In the memo, UPS said its health care costs usually increase about 7% a year, but that it EXPECTS those costs to climb by 11.25% in 2014 due to Obamacare.”

        Again, typical of OV, no hard data. Just more irrational and uninformed fearmongering.

        And speaking of which, if you actually stopped fearmongering irrationally you would know that the employees had nothing to do with the delivery delays. Much less being imaginarily “distraught” about any nonexistent “problems”.

        From YOUR source VERBATIM. YET AGAIN: “Most of the company’s workers, such as DELIVERY WORKERS and TRUCK DRIVERS, are unionized through the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and receive insurance under a different plan.”

        Those horrible, horrible unions! Protecting the workers from any negative corporate irrational acts to improve their own bottom line!

        And the real reason for the delays? Acts of God and increased unanticipated volume from an improved economy that you and your fellow wingnuts refuse to acknowledge. Even in light of overwhelming evidence.

        “Across the country, carriers failed to meet delivery deadlines in the face of bad weather and an unexpectedly large surge in demand.”

        http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/26/business/gifts-sent-by-ups-miss-a-big-deadline.html?ref=business

        But then again, no one is surprised by that coming from you OV. The evidence is overwhelming. Maybe you should just stick to talking about changing bedpans. Basically what you know and can be possibly factually correct about OV.

      • objv says:

        Penny, er, I mean bubba, for all I know my husband’s friend may not have changed his engine oil. It was not my car and I don’t know how he maintained it. If your smoke detector goes off, do you check why? The same principle applies to the check engine light. To ignore it is foolish. I may not be a mechanic, but at least I have that much sense!

        Yes, the 15,000 UPS worker’s spouses would be eligible to buy insurance under their own employers’ plans, but the whole point is that UPS will no longer provide them with insurance and there may be greater associated costs for them.

        For example, right now, my insurance under my husband’s family plan is free since we still have a child and have to have a family plan that covers dependents anyways. If my husband’s employer decided to drop coverage for spouses who work and I had a job, there would be costs – probably hundreds of dollars a month – to cover my insurance – where before I could have opted out and not had to pay. What don’t you understand about this? The bottom line is that dropping spousal coverage will cost most families who lost spousal coverage more per month – possibly a great deal more. In addition, the spouses will have different plans and may not be able to see the same doctors.

        By your last statement, I see that you are one who is the true elitist. There is nothing wrong with doing honest, menial work. I am proud that I was able to do a difficult job and treat my geriatric patients with as much dignity and kindness as was possible under the circumstances. I assume that you would have been holding a perfumed hankie to your nose and swooning like a Victorian maiden if you had to do the same job..

        I may not know much about cars, but I did learn quite a bit about the human body – including the brain. Bubba, it doesn’t seem that you have a great deal of activity going on there. (Bazinga)

      • objv says:

        bubba, here is someone with cancer who lost their coverage.

        From the article:

        “What happened to the president’s promise, “You can keep your health plan”? Or to the promise that “You can keep your doctor”? Thanks to the law, I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan. The exchange would force me to give up a world-class physician.

        For a cancer patient, medical coverage is a matter of life and death. Take away people’s ability to control their medical-coverage choices and they may die. I guess that’s a highly effective way to control medical costs. Perhaps that’s the point.”

        http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304527504579171710423780446

      • goplifer says:

        That article, like almost all of the similar ones we’ve seen so far, is complete bullshit.

        http://articles.latimes.com/2013/nov/06/business/la-fi-mh-horror-story-20131105

        There is no end to the paranoid misinformation about the ACA. The law is a bad idea, but building an entire political agenda around false claims about the law is a strategy that has accomplished nothing in the short run, and is going to exact serious costs in the long run.

      • objv says:

        Lifer: Long term, the fallout from Obamacare is hard to determine. Short-term, the effects on elections could be devastating for the Democratic party. According to CNN:

        “The new survey, conducted in mid-December, indicates Republicans with a 49%-44% edge over the Democrats.

        The 13-point swing over the past two months follows a political uproar over Obamacare, which included the botched rollout of HealthCare.gov and controversy over the possiblity of insurance policy cancelations due primarily to the new health law.”

        http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/26/cnn-poll-gop-has-edge-in-early-midterm-indicator/

        —————————————————————

        I say Republicans run with it.

        As far as the LA Times article is concerned and judging from some of the other stuff the author has written, he is not unbiased and I already see some problems with some of the assumptions he has made about the cancer patient’s healthcare plan. It is too late to respond tonight, but hopefully I can study the LA Times article and get back to you again tomorrow. I have a full day ahead. 🙂

      • bubbabobcat says:

        OV’s wingnut source (the WSJ is owned by Fox’s Rupert Murdoch) is easily debunked by Chris so she…changes the subject and talks about political polls!

        And this is why you have no credibility whatsoever OV. Unless you talk about bedpans. That is your health care expertise and not policy. You stated that yourself. So can your whiny faux victimization outrage. Get your facts straight and be honest if you want to debate. If not, then you are just another idiot troll flamer. And you will be identified as such. Every one of your wingnut links and points have been thoroughly debunked. Even by your fellow wingnut troll Dan. Inadvertently of course. Talk about a circular firing squad.

        United Healthcare’s own words:

        “Our individual business in California has always been relatively small and we currently serve less than 8,000 individual customers across the state,” the company said in a statement. “Over the years, it has become more difficult to administer these plans in a cost-effective way for our members in California. We will continue to keep a major presence in California, focusing instead on large and small employers.”

        And furthermore, “The [LA] Times points out that UnitedHealth had roughly 2% of the state’s individual market while Aetna had 5%. The biggest players in the market will remain: Anthem Blue Cross — part of WellPoint Inc. WLP — along with Kaiser Permanente and Blue Shield of California. The three combined control 87% of the market, the Times says.”

        http://blogs.marketwatch.com/health-exchange/2013/07/02/unitedhealth-to-cease-individual-health-coverage-in-california/

        In plain English, it is the free market and profit motivation [which you wingnuts espouse and want unfettered] that caused United Healthcare to pull out and cancel that one person’s policy and NOT Obamacare. It is unfortunate she has cancer and has to find different coverage (but NOT lost coverage as would have happened before passage of the ACA), but it is no way attributable to the ACA and the fact that she did indicates she has an axe to grind and is ill informed to boot.

        No need for you to “study” Chris’ source. But I do recommend you read it for yourself for comprehension. However long it takes you.

        You’re welcome Sheldon, er I mean OV.

      • Turtles Run says:

        @objv

        PUH-lease, while it is commendable that you took jobs like that how does that change your lack of concern for those that were not able to get health insurance or were tossed off plans for actually getting sick. No, your concern is with those that might have to pay a little more and from the reports that are out their those people are in the minority.

        I rather focus on the large problem of getting the uninsured some type of coverage and the under-insured better coverage. Just because someone may like their cheap plan that does not mean they should be allowed to keep it if in the end the public is going to have to foot their medical bills.

        Next time you want to chastise me or Bubba for “personal attacks” I suggest you toss in DanMan in the mix as well or does his comments get a pass? I consider it a personal attack when you have to use to quote Chris “complete bullshit” to support your point of view. and your approval for the GOTP to use such bullshit in the elections is very telling on you.

        On Bubba’s defense (not that he needs me to do it) he may be brash in his comments but unfortunately for you two he is also very good at pointing out the flaws in your comments. I have also seen him debate serious comments in a less abrasive tone but like me holds very little patience for….less than truthful statements.

      • objv says:

        Lifer, bubba, and turtles: It was not the WSJ article which was complete BS; it was the LA Times hatchet job which stank to high heaven.

        No matter what you think of the editors of the WSJ, Ms Sunby is a real person with stage-4 cancer. She says her battle is not political; she is fighting for her life and she has a right to be heard.

        Hilzik callously and cavalierly dismisses Ms Sundby’s concern about seeing physicians who have kept her alive over the years. Although he is couching his words in polite terms, he is in essence telling her to shut up and go somewhere to die (quietly and without making a fuss). He does not understand how vital it is for a cancer patient to have continuity of care and see doctors qualified to give treatment specific to their type of cancer.

        My husband was diagnosed with cancer at the relatively young age of 47. He had to undergo surgeries and chemo. The last thing a cancer patient needs is to be kicked off of their policy mid-treatment, told they have to find new physicians, find a different hospital and try to find a new, less than adequate policy on a non-functional web-site. I remember how hard it was for my husband just to make it through one day at a time during the nine months he had chemo. A cancer patient doesn’t need the added stress of wondering if he/she will be able to get proper care.

        Hilzik’s assertion that UnitedHealth would leave the California market was based on speculation. True, he had some basis for thinking so, but the only thing that is clear is that it happened sooner rather than later due to Obamacare – leaving patients like Ms Sundby with serious illnesses without access to the care they need.

        Unfortunately, being kicked off a plan may become more common in the future under the ACA. The insurance companies in the exchanges can’t operate at a loss. In other words, if a company can’t make a profit under Obamacare, they will have to stop selling policies or lower the quality of care. This will cause patients to feel like they are yo-yos on a string if their policies and choice of healthcare providers changes frequently.

        The sad thing here is how badly the Obama administration bungled the health care rollout. There were many things that could have been done differently. Believe it or not, I do believe that everyone should have access to healthcare. I have made no secret of the fact that extended family members have used social services including Medicaid. Unfortunately, the Obama administration and Democrats refused to work in a bipartisan way and completely botched what could have been a more workable system. There were so many things that could have been implemented – such as protection for those with pre-existing conditions. Now, cancer patients like Edie Sundby find themselves worse off than before.

      • objv says:

        Turtles: Just curious …. Where have I not been truthful?
        Why does bubba make up imaginary yard men for me to underpay? Why am I accused of wanting to starve children? Why am I told to stay barefoot in the kitchen by a liberal male who supposedly is for women’s rights?

        DanMan hasn’t attacked me personally. Both you and bubba have made accusations about me that were untrue. It is natural to want to defend oneself. If DanMan has offended you, deal with him directly – just as I am dealing with you. Don’t run to me as if I were your mommy or a teacher because you think someone has been mean to you. Grow up.

      • bubbabobcat says:

        “Objective” View, thank for proving yet again you have no credibility whatsoever as you ignore and twist immutable facts to suit your wingnut colored “reality”. Whine and rant and talk about TV reality to your heart’s content. No one with a brain respects what you say and no one halfway reasonable cares what garbage you spew.

      • objv says:

        bubba; Blah, blah, blah … a pleasant evening to you, too. Has your doctor prescribed any high blood pressure meds? Please remember to take them if he has. You are welcome to apologize to me tomorrow since you seem rather distraught tonight. 🙂 Night, night. Pleasant dreams.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Goodreads

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 471 other followers

%d bloggers like this: