Mitch McConnell finally confirms he wants to repeal health insurance for 500,000 Kentuckians

[Ninja108]

So, you opposed "Hillary's" plan because it was private medical insurance and you oppose Obamacare because it is private medical insurance. Are you advocating Reagan socialism (he required hospitals to pay for the care of the poor) or do you think poor people should just die?

A lot of them do think that is exactly what should happen.

 

[smokeshadow]

People die sooner of starvation, so why isn't food free? Shelter? Clothing? People die in the north without them. Yes it is slippery slope, but dems have proven they cannot be trusted with slippery slopes. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to provide free health care. But the authorization to "regulate commerce among the states" has become, for democrats, a grant of totalitarian power.

Ben - what would be wrong if in this day and age, everyone got basic food, clothing, shelter, health care, SEX ; in other words, the basic necessities of life FREE? The U.S. should be able to provide these basic needs within its massive economy and knowledge base. Why can't we? Is it because taxes might have to go up? Is it because "nothing comes for free"? Is it because you'd have some who would take and give nothing back? IMO, if every citizen in the U.S. had these basic needs met, then everything else would be just gravy.

 

[Kulindahr]

Ben - what would be wrong if in this day and age, everyone got basic food, clothing, shelter, health care, SEX ; in other words, the basic necessities of life FREE? The U.S. should be able to provide these basic needs within its massive economy and knowledge base. Why can't we? Is it because taxes might have to go up? Is it because "nothing comes for free"? Is it because you'd have some who would take and give nothing back? IMO, if every citizen in the U.S. had these basic needs met, then everything else would be just gravy.

Especially if it were done this way: give corporations a 10% break in taxes if they pay those taxes in shares of stock. All the shares would go to a foundation which would hold them for the public. Dividends would initially support health care, and when that was covered for everyone, food; and when that was covered, utilities-- and so on. Congress would be authorized to buy stock to add to the foundation's holdings, but not take any money away. I'd also take all fines paid to the government and put them in a trust for the foundation, an endowment the principal of which couldn't be touched; additionally, any taxes on inherited wealth would go into the endowment.

And for the future, any time a failing institution is judged "too big to fail", its assets would be handed to the foundation for bankruptcy proceedings, selling its assets off to meet its obligations, with the foundation retaining five percent of the proceeds, to go into the endowment.

The foundation would essentially be a corporation of the whole people, each adult (defined as finishing high school or equivalent) citizen holding one non-transferable whole share, each non-citizen legal resident holding a half share. Shares would revert to the foundation on the death of the individual.

Let capitalism feed the system, not taxes.

 

[mightbe]

Beautiful idea. Except...

Every corporation would jump ship.

 

[frankfrank]

Are you advocating Reagan socialism (he required hospitals to pay for the care of the poor) or do you think poor people should just die?

A lot of them do think that is exactly what should happen. Maybe you, or the Republican living next door or in the apartment underneath you, doesn't feel that way - but the REPUBLICAN PARTY structure certainly does. And, in the end, nothing else matters.

I fully expect a fully-Republican congress to repeal that law - quickly. I've been saying this for years. Republicans are promising that if they win the Senate, they'll start passing stuff.

OF COURSE THEY WILL. They will get rid of the filibuster right away. They'll cram the most heinously toxic legislation as they can, because that's what they are.

They would love to have the indigent just get sick and die. It would kill off some Democrats who would vote against them.

 

[T-Rexx]

I fully expect a fully-Republican congress to repeal that law - quickly. I've been saying this for years. Republicans are promising that if they win the Senate, they'll start passing stuff.

The Republicans are going to take the Senate on Tuesday, but I actually do not think they will vote to repeal Obamacare outright. It would highlight their lack of an alternative to their own plan. They keep claiming that their plan has failed miserably, and that they want to replace it. But with what? It took their best minds years to come up with Obamacare, and they don't have any other ideas. (I think it would be hilarious if they proposed universal health care as an alternative to Obamacare!)

That's the problem McConnell is wrestling with. He has made repealing Obamacare a platform of his re-election campaign, and yet he has also made a platform out of keeping Obamacare in Kentucky. He keeps trying to convince people that this is somehow not a contradiction. If only you give Obamacare another name (like "Kynect"), it is a wonderful thing.

I think the most likely scenario is that the national GOP will adopt McConnell's rhetoric. They will propose to "fix" Obamacare by turning it into Romneycare. They are hoping that the public will accept the branding change and ignore the fact that they are exactly the same thing. What the GOP really wants is credit for coming up with Obamacare, not its repeal. What really, really angers them is that a black Democrat stole their ideas, and took all the credit.

 

[Benvolio]

Ben - what would be wrong if in this day and age, everyone got basic food, clothing, shelter, health care, SEX ; in other words, the basic necessities of life FREE? The U.S. should be able to provide these basic needs within its massive economy and knowledge base. Why can't we? Is it because taxes might have to go up? Is it because "nothing comes for free"? Is it because you'd have some who would take and give nothing back? IMO, if every citizen in the U.S. had these basic needs met, then everything else would be just gravy.

Who would work? With everything given free there would be little incentive to work, especially for those less talented people who would inevitably be in lower paying jobs. Wages for those who do work would have to be very high to lure workers. For example, if a person can receive 1000 a month on welfare and 1100 for working, to him/her, it appears that the job is only paying 100 a month, but he must pay taxes and now, obamacare.
And then, as now, we would have to import immigrants because, as liberals assure us, they will take the jobs that Americans will not take--because welfare pays as well. But the immigrants will also be entitled to everything free, so will need more. That is the problem we now have.

 

[smokeshadow]

Who would work? With everything given free there would be little incentive to work, especially for those less talented people who would inevitably be in lower paying jobs. Wages for those who do work would have to be very high to lure workers. For example, if a person can receive 1000 a month on welfare and 1100 for working, to him/her, it appears that the job is only paying 100 a month, but he must pay taxes and now, obamacare.
And then, as now, we would have to import immigrants because, as liberals assure us, they will take the jobs that Americans will not take--because welfare pays as well. But the immigrants will also be entitled to everything free, so will need more. That is the problem we now have.

Ben - IMO most people would work because they like what they do, not necessarily because they have to make ends meet. Yes, sure, there would be some that would game such a system if basic necessities were met, but a vast majority, like myself, would keep on doing what they currently are doing because they like it One works for the enjoyment of "creating" or "solving a problem" or "to help people" or any of a vast number of other reasons. And, with basic necessities covered, vast amounts of wages would be funneled into the system to purchase things to better ones life. No solution is perfect, but I think that many more people would be happy if they didn't have to live paycheck-to-paycheck

 

[Benvolio]

Even if that were true, which I doubt, what motive would there be for young people, the unemployed, immigrants and the welfare class to accept jobs? This is the problem with unemployment compensation. Once people adjust to it they are reluctant to accept a job which nets them the same or only a little more than the unemployment.

 

[mightbe]

Do you know what how much money you actually get on welfare? It's not a liveable amount. As in, so untenable that to look for a job is nearly impossible because of how little sustenance you're allowed. Giving people a safety net (that actually provides a degree of reassurance) has been shown to decrease unemployment, because now they can look for a job with the comfort of knowing that their children won't starve to death in the next week. The safety net acts as a springboard. If provided, more people are willing to work and be looking for it. Look at unemployment in Northern Europe.

Granted, the US doesn't have a safety net or even a reputable welfare system. Our "welfare" actually encourages passiveness and contempt for work. (Gee thanks Bill, totally going and changing welfare as we know it.)

 

[Kulindahr]

Ben - IMO most people would work because they like what they do, not necessarily because they have to make ends meet. Yes, sure, there would be some that would game such a system if basic necessities were met, but a vast majority, like myself, would keep on doing what they currently are doing because they like it One works for the enjoyment of "creating" or "solving a problem" or "to help people" or any of a vast number of other reasons. And, with basic necessities covered, vast amounts of wages would be funneled into the system to purchase things to better ones life. No solution is perfect, but I think that many more people would be happy if they didn't have to live paycheck-to-paycheck

He has a very low view of human nature. People with free medical care and food would work to get "toys" -- a better TV than the neighbor, a better car, a nicer BBQ grill, a hot tub, whatever. This is demonstrated by the fact that so many people actually neglect their health and housing in order to buy such things already; if they didn't have to worry about many basics they'd be out buying things like toys for the kids and sports equipment and stereo systems and whatnot.

It also is interesting that he went immediately to talking about giving people money, when that isn't what you said at all -- you said that basic things could be provided free. I don't know many people at all who who be happy sitting around just surviving with the free basics; people want to be able to go out and do things, get new things they like. One interesting aspect is that it's been shown that people work harder -- and get more creative -- when they're working for things they want as opposed to just surviving, so providing the basics free would likely give us a more motivated and useful workforce.

And of course there's the coming future when human labor will be almost entirely replaced by robots. For that future, we need a system in place ahead of time to make sure we don't end up with masses of homeless, poverty-stricken and angry people; we also need a new way of measuring worth -- our current one isn't based on merit or talent or dedication, but on who can gather the most dollars; in a society where gathering dollars isn't going to be an option for very many, status based on merit and talent and dedication will be necessary.

The result would be a country where lots of things we could and even should do fall to the wayside because there's no profit in them. People who see things that need doing are far more likely to take action if they don't have to worry about fighting to survive.

 

[Kulindahr]

Do you know what how much money you actually get on welfare? It's not a liveable amount. As in, so untenable that to look for a job is nearly impossible because of how little sustenance you're allowed. Giving people a safety net (that actually provides a degree of reassurance) has been shown to decrease unemployment, because now they can look for a job with the comfort of knowing that their children won't starve to death in the next week. The safety net acts as a springboard. If provided, more people are willing to work and be looking for it. Look at unemployment in Northern Europe.

Granted, the US doesn't have a safety net or even a reputable welfare system. Our "welfare" actually encourages passiveness and contempt for work. (Gee thanks Bill, totally going and changing welfare as we know it.)

It's also been shown to improve overall health. Stress is one of the biggest factors in poor health, because it burns the body's energy and dampens the immune system.

In the context ben is apparently looking at, the real problem with welfare isn't that people are being taken care of, but that they're being handed money. That's one reason the SNAP program is so effective: it doesn't hand out money, it hands out the means to get food (setting aside for the moment the ridiculous nature of some of the things which qualify as food under that program). So people use it to get food (the amount of fraud in the manner of 'selling' one's card for cash being so small as to be not worth pursuing), because that's what it's limited to. Doing the same thing for medical care, or for housing, would be effective for the same reason: people wouldn't be getting money, but the specific things the assistance is for. (I'll note here that while government housing projects have a deservedly bad reputation, that's more a matter of how it's done rather than the provision of housing itself; Oregon has a program that pays rent directly to landlords -- not just any landlords, but those whose premises qualify and get inspected regularly, an approach that has actually improved housing quality overall because landlords have to keep their units at minimum standards in order to compete for renters [granted, the standards aren't high, but I've been involved in bringing apartments up to the standards, and compared to what people have been having to live in, it's a serious leap ahead].) So the reform that's needed is to slash cash payments to recipients and instead provide the things that assistance is supposed to take care of.

 

[frankfrank]

The Republicans are going to take the Senate on Tuesday, but I actually do not think they will vote to repeal Obamacare outright.

"That law" that I was actually referring to, was not Obamacare...but the federal law which requires hospitals to provide urgent care for those who cannot afford medical care. The one that the evil socialist liberal Ronald Reagan, a Republican, signed. I was actually talking about this as long ago as 2007, I think.

Republicans will repeal this federal "health safety net" entirely in a heartbeat. After all, it's "telling corporations how to do business" and an "onerous regulation/mandate" on them. Mark my words, unless it's even below THEIR radar - which I seriously doubt, this repeal is painfully obvious...and PEOPLE WILL DIE.

 

[Benvolio]

Market forces at work again. If you offer to pay unwed girls a monthly salary if they get pregnant, many will accept the offer.http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/1996/06/bg1084nbsp-how-welfare-harms-kids

 

[kallipolis]

"That law" that I was actually referring to, was not Obamacare...but the federal law which requires hospitals to provide urgent care for those who cannot afford medical care. The one that the evil socialist liberal Ronald Reagan, a Republican, signed. I was actually talking about this as long ago as 2007, I think.

Republicans will repeal this federal "health safety net" entirely in a heartbeat. After all, it's "telling corporations how to do business" and an "onerous regulation/mandate" on them. Mark my words, unless it's even below THEIR radar - which I seriously doubt, this repeal is painfully obvious...and PEOPLE WILL DIE.

Worth noting........with a big thank you.....

 

[Benvolio]

Worth noting........with a big thank you.....

Reagan was stuck with a democrat house during his entire term, so of course he had to compromise to get what he needed to end the cold war. He resisted many of the bills he ended up signing. Obama's inability to compromise is his worst flaw.

 

[kallipolis]

Reagan was stuck with a democrat house during his entire term, so of course he had to compromise to get what he needed to end the cold war. He resisted many of the bills he ended up signing. Obama's inability to compromise is his worst flaw.

That Reagan did compromise on the matter of..but the federal law which requires hospitals to provide urgent care for those who cannot afford medical care...is a tribute to his legacy...but I'm not persuaded that your reference to Obama's "inability" to compromise is a credible criticism when recognising the stonewalling of the Republicans on so many issues....that cry out for reform....it takes two to tango, and transparently the Republicans have proven themselves to be totally disinterested in serving the very real needs of the people of the United States...

 

[Benvolio]

That Reagan did compromise on the matter of..but the federal law which requires hospitals to provide urgent care for those who cannot afford medical care...is a tribute to his legacy...but I'm not persuaded that your reference to Obama's "inability" to compromise is a credible criticism when recognising the stonewalling of the Republicans on so many issues....that cry out for reform....it takes two to tango, and transparently the Republicans have proven themselves to be totally disinterested in serving the very real needs of the people of the United States...

Perhaps that is the way it looks from Greece.

 

[mightbe]

Then the way it is seen in Greece is not at all dissimilar from the way it is seen in America.

 

[chrisrobin]

Just saw interview with Kentucky governor on The Ed Show he hit the nail right on the head Mitch will not talk about his record. He only attacks with no plan for the future.

He appears to be not dissimilar to any other Republicon. When you ask a "true believer" about the record of any given Republicon, they change the subject.