The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
pugchief
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2978
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: suburbs of Chicago, IL

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by pugchief » Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:13 pm

Cortopassi wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:04 pm
Xan wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:53 pm
Take for example the subsidy on Obamacare health "insurance" plans. One could pretty easily claim that people receiving these subsidies are on the dole and should answer to the people who are paying for how they're taking care of themselves.
You really don't want the government dictating how to stay healthy! Standard American Diet, healthy whole grains at the top! Limit your meat, eggs and saturated fat! That has worked out sooo well! Have a bowl of heart healthy cereal with a couple slices of heart healthy whole grain bread and top it off with another 20-30g of sugar in your heart healthy OJ! What could go wrong?
We could have another debate about carbs, but while I see your point, requiring some monitored exercise, quitting smoking, and limiting refined carbs would go a long way.
User avatar
pugchief
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2978
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: suburbs of Chicago, IL

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by pugchief » Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:15 pm

Xan wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:11 pm
pugchief wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:05 pm
Xan wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:53 pm
Take for example the subsidy on Obamacare health "insurance" plans. One could pretty easily claim that people receiving these subsidies are on the dole and should answer to the people who are paying for how they're taking care of themselves.

The subsidy cutoff for single people is $48,560. The median income for individuals (that I found, anyway) is $31,099.

So right now, today, this line of reasoning has the government micromanaging the lives of a large majority of people in the United States.
And what exactly is the problem with requiring at least some improvement in how people care for themselves if they get a subsidy? Jeez, the government intrudes on every aspect of our lives already, so I think this would be minor. And I'm with Maddy, if you don't like the requirement, don't accept the subsidy. Pay your own way and then do whatever you want.
The reason the subsidy exists is that people are now required to buy something that they cannot afford. "Pay your own way" doesn't really make sense there, does it? That can only work if the requirement to purchase is removed.

I guess the requirement was sort of removed with a wink and a nod, "we won't enforce it" kind of thing. Which still isn't great. And there are still a bunch of requirements on the "insurance" products that are available: cheaper, catastrophic insurance is illegal.

Somebody wants to buy catastrophic insurance, and can't because of the government. He can't afford the "insurance" that is available, because of the government. He buys a subsidized plan because what else can he do? Presto, now you've turned formerly self-sufficient people into those whom you can tell what to eat and do.

This was the big argument against Obamacare in the first place, of course.
All true, but you proved my point. It's all government regulation on every aspect of our lives. So why not add in a health requirement? Every little bit would help. Or, otherwise, get rid of all the regulations, and leave us alone.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2283
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by Xan » Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:01 pm

pugchief wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 5:15 pm
Xan wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:11 pm
pugchief wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 4:05 pm
Xan wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 3:53 pm
Take for example the subsidy on Obamacare health "insurance" plans. One could pretty easily claim that people receiving these subsidies are on the dole and should answer to the people who are paying for how they're taking care of themselves.

The subsidy cutoff for single people is $48,560. The median income for individuals (that I found, anyway) is $31,099.

So right now, today, this line of reasoning has the government micromanaging the lives of a large majority of people in the United States.
And what exactly is the problem with requiring at least some improvement in how people care for themselves if they get a subsidy? Jeez, the government intrudes on every aspect of our lives already, so I think this would be minor. And I'm with Maddy, if you don't like the requirement, don't accept the subsidy. Pay your own way and then do whatever you want.
The reason the subsidy exists is that people are now required to buy something that they cannot afford. "Pay your own way" doesn't really make sense there, does it? That can only work if the requirement to purchase is removed.

I guess the requirement was sort of removed with a wink and a nod, "we won't enforce it" kind of thing. Which still isn't great. And there are still a bunch of requirements on the "insurance" products that are available: cheaper, catastrophic insurance is illegal.

Somebody wants to buy catastrophic insurance, and can't because of the government. He can't afford the "insurance" that is available, because of the government. He buys a subsidized plan because what else can he do? Presto, now you've turned formerly self-sufficient people into those whom you can tell what to eat and do.

This was the big argument against Obamacare in the first place, of course.
All true, but you proved my point. It's all government regulation on every aspect of our lives. So why not add in a health requirement? Every little bit would help. Or, otherwise, get rid of all the regulations, and leave us alone.
So if you can't have a libertarian paradise, your second choice is a Communist dystopia?
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8829
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: next to emotional support peacock
Contact:

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by dualstow » Mon Feb 03, 2020 7:42 pm

Yale University is scrapping its renowned freshman course “Introduction to Art History”... in response to “student uneasiness” about the “overwhelmingly white, straight, European and male” artists featured.
— The Week / quoted bits from ‘Yale Daily News’
https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2020/01/ ... ey-course/
TLT HITS NEW 52-WK HIGH
User avatar
pugchief
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2978
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2012 2:41 pm
Location: suburbs of Chicago, IL

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by pugchief » Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:00 pm

Xan wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:01 pm

So if you can't have a libertarian paradise, your second choice is a Communist dystopia?
No. I'm not really seeing the leap to Communism here.

Since we agree that our government is not going to stop adding more regulations to our lives, how is it a tragedy (or Communism) to expect some kind of concession from those who the government subsidizes? I see this as basically the same argument that if you are able-bodied and receiving welfare, you should be working community service of some sort.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2283
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by Xan » Mon Feb 03, 2020 9:01 pm

pugchief wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 8:00 pm
Xan wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 6:01 pm

So if you can't have a libertarian paradise, your second choice is a Communist dystopia?
No. I'm not really seeing the leap to Communism here.

Since we agree that our government is not going to stop adding more regulations to our lives, how is it a tragedy (or Communism) to expect some kind of concession from those who the government subsidizes? I see this as basically the same argument that if you are able-bodied and receiving welfare, you should be working community service of some sort.
Because the government is absorbing as many people as it can into the "subsidized" class. You eventually have one set of rules for the "have"s and one set for the "have not"s, with an ever-expanding set of "have not"s in which you may one day find yourself.

The real problem is the manufacturing of "have not"s.

I'm not even saying I'm disagreeing with the (hypothetical) suggestion of making people on food stamps not eat junk. It's just scary to see the government with that much power over anyone. Once it has that power over anyone it'll come for me next.
boglerdude
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 468
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:40 am
Contact:

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by boglerdude » Mon Feb 03, 2020 10:49 pm

If you accept the subsidy you can jump through the hoops.

The problem is turning into Canada where its illegal to buy private insurance.

The counter argument is that it forces the rich to maintain the quality of the public system. Similarly, libertarians want to ship bums out to the desert where they can get high all day, but maybe in practice that would make their quality of life worse.
User avatar
sophie
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3150
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:15 pm

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by sophie » Tue Feb 04, 2020 8:24 am

"Ship bums out to the desert"? You mean like people should live in places they can afford, instead of the government building crappy housing projects in otherwise nice neighborhoods?

Agree with Xan - the real problem is the manufacturing of a large population dependent on government handouts. Instead of "haves" and "have-nots" I propose using the terms "donor class" and "recipient class". Great system except it depends on the donors continuing to stay in high-tax states, which of course they're not. Meanwhile, recipients are going to go where they get the most benefits. They're doing that. The math is just unsustainable, and precious few appear to realize this.

Personally, I really don't care what food stamp recipients buy in the grocery store. I care much more about who is getting food stamps, and why, and why there is even a food stamp program to begin with when it could simply be rolled into a single cash-payment welfare program. I'd be more interested in limiting benefits to legal permanent residents or citizens, and putting a time limit on the number of total months of benefits for an individual. As in, instead of the state handing you $200 a month for groceries, why don't you go get a minimum wage job and work the 5 hours a week needed to get that $$? Or clean houses, or do small moving jobs, or whatever.

That's what would happen if you took away the food stamp benefit from someone who wants to eat and is capable of getting that job. If they're mentally ill or physically disabled that's another matter - then they should be getting SSI, not food stamps.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 2283
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by Xan » Tue Feb 04, 2020 8:45 am

Yes, Sophie, "donor" and "recipient" are better terms for what I was aiming for. Thanks.
User avatar
l82start
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 2342
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 9:51 pm

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by l82start » Tue Feb 04, 2020 9:07 am

Xan wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 8:45 am
Yes, Sophie, "donor" and "recipient" are better terms for what I was aiming for. Thanks.
"Gentry, Commoners, and Clients." is a definition i recently read.. the gentry are the elite who think they are owed power and wealth, the commoners are the shrinking middle class "trump voters" who the gentry seek to bludgeon into submission, for the benefit and growth of the client population who depend on the gentry for their existence..
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain

Belief is the death of intelligence. As soon as one believes a doctrine of any sort, or assumes certitude, one stops thinking about that aspect of existence
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 8829
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: next to emotional support peacock
Contact:

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by dualstow » Tue Feb 04, 2020 10:45 am

dualstow wrote:
Mon Feb 03, 2020 7:42 pm
Yale University is scrapping its renowned freshman course “Introduction to Art History”... in response to “student uneasiness” about the “overwhelmingly white, straight, European and male” artists featured.
— The Week / quoted bits from ‘Yale Daily News’
https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2020/01/ ... ey-course/
Speaking of Yale

https://www.reddit.com/r/BillBurr/comme ... ents_bill/
TLT HITS NEW 52-WK HIGH
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 860
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: The Left is Eating Itself Pt. II

Post by Maddy » Tue Feb 04, 2020 11:55 am

dualstow wrote:
Tue Feb 04, 2020 10:45 am
Speaking of Yale
https://www.reddit.com/r/BillBurr/comme ... ents_bill/
I'm getting the sense that trade school might be a better, less painful, choice for these young people.
Post Reply