L@@K! Killer deal! Birth control pills $9/month at Target!!! IN-STOCK

[quote name='soulvengeance']The problem is the government has to be involved in marriage, or just stop recognizing all marriages altogether.[/QUOTE]I would support the idea that they get out of it altogether. You know, my girlfriend did her taxes today and said, "Just so you know, if we were married, this tax refund would be much bigger." And I said, "Why would we deserve that just for being married?"

It doesn't make much sense to me. If we cared so much about marriage and stable families that we give out tax benefits for it, what are we doing destroying families through welfare dependency and related laws that favor poor women over poor men?

So yeah, marriage is one of those areas I just don't understand.
 
[quote name='Msut77']"Perhaps"?

You have loved ones on government programs and think maybe the programs are appropriate?[/QUOTE]I'm making the point that if you are going to subsidize something in the name of helping the poor, don't lower the price for all users. Charge the proper price and then, through a means-tested program, offer the discount to those who apply and qualify.

Or are you talking about something else? I would be happy to answer a more specific question.
 
[quote name='Spokker']I'm making the point that if you are going to subsidize something in the name of helping the poor, don't lower the price for all users. Charge the proper price and then, through a means-tested program, offer the discount to those who apply and qualify.

Or are you talking about something else? I would be happy to answer a more specific question.[/QUOTE]

Define "proper price".

Do you believe there is utility in having cheap transportation infrastructure?

Or are you talking about something else?
Click to expand...

I only mentioned healthcare 43 times boyo.
 
[quote name='Spokker']I use the subway example because they attract many discretionary riders who do own vehicles because they are quick and go where the people are. My example would not apply to regular old bus service. However, you could raise the fare, improve the service, and then subsidize those who truly can't afford it with a discount pass.

If people can't afford coverage and want it, then perhaps a means-tested program is appropriate. And we can debate the desired amounts and what they would pay into it and whatever it takes. But there are many people who can afford coverage but choose not to get it.[/Quote]
Or you could treat public transportation as a public good instead of a profit-driven enterprise like it should be.

If a person can afford coverage, what makes you think they can cover treatment? Don't you know anything about group policies?
 
[quote name='Spokker']I would support the idea that they get out of it altogether. You know, my girlfriend did her taxes today and said, "Just so you know, if we were married, this tax refund would be much bigger." And I said, "Why would we deserve that just for being married?"

It doesn't make much sense to me. If we cared so much about marriage and stable families that we give out tax benefits for it, what are we doing destroying families through welfare dependency and related laws that favor poor women over poor men?

So yeah, marriage is one of those areas I just don't understand.[/QUOTE]

Seems like you don't understand much of anything. I wish that was an exaggeration. Tax credits don't work that way and it was less about taxes than more about marriage.

Shit, are you going to vomit that line about slaves having more stable families than black families today too?
 
Spokker,

Do you happen to believe "Studies are inconclusive, and even they were conclusive, there may be principled positions for one of the other solution. It would be wrong for the federal government to come and force both cities to adhere to one solution." applies to healthcare?
 
[quote name='Msut77']So you think this is an actual response?

Some states want to provide healthcare to the poor, elderly and children.

Some states want to keep Jim Crow.

Who are we to judge?

Myke and I have asked you to justify anything you believe about the "market" case for healthcare, you ignore it every single time.

I pretty much know why, how do you justify it to yourself?[/QUOTE]

Shit, Jim Crow? Left to their own devices states wouldn't just stop at Jim Crow... and hence the fundamental problem with "States' Rights" there's too many states that a ass-fucking-backwards to be trusted to protect their citizens.
 
[quote name='Spokker']Different states have different values, different cultures, different priorities. They think differently on fiscal and social issues. The states are often filled with like-minded people (though this is probably more true on a county and city level, and indeed many issues are decided at that level). What works for one states may not work or be accepted in another.

I mean, look, my city has red light cameras and the next city over does not. Who the hell knows which is better? Studies are inconclusive, and even they were conclusive, there may be principled positions for one of the other solution. It would be wrong for the federal government to come and force both cities to adhere to one solution.

These sort of things help people choose where to live. Think of cities, counties and states as "businesses" offering a menu of ordinances and tax rates that will attract different types of people and the tax revenue they generate. There are all kinds of combinations. But it would such if they were all the same and we could not live in the cities that fit our beliefs best.[/QUOTE]

Just curious - so how do you feel about abortion? States rights again?
 
[quote name='Spokker']I'm making the point that if you are going to subsidize something in the name of helping the poor, don't lower the price for all users. Charge the proper price and then, through a means-tested program, offer the discount to those who apply and qualify.

Or are you talking about something else? I would be happy to answer a more specific question.[/QUOTE]

Assuming you are serious, this is a completely dumbass way to attack subsidies. The amount we spend subsidizing birth control is next to nothing.

Pick a fat target like big oil, corn, or refined sugar.
 
Great. Keep the already mediocre populace under wraps.

For once, the feminist agenda actually helps benefit the COUNTRY.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']How the fuck is this news. Target sells cheap generic prescriptions, not just birth control.[/QUOTE]

I was thinking the same thing. Many stores have been selling cheap generic prescriptions for years.
 
[quote name='Spokker']I am pro-abortion[/QUOTE]

I think this is another area where you expose yourself as a fraudulent middle-of-the-road type.

No one is pro-abortion.

Let me repeat that.

No one is pro-abortion.

Your lexicon, your framing, is telling of where you glean your information and how you view the world. Fluke is a "liar," Limbaugh a "critic," and you are "pro-abortion."

Words have power, and the way you use your words says far more about you than the sentences you put together with those words - after all, you're carefully constructing a point when you type a sentence. It's a conscious activity. Word selection can also be a conscious activity, but it does not necessarily have to be. Think on that.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I think this is another area where you expose yourself as a fraudulent middle-of-the-road type.

No one is pro-abortion.

Let me repeat that.

No one is pro-abortion.

Your lexicon, your framing, is telling of where you glean your information and how you view the world. Fluke is a "liar," Limbaugh a "critic," and you are "pro-abortion."

Words have power, and the way you use your words says far more about you than the sentences you put together with those words - after all, you're carefully constructing a point when you type a sentence. It's a conscious activity. Word selection can also be a conscious activity, but it does not necessarily have to be. Think on that. [/QUOTE]

China has been accused of performing forced abortions as part of its "one child policy". At the very least they encourage it. You could argue that that's a "pro-abortion" stance. However I'm not sure if that's what Spokker meant.
 
[quote name='chiwii']I was thinking the same thing. Many stores have been selling cheap generic prescriptions for years.[/QUOTE]

Also note that this is only for TWO types of birth control pills. There are many, many different types and many of them do different things, and women can have different reactions to them. They are definitely not all created equal. What if a woman can only take a certain brand of the pill because they have bad reactions to the $9 generics? Does that mean they should have to pay a $60 copay or full sticker price (which could run up in the three figure range)? I was originally taking a different pill than I am now, but I switched to one of the $9/month ones because the copay jumped to $60/month. Thank god I didn't have any problems with the generic when I switched.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I think this is another area where you expose yourself as a fraudulent middle-of-the-road type.

No one is pro-abortion.

Let me repeat that.

No one is pro-abortion.[/quote]I am pro-abortion. It is just another tool in the toolbox and I think the stigma about having the procedure done is way overblown. I encourage people to get abortions, even when they are on the fence. I encourage marketing campaigns for abortions. I encourage for-profit abortion centers. I encourage people who are not ready to have children, who don't earn a certain income or have a certain level of education (and no, not just four-year college, but technical skills too), to not have children.

Your lexicon, your framing, is telling of where you glean your information and how you view the world. Fluke is a "liar," Limbaugh a "critic," and you are "pro-abortion."
Click to expand...
Fluke is a liar, Limbaugh criticized her, he is a pussy for apologizing, and I am pro-abortion.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight'] Thank god I didn't have any problems with the generic when I switched.[/QUOTE]Generic and brand name versions of a certain drug are chemically the same. A generic drug is simply a brand name drug in which the patent expired.
[quote name='camoor']China has been accused of performing forced abortions as part of its "one child policy". At the very least they encourage it. You could argue that that's a "pro-abortion" stance. However I'm not sure if that's what Spokker meant.[/QUOTE]
Not at all. I use pro-abortion to go above and beyond pro-choice in that I believe abortion is positive for society and not simply something that I'll tolerate and if it happens, it happens, and if it doesn't, it doesn't. To see more voluntarily abortion (and less child rearing in general), especially among those who are unable to care for children, is good for society. As women have gained more opportunities, they have voluntarily reduced their child rearing, and that's a good thing.

And then when you have a strong father figure present, and a strong mother figure present, and the income, and the space, you go ahead and have the children you desire. On the other hand, I NEVER want to shame a single mother who doesn't know the father to not have an abortion. I want to convince her of the benefits of such a procedure. It's going to hurt her schooling. It's going to hurt her income stream. It's going to hurt her free time to develop as an functioning adult in society. It truly is an amazing tool.

[quote name='dohdough']Or you could treat public transportation as a public good instead of a profit-driven enterprise like it should be.[/QUOTE]

Good article on the subject: http://m.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2011/11/can-higher-fares-save-public-transit/602/

Lessons are taken from Germany. It works when we allow the price of gasoline to rise and stop subsidizing driving (and parking!). When I say, treat public transportation more like a business and less like welfare mobility for the poor, it doesn't mean I want to let drivers off the hook. It's a plan that has two main components.

[quote name='camoor']
Pick a fat target like big oil, corn, or refined sugar.[/QUOTE]I want to end corn and oil subsidies.

And interestingly enough, when Comcast decided to offer cheap Internet to the poor for $10/month, they didn't lower the price for all users. They instituted a means-tested program.
[quote name='Msut77']Define "proper price".[/quote]The proper price would ideally cover what it costs to provide the product or service. You would start there. And then you would make the case for any positive or negative externalities that might cause us to provide subsidies or impose taxes.

Do you believe there is utility in having cheap transportation infrastructure?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. This is part of the reason why we are in so much trouble. We subsidize driving and parking, and the tax revenues are such that we can't even maintain the roads we have. Public transit also suffers when tax revenues dwindle and fares remain artificially low. I would start by raising the gas tax.

[quote name='Msut77']
Do you happen to believe "Studies are inconclusive, and even they were conclusive, there may be principled positions for one of the other solution. It would be wrong for the federal government to come and force both cities to adhere to one solution." applies to healthcare?[/QUOTE]It applies to the vast majority of issues. When you have a state like California that wants to legalize medicinal marijuana, the federal government has no authority to force them not to, to go in and raid pot shops, that no matter how many studies the feds have about the dangers of illegal drugs.

And what if we have a case in which the studies and examples lean heavily toward legalization or decriminalization as the answer, but the federal government is against it? Look to the examples of other nations that are more free and respect liberty more than we do. Other nations have decriminalized drugs and they have seen far better results than we do. So this idea that the federal government is somehow better than state governments is unbelievable. The advantage to states is that they have a better grasp of the local sentiments on a subject, and in some cases the issue should be decided on the county level.

[quote name='RedvsBlue']Shit, Jim Crow? Left to their own devices states wouldn't just stop at Jim Crow... and hence the fundamental problem with "States' Rights" there's too many states that a ass-fucking-backwards to be trusted to protect their citizens.[/QUOTE]States are made up of citizens. They have little state-sized versions of Congress like a state senate or state assembly. Representatives from the various districts are voted for by citizens. States even have their own courts and own Supreme Courts. States are perfectly capable of making many of the decisions the federal government makes for them.

Jim Crow laws, however, are unconstitutional, and would be a valid reason for the federal government to get involved.
[quote name='mykevermin']Why even have a federal government, then?[/QUOTE]
When half the states inevitably pass Jim Crow laws and re-institute slavery! :lol::bouncy::lol:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Spokker']Absolutely not.[/quote]

In any circumstances or just this narrowly defined area?

It applies to the vast majority of issues.
Click to expand...

Which reminds me, you keep ignoring the issue of healthcare. Why is that?
 
[quote name='Msut77']In any circumstances or just this narrowly defined area?[/quote]I don't think it is ever a good idea to "make" something cheap. Things can be cheap when you have something like economies of scale and/or technological improvement, but I would never subsidize something for the sole purpose of making it more affordable out of some desire to help the poor. If you want to help the poor, you would charge the proper price and then offer a subsidy that requires an application and proof of need and things like that. The reason to subsidize something is when it offers positive externalities, such as the reduction in pollution and traffic when someone takes the bus or train. Or you might say, if you vanpool you get to use the express lane for free or something like that.

Which reminds me, you keep ignoring the issue of healthcare. Why is that?
Click to expand...
One of my favorite PBS specials is "Sick Around the World." It profiles several capitalist democracies (more or less) and simply talks about what they do, how they do it and what some concerns are. In all cases, medical statistics are better than the United States and they all spend less on health care on a per capita basis.

Here's a good link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/

I have always been partial to the Swiss system. But the problem, as I see it, is that an individual mandate is probably unconstitutional. I don't think the federal government should force you to purchase a product. If that is the case, then any universal health insurance has to be given. No mandate, you just have it. But that is going to clash with American principles opposed to welfare and socialism and all that stuff.

It isn't that I feel universal health care is a bad idea, it's that I do not believe the United States federal government has any business getting involved. I certainly encourage states to try it. I don't give Romney any shit for his adventures in health care politics.

Having said that, I do think there are free market solutions that would do just as well as the systems profiled on Sick Around the World, and we would do well to go in either direction, more toward free markets or more toward socialism. We can't just stay where we are. I just don't think the socialist systems are going to be easy to swallow.
 
[quote name='Spokker']I don't think it is ever a good idea to "make" something cheap.Things can be cheap when you have something like economies of scale and/or technological improvement, but I would never subsidize something for the sole purpose of making it more affordable out of some desire to help the poor. [/quote]

So libraries are what in your book?

I have always been partial to the Swiss system. But the problem, as I see it, is that an individual mandate is probably unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with you, I think every single person who says as much is just unable to think rationally.

Anyway, just for arguments sake pretend I don't care about that and make an argument regarding cost/benefit in other words utility.

But that is going to clash with American principles opposed to welfare and socialism and all that stuff.
Click to expand...

Why do you think this makes sense?

It isn't that I feel universal health care is a bad idea, it's that I do not believe the United States federal government has any business getting involved.
Click to expand...

Tautology, circular reasoning?

Having said that, I do think there are free market solutions
Click to expand...

There are aren't.
 
[quote name='Msut77']So libraries are what in your book?
[/QUOTE]Struggling. My local library system now charges a daily fee to rent out newer books. Many libraries have cut back days of operation and hours as tax revenues have decreased. It isn't for lack of desire to fund the library system. There simply is not enough money and other services have been prioritized ahead of them.

I wouldn't get in the way of libraries, but it's simply the truth that there is some level of inefficiency that will stem from subsidizing them. I love libraries, but I understand that they won't have all the books I want, the books may be damaged and in dire economics times they will struggle to stay open. Many libraries take donations.

Interestingly enough, my significant other is far more liberal than I am, even chastising me on my particularly offensive viewpoints, but she will not under any circumstances go to the library with me. She hates the library because it never has what she wants. I won't give up on convincing why that's the case, and why it might apply to other programs she does support :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Spokker'] Many libraries have cut back days of operation and hours as tax revenues have decreased.[/QUOTE]

Why do you think this is an actual response?

Why do you choose to ignore anything regarding substance?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Why do you think this is an actual response?

Why do you choose to ignore anything regarding substance?[/QUOTE]

Many of your replies consist of a single sentence or two. I rarely see you make a post with a substantive amount of content. Many of your replies with some content consist of personal attacks because you dislike my views.

I'm not complaining about it. You should be able to post whatever you want. But that's the reality as I see it.
 
Spokker,

If I asserted everything I believe are American principles (implying what you believe is unamerican) would you accept that?
 
[quote name='Msut77']
If I asserted everything I believe are American principles (implying what you believe is unamerican) would you accept that?[/QUOTE]
I would disagree with you.
 
[quote name='Spokker']I would disagree with you.[/QUOTE]

No shit.

Then why do you believe that is an acceptable response?
 
[quote name='Msut77']
Then why do you believe that is an acceptable response?[/QUOTE]
I have no clue what you are talking about right now.
 
[quote name='Spokker']Generic and brand name versions of a certain drug are chemically the same. A generic drug is simply a brand name drug in which the patent expired.[/QUOTE]
....

You. don't. get it.

I had to switch to an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION WITH DIFFERENT ACTIVE INGREDIENTS, YOU DUMBASS.

Christ, why are men even allowed to regulate birth control at all if they have no idea what they are talking about?
 
[quote name='Spokker']I have no clue what you are talking about right now.[/QUOTE]

I bet.

I will try to make it as clear as possible.

If you would not accept ME simply asserting that everything that I believe are good American principles.

Then do you think it is acceptable for YOU to assert the same.
 
Why the fuck is it that libertarians always think that they can win an argument against actual knowledge and reasoning by using superficial one liners about states rights, how federal government sucks, and "fuck you; got mine" horseshit.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']....

You. don't. get it.

I had to switch to an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION WITH DIFFERENT ACTIVE INGREDIENTS, YOU DUMBASS.

Christ, why are men even allowed to regulate birth control at all if they have no idea what they are talking about?[/QUOTE]
I take it that you haven't been reading his posts in Vs? He has a healthy dose of being sexist with a dash of misogyny and seasoned with racism. Pretty much a typical dumb-fuck libertarian.
 
[quote name='Msut77']
If you would not accept ME simply asserting that everything that I believe are good American principles.

Then do you think it is acceptable for YOU to assert the same.[/QUOTE]
Are you hurt that I believe an individual mandate is unconstitutional? Are you offended that I don't believe socialist health care, as much of a good idea I believe it may be, is not compatible for American principles? Oh heavens to betsy, I must apologize for this awful atrocity! Call me a moron a few more times to make yourself feel better you very sensitive, tolerant and patriotic American.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Why the fuck is it that libertarians always think that they can win an argument against actual knowledge and reasoning by using superficial one liners about states rights, how federal government sucks, and "fuck you; got mine" horseshit.[/QUOTE]

I think we overtaxed spokkers grey matter by asking him to make an argument.

I am just going to lay this out there and see if he responds.

To say you believe in the "market" for healthcare (the actual market and not the perfect fantasy land market spokker thinks might one day exist) is to accept that you will deny life saving care to the sick for no reason other than lack of money. This includes the poor, the middle class sick, the elderly and sick children.

To relent and say we will provide healthcare to some of those people, but through profit making private companies is to allow those companies to cherry pick the healthiest and wealthiest people and try to shunt the others onto the government or off the mortal coil.

I don't care what you think you know about the constitution, argue the utility in having a more expensive system that exists to make some people money which allows people to die for no good reason.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']....

You. don't. get it.

I had to switch to an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PRESCRIPTION WITH DIFFERENT ACTIVE INGREDIENTS, YOU DUMBASS.

Christ, why are men even allowed to regulate birth control at all if they have no idea what they are talking about?[/QUOTE]
This is what you said.
What if a woman can only take a certain brand of the pill because they have bad reactions to the $9 generics?
Click to expand...

It would have been more accurate to say, "What if a woman can only take a certain brand of the pill because they have had bad reactions to other, cheaper pills, brand name or otherwise?"
 
[quote name='Msut77']
To say you believe in the "market" for healthcare (the actual market and not the perfect fantasy land market spokker thinks might one day exist) is to accept that you will deny life saving care to the sick for no reason other than lack of money. This includes the poor, the middle class sick, the elderly and sick children.[/QUOTE]
The reality is that under any system care will be rationed according to the resources available.
 
[quote name='Spokker']Are you hurt that I believe an individual mandate is unconstitutional?[/quote]

I asked you to make an actual argument, not just reassert what you believe.


Are you offended that I don't believe socialist health care, as much of a good idea I believe it may be, is not compatible for American principles?
Click to expand...

Everything I believe is compatible with American principles, everything you believe is not.

Oh heavens to betsy, I must apologize for this awful atrocity! Call me a moron a few more times to make yourself feel better you very sensitive, tolerant and patriotic American.
Click to expand...

99% percent of the time I am accused of insulting someone I am merely accurately describing the persons posts.
 
[quote name='Spokker']The reality is that under any system care will be rationed according to the resources available.[/QUOTE]

Systems exist that manage to take of everyone, that are cheaper and have better outcomes on the whole.

Try again.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Systems exist that manage to take of everyone, that are cheaper and have better outcomes on the whole.[/QUOTE]They are cheaper and do better, as Sick Around the World demonstrates, but they do not "take care of everyone" and not every system is perfect.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/

What are the concerns? In fact, Japan has been so successful at keeping costs down that Japan now spends too little on health care; half of the hospitals in Japan are operating in the red. Having no gatekeepers means there's no check on how often the Japanese use health care, and patients may lack a medical home.

...

What are the concerns? The single-payment system leaves some German doctors feeling underpaid. A family doctor in Germany makes about two-thirds as much as he or she would in America. (Then again, German doctors pay much less for malpractice insurance, and many attend medical school for free.) Germany also lets the richest 10 percent opt out of the sickness funds in favor of U.S.-style for-profit insurance. These patients are generally seen more quickly by doctors, because the for-profit insurers pay doctors more than the sickness funds.

...

What are the concerns? Like Japan, Taiwan's system is not taking in enough money to cover the medical care it provides. The problem is compounded by politics, because it is up to Taiwan's parliament to approve an increase in insurance premiums, which it has only done once since the program was enacted.
Click to expand...

You could probably take care of everyone if you run up an amount of debt that is 200% of your nation's GDP. We'll see what happens with that. Then again, the Japanese people know how to save and they aren't going to riot. There's a superior culture there in regard to crime and social stability.

And those Nazis are letting people with money see doctors more quickly. Another horrible atrocity by the German people.
 
[quote name='Spokker']They are cheaper and do better, as Sick Around the World demonstrates, but they do not "take care of everyone" and not every system is perfect.[/quote]

They do take care of everyone, a system without any form rationing means every single person gets all the healthcare they could possibly want which is just a silly way of framing it. Likewise, I am not engaging whether they are "perfect" or not.

Try again.
 
[quote name='Msut77']They do take care of everyone, a system without any form rationing means every single person gets all the healthcare they could possibly want which is just a silly way of framing it. Likewise, I am not engaging whether they are "perfect" or not.
[/QUOTE]
Well, good luck bringing it here. There are at least nine people you must convince first.

But I'm not sure if I'm alone in this sentiment.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/29/g...ans-call-individual-mandate-unconstitutional/

Even among Americans who support President Obama’s health care overhaul, a large majority believe that the law is out of step with the U.S. Constitution, a Gallup poll released Monday revealed.

The poll, conducted Feb. 20–21, indicates that 72 percent of Americans believe the individual mandate — the government’s requirement for Americans to purchase health insurance — is unconstitutional. Even among Americans who feel the president’s health care law is a “good thing,” 54 percent think the provision is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
Among those who feel it's a good thing, only 38% believe it is constitutional.

Original poll: http://www.gallup.com/poll/152969/Americans-Divided-Repeal-2010-Healthcare-Law.aspx
 
[quote name='Spokker']Well, good luck bringing it here. There are at least nine people you must convince first.[/QUOTE]


So you think a national healthcare system is more unconstitutional then say a national highway system?

BTW, I am not going to forget you are failing to argue the utility of a "market" healthcare system as much as you try to change the subject.
 
[quote name='Msut77']So you think a national healthcare system is more unconstitutional then say a national highway system?[/QUOTE]

Because an individual mandate would have the federal government force you to purchase something simply for existing. I don't believe they are authorized to do that. There is also the matter of a highway system serving as post roads or defense or some bullshit.

In any case, I think the federal involvement in highways has been disastrous in the past and even today. It did a lot to hurt public transportation and pervert incentives that encourage people where and where not to live. But, hell, with a 90% match who wouldn't have taken highway money, eh?

The highway system was also a major bait and switch. It was supposed to be funded by a user fee, the gas tax. Unfortunately that user fee was not indexed to inflation or even the fuel efficiency of vehicles. Now the highway trust fund is struggling and the transportation network is in shambles. There is very little political will to raise the gas tax.

So now we have a situation in which counties will enact a sales tax, a regressive tax, in order to fund highway improvements. State indebtedness to highways has also increased (bond measures and stuff). User fees are far more efficient.

What's worse, federal involvement in state transportation decisions is just a given now. California wants to build a high speed rail system. They also send their tax dollars to Washington. They are a donor state. They want some of that money back to fund the rail system, but it comes with strings attached. Construction must start in the Central Valley. Unfortunately, CA would be better served by starting in urban population centers and upgrading rail systems that are used every single day. But if we switch to that plan, we lose billions in funding.

It would be far better for California to keep its tax dollars and decide how to proceed on its rail system. And it's not even going to be an interstate system.
 
[quote name='Spokker']Because an individual mandate would have the federal government force you to purchase something simply for existing. I don't believe they are authorized to do that. There is also the matter of a highway system serving as post roads or defense or some bullshit.

In any case, I think the federal involvement in highways has been disastrous in the past and even today. It did a lot of hurt public transportation and pervert incentives that encourage people where and where not to live. But, hell, with a 90% match who wouldn't have taken highway money, eh?[/QUOTE]


To say you believe in the "market" for healthcare (the actual market and not the perfect fantasy land market spokker thinks might one day exist) is to accept that you will deny life saving care to the sick for no reason other than lack of money. This includes the poor, the middle class sick, the elderly and sick children.

To relent and say we will provide healthcare to some of those people, but through profit making private companies is to allow those companies to cherry pick the healthiest and wealthiest people and try to shunt the others onto the government or off the mortal coil.

I don't care what you think you know about the constitution, argue the utility in having a more expensive system that exists to make some people money which allows people to die for no good reason.

Let us try this again.
 
[quote name='Msut77']
I don't care what you think you know about the constitution, argue the utility in having a more expensive system that exists to make some people money which allows people to die for no good reason.[/QUOTE]I don't support a system that exists to make some people money and allows people to die for no good reason. Try again.
 
[quote name='Spokker']I don't support a system that exists to make some people money and allows people to die for no good reason. Try again.[/QUOTE]
How the fuck do you square that with the regressive policies you've been promoting in regards to public utilities and services for the past few days?
 
[quote name='Spokker']I don't support a system that exists to make some people money and allows people to die for no good reason. Try again.[/QUOTE]

Yeah. You do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top