Bush vetoes expansion of child health insurance

[bascule]

Sure, the data comes from the US Census Bureau. The analysis comes annually from Robert Rector at the Heritage Foundation (the author of America's Failed $5.4 Trillion War on Poverty) (We've spent a lot more than that now, btw -- that book's over a dozen years old!). He certainly has a point of view on the subject, but his data is all verifiable and sourced.

 

 

Let's try this one:

 

Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning.

 

They cite:

 

U.S Department of Energy, Housing Characteristics, 2001, Appliances Tables, at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/consumption (August 21, 2007).

 

Well, here's their first f*ck up, the actual report is called Household Characteristics. Here's Appliances broken down by income:

 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/hc_pdf/appl/hc5-3a_hhincome2001.pdf

 

The report claims there are 15 million US households below the poverty line. Jumping to page 3 of the report, I see the section of interest: Households With Electric Air-Conditioning Equipment.

 

According to the report only 9.6 million households belonging to people below the poverty line have air conditioning.

 

That's not 80%. That's 64%. The Heritage Foundation's statistic is off by approximately 2,400,000 households.

 

I'd really like to know if I made a mistake here, but it seems pretty clear and straightforward...

 

And yet you want to give people who earn three times as much as these people $12 billion of my [/i']money.

 

Something tells me the totality of money you've paid to the federal goverment comes nowhere close to a hundredth of a percent of $12 billion. It's hardly your money.

[ParanoiA]

Just to name a few: France, Denmark, Finland, Austria, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, who top the world in healthcare satisfaction.

 

Do you also envy their restrictive gun laws (except Finland)? Luxembourg bans all civilian ownership of guns. If you're going to use a "more civilized" argument to advocate copying them on Healthcare, then surely you must also advocate duplicating their position on firearms.

 

I don't believe they're more civilized at all, just more liberal; socialist. And of course, it's a popular phenomenon for liberals to believe they are more civilized.

 

Now that's not very libertarian of you. Why not defend ourselves with privately funded militias?

 

Because that's a great way to get occupied and owned. Libertarians come in a variety of stripes and I'm of the stripe that private police forces and militias are silly. There are things the government gets right and things they ultimately have to take responsibility for, even if they don't get it perfect - armies, law and order...basic duties of government.

[D H]

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/hc_pdf/appl/hc5-3a_hhincome2001.pdf

 

The report claims there are 15 million US households below the poverty line. Jumping to page 3 of the report, I see the section of interest: Households With Electric Air-Conditioning Equipment.

 

According to the report only 9.6 million households belonging to people below the poverty line have air conditioning.

Here's your f*ck up: You cited a 2001 report from the Department of Energy. The Heritage Foundation used 2005 data from the Census Bureau. The distinction between 2001 and 2005 is obvious. How about the different sources? The Census Bureau and the Department of Health and Human Services use different definitions of poverty. The DOE report appears to be based on the HHS definition. From The Census Bureau's description of how the Census Bureau Measures Poverty:

The official measure of poverty was established by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in Statistical Policy Directive 14.

• Government aid programs do not have to use the official poverty measure as eligibility criteria.
  
  
• Many government aid programs use a different poverty measure, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) poverty guidelines, or variants thereof.
  
  
• Each aid program may define eligibility differently.

This is f*cked up, but then again, they're from the government.

 

It's hardly your money.

My taxes are quite high. Can I opt out of paying taxes for welfare? I would love to cut my income taxes by more than 50%. If I can't opt out (and I can't), some of it is my money.

[Pangloss]

Something tells me the totality of money you've paid to the federal goverment comes nowhere close to a hundredth of a percent of $12 billion. It's hardly your money.

 

Doh! I phrased that rather clumsily, didn't I? Actually it IS, it's ALL MINE, and you're taking every cent of my $12 billion and giving it away! Grrr! <shakes fists>

 

Anyway I don't really see a problem with the Heritage article, but if you find a thorough rebuttal of it somewhere please feel free to pass it along.

[iNow]

Regardless of your view on how this program is slanted, I think most would find a good degree of humor in their presentation of the situation they presented last night.

 

Check it out. Three minutes of some biting humor after the 15 second ad. Enjoy.

 

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=109140

[Reaper]

In more civilized countries, healthcare is considered a right, not a privilege.

 

Well, what constitutes civilized? After all, the imperial powers of the 19th century were so civilized that they segregated their subjects based on race and ethnicity, and commited unspeakable atrocities among the natives.

 

Second, even if it is a right, it is basically up to the person to take care of his or herself. Most of the people in the hospital nowadays are there because of reasons that are entirely preventable...

[bascule]

Here's your f*ck up: You cited a 2001 report from the Department of Energy. The Heritage Foundation used 2005 data from the Census Bureau.

 

No, they didn't. The quoted citation comes directly from their page. Here it is in context:

 

Chart 1 shows the ownership of property and consumer durables among poor households. The data are taken from the American Housing Survey for 2005, conducted by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Census Bureau, the Survey of Income and Program Partici*pation (SIPP) conducted by the Census Bureau, and the Residential Energy Consumption Survey con*ducted by the U.S. Department of Energy.[9]

 

Citation [9] is:

 

[9] U.S. Census Bureau, American Housing Survey for the United States, 2005 Data Charts, at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/nationaldata.html#jump2 (August 23, 2007); U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2001 Panel, Wave 8 Topical Module, 2003; and U.S Department of Energy, Housing Characteristics, 2001, Appliances Tables, at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/consumption (August 21, 2007).

 

Here they're lumping three different sources together. I can see how it might be confusing.

 

The distinction between 2001 and 2005 is obvious.

 

Not so obvious as it might seem. Even if the Census Bureau's 2005 American Housing Survey Data Charts were the source for the air conditioner data:

 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/05dtchrt/05dtchrt/source.html

 

Source and Accuracy Statement for the 2005 AHS-N Data Chart

 

Source of the Data

 

All estimates are based on data from the 2001 American Housing Survey -

National (AHS-N) sample.

 

And even so, there's no appliance data here:

 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/05dtchrt/05dtchrt/ahs05.html

 

If you think they are correct can you find the data that corroborates their claim that 80% of poor households have air conditioners?

[CDarwin]

Do you also envy their restrictive gun laws (except Finland)? Luxembourg bans all civilian ownership of guns. If you're going to use a "more civilized" argument to advocate copying them on Healthcare, then surely you must also advocate duplicating their position on firearms.[/Quote]

 

And what's the rate of gun-crime in those countries? Just saying.

 

Because that's a great way to get occupied and owned. Libertarians come in a variety of stripes and I'm of the stripe that private police forces and militias are silly. There are things the government gets right and things they ultimately have to take responsibility for, even if they don't get it perfect - armies, law and order...basic duties of government.

 

"Basic duties of government" is just as bad as "civilized." It's hopelessly begging the question.

[ParanoiA]

And what's the rate of gun-crime in those countries? Just saying.

 

Well sure, but this point was specially made for bascule. We agree on civilian rights to arms, or we did at one time anyway, so I thought I'd test his alliance to "more civilized" countries when it doesn't compliment his position. Obviously, I'm not buying the more civilized argument.

 

Of course you're right, but that's a whole 'nother deal....

 

"Basic duties of government" is just as bad as "civilized." It's hopelessly begging the question.

 

Not sure I agree as they're not interdependent. "Basic duties of government" can wildly vary from person to person and I was just sharing my opinion of what I believe those duties should be. "Civilized" is predefined, albeit subjective as well.

 

__________________________________________________________________

 

The insult ingrained in government programs to help the less fortunate is a big contributor for such adamant opposition. When these ideas were first rolled out and implimented the concept was about "helping". The responsibility duly sat on those in need of this help, and we were helping them achieve it. Look how far we've come from that mentallity. Now if we don't "help", we're victimizing. Hence, the entitlement attitude. That is an insult to the american taxpayer. It started out as an extra, and has ended up a demand.

 

It's wrong to take people's money and redirect it for charity. The more we do it, the more it's expected and the more entitled society becomes. Charity should always remain a matter of persuasion - in that, help is asked, appreciated and responsibility stays where it should. This also helps to create the natural anxiety necessary to propel people off of their asses and to do something with themselves since it's not gauranteed.

[pioneer]

Another point about the child healthcare bill, is the estimated cost. Government programs never stay within their projected budget. That is just the lure to get it into law, before they go way over. We need to multiple the estimate by a factor of 2-10. The cigarette tax will generate projected revenue rates, in the short term, but higher cigarette cost will lower consumption, causing revenue to fall. That means other taxes will be needed to make up the difference. Once the program is grandfathered it, to feed the beast, will require new and esculating taxes.

 

The tax and spend Democrats don't seen to understand economics. The potential tax revenue, they are trying to collect, is like seed potato. They seem to believe one can eat from this stock pile and the pile will replenish itself. But the more you eat, the less there is for future planting, such that the pile get smaller and smaller. Government is analogous to a farmer with a black thumb, who can grow a crop but it takes twice as much seed potato. Often govenment estimates is what the free market can do it for. Once they begin, the costs esculate, i.e., more tax seed potato. One way to deal with this is make the estimate carved in stone. This estimate can not be exceeded except by taxing those employed by the program.

 

One of the problems with universal health insurance can be seen with an analogy. Say we decided to give everyone universal food insurance. This food insurance will guarentee everyone has full access to the best food. Rather than eat hamburgers, why not eat steak and shrimp. One will hope that most people will stick to hamburger, and only eat steak and shrimp on special occations, so we can eat these delicacies, all the time. The result is that either the cost of steak and shrimp will increase, or if we wish to keep down the cost, steak and shrimp will need to be rationed.

 

Extending socialize medicine to all the children, is a two sided coin. This will make it easier to address real need, which is good. But when the child skins his knee, rather than mother clean the wound, and put on a band-aid, many mothers will now have a new steak and shrimp attitude. One work-around is to define necessary care, as distinct from steak and shrimp care, with the latter requiring a co-pay to reduce the demand. Another possible approach would be to give a non-useage credit. For example, if we assume the value per child is $1000/year, healthy children, who don't use their share, get 25% of that at the end of the year. We should not just be rewarding sickness but will should also be rewarding health, so children learn to be more healthy minded.

[bascule]

The tax and spend Democrats don't seen to understand economics.

 

They certainly seem to understand it better than the don't tax then spend neocons

 

[incoherent rambling]

 

Sounds like you're arguing for the Laffer curve... lower taxes and revenues will go up... right?

[Pangloss]

Regardless of your view on how this program is slanted, I think most would find a good degree of humor in their presentation of the situation they presented last night.

 

Check it out. Three minutes of some biting humor after the 15 second ad. Enjoy.

 

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=109140

 

Not really, at least not in this case. I'm actually ok with it when he makes people laugh at conservatives (and the odd liberal now and then), but in this example he's run a long way from the truth just to imply that pure partisanship is a good thing. It isn't, and he's hurting America when he does that. In short, he's no better than Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken.

 

He didn't used to be that way, but the 2000 election blew a fuse for a lot of the loony left, just like the Clinton years did for the wacky right.

[bascule]

In short, he's no better than Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken.

 

You're lumping Al Franken with Rush "Never worn a uniform but I'll call military opponents of Iraq 'Phony Soldiers'" "I was addicted to Hillbilly Heroin but I support the war on drugs" Limbaugh?

[D H]

I suspect he would have put you in the same category as Limbaugh and Franken, but at least they are both famous and funny.

[Pangloss]

You're lumping Al Franken with Rush "Never worn a uniform but I'll call military opponents of Iraq 'Phony Soldiers'" "I was addicted to Hillbilly Heroin but I support the war on drugs" Limbaugh?

 

Says a lot about what I think of Al Franken, doesn't it?

[pcollins]

In more civilized countries, healthcare is considered a right, not a privilege.

 

Actually, the term would be "entitlement," not "right." There is no country in the world which provides a defined benefit on terms that can be tested in open court. The only difference between the American system and that of more civilized countries is the structure and scope of the publicly offered entitlement.

[Donnie Darko]

Bush is an idiot. Free healthcare is the best idea. America needs to follow in the footsteps of Europe.

[Pangloss]

Healthcare in Europe isn't free.

[iNow]

But healthcare is still good.

[ParanoiA]

Healthcare in Europe isn't free.

 

Yeah, Bush is the idiot huh?

 

Sorry, but that's funny.

[D H]

The joke would have been better if you had quoted the post immediately preceding Pangloss'. Or are you impugning that Pangloss is the idiot for thinking health care in Europe is not free?

[ParanoiA]

I guess you're right. I thought it would be more obvious that I was referring to Donnie's post, conversing with Pangloss - since he's the one that corrected her.

 

Ah well.

[D H]

I assumed that was the case, since you are blatantly libertarian and are fully aware that TANSTAAFL.

[Pangloss]

Hehe, I've always loved that acronym. All hail Larry Niven!

[D H]

That's Robert Heinlein, not Larry Niven.