Home
- Details
- Written by Michael Z Williamson
Spangdahlem Air Base, 2 November, 2013:
https://www.facebook.com/events/292771870822485/412991242133880/?notif_t=like
And the American Book Center in the Hague, afternoon of 3 November:
Do please stop by and introduce yourself. Military/DoD/contractors and family can get a free signed book at Spang. In the Netherlands, you can buy a copy and have me deface it in person.
- Details
- Written by Michael Z Williamson
At $42.8 billion per year, the Federal Highway Administration costs a smidge under $200 per person. You benefit from roads, because you drive on them, and everything you buy or use is delivered on them. There are other aspects of Federal transportation, and they're paid for by a combination of excise tax, income tax, etc. Ultimately, all those taxes are a cost of doing business, and are passed on from shipper to user to consumer—you.
http://www.dot.gov/mission/budget/fy2013-budget-estimates
What about schools? Department of Education has a budget of $69.8 billion (it's doubled in four years, by the way), which costs about $326 per person. Schools provide a skilled workforce that generate GDP, and it reduces the amount of scavenging, looting and other activity that we commonly consider crime.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html (also see Wikipedia for an easier summary).
So, these are things you pay for, and derive benefit from.
Now, let's move on to health care.
The uncomfortable fact is, few individuals affect you. Immediate family, a few friends and coworkers, your employer. And through Sept 30, 2013, we didn't have millions of people dying in the streets. The system we had worked. The worst case claims of the opponents conclude that 85% of Americans had adequate coverage, which means the real case is almost certainly over 90%, which is on par with any Western nation. Let us dispense right now with (profanity for emphasis) any bullshit that "our life expectancy is 13th" or whatever. It's within a year of every other Western democracy, and that's without accounting for lifestyle issues like diet and exercise, which health care can't fix. More people come here for health care than go elsewhere.
Please keep in mind there was no requirement for any employer to provide you with health care coverage. It was entirely a choice on their part, and those who could afford to generally chose to.
They can still choose not to, and you get the bill. But now, that bill is mandatory.
So how much are you willing to pay for a human life? If it's your own, and you have 50% odds, you'd likely sell all your possessions, because they're no use to you dead. You’d probably do this for your immediate family. For a close friend, you might sell a used car or take a loan on your house. For a coworker or a local child with cancer, you might throw in fifty bucks. For the homeless guy in Pasadena who's about to die in the gutter of liver failure, you don't give a shit. Nor should you. Millions of people get sick and die every year, with no real effect on you. Close down a road, you suffer. Close down a school, you'll suffer in twenty years. Someone dies of cancer? If they're not a close acquaintance, it doesn't affect you at all.
Be honest. Would you pay $200 to save some homeless guy? You might. Once a year. What about $326? Possibly.
Would you pay $1000?
What about $10,000?
What about $100,000?
At some point we passed the threshold at which you care about another human being's life. If you want to pretend we didn't, write a check for $5000 payable to Health and Human Services, mail it to me, and I'll see that they deposit it.
Here's the problem: You've told the government they get to set that value. You no longer have a valid legal argument against paying. It doesn’t matter if you can't pay it. It's tax.
Now, they insist there will be various means of moderating the system. But liberals are notorious for having no clue how these things work. Canada's gun registration program was supposed to cost a few million dollars. It wound up over $2 billion. On this, we've already found out that the morons didn't figure that a business would actually shift employment to part time to avoid a cost it could avoid.
Here's what it's likely to cost you, now, before they find more problems and realize that since it's cheaper for a young college person earning $25,000 to pay the fine (sorry, "tax") rather than get insurance ($2535) with an $826 subsidy taken out, which you'd pay, they're probably going to do that. Which means you'll STILL be paying for the ER care, just like now. Same for the 64 year old on a marginal income ($7606). They actually pay $1729, getting a subsidy of $5877, which you pay. For every one of them getting a subsidy, one of YOU has to pay that subsidy. The money doesn't magically appear from nowhere.
http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/
You will be paying $5000 a year for someone else.
It may only be $2000. It may be $10,000. But YOU will be paying for some random stranger's care.
At what point does your employer decide they can't afford it? Keep in mind, in the real nonliberal world, a company's assets are limited, and most companies are fairly small.
When they decide they can't afford it, you pay out of pocket. If you're lucky. If you're unlucky, they say they can't afford to keep you on, and you have no job, and STILL pay out of pocket. Of course, you're then eligible for "free" care, which is good, because all the people who were getting it free were being paid on your dime.
The cold, hard fact is that public health is a matter for epidemics and immunizations, and your horrifically painful liver cancer matters not at all to 214 million people.
Nor should it.
- Details
- Written by Michael Z Williamson
Peter Reynolds: 2 days agoI'm a right wing libertarian and I want freedom of the press and freedom from a self-serving, dishonest press which is what we have now.
The clearest example of this is the Daily Mail's inverse relationship with the Editors' Code where its editorial policy and business plan is to publish "inaccurate, misleading and distorted" information.
I'm very disappointed that the Telegraph is competing with the Mail in a race to the bottom. Increasingly, the only difference between the two papers seems to be the size of the page.
Implement Leveson in full. The Fleet Street mafia needs to be broken up so that true journalism can flourish.
MichaelZWilliamson: "Right wing libertarian" is like a "militant pacifist."So it shouldn't be surprise that you want state control of the media for "freedom." You're just a right winger.All press has a bias inherently. People are human beings. It's up to the educated reader to determine which is accurate, and which suits their agenda.
Clearly. you fear that your position will suffer if you can't cram it down people's throats.5 hours ago · Like · 6
Seth Everybody is in favor of Freedom of the Press when they believe that the press would publish stuff they like if it could. They tend to oppose such freedom when they come to believe that the press would publish stuff they don't like.4 hours ago · Unlike · 3
Ray I think the word you were looking for is "Authoritarian." The Press, having service its purpose, is now to be controlled so that no one else can use it at the Left did. It is called "Pulling up the Ladder."4 hours ago · Like · 2
Seth Breidbart You can't have freedom of the press and freedom from a dishonest press; who gets to define "dishonest"?4 hours ago · Unlike · 5
Mike L MiniTru, of course4 hours ago · Unlike · 2
Phill I thought it was Snopes or Huffingtonpost that decided what was true & what is dishonest.4 hours ago via mobile · Like · 2
John Our "Betters" want to control tge information we get, for our own good of course...4 hours ago via mobile · Like &
- Details
- Written by Michael Z Williamson
The House today sent its tenth dinner menu to Harry Reid and Barrack 0bama.
"We'll try carrots," John Boehner said. "Harry absolutely refused to open his door to brussels sprouts or fried cabbage. Barrack gathered up his toy soldiers and ran bawling when we said we were having broccoli. We've tried stir fried squash, celery with peanut butter and even deep-fried okra. There's only so much left in the grocery."
Harry Reid said if dinner wasn't cake and ice cream, he wasn't coming to the table. He said he was willing to consider strawberry, but wouldn't even respond if it wasn't at least vanilla, with the cake having chocolate frosting.
John Boehner said, "He's not being realistic. They get to vote on the menu, but we do the shopping and the cooking. At some point, they're just going to have to eat their vegetables. Whining to their friends is not going to change that."
Page 76 of 126
