Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

When you yourself is stuck in the mud, it's more important than ever to still have your dignity. The easiest way to feel like you have dignity is to look down on another group. Even if they have it just as muddy as you, if you draw a line between them and yourself you can act as if they are worse off so you can feel better. I wouldn't know for sure, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if poor black people act the same way against "the white trash".

There's pathos involved, yes, but it tends to be a rather different sort of message and whatnot. You can see some of shit regarding police behavior over here for examples, heh. Occasionally notice some similar stuff regarding welfare, on a personal level. There's commentary, but a fair bit more annoyance with folks that are doing the same thing they are and looking down on 'em despite it, stuff like that.

Not really the same way, basically. Similarities, but there's some devils lounging about in the details.

Having gasoline taxes pay for the roads means that the people who use the roads the most are the ones who pay the most for it.

It doesn't, though. The folks benefiting the most from the roads are millionaires and whatnot -- people that get use from the transportation network as a whole rather than any particular stretch of road. The people spending the most personal time on the roads are paying the most, not the people that are getting the most use from 'em.

Gallons bought being equal, your average gas tax (which tends to be flat per gallon and whatnot) eats up significantly more of the budget of someone under the poverty line than someone making 100k or somethin', too. Which is most of the rest of it.

Some of the more major key measures of a regressive tax are impact and relative benefit. When a tax chews up more of your budget (as a proportion, mind, not raw dollar amount) than it does for someone else and you're getting comparatively little gain out of it, it's generally regressive. Sales and gas tax -- basically anything that's a flat amount per unit -- tend to be (if maybe not always are) some of the more common examples.

Stuff's basically the economic equivalent of that old quote, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." Few bucks a month in gas tax might be so little for a rich critter it would be economically advantageous for 'em to wipe their ass with it instead of find a roll of toilet paper, but for a poor bastard it can be the difference between being able to eat lunch or not a few times over the period, or that lunch being food or it being dime-ish pack ramen.

It's probably conceptually possible to rig things so it doesn't function like that (employer matching for some retirement/healthcare/etc. stuff is kinda' like that, iirc), but... well, I can't say for sure (cause, as noted, I haven't actually looked at the texas particulars, at least recently), but not even a matter of texas being texas, the US being the US I'd be pretty surprised, heh.

And ninja'd more or less by cript but to t'hell with it, it's typed it's getting posted.

[sluissa]

While I'm not completely disagreeing. Gas taxes ARE regressive. It's true that it's going to affect the poor more than the rich as a % of income, but it's unfair to directly compare a rich person owning one car and a poor person owning one car without considering that the rich people often employ other vehicles in their methods of getting rich, and methods of spending those riches, and each of those vehicles pays the gas tax as well.

It's not a simple comparison, even when laid out like that when you start figuring in deductions from business taxes on vehicle costs and whether the state has an income tax or not, import and export, transport across state lines.

Again I agree, but it's not an easy comparison.

[misko27]

While this is a surprisingly productive conversation for one of our detours, it's worth saying Republicans have unveiled the final version of their healthcare bill; it includes Cruz's controversial amendment to create two separate insurance markets, one ACA-compliant and one noT (if I'm not misunderstanding it). Details on what's new and what's changed can be seen in a Politico wrap-up here. I recommend looking at it, as it's pretty concise and mentions what different both from the previous bill and the ACA. It includes something called "Catastrophic health plans', which really seems like very poor marketing on their part if that is its actual name.

Outlook for the bill seems grim, since at least two Republicans (Susan Collins and Rand Paul) are already firmly against the bill (meaning all fifty other Republicans must vote in favor in order to pass it) but the leadership wants a vote either way.

[Lord Shonus]

Catastrophic health plans aren't a new idea. They're basically low-cost plans that kick in in the event of a major catastrophe, but don't cover non-preventative care for minor to moderate injuries, chronic health problems (such as arthritis, for example) or similar. The idea is that if you are young and fundamentally healthy, you only really need to worry about a bolt-from-the-blue illness such as cancer or a major infection, and don't need coverage for problems normally considered to be geriatric. Thus, you want a plan that cuts costs by not worrying about them.

These are not great, but many people find them to be adequate, so long as they follow the standard insurance practice of covering basic physicals and preventative screenings.

[smjjames]

@lord shonus: What the Cruz-Lee plan (well, their part of the plan that in this one) is though is to put all of the sick people into the Obamacare stuff while letting healthy people choose the less comprehensive plans. Which I've read is the very definition of a 'death spiral'.

Not to mention that they are allowing pre-existing conditions to, *ahem* exist, again.

Some other links:

https://www.vox.com/health-care/2017/7/13/15965762/senate-health-bill-bcra-preexisting-conditions

https://www.vox.com/2017/7/13/15964194/new-senate-health-bill-explained-preexisting-conditions

[Frumple]

Pretty sure catastrophic health plans are indeed what they've been called for... a while now. Something along those lines, anyway. They're the thing that gets peddled to someone in good health, so the insurance company gets paid to do basically fuck all. "Low" premiums, deductible that might as well say "Yes.", and usually riddled with shit (even more than normal) that lets the insurance jokers wiggle out of paying if something actually goes down and the policy holder goes over the deductible limit.

And ninja'd, but eh. Have some vitriol to go with it. Good chunk of folks do find 'em adequate, but said chunk also tends to be just a bit unaware of how badly they're getting screwed over by the "services" they're receiving. Bloody things are a half step, if that, from an outright scam. There's a reason letting that crap come back into full bloom is getting the support it is, and I can say without hesitation it damn sure ain't anything in the consumer's favor.

It's true that it's going to affect the poor more than the rich as a % of income, but it's unfair to directly compare a rich person owning one car and a poor person owning one car without considering that the rich people often employ other vehicles in their methods of getting rich, and methods of spending those riches, and each of those vehicles pays the gas tax as well.

Plenty of it is foisted onto other people, too, heh. Richer folks are indeed more likely to defray a wider web of vehicles so far as that kind of tax goes, but quite often a good chunk of the vehicle usage feeding into 'em is just dumped on the driver in part or in whole. Conceptually whatever wage is being paid offsets it, but people end up working two or more jobs for a reason (transportation costs very much among them) and it's kinda' sketchy as all hell to say that kind of conceptualization is an acceptable state of things. You going to do that sort of hoop jumping you might as well burn the hoops, tax the company directly, and save the accountants some headache.

[EnigmaticHat]

The new bill didn't touch the medicaid cuts, which were a huge point of contention for moderate Republicans from states that chose to expand medicaid.  Because of that alone I'll say the new bill won't change the minds of the moderate Republicans.  Two have already stated they won't vote aye, that's one more and its fucked.

One interesting bit from the end of that link:

In a change that could appeal to Murkowski, the bill sets aside 1 percent of the stability funds for states with costs that are 75 percent above the national average, which would benefit high-cost states like Alaska.

...that seems pretty opposite of what Republicans believe when it comes to public money.  Could you imagine if Democrats had proposed that and it happened to benefit a couple blue states?

[Lord Shonus]

@lord shonus: What the Cruz-Lee plan (well, their part of the plan that in this one) is though is to put all of the sick people into the Obamacare stuff while letting healthy people choose the less comprehensive plans. Which I've read is the very definition of a 'death spiral'.

Not to mention that they are allowing pre-existing conditions to, *ahem* exist, again.

Some other links:

https://www.vox.com/health-care/2017/7/13/15965762/senate-health-bill-bcra-preexisting-conditions

https://www.vox.com/2017/7/13/15964194/new-senate-health-bill-explained-preexisting-conditions

Reread my post (which was nothing more than defining a term that was used), and explain how your response has any relevance to it whatsoever. I did not say anything to support the bill.

I. Provided. The. Definition. Of. A. Term.

[smjjames]

@lord shonus: What the Cruz-Lee plan (well, their part of the plan that in this one) is though is to put all of the sick people into the Obamacare stuff while letting healthy people choose the less comprehensive plans. Which I've read is the very definition of a 'death spiral'.

Not to mention that they are allowing pre-existing conditions to, *ahem* exist, again.

Some other links:

https://www.vox.com/health-care/2017/7/13/15965762/senate-health-bill-bcra-preexisting-conditions

https://www.vox.com/2017/7/13/15964194/new-senate-health-bill-explained-preexisting-conditions

Reread my post (which was nothing more than defining a term that was used), and explain how your response has any relevance to it whatsoever. I did not say anything to support the bill.

I. Provided. The. Definition. Of. A. Term.

It was more adding to what you said. Not sure why I put your name there though, heh.

Also, while a Politico article says that the CBO will be looking at the bill with and without the Cruz-Lee part, one GOP leader says that they might not use the CBO score and use the WH analysis instead. It's just one GOP senator not saying that and not McConnell (who would have the final say, I believe) saying that however.

[ChairmanPoo]

There's pathos involved
 

Pathos is always involved.

[EnigmaticHat]

Also, while a Politico article says that the CBO will be looking at the bill with and without the Cruz-Lee part, one GOP leader says that they might not use the CBO score and use the WH analysis instead. It's just one GOP senator not saying that and not McConnell (who would have the final say, I believe) saying that however.

Because Trump is a trustworthy source on whether Trumpcare will work, but the nonpartisan committee is not.  Great.  I don't think it will save them, it seems that they lack the cohesion to move faster than the CBO. Once the CBO report is out, even if they "aren't using it", the moderates opposed to the bill will still read the report and base their vote on that.

[smjjames]

Also, while a Politico article says that the CBO will be looking at the bill with and without the Cruz-Lee part, one GOP leader says that they might not use the CBO score and use the WH analysis instead. It's just one GOP senator not saying that and not McConnell (who would have the final say, I believe) saying that however.

Because Trump is a trustworthy source on whether Trumpcare will work, but the nonpartisan committee is not.  Great.  I don't think it will save them, it seems that they lack the cohesion to move faster than the CBO. Once the CBO report is out, even if they "aren't using it", the moderates opposed to the bill will still read the report and base their vote on that.

Yeah, I half expect the WH to give an overly rosy outlook on it, maybe even give an utterly false outlook on it.

Given that the CBO guys have said that they won't consider skimpy barebones insurance as being insured, the amount of uninsured under that Cruz-Lee amendment will likely increase. And that's without counting the induced collapse of the market that the Cruz-Lee amendment would have.

Also, Sens. Graham and Cassidy have a proposal in case this one fails that would basically leave it up to the states to devise their own methods. Not sure that such a patchwork method would actually work all that well.

[nenjin]

Yeah, "Full Faith and Credit" has gone so far on issues like gay marriage and legalization I'm sure states can find an equitable solution between themselves that everyone will honor....

[RedKing]

(there's a fairly well known variant of jury rigging that it took me until my mid to late teens to notice what the hell I was actually saying, ferex)

You too? I still find that phrase springing to the tip of my tongue on occasion, only to be subconsciously beat down with mental 2x4s and punched in the face like a baker's dozen of Richard Spencers.

I'm still hopeful that the health bill will die a horrible ignominious death. But I'm less ecstatic about the electoral ramifications. The calculus for the GOP so far has gone something like this:

1. If the bill passes, we'll get reamed in the general election by the Democrats as the majority register their outrage.
2. If the bill dies, we'll get reamed in the primaries by Tea Party types as the minority register *their* outrage.

What they've been desperately hoping for is someone to come stop them from what they're doing, while allowing them the illusion of doing something. Enough moderates, for example, to sink the bill to allow the conservative members to vote for it while confidently knowing it'll fail and they'll be spared the actual consequences. They used this formula for the last seven goddamned years to whip up their base and squeeze out votes, and then the unthinkable happened and they got a trifecta of power and now there's nobody to credibly save them from themselves.

Which could mean the bill dies, and we get a slate of new GOP candidates in 2018 that make Ted Cruz look like Dwight Eisenhower. And with gerrymandering still very much in vogue in many parts of the country, I'm not confident that these candidates would constitute a bridge too far. I'm not sure there *is* an "unelectable" candidate anymore. Not after Trump.



And as for 45, any elation over the most recent Russia bombshells has dissipated as I come to realize that absolutely NOTHING is going to happen. Nothing has consequences anymore. In order for something to happen, we'd need a working Justice Department. And Attorney General Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (that's the man's actual honest-to-God name) isn't, I say, isn't about to let that kind of thing happen on HIS watch, boy!

[misko27]

It's a tough situation. Not waiting for the CBO looks skeevy, and may alienate moderates further (and they're already pretty alienated as it stands). But if they wait for the CBO and it looks bad, well that might be even worse, since by waiting they acknowledge the importance of something which disagrees with them.

Republicans cannot afford any defections right now, so any bad news can sink the bill on its own. They're not even sure if they have the votes to open debate, which is a pretty nasty embarrassment.