Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe latest health care legislative compromise being floated is one in which states would be allowed to opt out of offering a public option. Chris Bowers lists the problems with the proposal here. Ezra's more sanguine.
I suppose if someone put a gun to my head and the options were no public option or an opt-out compromise, I'd opt for the latter. (I should point out we're not at the gun-at-the-head stage yet). But it's also important to point out just how perverse the results of this compromise would be.
Red, rural states would almost all probably opt out and yet it's rural America that needs the public option the most. As the Center for Community Change points out in a new report [PDF] people who live in rural areas are a) more likely to be underinsured, because fewer people receive insurance from their employers and b) live in markets where there is essentially no competition. In Alabama one health insurance company has 90% market share, in South Dakota, it's two companies. It's under these circumstances where the public option is most needed. In fact, I was talking about this issue with a health care wonk (who works for the government and so can't go on record) and she went so far as to put it this way:
My point is that the public option is probably valuable in this debate, but not for the people fighting for it--precisely for the people not fighting for it. This is important for rural areas where there is little or no managed care in the health insurance exchange (since the public option would be offered within the exchange anyway).
Would be nice if folks like Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson and Max Baucus could be made to understand this.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Would be nice if folks like Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson and Max Baucus could be made to understand this.
They understand it alright, they just don't represent the people of their state. They are much the same as Dick Gephart mentioned in another article here at the Nation. The revolving door between Congress and the lobby groups for senators and reps is obvious. If Baucus is voted out, he's got a job working as a lobbyist for the health insurance industry.
We as a nation are screwed. We are lead by a bunch of self serving hypocrites. We have a one party system posing as a two party system and the people really have no voice.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/08/2009 @ 10:56am
HAYES: "....yet it's rural America that needs the public option the most."
Where is your evidence of this? Rural American for the most part, live a far healthier life than most of us city slickers, even the poor, no?
Posted by Happy at 10/08/2009 @ 10:57am
"Red, rural states would almost all probably opt out and yet it's rural America that needs the public option the most."
But Mr Hayes, isn't there a slightly cynical way of viewing that?
If it becomes so miserable in those Red States from lack of health care coverage.....the folks there will eventually, even to the detriment of "stopping gay marriage" and "ending Roe v. Wade"...
eventually become BLUE States?!?!?!??!?
Posted by Mask at 10/08/2009 @ 10:58am
the folks there will eventually, even to the detriment of "stopping gay marriage" and "ending Roe v. Wade"...
eventually become BLUE States?!?!?!??!?
Posted by Mask at 10/08/2009 @ 10:58am
No way Mask. Do you think that 30% crowd will ever learn? Not as long as G_d tells them how to think and vote. You can evidently fool 30% of the people all of the time and evidently that magical number is enough to control how this country is run. To hell with what the other 70% think.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/08/2009 @ 11:02am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/08/2009 @ 11:02am
Well, then there's an even MORE cynical way to look at it....
if they're dumb enough to keep electing the guys who keep them from getting health care, their LIFESPAN as a voter will be extremely curtailed, won't it?
heheh
But hey, go for it. Classic experiment technique. Let the Red Staters get the health care system "the free market provides"....and see how it works out for them.
Likely? Medicaid and Medicare will have to come in soon afterwards and pick up the pieces to save all those who screamed about "Gov't run health care being forced down our throats!!!!!"
Posted by Mask at 10/08/2009 @ 11:26am
Hey Anti, does this State choice option pass your Constitutional interpretations?
Posted by !immutable at 10/08/2009 @ 11:39am
It's even worse for the rural poor without health insurance who've been treated at a clinic or hospital.
The right point to transients, who by & large get medical treatment & promptly disappear from debt scrutiny, as representative of the depredations of the uninsured.
In rural areas (I'm there) many folks are long time renters & owners of modest dwellings working at jobs that pay the minimum or slightly higher. As the uninsured receiving medical attention, they often can't meet the payments demanded by local hospitals.
This debt is then turned over to collection agencies, who can legally tack on up to 50% before billing. Local courts allow garnishment, which keeps these people destitute for years.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/08/2009 @ 11:41am
Where is your evidence of this? Rural American for the most part, live a far healthier life than most of us city slickers, even the poor, no?
Posted by Happy at 10/08/2009 @ 10:57am
"Women who have lived or worked on a farm are about three times more likely to develop breast cancer as women who have never worked on a farm, according to a new Canadian study.
The study set out to determine if a woman's occupation affects her risk of breast cancer.
A team of researchers tracked the histories of 1,000 women from southwestern Ontario. About half of the women had breast cancer; the other half was a control group of comparable women who did not have cancer.
The team looked at nearly all women with breast cancer from 2000 to 2002 in the Windsor, Ont. area. The results show a significant increase in the risk of the disease for women who worked on a farm at some point in their lives."
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/08/2009 @ 11:58am
To hell with what the other 70% think.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/08/2009 @ 11:02am | ignore this person | warn this person
Congradulations, your percentages are as usual are way off, but at least you fully recognize the ultimate destination of God's opposition! From what I've seen and read most are racing to get there!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/08/2009 @ 1:10pm
Red states and rural areas are places where health care reform including a public option is most needed. Most small businesses in these areas do not provide health care benefits with the job. If employers do provide health care in these areas it is with high deductible and little coverage for pharmaceutical drugs.
If Congress were to pass a public option as part of health care reform allowing states to opt out, I am not sure the red states like Kansas and Nebraska would. I think elected officials at the state level realize that the public option would be beneficial to their constituents and allow people to join the public health care plan.
Posted by abner at 10/08/2009 @ 1:14pm
"... b) live in markets where there is essentially no competition. In Alabama one health insurance company has 90% market share, in South Dakota, it's two companies."
Before we turn the entire health care indutry over to the likes of TSA with the comprenesion abilitys of ACORN...lets see what happens if you allow Insurance compan ies to compete in each state...and then tackle Tort reform...
Surely a trial run of that nature is more responsible than rush, rush, don't have time to read the bill, can't publish the bill so those who will be affected can read it before the vote ideas that are in place now?
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/08/2009 @ 2:19pm
Posted by BigPasture at 10/08/2009 @ 1:10pm
And remember, Rio knows who's for God and against God and what God wants. It's almost like he ......
hmmmmmmm?
Posted by Mask at 10/08/2009 @ 2:42pm
How odd. I was under the impression all this time that it was the hoards in the inner cities that needed the public option the most.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/08/2009 @ 2:59pm
Small town rural America has been decimated. Take a look at one of these former farming towns in the upper Midwest, and watch out for the tumbleweeds. You will find largely the elderly and the infirm, and the occasional meth lab.
The small family farm is a thing of the past, along with the attendant family life as a support system that lifestyle would normally bring. Toiling in the fresh air and sunshine with their pitchforks. Are you kidding me? Livestock feeding operations are, for example, dungeonized animal factories as dreary as any turn-of-the-last-century foundry, without the unionized payscale.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/08/2009 @ 3:13pm
The exurbanization of America--to the detriment of both extremes, the city and the country.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/08/2009 @ 3:20pm
Small town rural America has been decimated. Take a look at one of these former farming towns in the upper Midwest, and watch out for the tumbleweeds. You will find largely the elderly and the infirm, and the occasional meth lab.
The small family farm is a thing of the past, along with the attendant family life as a support system that lifestyle would normally bring. Toiling in the fresh air and sunshine with their pitchforks. Are you kidding me? Livestock feeding operations are, for example, dungeonized animal factories as dreary as any turn-of-the-last-century foundry, without the unionized payscale.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/08/2009 @ 3:13pm
You mean the little Midwestern Democrat run and controlled city of...Detroit?
Those feeder lots for livestock feeding operations are doing very well in Nebraska, Kansas,andColorado...
How do you unionise a guy with a shovel cleaning out a barn or pitching hay? The lots are automatic which is why your beef prices are low. Also, family farms really haven't raised beef for years..too expensive..what they do raise on a small scale, which I do buy, is hormone,antibiotic free and range fed animals.
and no, you can't unionsed cows....not yet, but I am sure somewhere there is a liberal trying to do just that.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/08/2009 @ 3:23pm
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/08/2009 @ 2:19pm
Funny how you like to suggest that TSA is not doing a good job. They have one job, and it is not smiling and providing customer service.
You forget the comparision of having Enron running our current system, or Bear Stearns, Lehman, AIG...?
I agree in a sense, and I don't like the rush. I don't trust whats in the bill. But I don't condemn a public option either. I have heard much chatter about banning exclusions due to pre-existing conditions, I have heard very little about providing AFFORDABLE healthcare, but I have heard they have plans to fine people for not buying insurance... WTF!
I don't trust any of the hairless monkeys in DC to do what is right for the people.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/08/2009 @ 4:11pm
"the comprenesion abilitys"
What are those?
Anyway, the red states are red for a reason, because it's representative of how their people generally think and feel, so why not let them opt out? I think this is the absolute best compromise that hasn't really been offered-- it's so simple and logical it's just destined to die prematurely!
Posted by MATTMAN at 10/08/2009 @ 4:47pm
Hey Anti, does this State choice option pass your Constitutional interpretations?
Posted by !immutable at 10/08/2009 @ 11:39am
It seems like a crazy approach to me from a constitutional standpoint.
Does the Federal govt take any stand on how states handle car insurance? Nope
Does the Federal govt take any stand on how states handle having a drivers license? Nope
Does the Federal govt take any stand on how states determine who goes to school? Nope
It just appears to be more evidence of Congressional meddling.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/08/2009 @ 4:57pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/08/2009 @ 4:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I guess maybe it depends on how you interpret the Fed govt's role in "protecting life, liberty, and happiness". Seems pretty clear, by my interpretation, that health care falls within the "protecting life" domain. If the Fed govt has no role in health care, then it is neglecting its duty to adequately protect the lives of those who don't have access to health care.
Posted by MATTMAN at 10/08/2009 @ 5:23pm
I don't trust any of the hairless monkeys in DC to do what is right for the people.
Posted by Extraneous at 10/08/2009 @ 4:11pm |
All the more reason to keep them away from your wallet and your health care.
" I have heard very little about providing AFFORDABLE healthcare, but I have heard they have plans to fine people for not buying insurance... WTF! "
Because that is not their interest..their interest is power..power over you and your money..the more people depend on govt for food stamps, housing, now health care, the more power you have over them, and in the end, they are creating a dependent class who will vote ...what?
Conservative or democrat?
... when someone says time for you to work a little on your own and help carry some of your own water...or the guy who says," its not your fault you can't read, work, or your skin color or your gender..."
you pick the group...which party do you think they will vote for..the one who advocates putting ones own efforts in even just a little or one who says you can't so don't try or you will lose your checks....and which party do you think represents which side?
Guess who is left out of the entire conversation?
The guy who pays the bills....
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/08/2009 @ 6:00pm
Droopy And the DuNcE as you usual have a lot to offer. What type of group are farmers in? How about sole proprietors,small businessmen,or the truck driver? Do they make a decision to eat or insure? These people aren't painting an apartment and bragging about stiffing a homeowners program like the Droopster. They just might be singing in the church choir like the DuNcE but they pay more for their health care. Small towns haven't gone away but it's true corporate farms have taken over.Does the owner of the local diner have a so called" Cadillac" plan. Honestly it is time for all the players from both parties to help provide health care for all the people of our nation. Why don't they see what its like to not have the "best" plan and best care at our top hospitals. How is health care reform in 2013 going to help our economy. There is dishonesty on both sides of the aisle. The right is saying no because of the political advantage reform would give to the Democrats. By the time Max and his group of air balloonists finish pumping helium into the bill it won't fly. This is going to turn into an insurance industry boondoggle. Every sign is there. Why wait 4 years for the government option? I have a feeling the lobbyists are reserving spots in line for their cut of this lucrative pie. Is there an "honest" Mr. Smith left in Washington to get a real bill passed?
Posted by whatozz at 10/08/2009 @ 6:03pm
Hi whatozz, did you see Olberman last night? He had an hour long special comment on HC, it was very good. I don't usually bring Olberman into the conversation because the rightys will forget everything we are talking about except that Olberman is the lefts Limburger, etc. Anyhoo, if you can watch a repeat or something, it is exactly how left AND right should feel, its gotten to life or death without HC, it is so time for it, I hope there is a Mr Smith.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/08/2009 @ 6:40pm
Chaoszen would have loved the show, Olberman is going to try to have free health clinics in all the states that Reid, Baccus, Lincoln, and a few other dems who are DINO's, and he wants help, there will be more about it in future shows, and I will contribute. I'll try to keep posted.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/08/2009 @ 6:45pm
It is on Huff Post,but thanks for heads up. It is disturbing that Olympia Snowe who is more liberal than Max,Kent,and Ben put together is reined in by the Repubs.She talked about out of hand rate increases in Maine. How is the battle between her and Susan Collins affecting this issue do you think?
Posted by whatozz at 10/08/2009 @ 6:52pm
I guess maybe it depends on how you interpret the Fed govt's role in "protecting life, liberty, and happiness". Seems pretty clear, by my interpretation, that health care falls within the "protecting life" domain. If the Fed govt has no role in health care, then it is neglecting its duty to adequately protect the lives of those who don't have access to health care.
Posted by MATTMAN at 10/08/2009 @ 5:23pm
I realize this has become dogma for liberals but the concept that the govt is required to provide all the services necessary for life, and happiness simply fails logically.
Should the govt control what you eat, and how much?
Should the govt control your habits?
Should the govt control how much you exercise?
Should the govt control who you marry, date, or associate with to "guarantee your happiness"?
<Ron Paul: I do not believe peoples' needs or desires or wants or demands are rights. Once you do that, you embark on a system of government that is uncontrollable. You have a right to your life, your liberty and you should have a right to keep what you earn. So I do not believe medical care is a right. And that's one of the problems that we're facing today and why there's so much confusion on what we ought to do about health care>
"We must confine ourselves to the powers described in the Constitution, and the moment we pass it, we take an arbitrary stride towards a despotic Government."
James Jackson, First Congress, 1st Annals of Congress
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." Benjamin Franklin
Posted by antisocialist at 10/08/2009 @ 6:54pm
Sue is a sell out, just like so many other cons, and, sadly, so many dems, g-d I hated writing that, I don't hold out much hope for Collins and I think Snowe's heart is in the right place but I wonder where her wallet has been.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/08/2009 @ 7:00pm
Ron Paul is so upset with the government and how it is oput of hand he wants his son to be a Senator. My only problem with that is that it's hypocritical but that is a politicians life isn't it. It just seems like the family business is politics. Ironical isn't it . Well watch Chuck Schumer and you feel like puking. It is a very fine line. Where is Russ Feingold? Is he writing a treatise on leaving Afghanistan and paying for future political campaigns with the savings?
Posted by whatozz at 10/08/2009 @ 7:11pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/08/2009 @ 6:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You give the typical slippery slope argument, that a public option would somehow trigger Big Brother into serious action.
The irony is, we already provide health care to the uninsured in the most expensive and wasteful possible way. It's called the ER. Even illegal immigrants are treated there when they need it. A public option would be so much more efficient and proactive than the system by which we operate.
If we were to truly abide by you and Ron Paul's principles, we would also have to give up the fire dept, the military, and the police to mention a few.
Posted by MATTMAN at 10/08/2009 @ 8:27pm
My problem with the public option is timing and enrollment. The crooks are going to have 4 years to refine their techniques in a" new" system. Topping it off is all of the new customers they are going to get. How much of this legislation is written by the industry? How do we know this system is going to be more efficient? We still have Kent Conrad and his pals trying out the co-ops. Chuck Schumer is involved,he really strikes me as credible. It is like watching a poorly directed high school play. Harry Reid finally made it back from his other job on the Lake Havasu cruise ship. Here we go health care.
Posted by whatozz at 10/08/2009 @ 8:47pm
I recently visited family and friends at a reunion in North Carolina. The whole area has been devastated by the loss of mainly textile mill jobs to off-shoring. It was never a wealthy area, but stable over the decades leading up to 1980's. The people there fall into the following categories for income; early retirement that barely makes ends meet, low level service jobs, maybe 1/10 of the people that worked in the mills still have jobs. Many are either unemployed or have to commute 2+ hours to the nearest city to work a job that barely pays survival wages. The general attitude is of reticence about political solutions to their problems, like health care. They have zero optimism that anyone on the outside actually cares about them. Or, even if someone wanted to do something about it, it wouldn't be politically possible to rejuvenate the area's economy. I believe that mentality is the product of decades of neglect on the part of the their government. The prospect of seeking out specific demands for action from their elected representatives is a foreign concept, now. It is apathy, NOT a belief that government shouldn't help them, or a belief in small government. They just don't believe the power structure ever WOULD help them. These people are beaten down by decades of bad government. It will require a complete national restructuring of how investment dollars flow, and as the past has proven, direction from the highest authorities to protect our economic interests. It is what rescued us from the Republican Great Depression. Failure to make change now will permanently cripple the American people's ability to thrive, and survive this century. There is absolutely no reason we this depression can't be permanent if market forces are allowed to continue their rampage.
Posted by Milhaus at 10/08/2009 @ 9:23pm
Let the insurance company to their own devices and they will destroy themselves.
Compromise... First, get the public option but allow states to vote on whether to opt out or not.
Next, remove some of the reform restrictions that were going to be applied to the insurance companies.
See how long it lasts.
Posted by koroviev at 10/08/2009 @ 9:43pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/08/2009 @ 6:54pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You give the typical slippery slope argument, that a public option would somehow trigger Big Brother into serious action.
The irony is, we already provide health care to the uninsured in the most expensive and wasteful possible way. It's called the ER. Even illegal immigrants are treated there when they need it. A public option would be so much more efficient and proactive than the system by which we operate.
If we were to truly abide by you and Ron Paul's principles, we would also have to give up the fire dept, the military, and the police to mention a few.
Posted by MATTMAN at 10/08/2009 @ 8:27pm
I wasn't talking "slippery slope". I was responding to your claim that the govt must guarantee your right to life and happiness.
How are they supposed to do that unless they have complete control over your life?
BTW, the federal govt has no involvement in making sure you have a police department or fire department. That is decidely purely at the local level as dictated by the constitution.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/08/2009 @ 10:08pm
Ron Paul is so upset with the government and how it is oput of hand he wants his son to be a Senator. My only problem with that is that it's hypocritical but that is a politicians life isn't it. It just seems like the family business is politics. Ironical isn't it . Well watch Chuck Schumer and you feel like puking. It is a very fine line. Where is Russ Feingold? Is he writing a treatise on leaving Afghanistan and paying for future political campaigns with the savings?
Posted by whatozz at 10/08/2009 @ 7:11pm
How is it hypocritical to want to have more people in Congress who actually believe in following the constitution.
Right now there are very few among either party that care about following the constitution.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/08/2009 @ 10:12pm
Posted by MATTMAN at 10/08/09 @8:27pm
A lot of poor people are paying for those ER visits & not at discounted rates. It's not always WE"RE paying. Sometimes it's THEY'RE paying.
Unless of course, you're a they & in that case we're on the same page.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/08/2009 @ 10:47pm
There is absolutely no reason we this depression can't be permanent if market forces are allowed to continue their rampage.
Posted by Milhaus at 10/08/2009 @ 9:23pm
Stunning and mind numbing example of the complete collapse of the basic education system in the US. Milhaus is proof it has been replaced by indoctrination of past ideas dumped in the ash heaps of history after blatent and visable failures , now to be virgorously dusted off by the left and represented as new ideas..
And this thought process, the market forces on rampage(not the failed manipulation of those forces) thinks it has the answers in the past..all the past rejections of socialism and govt control of the economy that doomed generations into misery.
Yikes. You don't want Milhaus anywhere your business, your money or your daughter..
Think of the pin head with the glasses in Dr Shivago...a true believer. Very dangerous.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/08/2009 @ 11:43pm
You give the typical slippery slope argument, that a public option would somehow trigger Big Brother into serious action.
Posted by MATTMAN at 10/08/2009 @ 8:27pm
There's no slippery slope...it's already here in the form of tobacco tgaxes (which are now about getting people to quit smoking, not raising revenue), removal of vending machines "junk food" in schools, discussions of "soda" taxes...it's right there...you just have to open your eyes...government wants control and it will be under the guise of "saving money" for your public option...
Posted by usc1 at 10/09/2009 @ 12:01am
Posted by usc1 at 10/09/2009 @ 12:01am |
The idea of increased tobacco taxes funding expanded children's healthcare while providing a disincentive to smoke seems pretty logical. The sugary drinks tax proposed by Baucus is a flat out subsidy to private health insurance.
Posted by nkurland at 10/09/2009 @ 12:51am
Posted by usc1 at 10/09/2009 @ 12:01am
Don't forget to unbuckle your seat belt today, while taking a sample of your household water in for analysis. There might be something bad in it. Oh no, not the heavy metals or arsenic, but maybe something like FLOURIDE..ooooh. Big brudda.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/09/2009 @ 04:46am
The people who want smaller government are the biggest talkers. That does not add up.Re-read the Constitution today,a lot more is spelled out than is thought. The 2 sentences are more finite than you think.
Posted by whatozz at 10/09/2009 @ 05:48am
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." Benjamin Franklin------Posted by antisocialist at 10/08/2009 @ 6:54pm
Larry, could you please cite your source for that "Franklin" quote?
(And yes...you won't be able to.)
Posted by Mask at 10/09/2009 @ 07:20am
(And yes...you won't be able to.)
Posted by Mask at 10/09/2009 @ 07:20am
I've seen that posted here before. Perhaps it was none other than the good rev himself.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/09/2009 @ 10:15am
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 10/09/2009 @ 10:15am
Two-fold post, Wolf.
1. Larry posted something that was WRONG....Franklin did NOT say that. It is sometimes attributed to Alexander Tytler, but without verification. Likely it was the creation of a right-wing businessman in the 1940s who first used it.
None of Larry's sources will have a legitimate citation.
2. Will the guy who complains the loudest about "people not admitting when they are wrong!!!!" (Larry)....
admit he posted a false quote (actually has done it before) and was wrong???
Posted by Mask at 10/09/2009 @ 10:47am
Larry posted something that was WRONG....Franklin did NOT say that. It is sometimes attributed to Alexander Tytler, but without verification. Likely it was the creation of a right-wing businessman in the 1940s who first used it.
None of Larry's sources will have a legitimate citation.
2. Will the guy who complains the loudest about "people not admitting when they are wrong!!!!" (Larry)....
admit he posted a false quote (actually has done it before) and was wrong???
Posted by Mask at 10/09/2009 @ 10:47am
Actually, you cannot prove that I'm wrong, nor can I prove that I'm right.
I will certainly admit that although found nowhere in the national archives or known writings of Benjamin Franklin, it is widely accepted that he once said it.
The quote by Tytler that you refer to is as follows.
<"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with a result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship.>
"The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic"
by Alexander Fraser Tytler
What really matter is that the quote is an accurate reflection of what happens in govt when one group steals from another (ie, redistribution)
It is also consistent with the writings, quotes, and speeches of Franklin
I recommend reading Franklin's speech at the Constitutional Convention. It is an excellent analysis of the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debate
http://tinyurl.com/yjmr9q8
Posted by antisocialist at 10/09/2009 @ 11:45am
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." Benjamin Franklin------Posted by antisocialist at 10/08/2009 @ 6:54pm
The issue for most here seems to be whether or not Franklin actualy said it...who cares...
The real question should be...
Is the premise of the quote valid...
I think it is..and more and more people are voting for more and more spending....and this will end the republic, especially when that spending can no longer be supported...and those on the receiving end of no more checks?
Think the protesters,er, rioters, in the G-20 meetings times millions...
republic gone.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/09/2009 @ 12:27pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/09/2009 @ 11:45am
So why is it Red states pay more tax dollars then they receive and Blue states receive more then they pay?
It would seem it is the Blue states that would lead to the downfall of our Republic.
Posted by !immutable at 10/09/2009 @ 12:29pm
Posted by nkurland at 10/09/2009 @ 12:51am
you're missing the point...governement doesn't need to provide disincentive...it is none of government's business whether or not you or I or others engage in a prefectly legal activity even if it is bad for us or dangerous...
Posted by usc1 at 10/09/2009 @ 12:53pm
Posted by Sorelish at 10/09/2009 @ 04:46am
pretty sophomoric...please see my above post to kurland...and try again...
Posted by usc1 at 10/09/2009 @ 12:57pm
Likely it was the creation of a right-wing businessman in the 1940s who first used it.
None of Larry's sources will have a legitimate citation.
Posted by Mask at 10/09/2009 @ 10:47am
Please provide a legitimate citation to back up your claim...
;)
Posted by usc1 at 10/09/2009 @ 1:00pm
So why is it Red states pay more tax dollars then they receive and Blue states receive more then they pay?
It would seem it is the Blue states that would lead to the downfall of our Republic.
Posted by !immutable at 10/09/2009 @ 12:29pm
You have it somewhat backwards. the picture is more mixed
There are 20 states that receive back less than they give. Of those, 7 are Red States
http://tinyurl.com/6y8ayn
Posted by antisocialist at 10/09/2009 @ 2:29pm
"Actually, you cannot prove that I'm wrong, nor can I prove that I'm right."----Posted by antisocialist at 10/09/2009 @ 11:45am
"You just reveal yourself over and over as someone not willing to admit your'e wrong."----Posted by antisocialist at 10/05/2009 @ 9:27pm
Told ya!
"2. Will the guy who complains the loudest about "people not admitting when they are wrong!!!!" (Larry)....
admit he posted a false quote (actually has done it before) and was wrong???"----Posted by Mask at 10/09/2009 @ 10:47am
Posted by Mask at 10/09/2009 @ 3:06pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/09/2009 @ 2:29pm
Thanks Anti, I flipped them there. I hate it when I do that.
I have checked and that has held true since the 2000 election.
So it would seem those paying the most taxes, don't mind that it benefits those paying the least or why else would they vote Democratic.
And in 2005 these are the stats of the only states that come out even or less and how they they averaged in the last 5 Presidential Elections. Couldn't find any tax stats more current.
Rhode Island (D) 1.00
Florida (D) .97
Texas (R) .94
Oregon (D) .93
Michigan (D) .92
Washington (D) .88
Wisconsin (D) .86
Massachusetts (D) .82
Colorado (R) .81
New York (D) .79
California (D) .78
Delaware (D) .77
Illinois (D) .75
Minnesota (D) .72
New Hampshire (D) .71
Connecticut (D) .69
Nevada (D) .65
New Jersey (D) .61
Posted by !immutable at 10/09/2009 @ 3:08pm
Told ya!
"2. Will the guy who complains the loudest about "people not admitting when they are wrong!!!!" (Larry)....
admit he posted a false quote (actually has done it before) and was wrong???"----Posted by Mask at 10/09/2009 @ 10:47am
Posted by Mask at 10/09/2009 @ 3:06pm
Nice try Mask, but as I said, you did not prove me wrong, nor could I prove myself 100% correct, and I stated that.
The quote is widely attributed to Franklin and is consistent with his writing.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/09/2009 @ 3:22pm
Bulllshit USC1
You're a kneejerk old fashioned rebub conspiracy nut from way back. Knock off the pseudo hip posturing.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/09/2009 @ 5:51pm
Posted by usc1 at 10/09/2009 @ 12:53pm
I don't think that's the point at all. Given the amount of laws the right tries to justify on moral grounds, there's definitely a case to be made for slapping restrictions on an industry that has repeatedly deceived the public and targeted children so that we can insure more children. And I do think there's a huge difference between selling raw tobacco and selling cigarettes loaded with chemicals and extra nicotine to the point where it can't be justified by saying "hey, its just a tobacco product."
Posted by nkurland at 10/09/2009 @ 8:26pm
Did the executive overreach the House in raising revenue for "our war on terror". Is it just me that feels this way. Do conservatives that all seem top be in the war camp think it is o.k. that we are a debtor nation to Red China over Iraq And Afghanistan? We hear all these aspersions about spending money,quoting founding fathers,and government taking over our lives. It seems that the Patriot Act which allows wiretapping of our phones and the very beneficicial tax law changes for the wealthiest Americans are good for the country. The left is "socialist",we the conservatives think it was great that our captains of finance led the charge to the brink of insolvency. Bullshit somebody else that you wanted those companies to fail. It would have been like a game of dominoes. Where are the toxic assets? Who is accounting for them? Talk about over spending,who are the insurance and drug companies kidding with the latest ad campaigns? Benjamin Franklin is unfortunately a footnote in our economic mess today.
Posted by whatozz at 10/09/2009 @ 11:03pm
there's definitely a case to be made for slapping restrictions on an industry that has repeatedly deceived the public and targeted children so that we can insure more children. And I do think there's a huge difference between selling raw tobacco and selling cigarettes loaded with chemicals and extra nicotine to the point where it can't be justified by saying "hey, its just a tobacco product."
Posted by nkurland at 10/09/2009 @ 8:26pm
gov't isn't targeting the tobacco companies with the taxes...they are specifically targeting the smokers and have freely admitted they are doing it to get people to smoke less...so, again if people choose to spend their money on it, then it's none of government's business if they do...and lets not pretend that the world hasn't known that tobacco is "bad for you" for the last 30 years and that government hasn't been regulating the industry during that same time...
Posted by usc1 at 10/10/2009 @ 1:34pm
You're a kneejerk old fashioned rebub conspiracy nut from way back. Knock off the pseudo hip posturing.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/09/2009 @ 5:51pm
so says Sorelish as he willfully ignores the increasing tobacco taxes...debates in congress about adding a "soda tax" to all foods THEY consider junk food...laws practically forcing to buckle up (or put on a helmet)...or strap your kids in carseats...or government trying to FORCE chemotherapy on some poor kid who didn't want it...
so if you smell bullshit, it's coming from your own ass...
Posted by usc1 at 10/10/2009 @ 1:42pm
Posted by usc1 at 10/10/2009 @ 1:34pm
If more people stop smoking, it hurts the tobacco industry, which btw, was still trying to ignore the health risks into the mid 1990's. And they're still doing it with the labels "light" and "natural" or "low tar" or supposedly spitless tobacco such as Camel's "snus." The primary harm might be to the smoker, but there's still the significant effect of second hand smoke (which the industry keeps trying to debunk and downplay). Do we get rid of inspections on beef since eating meat is ultimately a choice? Should we allow the use of lead paint, since, according to the right, the poor choose to live in bad neighborhoods?
Posted by nkurland at 10/10/2009 @ 2:08pm
If the gobernment has required citizens to get insurance on vehicles, wear seat belts or helmets it is because they were paid to, by whatever industry would benefit. In the state I live in we are required by law to have insurance on vehicles or face a $200 fine and be reported to the secretary of state. Wonder who paid for that legislation? Also we are required by law to wear seatbelts in vehicles to save lives.(save on hospital bills for policy holders) The insurance lobby was verrry instrumental in this legisation. We then had a helmet law come to vote, guess who was an instrumental voice in that ??? you guessed it the insurance industry!! But can you guess what side they were on??? Try the side that thought individuals should now be allowed to choose whether or not to wear helmets!!! So they want to force me to wear a seat belt, but think I should be able to choose whether or not to wear a helmet on a motor cycle!!??!??!? It took me a few days and some conversations with friends and co-workers and then it made sense. The companies will lose less money with car accidents because the costs will be lower due to seat belt use. as for the helmet law , it is cheaper to pay a ome time death benefit as opposed to long and costly hospital stay for a motor cycle accident victim. So much for the benevolent insurance companies.
Posted by scoobiejim at 10/11/2009 @ 12:20am
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/08/2009 @ 11:43pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You don't know a damn thing about me. I've had a job since I was 15, I'm a veteran, I have 16 years of education, I have a family, I own a home. You don't have to be an economist to understand how a bubble economy system damages a nation. There has never been a free market economy and there never will be, no matter how much republicans say it will work. It is not possible to create. Progressive economic policy has repeatedly rescued this country from the jaws of republican disasters. Your name calling indicates that your comments are more true about yourself than me. The biggest threat to my livelihood is republican economic policy. Every time they take over everyone except the wealthiest people suffer real financial losses. If they had their way we would be Brazil. I bought my home 5 years ago and it failed to appreciate at the steady national rate of 6-8%/year that has existed for the last 60 years of New Deal economics previous to that. Everything was fine until George Bush took office. That means a republican owes me and my wife around $80,000.
Posted by Milhaus at 10/11/2009 @ 09:04am
Surely a trial run of that nature is more responsible than rush, rush, don't have time to read the bill, can't publish the bill so those who will be affected can read it before the vote ideas that are in place now? Posted by YourJomamma at 10/08/2009 @ 2:19pm |
+++
And the idiot wind keeps blowing...
Was that your advice before this country invaded Iraq? That was kind of a "rush, "rush," wasn't it?
Posted by Citizen54 at 10/11/2009 @ 10:23am
Well said Milhaus, I can relate.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/11/2009 @ 10:46am
Was that your advice before this country invaded Iraq? That was kind of a "rush, "rush," wasn't it?
Posted by Citizen54 at 10/11/2009 @ 10:23am
yeah, 1 1/2 years of open dialogue and debate is really rushing into it.
And how long after Congress authorized military force? nearly 5 months. Wow, talk about hasty (not).
Posted by antisocialist at 10/11/2009 @ 12:54pm
Was that your advice before this country invaded Iraq? That was kind of a "rush, "rush," wasn't it?
Posted by Citizen54 at 10/11/2009 @ 10:23am
My advice was if you are going to do it, do it fast and correctly and get out....for if it is not done in that sequence, the press and the left will hound you into eternity.... it will be the judge of your (Bush) presidency...
I have no problem with health care reform...and it has been years in the making...so why rush into a vote with no one reading it?
Especially with doubts against the govt runniong anything within a budget, muchless cheaper and successfully?
Surely you don't object if we read the bill, even if it is written by aids and never read by our representatives?
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/11/2009 @ 4:18pm
Well Santi -tell me this ,after all of the months of dialogue and debate how could GWB and Dick's regime do such a hap hazard job in Iraq. How was it that we were ill equipped and undermanned for the expedition? Tell me this also, when did America fight its wars with mercenaries in the modern era. We,meaning our civilian leadership failed in the Iraq conflict. It also failed on health care. It never looked because it wasn't on the agenda. Now when our economy is in a tailspin and health care is a big part of the problem conservatives have chosen to just say "no". Political observers are saying Republicans are thinking it is advantageous for them to do so politically. We coming upon winter,it could be a disaster for many families depending on energy prices. It will get worse before it gets better.
Posted by whatozz at 10/11/2009 @ 5:38pm
Wait. Before we condemn the opt out provision, let's ask ourselves a question: is that what this HCR fight is all about? Those of us in blue states lobbying hard for a public option for people in rural red states who need it badly but are unwilling to fight for it themselves, or worse, ideologically opposed to the PO? Yikes! I'm a believer in us all being in this together, trust me. But I admit, I'm starting to get a little sick of one little fact: the majority of Americans (in all states) say they want the PO, at least to the opinion pollsters. But red staters as a whole don't act like they want or need it, that's for sure. They elected the Republicans who have stonewalled HCR every step of the way, and they have allowed them to continue doing so. Something's wrong with this picture.
I don't think many state leaders will choose to opt out. But if they try it, I think the beauty of the opt out provision is that it will force red state citizens to take responsibility for what they claim to want and organize to stay opted in. And if opt out gets us the votes to win, I say yes!
Posted by ewclark at 10/11/2009 @ 5:46pm
....I have 16 years of education, I have a family, I own a home......Progressive economic policy has repeatedly rescued this country from the jaws of republican disasters......The biggest threat to my livelihood is republican economic policy.....I bought my home 5 years ago and it failed to appreciate at the steady national rate of 6-8%/year that has existed for the last 60 years.....Everything was fine until George Bush took office.....
Posted by Milhaus at 10/11/2009 @ 09:04am
I feel sorry for you for wasting 16 years being indoctrinated into being dumb and stupid!
I MAY agree w/you that entering into a BIG WAR in 1941 did in fact, represent the best of "Progressive economic policy" to rescue the US economy.
You cited presumably one `fact', that housing "appreciate at the steady national rate of 6-8%/year that has existed for the last 60 years", nice! Care to share w/us what is the average appreciation after inflation? Do you remember $1.60 Min. Wage or $0.39 Big Macs?
Everything was so fine before Bush `43 that in March, 2000, the bottom fell out of the stock market....and WorldCom, Enron, etc. never happend......your `education' told you that it never happened, well done!
Posted by Happy at 10/11/2009 @ 7:31pm
Let's see Droopy are those the two companies whose chief executives tried to out do each other in the "Thief of The Year" competition. Oh, that's right Kenny Lay was GWB's pal and the other guy is in prison. A couple of good manipulators which cost thousands their life's savings. Poor investment strategy,believing in your company and buying it's stock. In hindsight who knew the management was as crooked as any in American history. You keep deriding people Droop. What is your take on the speculators driving up oil prices. Are the unemployed driving more? I remember 12 cent a gallon gas,does mean I'm middle aged. Why are you against education?
Posted by whatozz at 10/11/2009 @ 8:28pm
Happy is a racist and elite (wannabe) , and really doesn't realize it, sad commentary to be sure, on the other hand maybe he does realize it, and just doesn't care. Laughing all the way to the bank. Nice, no? Sarcasm off.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/11/2009 @ 9:16pm
Happy is a racist and elite (wannabe) ,...
Posted by Denise29 at 10/11/2009 @ 9:16pm
A perfectly good reason to rendition you! You haven't earned my intellectual respect to take that kind of slander. All you prove to me, finally, is that you're empty....and pulling the racism card is all the `firepower' you can muster! You're just Prof. Gates except you may not be black.
BTW, this `racist' lease his properties to dozens of black tenants over decades and whose longest-term tenants are both black....interesting, huh?
No need to respond!
Posted by Happy at 10/11/2009 @ 11:25pm
There are slum lords in countries all over the world. No one could care less about getting intellectual respect from you. You consistently have a racist tone to your posts. Fine,you have money and you rent to blacks, is that surprising when you have properties in Florida and Texas. It has made you a lot of money that seems to be your only concern.
Posted by whatozz at 10/12/2009 @ 05:14am
"The quote is widely attributed to Franklin and is consistent with his writing."----Posted by antisocialist at 10/09/2009 @ 3:22pm
Then, it should be easy for SOMEBODY to find the specific source where Franklin said it....they haven't.
BTW, Larry, we all know why you can never admit you are wrong. Given you conflate your politics with your religious views....and you are a self-proclaimed "prophet of God"...if you were wrong about something, even something as trivial as a throwaway line "quote from Ben Franklin"...
the whole house of cards would tumble down...even the religious infallibility...wouldn't it?
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2009 @ 07:40am
BTW, Larry, we all know why you can never admit you are wrong. Given you conflate your politics with your religious views....and you are a self-proclaimed "prophet of God"...if you were wrong about something, even something as trivial as a throwaway line "quote from Ben Franklin"...
the whole house of cards would tumble down...even the religious infallibility...wouldn't it?
Posted by Mask
--kinda like you're inability to admit you're owned by the right-wing media...you're "free" even though you listen/watch them many hours every day. admitting you're owned would make your house of cards (your supposed "freedom") cave in, so you won't do that--then again, neither will you stop listening/watching right-wing media for hours every day!
Posted by urmygyro at 10/13/2009 @ 10:46am