[ExI] Tap tap..Hello? Is this thing on? (Or Zombie Apocalypse!)
rahmans at me.com
Tue Oct 8 14:32:50 UTC 2013
>> ... On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki
> ### For something written by somebody with a brain, see here:
> Thanks Rafal, that is an excellent article. They told us all these dire
> consequences that would result from a government shutdown, but it was all
> exaggerated. Now the government is afraid no one will notice they shut
> down. So they go out of their way to be as annoying as possible:
> If they really wanted to scare the bejeebers out of the proletariat with
> something real, they should threaten to shut down the internet. That would
> stir even MY jaded libertarian soul.
> Sowell made the case as clear as anyone has to date. The answer he left out
> is one I have been wondering all this time: if ObamaCare is to be
> revenue-neutral as we were told, why does it need all this funding the House
> of Representatives refuses to give? Can't they just go ahead without
> pumping money into it? Why not? If they did that, who wouldn't get paid,
> and why do we need them anyway? The law says you buy insurance, you go to
> the doctor, the insurance company pays. Where is all this government
> funding needed for doing that? Can't they just do the parts of it that
> don't cost the government anything?
For something written by someone with a sense of humor please check out John Stewart or Stephen Colbert.
For the more serious points raised by Thomas Sowell, in his article he suggested people check out "legislation by appropriation". I did so. A quick Wikipedia check led to the informations that all these:
Annual appropriations are divided into 12 separate pieces of legislation:
Commerce, Justice, and Science,
Energy and Water,
Interior and Environment,
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education,
Military and Veterans,
State and Foreign Operations,
Transportation and Housing and Urban Development.
These are funded by by appropriations that could be blocked by a slim majority of refuseniks or potentially by a simple filibuster in the senate.
The American system of government is based on a system of "checks and balances". The President and the Senate have made it clear that they do not accept this "legislation by appropriation" and insist that "Obamacare" be funded. The Supreme Court has upheld it's constitutionality. That's 2.5 branches of government in favor of "Obamacare" vs. 0.5 branches against. Time to check your balance I'd say.
Mr. Sowell may be right that "legislation by appropriation" isn't new, but he is wrong to imply that this is a sensible way to govern. All we have to do to prove this is imagine what chaos would occur if Congress were to take aim at the laundry list above 'unless' they get x, y, or z.
And to Spike,
The Government is running the exchanges and regulating the market: these activities cost money and do not raise money. The legislation is supposed to be cost neutral to the public as an aggregate. (Hopefully cost beneficial if this experiment in mixing free markets and universal coverage works out.) Perhaps you are proposing the introduction of fees into the markets so that it would be self-supporting, yes Spike? ;)
As for the seriousness of the situation, the whole laundry list of things given above are funded by appropriations and will run out of money in a short time. If you notice item 5 on the list, financial services, which would cover little things like paying the interest on the debt I think. So even if we do have revenue coming in which exceeds our interest payments we have no legal way to pay it without an (You know what's coming don't you?) appropriations bill.
I've lived all my life in countries with universal health care, Canada and Poland, except for 2 years in the US where I wasn't covered. Thankfully I didn't get seriously ill in the US. Personally I like knowing that I'm "covered". It builds trust in society and makes us richer 'as a nation'.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat