4 ms·

Listen to Boheners reasoning when he refused to allow a vote on the senate bill[1]. He sites employers not wanting to hire people because they have to subsidize

Listen to Boheners reasoning when he refused to allow a vote on the senate bill[1]. He sites employers not wanting to hire people because they have to subsidize their insurance, and a medical device tax that goes towards providing subsidies to individuals. 1. http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/153432/Speaker_John_Boehner_Speech_To_House_About_Government_Shutdown_93013/ http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/153432/Speaker_John_...

CrankyPants 13y ago
Which sounds awfully different from saying that poor people shouldn't get subsidies. But, since you bring it up, why should or shouldn't healthcare be coupled to employment? One could argue it's the cause for much of the trouble we're in, with a lack of portability, increasing costs (same reason sports seats have become prohibitively expensive for many individuals), so what's inherently evil about employers admitting that increased labor costs will almost necessarily impact their hiring? For that matter, why is or isn't a medical device tax the best way of funding those subsidies? Those are the kinds of things that we could be discussing–tho probably not as comments to this particular article article–not doing what you are. To be specific, you're preemptively ascribing the worst possible motives to anyone who disagrees with you on a pretty charged political issue, in a fairly off-topic quip in response to nobody, which is a pretty bad way of raising the level of debate. Debate the issues if you want, but your original comment is going to be difficult for you to justify as anything but partisan politics. People who disagree with you may not be inherently evil. Hard to believe, sometimes, but no matter what side of an argument you're on, it's not a very productive or proper default assumption. Assuming bad faith won't help anyone, whatever the side of almost whatever the issue.
- Daniel_Newby 13y ago
  The medical device tax is a good example of malicious bureaucracy. How can services be subsidized by the goods applied by the services? The first-order cynical answer is that medical devices are primarily used by rich Republicans who can easily afford a few percent extra on their artificial knees. It requires no imagination to see why a left wing moonbat would vote for such blatant pandering. The second-order cynical answer is that poor minorities have worse health, and a huge unfulfilled need for medical devices. Thus the device tax is a ghastly unintended consequence of well-meaning liberals. The third-order cynical answer is that it is an intended consequence. They want Lashonda's artificial pancreas to pay for little Cindy's counseling. Much like lotteries exist to get poor people to send rich kids to college. The fourth-order cynical answer is that the whole thing is secretly a ploy to generate plot material for someone's Dune/Washington, D.C. crossover fan fiction.

CrankyPants 13y ago

Which sounds awfully different from saying that poor people shouldn't get subsidies. But, since you bring it up, why should or shouldn't healthcare be coupled to employment? One could argue it's the cause for much of the trouble we're in, with a lack of portability, increasing costs (same reason sports seats have become prohibitively expensive for many individuals), so what's inherently evil about employers admitting that increased labor costs will almost necessarily impact their hiring? For that matter, why is or isn't a medical device tax the best way of funding those subsidies? Those are the kinds of things that we could be discussing–tho probably not as comments to this particular article article–not doing what you are. To be specific, you're preemptively ascribing the worst possible motives to anyone who disagrees with you on a pretty charged political issue, in a fairly off-topic quip in response to nobody, which is a pretty bad way of raising the level of debate. Debate the issues if you want, but your original comment is going to be difficult for you to justify as anything but partisan politics. People who disagree with you may not be inherently evil. Hard to believe, sometimes, but no matter what side of an argument you're on, it's not a very productive or proper default assumption. Assuming bad faith won't help anyone, whatever the side of almost whatever the issue.

Daniel_Newby 13y ago
The medical device tax is a good example of malicious bureaucracy. How can services be subsidized by the goods applied by the services? The first-order cynical answer is that medical devices are primarily used by rich Republicans who can easily afford a few percent extra on their artificial knees. It requires no imagination to see why a left wing moonbat would vote for such blatant pandering. The second-order cynical answer is that poor minorities have worse health, and a huge unfulfilled need for medical devices. Thus the device tax is a ghastly unintended consequence of well-meaning liberals. The third-order cynical answer is that it is an intended consequence. They want Lashonda's artificial pancreas to pay for little Cindy's counseling. Much like lotteries exist to get poor people to send rich kids to college. The fourth-order cynical answer is that the whole thing is secretly a ploy to generate plot material for someone's Dune/Washington, D.C. crossover fan fiction.