Would you like to eliminate all government subsidies? I'm in... Where do I sign.

Of course that would require everyone to be treated equally by the government, and the rich cannot get any more subsidies. Either can the poor for that matter.

Unless you were wanting the government to treat people differently...

danivon wrote:Except that of course we do know he wants to repeal the act that does provide for a ban on excluding pre-existing conditions. So, absent anything else, how can we conclude that he would maintain or restore it?

. . . or that he wouldn't?

There's no evidence either way, but you don't really care about that.

Given that it's a big political issue, perhaps he'd like to clarify his position before, rather than after, the election, or if he has, perhaps you can show it, prove me wrong and win a point. Until then, I going to assume that calling for repeal lends itself to being against.

Assume away. It's a specialty of yours.

Doctor Fate wrote:. . . or that he wouldn't?

There's no evidence either way, but you don't really care about that.

The problem is that you cannot prove a negative. there's no way I can prove that he is not planning something. All I can go on is that there's no evidence that he is, and that he is opposing the current law that includes the provision.

Hence, I ask the question, but I will assume the null hypothesis until some evidence comes up.

I have now explained why I don't believe he would maintain/restore the provision. I am perfecly prepared to change my belief given some evidence. Until then, I'm no more going to believe in it than I am Russell's Teapot, or the existence of invisible pink elephants.

Still. I understand the therapeutic nature of riding a horse. I'm not sure why that means someone has to own the horse, or why the horse has to be a thoroughbred competition-level horse. If anything I'd suggest a non-pedigree horse would have a better temperament. But hey, I'm no expert on it.

bbauska wrote:Would you like to eliminate all government subsidies? I'm in... Where do I sign.

Of course that would require everyone to be treated equally by the government, and the rich cannot get any more subsidies. Either can the poor for that matter.

Unless you were wanting the government to treat people differently...

Sigh... It must be hard being a stuck record, bbauska.

All I was pointing out, partially in response to your challenge about why the horse should even be mentioned if it's not paid for out of tax, is that if it is subject to tax breaks, that is surely a similar situation.

Now, you may want to universally end all tax breaks, or you may not - that's frankly irrelevant, as much as you love to shove it into any and all debates that waft anywhere near it - but the point is that if the horse is subject to tax breaks, it is not simply a private and personal issue.

We don't have to take an all-or-nothing approach to tax breaks and welfare in order to point out the facts, bbauska. And we don't necessarily have to agree with you about the all-or-nothing approach, either, for it to make an iota of difference to those facts.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:. . . or that he wouldn't?

There's no evidence either way, but you don't really care about that.

The problem is that you cannot prove a negative. there's no way I can prove that he is not planning something..

Exactly, but you want to conclude more than is in evidence.

All I can go on is that there's no evidence that he is, and that he is opposing the current law that includes the provision.

Hence, I ask the question, but I will assume the null hypothesis until some evidence comes up.

On the other hand, I can just posit that Obama doesn't really mind "free riders."

How can I say that? Well, the pre-existing clause practically begs for that. Furthermore, now that it's been made clear the "tax" won't result in imprisonment if not paid, we can only conclude Obama approves of free-riders.

Doctor Fate wrote:Exactly, but you want to conclude more than is in evidence.

I do not 'conclude', it is my working assumption that the null hypothesis is the case. As I said, present some evidence, and my 'conclusion' will differ. Until then, we can safely say that I know of no publicly expressed plans by Romney to maintain the provision on pre-existing conditions after he would get the ACA repealed / nullified.

You are right that we cannot know either way, as neither of us can read Romney's mind or are privy to the policy workings of the RNC or the Congressional caucuses. However, I'm not going to assume that they are working on something to retain the ACA's position on pre-existing conditions. Equally, I'm not going to assume they are working on outlawing Tuesdays. I have no evidence that they are not, or that they are, but if we are going to say we can't ever assume the null hypothesis, then things will get very odd.

On the other hand, I can just posit that Obama doesn't really mind "free riders."

You can posit whatever you like. But does it stand up to logic?

How can I say that? Well, the pre-existing clause practically begs for that. Furthermore, now that it's been made clear the "tax" won't result in imprisonment if not paid, we can only conclude Obama approves of free-riders.

That involved the logical leap that 'imprisonment' is the only possible sanction. There already is a sanction, the fine/tax, that would be held over someone until they pay it. Thus there is something in the act that deals with 'free riders'. Maybe not as much as you would like, but not nothing.

Therefore, you were quite able to 'posit' as you did, but it fails. Nice try, son.

It strikes me that if the question is 'would you retain the pre-existing conditions provisions ?' then Romney needs to demonstrate that he has some kind of a plan for this for it to be believed. It's a perfectly valid question, and one that a lot of voters are going to be asking. If he says nothing on the subject then it's reasonable to conclude that he doesn't have any answer to the question.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Exactly, but you want to conclude more than is in evidence.

I do not 'conclude', it is my working assumption that the null hypothesis is the case. As I said, present some evidence, and my 'conclusion' will differ. Until then, we can safely say that I know of no publicly expressed plans by Romney to maintain the provision on pre-existing conditions after he would get the ACA repealed / nullified.

You are right that we cannot know either way, as neither of us can read Romney's mind or are privy to the policy workings of the RNC or the Congressional caucuses. However, I'm not going to assume that they are working on something to retain the ACA's position on pre-existing conditions. Equally, I'm not going to assume they are working on outlawing Tuesdays. I have no evidence that they are not,

This is not difficult. They're just smarter than Democrats.

Democrats rammed the ACA through on a pure party vote. It's unpopular with everyone who cares to think about the overall cost--in other words all but the far left.

Republicans know that this is one very popular aspect of it. So, I suspect they will find a way to incorporate it without allowing free riders to benefit.

I have just as much evidence as you do.

On the other hand, I can just posit that Obama doesn't really mind "free riders."

You can posit whatever you like. But does it stand up to logic?

How can I say that? Well, the pre-existing clause practically begs for that. Furthermore, now that it's been made clear the "tax" won't result in imprisonment if not paid, we can only conclude Obama approves of free-riders.

That involved the logical leap that 'imprisonment' is the only possible sanction. There already is a sanction, the fine/tax, that would be held over someone until they pay it. Thus there is something in the act that deals with 'free riders'. Maybe not as much as you would like, but not nothing.

Epic fail by you. If I can avoid paying this, even for years, and then get coverage, no matter what the fine is, it's "free-riding."

Consider: I don't have insurance for 5 years. What's the penalty?

I discover I have cancer. I pay the penalty and get insurance. I'm still saving a lot of money.

On the other hand, if I just don't pay and show up at an emergency room, can they decline to treat me under ACA?

No.

So . . . Obama approves of free-riding.

Therefore, you were quite able to 'posit' as you did, but it fails. Nice try, son.

Thanks pops, but you need to step your game up.

Sassenach wrote:It strikes me that if the question is 'would you retain the pre-existing conditions provisions ?' then Romney needs to demonstrate that he has some kind of a plan for this for it to be believed. It's a perfectly valid question, and one that a lot of voters are going to be asking. If he says nothing on the subject then it's reasonable to conclude that he doesn't have any answer to the question.

No, they won't. They don't like Obamacare and won't change their minds on that basis alone.

purple

One could argue that this is just semantics, or a distinction without a difference.

Yes one could,
(Making the numbers up...) Anne romney does her taxes and finds she owes 15% on $6,000,000 income.
Wait she says, Did you include the value of the deduction for my Dressage Horse? No? Why I can eliminate $80,000 from my income for this...
Now her income is $15,940,000. She's paying $9,000 less. This is real money Purple.
Congress made a conscious decision to offer that tax break, and take $9,000 out of tax revenues, and presumably tax expenditures... I don't see anything wrong with that, but lets be honest and call a tax deduction what it is... a special and specific decrease in taxation dollars.

I suggest a book to read Purple. "Why Nations Fail" . It will clearly illustrate that your view on the unique American history and attitude towards governance and taxation is a little starry eyed. The US was amongst the first nations to produce a constitutional form of government that was inclusive. Well, somewhat inclusive. Others came before (Venice for example, before its elites bgan to exclude new entrants and the city collapsed within itself ) but the US and Britain were the two major places where inclusive forms of govenrment stuck and a virtuous circle developed. That is the inclusiveness of government enlarged rather than shrank. The elite gave up power (and there were certainly elites in 1776 in the US) and invovled more people in society as full members.
Example: Lets start with the glaring example of the legality of slavery in the US constitution. Slavery being the greatest form of extractive relationship possible. It limited the growth of the South, to the advantage of slave holders. Its extinction benfittted millions of slaves, and damaged a few slave holding families...
every society views taxation as either an extractive OR an inclusive mechanism depending upon both the cost and the benefit to the people paying the tax. Europeans who pay higehr taxes benefit from free health care and education ....and look at the current situation in the US as these two items sky rocket out of reach for more people every day, as a cautionary tale.
The American view you speak of originally was because Americans saw little benefit to British taxation, (really duties). Interestingly at this time there was a battle in England to end trade monopolies for much the same reason. And a fight to expand the franchise (vote) and use the ballot... But once Americans saw taxation used for purposes that benefitted them there was less resentment. Indeed the Greatest Generation willingly accepted very high taxation to help pay down the debts accumulated during WWII.
The problem right now, is that somehow Tea Party types think things they really like, such as big militaries, Social Security and Medicare .... all have to be paid for... But somehow their convinced the price tage can be unrealistically small. (I submit this is from 35 years of deficit spending since 1980....)

purple

When the POTUS can constantly call an extension of the Bush tax cuts "spending",

Unless you have a balance or a surplus of expenditures over revenues, it is spending. Spending the future generations have to account for...Its this inability to actually the consequences of irresponsible taxation levels since reagan that has created the current debt problem. More semantics I guess.
But honest semantics .

rickyp wrote:purple

When the POTUS can constantly call an extension of the Bush tax cuts "spending",

Unless you have a balance or a surplus of expenditures over revenues, it is spending. Spending the future generations have to account for...Its this inability to actually the consequences of irresponsible taxation levels since reagan that has created the current debt problem. More semantics I guess.
But honest semantics .

Purple is perfectly capable of destroying your meager arguments, but this is particularly egregious.

So, we (as a country) only spend when we have less revenues than expenditures? So, pretty much, that's always?

I would remind you that you can't really call them the "Bush tax-cuts" any longer. Less than two years ago, President Obama signed an extension of them. Had he vetoed it, you would be right. He didn't.

Meanwhile, you propose raising taxes. That will net how much annually? I just want to know how informed you are. You say we have to have "responsible" tax rates. Okay, so President Obama is proposing "responsible" rates, right? We're running well over a trillion in the red. So, how much will his "responsible" plan yield?

danivon wrote:I really do think that sometimes Americans think they are a different species to the rest of us.

Not just different. Better!

Doctor Fate wrote:This is not difficult. They're just smarter than Democrats.

Subjective, partisan, and no evidence they are doing anything on a particular issue.

I have just as much evidence as you do.

Yet you have presented no more evidence, other than your opinion that Republicans are 'smarter' than Democrats. Lame.

Epic fail by you. If I can avoid paying this, even for years, and then get coverage, no matter what the fine is, it's "free-riding."

Your fine would still be due. So, if there's a way to claw it back through a lien or on your taxes, then it is still due

Consider: I don't have insurance for 5 years. What's the penalty?

I discover I have cancer. I pay the penalty and get insurance. I'm still saving a lot of money.

You would have had to pay the penalty for the previous four years. Which may or may not have been cheaper, but would also likely offer less coverage than before. The pre-existing condition thing would only stop companies from refusing to insure, which is different from determining what they can charge in premiums.

The penalty is four/five year's worth of 'fine'/'tax', which you still owe.

On the other hand, if I just don't pay and show up at an emergency room, can they decline to treat me under ACA?

No.

If you have cancer, the emergency room is not going to do a heck of a lot for you about it. For an acute condition caused by the cancer or unrelated to it, they can help patch you up and send you on, but they don't give out Chemo in the ER (or is this two hypotheticals for the price of one?). And under the previous law, emergency rooms could not refuse to treat people, so people on here kept telling me, so what's new there?

So . . . Obama approves of free-riding.

There is evidence that people who can get insurance but do not will be 'fined' (now called a tax by the USSC), and while you may insist that this is not a penalty for not buying insurance, it certainly looks like one. And the amount will not just go away if you ignore it - you would owe it for each year. Just because it won't result in prison, doesn't mean it is not a debt incurred.

Purple wrote:

danivon wrote:I really do think that sometimes Americans think they are a different species to the rest of us.

Not just different. Better!

Disproven by Usain Bolt.

danivon wrote:

bbauska wrote:Would you like to eliminate all government subsidies? I'm in... Where do I sign.

Of course that would require everyone to be treated equally by the government, and the rich cannot get any more subsidies. Either can the poor for that matter.

Unless you were wanting the government to treat people differently...

Sigh... It must be hard being a stuck record, bbauska.

All I was pointing out, partially in response to your challenge about why the horse should even be mentioned if it's not paid for out of tax, is that if it is subject to tax breaks, that is surely a similar situation.

Now, you may want to universally end all tax breaks, or you may not - that's frankly irrelevant, as much as you love to shove it into any and all debates that waft anywhere near it - but the point is that if the horse is subject to tax breaks, it is not simply a private and personal issue.

We don't have to take an all-or-nothing approach to tax breaks and welfare in order to point out the facts, bbauska. And we don't necessarily have to agree with you about the all-or-nothing approach, either, for it to make an iota of difference to those facts.

I appreciate your position about my opinion. My point is not about tax breaks, it is about the inequality afforded people by the government.

It is the inequality that bothers me the most, not the taxes. Sorry to interject the idea of equal treatment under the law.

As far I can tell, this is the form of DF's argument:

1. Romney wants to get rid of the ACA (which includes not denying coverage to patients with pre-existing coverage).
2. Even though there is no evidence that Romney would introduce legislation to keep the protection for people with pre-existing conditions, it is at possible he will do so.
3. Therefore, it is purely speculative for anyone to argue that Romney will not protect people with pre-existing conditions.

Huh?I

It is not speculative to say that Romney is getting rid of pre-existing conditions--that is what he has said he will do (by getting rid of the ACA). It is speculative to say that he will decide to keep pre-existing condition protection because he has never said he will do so. The best you can say it is possible that he will do so. Up to now, the evidence is 100% that Romney will get rid of pre-existing condition protection. You cannot equate the argument that he will get rid of pre-existing protection with the argument that he will keep it because one has evidence for it and one does not have evidence for it. It is possible that Romney will cut military spending, but so far he has said he will raise it. Does that mean that we cannot make the argument that he will raise military spending because it is possible that he will cut it?

By getting rid of the ACA Romney will get rid of the protection for patients with pre-existing conditions. Until he says that he will introduce legislation to protect those with pre-existing conditons, Democrats are entitled to say he will get rid of protections for pre-existing conditions. To say otherwise is to qualify for admission to the flat earth society.