If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   The biggest supporters of small government are the biggest supporters of big government   (slate.com) divider line 163
    More: Obvious, small government, TPM Media, Matthew Yglesias  
•       •       •

4160 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Jun 2012 at 12:38 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



163 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-25 03:27:20 PM
The most anti-government people I have met either get a paycheck from a government organization, or work for defense contractors whose only customers are government organizations.
 
2012-06-25 03:32:16 PM

sammyk: I wish there was a fiscal conservative party I could support. As it is all I can do is vote against bat guano psychosis.


Aaaaaaaaaand favorited.
 
2012-06-25 03:41:36 PM

HeadLever: ghare: They don't CARE about that. They care about gettting ebil libs. If you have to burn the village to save it, then burn the village. Pig after pig, cow after cow, village after village.

And as a conservative, that philosophy is stuipid.


Tell it to your fellow Republicans. And stop typing on an iPhone :-)
 
2012-06-25 03:47:15 PM

meat0918: HeadLever: Jackpot777: Why would you need to narrow down or redefine welfare to one statistic?

Because if you cant define it, you can't really quantify it. Define it broadly enough and everyone will be deemed to be on welfare.

Well, what is the definition then?

Just TANF?

What about SNAP?

Section 8?


It can get messy. I just like it when folks are upfront with adequatly defining what your are quantifying. Here is an article on one such study from the same year as the table above:

defined here as childhood nutrition programs, food stamp programs, WIC benefits, and TANF benefits--

What I try to point out is that many that use the graph to point out 'red state welfare' may not be seeing the big picture of what these number really are. There is too much involved with that to really say with much confidence that it is welfare in the conventional sense. Just consider on the flip (revenue) side of the table - things like cost of living and per-capita average wages can vary widely from area to area and can have a big impact on these numbers. Does it really make a state a welfare state if it donsn't have as high of average per capita wage but does have about the same cost for federal obligations (like public lands and millitary bases)? I would argue not necessarily.
 
2012-06-25 03:53:36 PM

ghare: Tell it to your fellow Republicans.


I do. Sadly, you already know they don't like to listen to those that they disagree with. Overall, I am very disgusted with the direction of 'my party'. Some folks get it, though. Sadly, they are not quite in the position to change the direction of the party much. One good thing about being a donkey is that they can change directions quicker. Getting this elephant to turn to port is one hell of a task.
 
2012-06-25 03:53:46 PM

qorkfiend: sammyk: Corvus: TofuTheAlmighty: sammyk: I wish there was a fiscal conservative party I could support.

They're called "Democrats."

THIS.

They are not crazy either. I currently support them. But they are a long way from being fiscally conservative.

What, by actually wanting to raise revenue to pay for new programs?

What's your definition of "fiscal conservative"?


How about something on my fiscally conservative wish list? 1. Letting all the Bush tax cuts expire. 2. Stop fighting wars.

Current administration is only half way on the later and will extend the former if congress puts it on his desk.
 
2012-06-25 03:56:47 PM

sammyk: How about something on my fiscally conservative wish list? 1. Letting all the Bush tax cuts expire.


That isn't fiscally conservative, it is fiscally responsible. Not the same thing.
 
2012-06-25 04:01:48 PM

Sabyen91: Not the same thing.


Only if you fall for the talking point that the current Republican platform is 'fiscally conservative'. If you can see past this lie, then they can definatly be the same thing. =)

The current slate of Rs need to start asking themselves WWIkeD?
 
2012-06-25 04:03:47 PM

HeadLever: Sabyen91: Not the same thing.

Only if you fall for the talking point that the current Republican platform is 'fiscally conservative'. If you can see past this lie, then they can definatly be the same thing. =)

The current slate of Rs need to start asking themselves WWIkeD?


I don't think there is anything current about it. It didn't just spring up overnight.
 
2012-06-25 04:06:17 PM

HeadLever: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Red states have been welfare whores for decades.

that would be dependant upon how you define 'welfare'

[wealthalchemyblog.com image 640x471]


Wouldn't it be more likely that blue states like those listed will have lower thresholds for various types of assistance, and therefore are more likley to have a greater number of recipients?
 
2012-06-25 04:14:05 PM

HeadLever: Sabyen91: Not the same thing.

Only if you fall for the talking point that the current Republican platform is 'fiscally conservative'. If you can see past this lie, then they can definatly be the same thing. =)

The current slate of Rs need to start asking themselves WWIkeD?


Ike spoke out against the military industrial complex, declared that anyone who tried to end Social Security would disappear from history, and built a national highway system that was closely modeled off of the Nazi's Autobahn. The Republicans asking WWIkeD and following that answer is less likely to happen than me stepping out of my house tonight and getting struck by lightning, attacked by a mountain lion, hit by a meteorite, shivved by a mugger, and run over by a clown riding a unicycle and juggling three running chainsaws simultaneously.
 
2012-06-25 04:19:13 PM

Robespierre: Wouldn't it be more likely that blue states like those listed will have lower thresholds for various types of assistance, and therefore are more likley to have a greater number of recipients?


Depends. SNAP and TANF are federal programs with general guidelines on who is avaliable. However, in many circumstances, states have the ability to also administer these programs and are responsile for distribution. It is all part of the details of these programs which can get very messy when you try to define and quantify these programs.

I'll add to your point that you also have to look at the poverty rates of the states as well. Somewhat independent of your lower-threshold point, the more folks you have living in poverty, the more assistance will likely be needed. Ironically, looking at a map of states with high poverty, it is almost a mirror of my earlier map.
 
2012-06-25 04:21:59 PM

Sabyen91: sammyk: How about something on my fiscally conservative wish list? 1. Letting all the Bush tax cuts expire.

That isn't fiscally conservative, it is fiscally responsible. Not the same thing.


Yes because being fiscally responsible is not a precursor to being fiscally conservative.
 
2012-06-25 04:36:13 PM

dlp211: Sabyen91: sammyk: How about something on my fiscally conservative wish list? 1. Letting all the Bush tax cuts expire.

That isn't fiscally conservative, it is fiscally responsible. Not the same thing.

Yes because being fiscally responsible is not a precursor to being fiscally conservative.


That is correct.
 
2012-06-25 04:41:45 PM
As somebody who considers himself a fiscal conservative and usually votes Republican, this makes me really sad, especially since I am in favor of doing all those things.
 
2012-06-25 04:49:20 PM

RolandGunner: Likewise, if I support Medicare vouchers for private insurance I don't support cutting Medicare but I am also opposed to government run healthcare and would answer "No" to the survey.


I know what you meant but this is a pet peeve of mine I've recently picked up. Medicare is *NOT* government run health care. It's government run health insurance, which is completely different. The health care providers that accept Medicare are largely private corporations.
 
2012-06-25 04:55:03 PM

sammyk: qorkfiend: sammyk: Corvus: TofuTheAlmighty: sammyk: I wish there was a fiscal conservative party I could support.

They're called "Democrats."

THIS.

They are not crazy either. I currently support them. But they are a long way from being fiscally conservative.

What, by actually wanting to raise revenue to pay for new programs?

What's your definition of "fiscal conservative"?

How about something on my fiscally conservative wish list? 1. Letting all the Bush tax cuts expire. 2. Stop fighting wars.

Current administration is only half way on the later and will extend the former if congress puts it on his desk.


So yes, the Democrats are more fiscally conservative than the Republicans, who want to do the opposite of both 1 and 2?
 
2012-06-25 05:15:10 PM
This question assumes that raising taxes will actually do something to reduce the deficit in any meaningful way, which it won't.

Liberals have done such a great job promoting that little propaganda piece.

In the meantime we've also enslaved everyone to the medicare/social security system, which is what is what is actually driving the deficit up.
 
2012-06-25 05:31:28 PM

rugman11: As somebody who considers himself a fiscal conservative and usually votes Republican, this makes me really sad, especially since I am in favor of doing all those things.


RINO! UNCLEAN!
 
2012-06-25 05:39:32 PM

Jackpot777: Well. Would you look at that? It started in the early 80s quite well. But by the end, it was slipping towards Leech Status. From one of the top three providers in the nation, to out of the top 15 in such a short time. And it nearly slipped in 2003.


Right because they state is shedding it's responsibilities left and right and having the federal government foot the tab instead. It's the Republican way.
 
2012-06-25 05:41:59 PM

randomjsa: This question assumes that raising taxes will actually do something to reduce the deficit in any meaningful way, which it won't.

Liberals have done such a great job promoting that little propaganda piece.

In the meantime we've also enslaved everyone to the medicare/social security system, which is what is what is actually driving the deficit up.


So you are ignoring the parts where Republicans said they don't want the largest federal government expenditures actually cut either?

You are pretending that part didn't also exist?
 
2012-06-25 05:43:45 PM

Jim_Callahan: sammyk: I wish there was a fiscal conservative party I could support. As it is all I can do is vote against bat guano psychosis.

There was the Blue Dog Coalition that focused on fiscal responsibility but didn't really do anything on social issues. Technically there still is but it's only got about 25 members instead of 50 nowadays.

TofuTheAlmighty: Ok, define fiscal conservatism and how it differs from actual Democratic policies.

Kinda depends on the Democrat, they're kind of a coalition party at the moment. They range from de facto communists to people that would've been in the GOP fifteen years ago. There aren't enough of them focused on fiscal issues to actually prevent arbitrary spending on useless programs or control the costs of existing programs, so I'd say the party in general isn't, though.


Oh BULLSHEEEEIT! Don't lay that wishy washy both sides are the same. Read this and try that again:

PAYGO Congressional Rerquirements

The farking GoP dude. That god damned GoP ripped us off. They threw PAYGO out the window as soon as they got rid of Clinton.

And then, in the face of the worst financial crisis in 80 years, Spend and tax Democrats REINSTITUTED PAYGO to restore some kind of fiscal responsibility in the face of a horribly shrinking economy.

You farking liars on the right. Bald faced, shameless lying sons-a-biatches would NEVER be elected again in a rational fact based universe.

Sadly, this is America, so....
 
2012-06-25 05:45:46 PM

randomjsa: This question assumes that raising taxes will actually do something to reduce the deficit in any meaningful way, which it won't.

Liberals have done such a great job promoting that little propaganda piece.

In the meantime we've also enslaved everyone to the medicare/social security system, which is what is what is actually driving the deficit up.


You are a motherfarking fraud. Either a shameless liar or a blathering idiot and you look good in pink.
 
2012-06-25 05:48:09 PM

randomjsa: In the meantime we've also enslaved everyone to the medicare/social security system, which is what is what is actually driving the deficit up.


How do I know you didn't read the article?

The Republicans are against cutting that too.

Why is it that Republican don't voluntarily give back their Social Security and Medicare like they tell other rich people to voluntarily pay more taxes who think taxes on the rich should be increased?
 
2012-06-25 05:59:15 PM

the_geek: RolandGunner: Likewise, if I support Medicare vouchers for private insurance I don't support cutting Medicare but I am also opposed to government run healthcare and would answer "No" to the survey.

I know what you meant but this is a pet peeve of mine I've recently picked up. Medicare is *NOT* government run health care. It's government run health insurance, which is completely different. The health care providers that accept Medicare are largely private corporations.


And exists because private insurance companies were not well known for good treatment of the elderly, who by their nature have some expensive and common health concerns.
 
2012-06-25 06:13:49 PM

rugman11: As somebody who considers himself a fiscal conservative and usually votes Republican, this makes me really sad, especially since I am in favor of doing all those things.


You are one of the few. I have a "conservative" friend who recently was telling me that our city should be having more public transportation until 2 am, which I thought was funny coming from someone who considers himself a "fiscal conservative". So I asked him where is the city going to get the money for all this? They are laying people off in education police, fire, closing libraries etc,., His answer? "Waste" He said the city has all kinds of money it's just "waste". It's hilarious these people think there are huge mounds of money lying around.

What is sad is we have politicians who win every election saying they will get rid of this "Waste". However these people who vote for them never say "Hey, I voted for these people to get rid of 'waste', why has nothing ever actually been done about it?".

Sorry to inform you but the type of person I am describing is the more common type of person who considers himself a right wing "fiscal conservative".

He also believed it was a good idea for the city to spend millions of dollars in court costs to defend a cross on city land which I guess he also considers a main function of city government.
 
2012-06-25 06:19:09 PM

TofuTheAlmighty: sammyk: I wish there was a fiscal conservative party I could support.

They're called "Democrats."


Well.... eh,
i857.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-25 06:19:41 PM
The libertarians (the small-L ones, anyway) are the party of small government, seeingwhatyouwanttoseemitter. The two major parties simply support different variations on expanding the power of the federal government.
 
2012-06-25 06:43:16 PM

Welfare Xmas: wingnut396: If we lower them to 0% or lower, we can have unlimited revenue.

[illinoischannel.org image 300x200]
phelps.donotremove.net

Both laugh at you stupidity

[phelps.donotremove.net image 339x302]


i.imgur.com

That's the real Laffer Curve, not your pinko elitist academic graph.
 
2012-06-25 07:04:26 PM

DamnYankees: Serious Black: If they had asked "eliminate fraud, waste, and abuse," I bet 100% of Republicans would have supported that even though it would get us precisely nowhere.

Pretty sure 100% of everyone supports eliminating waste, fraud and abuse.


Don't forget your earmarks and welfare queens.
 
2012-06-25 07:27:02 PM
Which is half the reason why I can't support conservatives or Republicans at all:

Their social agenda is an Inquisition, and their fiscal agenda is no less Marxist than the left's. All they have to do is replace "God" with "environment", and they'd be magically transformed into liberals.

Bring me a party that supports a 99% deficit reduction, and you may get my ass off the couch on election day.
 
2012-06-25 07:56:08 PM

Lernaeus: Which is half the reason why I can't support conservatives or Republicans at all:

Their social agenda is an Inquisition, and their fiscal agenda is no less Marxist than the left's. All they have to do is replace "God" with "environment", and they'd be magically transformed into liberals.

Bring me a party that supports a 99% deficit reduction, and you may get my ass off the couch on election day.


Given the similarities in economic policy, you could base your decision on something else and vote for the non-Inquisition party.
 
2012-06-25 07:57:11 PM

Dr Dreidel: They should have prefaced the question with: "Knowing (as you should) that spending on defense and Social Security/Medicare comprises 1/3 of the US' total spending..."


It's even worse than that, Doc. The "Big Three" comprise nearly2/3 of total federal spending.

www.cbpp.org
 
2012-06-25 08:43:15 PM

qorkfiend: Lernaeus: Which is half the reason why I can't support conservatives or Republicans at all:

Their social agenda is an Inquisition, and their fiscal agenda is no less Marxist than the left's. All they have to do is replace "God" with "environment", and they'd be magically transformed into liberals.

Bring me a party that supports a 99% deficit reduction, and you may get my ass off the couch on election day.

Given the similarities in economic policy, you could base your decision on something else and vote for the non-Inquisition party.


That would be the democrats of the Clinton era
 
2012-06-25 08:50:13 PM

qorkfiend: Lernaeus: Which is half the reason why I can't support conservatives or Republicans at all:

Their social agenda is an Inquisition, and their fiscal agenda is no less Marxist than the left's. All they have to do is replace "God" with "environment", and they'd be magically transformed into liberals.

Bring me a party that supports a 99% deficit reduction, and you may get my ass off the couch on election day.

Given the similarities in economic policy, you could base your decision on something else and vote for the non-Inquisition party.


Go wash your mouth out with soap and never speak to me like that again.

To suggest that I'd vote for a member of a political party ... what kind of scavenging pack animal do you mistake me for?
 
2012-06-25 09:49:29 PM
Republicans have no problem with welfare and entitlements so long as middle class white people and corporations are the beneficiaries.
 
2012-06-25 10:08:49 PM

Corporate Self: Republicans have no problem with welfare and entitlements so long as middle class white people and corporations are the beneficiaries.


Acually, this - let's call me a fiscal conservative - doesn't mind even blacks, hispanics and other minorities getting welfare so long as they really need it. It is those folks that win the lottery and still try to claim thier food stamps that kind of get under my skin. That and the fraud and dependancy it creates.

Those that really need it should have access. Those that use it as a crutch that could otherwise be employed and a productive member of society should be kicked off.
 
2012-06-25 10:18:04 PM

Corporate Self: Republicans have no problem with welfare and entitlements so long as middle class white people and corporations are the beneficiaries.


FTFY
 
2012-06-26 12:04:03 AM
WHY CAN'T OUR POOR PEOPLE BE PROPER STARVING AND DYING POOR PEOPLE??!?!?!?!?!??! WHY MUST WE HAVE A GOOD STANDARD OF LIVING?!?!?!??!?!WHARRGARBL!!!!
 
2012-06-26 12:45:42 AM

randomjsa: Liberals have done such a great job promoting that little propaganda piece.


So the "j" is for "jack" and the "a" is for "ass" but what's the "s" for?
 
2012-06-26 02:00:07 AM

HeadLever: Corporate Self: Republicans have no problem with welfare and entitlements so long as middle class white people and corporations are the beneficiaries.

Acually, this - let's call me a fiscal conservative - doesn't mind even blacks, hispanics and other minorities getting welfare so long as they really need it. It is those folks that win the lottery and still try to claim thier food stamps that kind of get under my skin. That and the fraud and dependancy it creates.

Those that really need it should have access. Those that use it as a crutch that could otherwise be employed and a productive member of society should be kicked off.


Yes, but example like "lottery winner claims food stamps" can easily be rectified with better oversight. If we choose soundbites over statistics then many actual poor people would go hungry. There is no reason why Americans should go hungry.

This kind of thing is what government is for, not giving x10000 the money spent on social services to banks and corporations that are "too big to fail". I wonder how many people's homes could be saved with a trillions dollar we just gave to banks. Why did we not use it to buy back the primary residences of struggling Americans? The banks still would have got their "fix".
 
2012-06-26 03:58:43 AM

Corporate Self: Yes, but example like "lottery winner claims food stamps" can easily be rectified with better oversight.


Better oversight is a lot harder than it might seem, because a lot of businesses and politicians have a vested interest in lousy oversight. Put yourself in a politician's shoes in an election year. Do you want to hear the ad from your opponent that goes This Adorable White Girl With Cancer Hasn't Gotten The Treatments She Needs Because Of Government Paperwork? Hell no. So you support reduced oversight under the guise of "paperwork reduction" or "streamlining the application process."

Take Medicare/Medicaid. It's been operating since the get-go under a system called "pay-and-chase", meaning Medicare/Medicaid gets X days (30, usually) to check out a claim before paying it. Not a lot of time, given the sheer number of claims. So they pay the claim, and chase down any problems later, if they even notice or give a damn about any problems.

Crooked businesses and thieves operating phony businesses have been taking full advantage of this, mainly through simply sending in fully bogus claims (the thieves) or upcoding to more expensive procedures that weren't done (the "legit" businesses).

Example: Back in '04 my state processed 400 million Medicaid claims. How many did they flag for possible fraud?

37.

That's because my state's Medicaid budget is immense. It's about 40 percent of the budget in any given year. That's a whole lot of government teat at which to suckle, and major players and crooks alike know it's easy money.

Supposedly pay-and-chase is going away. I've been hearing that for ages at both the state and federal level. Big splashy press conference in October, quietly roll back the oversight after the elections.

The thing is, if I was a major provider padding my bills, I would actually welcome added oversight. I can always buy enough members of Congress to make sure Medicare/Medicaid spends its time busting phony storefront pharmacies in Miami instead of my business.
 
2012-06-26 04:30:56 AM

TimonC346: Republicans are a united front. Democrats truly are not. Democrats aren't fiscally conservative all the the time. However it seems republicans like to say they are but nothing they do actually is.
Amirite?


Fascist parties are often an united front. The fear of nonwhites and gays is a powerful unifying force.
 
2012-06-26 06:38:54 AM

pciszek: The most anti-government people I have met either get a paycheck from a government organization, or work for defense contractors whose only customers are government organizations.


My father owes his entire life (and mine) to a handsome GS paycheck (and benefits, automatic COL raises), and considers the military an exception to the "government can't do anything right" tirade. Somehow, they're beyond reproach. Unlike the postal service, which he would rant about whenever we passed it en route to a completely irrelevant errand. We did get mail every day, and failures weren't any greater than FedEx either destroying or completely losing a parcel.

My grandmother receives all the benefits a typical old lady gets, and her invalid son (my uncle) is completely supported by the United States government. She thinks people in Germany were cheering Obama because he's a socialist. And don't you dare touch her benefits. Her provided health care worker has food stamps and grams gets angry because the worker's car is less than ten years old.

GI bill, insurance, the whole shebang. But hey, gubmit is ruining 'his' country.
 
2012-06-26 08:27:26 AM
If there would have been an option for Increase Taxes on poor people, that would have gotten a lot of votes because no republicans are poor, they are all in the top 1% in their minds or will soon be there.
 
2012-06-26 08:38:48 AM

RolandGunner: It's a really really flawed question.

For instance, if I pay $X money into Social Security today, and I would rather have $X transferred to a private retirement account I would vote "No" to cutting Social Security but I wouldn't be supporting "Big Government". Likewise, if I support Medicare vouchers for private insurance I don't support cutting Medicare but I am also opposed to government run healthcare and would answer "No" to the survey.

And there you have it. It's not that the Republicans who were asked want bigger government, they simply support options not covered by that question.



The government still has to pay for the voucher doesn't it? Switching to a voucher system doesn't eliminate the medicare as a budget item. (I don't believe evidence shows it reduces cost either, but still, it costs something.)
 
2012-06-26 08:46:23 AM

Welfare Xmas: Karac: I don't know; I haven't been alive at a time where we weren't both on the left side and moving hard towards the origin.

[cdn.theatlantic.com image 592x524]

Really?


Not everyone has been alive since the tax rates of WWII which were fairly high in comparison to now.
 
2012-06-26 10:39:26 AM

manimal2878: RolandGunner: It's a really really flawed question.

For instance, if I pay $X money into Social Security today, and I would rather have $X transferred to a private retirement account I would vote "No" to cutting Social Security but I wouldn't be supporting "Big Government". Likewise, if I support Medicare vouchers for private insurance I don't support cutting Medicare but I am also opposed to government run healthcare and would answer "No" to the survey.

And there you have it. It's not that the Republicans who were asked want bigger government, they simply support options not covered by that question.


The government still has to pay for the voucher doesn't it? Switching to a voucher system doesn't eliminate the medicare as a budget item. (I don't believe evidence shows it reduces cost either, but still, it costs something.)




I never said it did. In fact I said the opposite. What switching to the voucher does is eliminate the bulk of the Medicare bureaucracy and the nightmare that is Medicare billing for providers.

The latter is huge given that many doctors offices keep staff specifically for Medicare coding and billing because Medicare is notoriously difficult to navigate.

The other side effect that will reduce health care cost is the fact that most hospitals and doctors offices have to offset the abysmally low payouts of Medicare (only 20% of total bill on average) by charging the privately insured patients more. So by removing the Medicare billing side the health insurance companies and doctors can finally properly price their services across the board without having to price for Medicare's abysmal payouts.
 
2012-06-26 11:05:23 AM

RolandGunner: manimal2878: RolandGunner: It's a really really flawed question.

For instance, if I pay $X money into Social Security today, and I would rather have $X transferred to a private retirement account I would vote "No" to cutting Social Security but I wouldn't be supporting "Big Government". Likewise, if I support Medicare vouchers for private insurance I don't support cutting Medicare but I am also opposed to government run healthcare and would answer "No" to the survey.

And there you have it. It's not that the Republicans who were asked want bigger government, they simply support options not covered by that question.


The government still has to pay for the voucher doesn't it? Switching to a voucher system doesn't eliminate the medicare as a budget item. (I don't believe evidence shows it reduces cost either, but still, it costs something.)



I never said it did. In fact I said the opposite. I don't see where you did, but if so then your statement is irrelevant to the accuracy of the survey. What switching to the voucher does is eliminate the bulk of the Medicare bureaucracy and the nightmare that is Medicare billing for providers.

The latter is huge given that many doctors offices keep staff specifically for Medicare coding and billing because Medicare is notoriously difficult to navigate.

The other side effect that will reduce health care cost is the fact that most hospitals and doctors offices have to offset the abysmally low payouts of Medicare (only 20% of total bill on average) by charging the privately insured patients more. So by removing the Medicare billing side the health insurance companies and doctors can finally properly price their services across the board without having to price for Medicare's abysmal payouts.


Even if I believe your assertions that vouchers save money, and again, I don't believe they do, That doesn't solve the problem of private insurance refusing to pay out for health needs.

What vouchers do in my opinion is remove oversight and regulation so private companies can better rip off the consumer. Look at how the charter school programs have been going in florida for a good example of how far fetched the suppossed benifits of a voucher system really are in actual practice.
 
2012-06-26 12:00:53 PM

manimal2878: Even if I believe your assertions that vouchers save money, and again, I don't believe they do, That doesn't solve the problem of private insurance refusing to pay out for health needs.


img853.imageshack.us

Medicare rejects more client claims than any other health insurance in the country. (PDF) By far.



Furthermore, the rejections by Medicare are in majority for services not covered by Medicare (52%) while the majority of the next highest denier (Aetna) are because the service was already covered by another Aetna payout (65%)



So no, the real problem is the refusals of Medicare to pay medical bills, not the private industry.
 
Displayed 50 of 163 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report