More Obamacare fuckups

[Johnny Five]

Latrin did you even read your own article?

"It is clear, however, that government spending programs have in fact substantially reduced the number of poor people over the decades. And one of America’s first welfare programs didn’t just temporarily cushion the blow of financial hardship; it led to sustained health and income gains for children."

Sigh, just sigh.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

6 states where Welfare pays more than a 12$ an hour job.

39 states where welfare pays more than a 8$ an hour job.

[Wrathbringer]

As I understand it, while the IRS is handling assessing the "tax" on those not insured, they do not have the same power that they have with tax evasion. If I'm not mistaken, the only recourse they have to take that "tax" money from you is garnishment of income tax return. So if you don't want Obamacare, just change your withholdings to take your money during the year and owe taxes at tax time. The law has no teeth in such a case.

[Tgo01]

As I understand it, while the IRS is handling assessing the "tax" on those not insured, they do not have the same power that they have with tax evasion. If I'm not mistaken, the only recourse they have to take that "tax" money from you is garnishment of income tax return. So if you don't want Obamacare, just change your withholdings to take your money during the year and owe taxes at tax time. The law has no teeth in such a case.

You can't complain about that because you're not a Democrat. WB hath spoken!

[Latrinsorm]

Latrin did you even read your own article?

"It is clear, however, that government spending programs have in fact substantially reduced the number of poor people over the decades. And one of America’s first welfare programs didn’t just temporarily cushion the blow of financial hardship; it led to sustained health and income gains for children."

Sigh, just sigh.

Door (3) it is. Let's break it down by claim:

1. reduced the number of poor people.
Surely this undermines your position. If welfare encouraged people to stay poor, there would be the same or more, not less.

2. sustained health for children
This doesn't seem relevant.

3. sustained income gains for children
Children grow up and get better jobs, and thus are not on welfare anymore.

I'm at a loss for how you think the sentence does anything but explode your claims.

[Johnny Five]

Door (3) it is. Let's break it down by claim:

1. reduced the number of poor people.
Surely this undermines your position. If welfare encouraged people to stay poor, there would be the same or more, not less.

2. sustained health for children
This doesn't seem relevant.

3. sustained income gains for children
Children grow up and get better jobs, and thus are not on welfare anymore.

I'm at a loss for how you think the sentence does anything but explode your claims.

Are you seriously trying to tell me the amount of people on welfare is going down?

[Thondalar]

I've been mostly MIA for a week or so because of work, but let's jump right back into it, shall we?

The same reasoning applies to car insurance, and it is just as incorrect there. You cannot foresee a car accident by ten years, or a tumor, or schizophrenia.

This is the risk you take. Either pay for insurance, or pay for what happens. The fact is, statistically, most of is will not have anything catastrophically bad happen to us (medically) in the first 40 or so years of our life. Obviously we're taking a gamble with that, but playing the odds usually works out.

This is a coherent theory, but one that does not turn out to match empirical data. Consider the report detailed in this article, for instance.

Lol at a link to a Slate "journalist" who uses links to his own other articles and/or broken links that don't exist to back up his claims. Though I will give him credit for admitting "On average, the rejects were better off financially than people who were accepted". C'mon Latrin...usually when you give reference, it's somewhat reliable. I thought better of you.

And if I could ask you this: what was your first instinct when presented with this?
1. Look up the data you used to come to this belief in the first place.
2. Look up data that supports your belief.
3. Dismiss the data presented, or dismiss the concept of data in general.

Don't know about anyone else, but my first instincts were to:

1. Question the veracity of the claims, as any good scientist would.
2. Do independent research.
3. Form belief.

In that order.

People believing something does not make it true.

QED.

[Warriorbird]

And your point is stupid. You have demonstrated it quite perfectly.

Of course you'd think that. You don't want to admit that you set up unreachable bars to attack people from on things your own party doesn't even back. It's right up there with thinking the guy who doesn't pay taxes has a right to complain about taxes.

[Tgo01]

Of course you'd think that. You don't want to admit that you set up unreachable bars to attack people from on things your own party doesn't even back. It's right up there with thinking the guy who doesn't pay taxes has a right to complain about taxes.

So instead of doing something to make the situation better you want me to give credit to Democrats for making things worse?

This is all kinds of stupid, I can't believe you're still arguing this.

[Warriorbird]

So instead of doing something to make the situation better you want me to give credit to Democrats for making things worse?

This is all kinds of stupid, I can't believe you're still arguing this.

No. It's just foolish for you to blame Obama for a situation that your party lead to. You demand things from this bill that will never happen because of people like you.

[Thondalar]

No. It's just foolish for you to blame Obama for a situation that your party lead to. You demand things from this bill that will never happen because of people like you.

Here we go again, blaming Obamacare on Republicans.

I've completely destroyed your theory numerous times, yet you still believe it.

I really don't get it.