"The Affordable Debating Act of 2014"

TylerDurden said:

I think your examination of the situation is superficial at best. People do not have a right to the labor of others.

Incredibly enough, those two sentences followed each other. Someone needs to work on their introspection skills.

GL2 said:

American students have never tested all that well internationally. Nor have Brits. Focus should be on achievement after the "horrible" experience of public school education. We lead Planet Earth in creativity, innovation, Nobels, etc. Maybe our kids should spend 12 hours per day studying mind-numbing data and score higher on tests. Which do we prefer?

Mind numbing data? I think there's a bit of wiggle room between 12 hours per day studying mind-numbing data and preparing our kids with basic/essential math and reading skills.

The fact that educators think that locking kids in a room for 12 hours "studying mind-numbing data to score higher on tests" actually is a really good explanation of why our education system is the hot mess that it is. Our schools are an embarrassment. And those are the good schools.

tom said:

TylerDurden said:

I think your examination of the situation is superficial at best. People do not have a right to the labor of others.

Incredibly enough, those two sentences followed each other. Someone needs to work on their introspection skills.

I've explained this numerous times in the past. How can you have a right to something, if that right infringes on the rights of another? To have a right to healthcare, one must violate the property rights of others. It is an illogical position to have.

tom said:

Meanwhile, this:

States are providing less per-pupil funding for kindergarten through 12th grade than they did seven years ago — often far less. The reduced levels reflect primarily the lingering effects of the 2007-09 recession. At a time when states and the nation need workers with the skills to master new technologies and adapt to the complexities of a global economy, this decline in state educational investment is cause for concern.

Our review of state budget documents finds that:

* At least 30 states are providing less funding per student for the 2014-15 school year than they did before the recession hit. Fourteen of these states have cut per-student funding by more than 10 percent. (These figures, like all the comparisons in this paper, are in inflation-adjusted dollars and focus on the primary form of state aid to local schools.)
* Most states are providing more funding per student in the new school year than they did a year ago, but funding has generally not increased enough to make up for cuts in past years. For example, Alabama is increasing school funding by $16 per pupil this year. But that is far less than is needed to offset the state’s $1,144 per-pupil cut over the previous six years.

Nothing says "I'm an ideologue" quote like using the phrase "government schools." You'd think that all those pictures taped up on refrigerators were done under the supervision of jackboot-thug teachers in body armor, they way you go on about the evil government.

They are "public schools." They are run in large part by your neighbors who have been voted on to the Board of Education.

That link would be awesome if this were a very recent trend or if the funding of American students was brought down to the levels of other OECD countries.

I will again quote one of the weaknesses of the American math student for no particular reason.

•Genuine interpretation of real-world aspects – requiring students to take a given real-world
situation seriously and properly interpret aspects of it

TylerDurden said:

I've explained this numerous times in the past. How can you have a right to something, if that right infringes on the rights of another? To have a right to healthcare, one must violate the property rights of others. It is an illogical position to have.

Logic has nothing to do with your argument.

tom said:

Logic has nothing to do with your argument.

One of the main reasons I have a problem leaving my fate to the American voter is that the above passes as analysis.

You start out with absolute property rights as your premise, and then attempt to draw logical conclusions.

But the right to property has never been absolute and inviolable. It's even in the Constitution. So, any conclusions drawn from that false premise are themselves suspect.

tom said:

You start out with absolute property rights as your premise, and then attempt to draw logical conclusions.

But the right to property has never been absolute and inviolable. It's even in the Constitution. So, any conclusions drawn from that false premise are themselves suspect.

What is this absolute property right? Either you have property rights or you don't.

I'm not sure I follow your point regarding the Constitution.

TylerDurden said:

I've explained this numerous times in the past. How can you have a right to something, if that right infringes on the rights of another? To have a right to healthcare, one must violate the property rights of others. It is an illogical position to have.

To what 'property rights' are you referring? If you are talking about taxation, it is well established that taxation is a necessary and appropriate mechanism to provide for the 'public good'. Personally, I think we have much more right to decent healthcare than to a bloated military (orders of magnitude larger than that of any other country), but I don't see much complaint about 'violation of property rights' in connection with taxation to support the military.

sac said:

TylerDurden said:

I've explained this numerous times in the past. How can you have a right to something, if that right infringes on the rights of another? To have a right to healthcare, one must violate the property rights of others. It is an illogical position to have.

To what 'property rights' are you referring? If you are talking about taxation, it is well established that taxation is a necessary and appropriate mechanism to provide for the 'public good'. Personally, I think we have much more right to decent healthcare than to a bloated military (orders of magnitude larger than that of any other country), but I don't see much complaint about 'violation of property rights' in connection with taxation to support the military.

Well, then you haven't been listening to me much then. Our income taxes are not used to provide for the public good. They are used as collateral to spend on the welfare & warfare state. It can be argued that some small percentage of that money being spent is for the 'public good', whatever that means. And to your point, it means something different to everybody. Alas, a very low percentage of that money being spent is on things that are on balance what I think is for the public good. But, its our children that will get the bill, so there's that.

ajc said:

Hey Wharfrat, I know a good thing when I see it... ;-)

What began as a metaphor for the abject stupidity of not stopping the passage of The Affordable Care Act is going nuts all over the Internet.

Obama Care is a train wreck and most Americans knew it from the jump.Joe started this “Affordable Plumbing Act” last year and now it’s taking off!

tom said:

You start out with absolute property rights as your premise, and then attempt to draw logical conclusions.

But the right to property has never been absolute and inviolable. It's even in the Constitution. So, any conclusions drawn from that false premise are themselves suspect.

I would add that the "right to property" claim has been used as cover for a myriad of sins. Racism and discrimination are on that list. Even without those, there is the idea of a society agreeing that certain things are of public benefit, and that leads to the discussion of whether and how to pay for same.

And don't forget "muh roads". Who is going to pay for "muh roads" if we don't share in that expense?
;-)

Our children are getting the bill because we refuse to raise the revenue necessary to pay for those things.

Tyler, of course your conclusions follow logically from your stated premises. But we reject your premises as false. Let me try to give a relevant example:


You're on a ship in the middle of the ocean, far from land, the radio is broken. Isolated. There are 99 other passengers with you.

An infectious disease breaks out. It's deadly. You and you alone have the cure, stashed away in your luggage. More than enough to treat everyone on board.

The other passengers would really appreciate it if you would share. In fact, they insist that they have a basic human right to life. But you insist that you have a right to keep your medicine. As you say:

How can you have a right to something, if that right infringes on the rights of another? To have a right to healthcare, one must violate the property rights of others. It is an illogical position to have.

I reject your premise because the logical conclusion that is drawn from it (everybody else can die) is fundamentally unethical and immoral.

TylerDurden said:

Our income taxes are not used to provide for the public good. They are used as collateral to spend on the welfare & warfare state. It can be argued that some small percentage of that money being spent is for the 'public good', whatever that means. And to your point, it means something different to everybody. Alas, a very low percentage of that money being spent is on things that are on balance what I think is for the public good. But, its our children that will get the bill, so there's that.

Warfare state is pretty self-explanatory - but is the welfare part CMS and Social Security?

So Tyler, how do you account for

TylerDurden said:

GL2 said:

American students have never tested all that well internationally. Nor have Brits. Focus should be on achievement after the "horrible" experience of public school education. We lead Planet Earth in creativity, innovation, Nobels, etc. Maybe our kids should spend 12 hours per day studying mind-numbing data and score higher on tests. Which do we prefer?

Mind numbing data? I think there's a bit of wiggle room between 12 hours per day studying mind-numbing data and preparing our kids with basic/essential math and reading skills.

The fact that educators think that locking kids in a room for 12 hours "studying mind-numbing data to score higher on tests" actually is a really good explanation of why our education system is the hot mess that it is. Our schools are an embarrassment. And those are the good schools.

How very sad that you feel this way, Tyler. Let me guess - you had bad experiences in publics? Yes? And you're comfy with the blanket statement. I worked for decades in an affluent public that sent its best kids to top tier schools. The best indicator of a kid's success in education is his zip code. We all know that.

Poor kids from poor families go to poor schools and do poorly. And vice versa.

Poor kids with intact families with an emphasis on education do pretty well, even in poor schools.

And affluent kids generally do well - period.

Then there are the exceptions, as told in The Short and Tragic Life of Robert Peace, an East Orange kid smart enough to graduate from Yale and still descend into a life of drugs and death.

I haven't read every single post but will go back and try to do so. In the meantime if
"The Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton" wasn't the Battle of the Bulge and , in fact WW1 and WW11 won on in the school yards of "Government Schools"?

As to Healthcare I'm surprised that my Libertarian friend hasn't made a stronger argument for his position.
If the market were totally free with no government intervention medical providers would not be licensed. Anyone could set up as a "Doctor" without have had to pay exhorbitent tutition to Colleges and Med Schools and they would be able to offer services to poorer persons for much lower prices. There would be real competition and maybe no need for insurance at all.

Of course life expectancy would probably be what it was in 1900 which I believe was around 48 for white males.

"How DO you talk to a far-right-winger? Answer: You don’t. I'm serious. Just stop. Don’t bother. You’re wasting your breath."

"In fact, you may be doing even worse than wasting your breath. Every argument you have only makes their beliefs stronger. "

http://www.chasingglennbeck.com/homeblog/2015/3/29/how-to-talk-to-a-far-right-winger.html

TylerDurden said:

tom said:

TylerDurden said:

I think your examination of the situation is superficial at best. People do not have a right to the labor of others.

Incredibly enough, those two sentences followed each other. Someone needs to work on their introspection skills.

I've explained this numerous times in the past. How can you have a right to something, if that right infringes on the rights of another? To have a right to healthcare, one must violate the property rights of others. It is an illogical position to have.

XVI amendment overrules Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co and allows the federal government to tax income directly (and without apportionment by population). As a lawful constitutional amendment, it is almost possible to claim that federal income taxation should be treated as a taking.

However, a number of people have had the same thought as TD (namely to limit the taxing ability of the Congress by limiting the maximum tax rate). See http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/41788398?sid=21105827684021&uid=4&uid=3739808&uid=2&uid=3739256

The takings argument that you have been advancing is a non-starter. However, maybe you are the person to revive the attached amendment to the constitution to limit income taxes to 25%.

tom said:

Our children are getting the bill because we refuse to raise the revenue necessary to pay for those things.

Tyler, of course your conclusions follow logically from your stated premises. But we reject your premises as false. Let me try to give a relevant example:


You're on a ship in the middle of the ocean, far from land, the radio is broken. Isolated. There are 99 other passengers with you.

An infectious disease breaks out. It's deadly. You and you alone have the cure, stashed away in your luggage. More than enough to treat everyone on board.

The other passengers would really appreciate it if you would share. In fact, they insist that they have a basic human right to life. But you insist that you have a right to keep your medicine. As you say:

How can you have a right to something, if that right infringes on the rights of another? To have a right to healthcare, one must violate the property rights of others. It is an illogical position to have.

I reject your premise because the logical conclusion that is drawn from it (everybody else can die) is fundamentally unethical and immoral.

First, I'd like to point out that I'm glad you brought up this example. Because this type of thing happens every day.

So, I have the cure. Everybody is going to die. Of course, I (And I assume every reasonable person in the world) is going to share the cure. You know absent any mitigating circumstances.

Now if we're talking about this extreme example in terms of my rights, what these people do not have a right to do is march into my room with guns and take the cure at the risk of violence. If we're talking in extremes, let's assume these people on the ship raped and killed my family. They can reason with me. They can plead. They do not have a right to put a gun in my face and say "Hand it over". Clearly, to do so would be a violation of my right to live. Don't you agree?

GL2 said:

Poor kids from poor families go to poor schools and do poorly. And vice versa.

Poor kids with intact families with an emphasis on education do pretty well, even in poor schools.

And affluent kids generally do well - period.

So, kids who's parents are willing to do whatever it takes to educate their kids get their kids educated? Seems a lot like how it would work in the free market.

And what your saying is an indictment of the system. This is the very system you are defending. Shame on you for defending it!

RealityForAll said:

TylerDurden said:

tom said:

TylerDurden said:

I think your examination of the situation is superficial at best. People do not have a right to the labor of others.

Incredibly enough, those two sentences followed each other. Someone needs to work on their introspection skills.

I've explained this numerous times in the past. How can you have a right to something, if that right infringes on the rights of another? To have a right to healthcare, one must violate the property rights of others. It is an illogical position to have.

XVI amendment overrules Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co and allows the federal government to tax income directly (and without apportionment by population). As a lawful constitutional amendment, it is almost possible to claim that federal income taxation should be treated as a taking.

However, a number of people have had the same thought as TD (namely to limit the taxing ability of the Congress by limiting the maximum tax rate). See http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/41788398?sid=21105827684021&uid=4&uid=3739808&uid=2&uid=3739256

The takings argument that you have been advancing is a non-starter. However, maybe you are the person to revive the attached amendment to the constitution to limit income taxes to 25%.

This argument may make sense if you believe that individuals only have rights because the government gives them to the individual.

TylerDurden said:

First, I'd like to point out that I'm glad you brought up this example. Because this type of thing happens every day.

I've been trying to think of a plumbing example.

Your water heater springs a leak. You turn off the main and drain the tank. You use the internet to find the name and number of three reliable plumbers. After receiving three quotes, you pick the cheapest as they're all highly regarded. Your water heater is replaced 2 days later and everyone is happy.

Your daughter's neck springs a leak. You call 911 and get rushed to the nearest hospital. You don't ask any questions. The hospital you wind up at is out of network. The bill is $150,000. You are bankrupt. The end.

sac said:

"How DO you talk to a far-right-winger? Answer: You don’t. I'm serious. Just stop. Don’t bother. You’re wasting your breath."

"In fact, you may be doing even worse than wasting your breath. Every argument you have only makes their beliefs stronger. "

http://www.chasingglennbeck.com/homeblog/2015/3/29/how-to-talk-to-a-far-right-winger.html

So don't converse then. I mean it beats thinking or god forbid seeing another perspective. You can use that same argument for anyone you disagree with. Other than the pointless voting part.

The American Voter gets a vote. What they don't get is the ability to alter policy in any meaningful way.

RobB said:

TylerDurden said:

First, I'd like to point out that I'm glad you brought up this example. Because this type of thing happens every day.

I've been trying to think of a plumbing example.

Your water heater springs a leak. You turn off the main and drain the tank. You use the internet to find the name and number of three reliable plumbers. After receiving three quotes, you pick the cheapest as they're all highly regarded. Your water heater is replaced 2 days later and everyone is happy.

Your daughter's neck springs a leak. You call 911 and get rushed to the nearest hospital. You don't ask any questions. The hospital you wind up at is out of network. The bill is $150,000. You are bankrupt. The end.

I like how the problem here isn't that fixing a flesh wound is a ridiculous $150,000.

TylerDurden said:

RobB said:

TylerDurden said:

First, I'd like to point out that I'm glad you brought up this example. Because this type of thing happens every day.

I've been trying to think of a plumbing example.

Your water heater springs a leak. You turn off the main and drain the tank. You use the internet to find the name and number of three reliable plumbers. After receiving three quotes, you pick the cheapest as they're all highly regarded. Your water heater is replaced 2 days later and everyone is happy.

Your daughter's neck springs a leak. You call 911 and get rushed to the nearest hospital. You don't ask any questions. The hospital you wind up at is out of network. The bill is $150,000. You are bankrupt. The end.

I like how the problem here isn't that fixing a flesh wound is a ridiculous $150,000.

During treatment for her minor flesh wound (to the neck), a spinal tumor was discovered.

RobB said:

TylerDurden said:

RobB said:

TylerDurden said:

First, I'd like to point out that I'm glad you brought up this example. Because this type of thing happens every day.

I've been trying to think of a plumbing example.

Your water heater springs a leak. You turn off the main and drain the tank. You use the internet to find the name and number of three reliable plumbers. After receiving three quotes, you pick the cheapest as they're all highly regarded. Your water heater is replaced 2 days later and everyone is happy.

Your daughter's neck springs a leak. You call 911 and get rushed to the nearest hospital. You don't ask any questions. The hospital you wind up at is out of network. The bill is $150,000. You are bankrupt. The end.

I like how the problem here isn't that fixing a flesh wound is a ridiculous $150,000.

During treatment for her minor flesh wound (to the neck), a spinal tumor was discovered.

At which point she was struck by lightning? The funny thing is, if you told me the story, and you said it was $150K, I wouldn't bat an eye.

TylerDurden said:

I mean it beats thinking or god forbid seeing another perspective.

Sorry, my coffee just came out my nose.

Your pipe springs a leak. You immediately shut off all water to your house. But you can't afford a plumber.

Not to worry - You just have to go to the Communal Well.
The problem is that the cost of maintaining the Communal Well, which cost is shared by all taxpayers, is more than the cost of everyone having plumbing insurance.

Remedy?