Governor Perry's Refusing of 100 Billion in Fed Funds (ACA)

[Stuck in the mud]

Easy there!

Wrong on the facts? Yes. Utter and complete lie? No, probably just wrong on the facts. But no worse than some of the others I've seen posting on this thread... on both sides of the issue.

Will states who participate in the program incur hefty costs after a couple of years? Absolutely. And that's the point. Exactly how much will it cost? I doubt anyone really knows. With virtually every state awash in cash these days, it probably shouldn't matter though... should it?

We can debate whether services should be expanded... but let's put to bed this ridiculous notion that somehow it'll be free.

[slowmover]

Originally Posted by Stuck in the mud

Easy there!

Wrong on the facts? Yes. Utter and complete lie? No, probably just wrong on the facts.

When you state something that is not true, it is a false statement. Now you either made the statement knowing it is false to make your point, or you just repeated something you heard that sounds good. While the later is not a lie it is perhaps even worse. You have just unknowingly passed on a lie and given it an air of credibility.

[Stuck in the mud]

Originally Posted by slowmover

When you state something that is not true, it is a false statement. Now you either made the statement knowing it is false to make your point, or you just repeated something you heard that sounds good. While the later is not a lie it is perhaps even worse. You have just unknowingly passed on a lie and given it an air of credibility.

... or he could have just been wrong on the facts.

It happens dude.

[TexTushHog]

Paying 10% and paying 100% is a hell of a difference!!

[Stuck in the mud]

Agreed. But pay we will. And I highly doubt anyone has a clue how much.

You've correctly established that the state's portion is 10%, but that's meaningless unless we know the total.

Maybe we can talk about THAT. Should we expand a service, and if so, how much are we willing to pay?

Doesn't matter if Perry's an idiot.
Kinda pointless to debate whether a mistake is worse than a lie (but if you must, we can take a look at some of the posts from Autxjr and have the debate).

My preference is a civil conversation... maybe that's just me.

[RelaxationJunkie]

Originally Posted by Stuck in the mud

My preference is a civil conversation... maybe that's just me.

Tis better to avoid political topics altogether then.

[Stuck in the mud]

Originally Posted by RelaxationJunkie

Tis better to avoid political topics altogether then.

But... but... they started it!

[Luv4Fun]

I've read all this and my net-net is, it's a really dumb if not dangerous idea to try and get informed on difficult and complex issues via the internet - particularly from sources without any credentials like ECCIE.

Beware of any one-sided argument. It can be factual without being accurate.

I think the current private insurance system is broken. I'm glad someone tried to reform it. I don't like the reforms but I'm willing to accept them. I pretty much believe that if we are swimming in upteen-trillion dollars *more* debt (I know, I know) in five years, congress will likely revisit it. And if they don't, we'll simply elect Republicans or tea-party folks who will demolish the whole thing.

As to the original poster's question - the easiest path in Texas politics is Republican. And the easiest current Republican path is "if Obama's for it, kill it." Rick Perry is almost certainly playing politics (and not very bright politics) in the same venue as "succession", "no stimulus money", "sue the fed's, the ACA is unconstitutional" and others...

The larger picture of %-of-GDP expenditures, quality-of-living questions, morality of limited access healthcare... Those don't tend to play as well in election cycles as "did you see what happened to my tax bill?"

Want to know why Perry is against ACA? Anyone who plays in politics knows to follow the money. The money in this state is Republican. As you have largely (it sounds like) already surmised, it's the poor that get hurt. (and in a unrelated foot note, I've personally decided - after being a Republican for 20yrs - that the Republicans answer to that is "f*** the poor, they should get some money.")

[Stuck in the mud]

Good post.

I largely agree with your first five paragraphs... as they relate to complicated topics and the internet... and as they relate to the polticians.
I guess I'm even a bit more cynical than you. I tend to see virtually all politicians as you describe Perry. Only question is to whom they pander. One things for sure, they'll be doing it with someone else's money.
Because I see it like that, the last thing I want to do is give them even more power.

[blue3122]

Originally Posted by BirdDawg

...or, It forces states to do a better job of providing health care. You could look at it as giving the states 3 years to get their health care together.

On the other hand, with all the companies like Walmart and Whole foods going to a full staff of part-timers to avoid helping their employees with health care, we're probably screwed anyway...

Now, if anyone can figure out how to get TX, MS and many more backward ass states to do better funding education the next generations might be better off.

Consider that there is no correlation between educational spending and educational outcomes. Some of the states with the highest educational outcomes have the lowest spending per student. Some of the states that spend the most have the worst outcomes. Get the data and run a regression analysis.

[blue3122]

Originally Posted by austxjr

You obviously don't understand macro-economics or a fiat monetary system. It is nothing like over drafting your checking account. Most of that money that we "owe" is owed to ourselves and about 1/3rd that isn't owed to ourselves is owed in dollars which we create (most aren't even printed, it is just ones and zeros on a computer at the Fed).

First off, in a fiat monetary system (which Richard Nixon put us on in the first place) if the government doesn't "print" money for the private sector to use, then there is no money. Government spends $1 so private sector has $1 to use and then $.30 is paid in taxes (which are then mostly spent with the private sector). Where the heck did you think the money came from in the first place, a money tree? How do you think the accounting is done for a sovereign currency creator? Oh, you don't know and didn't think about it because you though it was just like your checkbook. It isn't. Period.

Complete lack of understanding of the Federal Reserve creation and purpose and zero understanding of free market wealth creation.

Best to read Friedman's paper on the stone money of Yap before spouting off on a monetary system.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by Luv4Fun

Want to know why Perry is against ACA? Anyone who plays in politics knows to follow the money. The money in this state is Republican. As you have largely (it sounds like) already surmised, it's the poor that get hurt. (and in a unrelated foot note, I've personally decided - after being a Republican for 20yrs - that the Republicans answer to that is "f*** the poor, they should get some money.")

Yeah, but at some point, the "fuck the poor" argument only goes so far for two reasons. And Perry will eventually have to deal with both. First, hospitals and doctors are part of the Republican coalition in Texas. And they would dearly love to get more people in Texas insured because that's extra business (and money) for them. Right now, the 25+% of Texans who have no insurance get some care, but not all that they need. It's a great untapped market for the docs and hospitals.

Second, to the extent that the care that the unisured get is "uncompensated," that really means it's being paid for by a combination of 1) premiums paid by business who do provide health insurance for their employees (and individuals who pay for their own issuance); 2) docs and hospitals in reduced profit margins; and 3) direct government subsides. That cost is growing by leaps and bounds each year. I'm a businessman who owns two businesses and I'm sick of paying higher premiums because other businesses won't provide health insurance for their employees, or because people won't buy insurance for themselves or for their families. It places me, as an ethical businessman who takes care of my employees, at a competative disadvantage over those of my competitors who don't provide insurance. So Perry will eventually face pressure from both the health care industry, and from general businesses, to join in with other States when the ACA succeeds elsewhere (assuming it does at least partially succeed, as I expect it to).

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by blue3122

Consider that there is no correlation between educational spending and educational outcomes. Some of the states with the highest educational outcomes have the lowest spending per student. Some of the states that spend the most have the worst outcomes. Get the data and run a regression analysis.

Only if you don't equalize for all the other variables. The real world isn't a two variable simulation. Equalize for other factors and there is a fairly strong correlation.

See e.g.: http://www.udel.edu/johnmack/researc...ol_funding.pdf

There's actually a trial going on about this various issue right now and Texas is getting it's ass kicked. Everybody in the State government knows it's getting they're ass kicked, too.

[blue3122]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Only if you don't equalize for all the other variables. The real world isn't a two variable simulation. Equalize for other factors and there is a fairly strong correlation.

See e.g.: http://www.udel.edu/johnmack/researc...ol_funding.pdf

There's actually a trial going on about this various issue right now and Texas is getting it's ass kicked. Everybody in the State government knows it's getting they're ass kicked, too.

Yes. The real world which I live in has an infinite amount of variables. However the first four moment generating functions (for those of you who understand what a partial differential equation is) covers about 99.5% of the curve. When using these four functions, there is an extremely weak correlation between dollars and outcomes when it comes to education.

The source you quote, if you dig further, has a job of defending public education and getting resource grants (i.e. his purpose is not to find truth but to get more money).

One of the problems with any government program is either a) there is not an outcome measurement system that is useful or b) the outcome measurement system is biased to help generate more allocation of tax dollars to the program.

If money were the solution, the US would have zero poverty.