"The problem with decriminalization, versus legal and well-regulated frameworks, is that it becomes impossible to address the bad — exploitation, trafficking, and quality-of-life issues."
"Exploitation" is too loose a word. Employees and employers exploit each other. Shoppers exploit sales. Politicians and bureaucrats exploit everybody.
"Quality of life" is even more useless.
That leaves "trafficking" which has been bandied about so much in just plain prostitution cases that it hasn't got much distinctive meaning left either.
Whereas if any of those refer to coercion or other illegal acts, that remains illegal. So I'm not at all clear as to what "bad" you are talking about.
If the 2% tax was implemented by NYS, it would have to be marginal. I believe the Mamdani proposals are effectively anchoring to unrealistic taxes and costs so that anything done might seem reasonable. Whether on purpose or not.
as to middle class entitlements i would suggest based upon what i have seen that they can be provided for , but higher taxes on middle income earners will have to take place. The Denmark, Norway and Sweden all provide for high levels of entitlements but in return they are taxed at much higher rates than Americans.
I'm all for scrutinizing social insurance -- employer "provided" health insurance, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA subsidies, SNAP -- benefits and revenues. The ideal time to do that would have been _before_ extending all the deficit creating tax cuts of 2017 and adding to them. Why try to reduce social insurance benefits toward the amounts being generated by a _wage tax_ at rates set in the '70's?
I’d love to hear more of your thinking on the issue of medical care. My understanding is that the subsidies were to Medicaid recipients who, by definition, are lower income. RK
It only dawned on me now that you seem to have conflated the higher federal taxpayer money going to states to enroll more people into Medicaid who agreed to Obamacare rules to allow higher limits on Medicaid eligibility (with the Feds paying for 100% of the increase in the short term and 90% in the long term) with the subsidies for people buying Obamacare policies.
I opposed and oppose both parts, but I acknowledge one can make a reasonable leftist case for the Medicaid expansion being “goodness”.
But that is separate from the reality that people who buy Obamacare policies - and the current complaints about how health insurance prices to consumers are going up - are NOT Medicaid recipients.
The ACA subsidies added during COVID were about higher income people, not lower income people.
There is a separate discussion about what to do about the 10 year subsidies put in place when ObamaCare was enacted (budget rules gimmicks related).
The former is simply indefensible.
The latter I hope is eliminated and Obamacare’s one-size-fits-all policies go away - which given that the penalties for non-Obamacare-compliant plans are now zero is indeed feasible - but in any case that is a much more complicated question.
Ok. Help me out here. There’s a report in the Times “Here’s How Much Obamacare Prices Are Rising Across the Country” based on data provided by KFF. The report claims:
1. About half of the folks on the Obamacare marketplaces make less than $24k per year.
2. Around 40% of enrollees earn between $24k and $63k, leaving 10% in higher pay levels.
3. At these highest levels of income, only those who are older will be eligible for a subsidy. These folks typically have very high insurance costs.
Is this what you are talking about?
I agree that the system is hopelessly complicated. But in order to make it better and not have the least efficient healthcare delivery system in the developed world, we will have to have a much broader consensus than we have had so far. RK
There is no good reason to assume that almost all of the people on Obamacare receiving subsidies are single people without children, yet that is what you and your stats seem to be doing,
Beyond that, you and it sounds like the report you cite are conflating two separate things:
1. GOP refusal to extend the 2020 subsidies (passed without a single Republican vote) for much higher income people and the EVEN GREATER THAN ORIGINAL higher subsidies for those with lower incomes.
2. GOP unwillingness to unilaterally fix the reality that the already generous subsidies in the original Obamacare that was passed without a single Republican vote are insufficiently high for a ridiculously generous and expensive medical plan.
Andy, perhaps I’m misreading the ChatGPT output incorrectly, but what I see is of the output is that it is almost identical to the Times report.
Besides that, my point about needing more of a consensus is not really covered in the report. What I am saying is that in my opinion, if we have to fix our healthcare system (generally acknowledged to be really inefficient in terms of cost vs outcomes) we need more agreement nation-wide. RK
But in reality it is Dems who have shut down the government because they don’t like that elections have consequences and they don’t get their way.
Their actions here say “do what we want or we will shut down the government, and our allies in the media will blame you for this, and our voters will believe that”.
Yet the media you are reading and citing not only doesn’t acknowledge this but they imply and often outright state the opposite.
Trump has even stated that if they end the government shutdown he will negotiate with them on Obamacare subsidies. And no doubt do far more than I would and help perpetuate the horribly inefficient, economically wasteful system we have now.
The more complete ChatGPT response seems accurate. I, at least, have not confused the temporary subsidies with the permanent ones. Note that ChatGPT cites the same study that is the basis for the Times article. The article itself is a pretty easy read.
Regarding government shut downs, and one can throw in debt ceiling crises here, I am fine with calling it what it is — politics. By my count this is the first one triggered by Democrats. Correct?
BYW, do I read your last sentence correctly? Anyways, I do think we are at least lined up on some of the main facts. RK
> "The problem with decriminalization, versus legal and well-regulated frameworks, is that it becomes impossible to address the bad — exploitation, trafficking, and quality-of-life issues."
Actually it's exactly the opposite!
When something it's considered criminal, it goes underground and society can hardly control or handle it. It becomes "out of reach" because criminals operate "in the dark" (socially speaking), at the fringe and not in the open.
Instead when something is legal it can be regulated and controlled, and its bad sides examined and addressed - because then it operates in the open. It becomes visible, because there's no need to hide it "in the dark".
Prostitutes themselves have said, time and again, that criminalizing sex work does not protect them, but it hurts them first; because then they cannot seek lawful protection or help.
You have it backwards. Maybe your morality clouded your ability to reason?
I don't understand this --
"The problem with decriminalization, versus legal and well-regulated frameworks, is that it becomes impossible to address the bad — exploitation, trafficking, and quality-of-life issues."
"Exploitation" is too loose a word. Employees and employers exploit each other. Shoppers exploit sales. Politicians and bureaucrats exploit everybody.
"Quality of life" is even more useless.
That leaves "trafficking" which has been bandied about so much in just plain prostitution cases that it hasn't got much distinctive meaning left either.
Whereas if any of those refer to coercion or other illegal acts, that remains illegal. So I'm not at all clear as to what "bad" you are talking about.
If the 2% tax was implemented by NYS, it would have to be marginal. I believe the Mamdani proposals are effectively anchoring to unrealistic taxes and costs so that anything done might seem reasonable. Whether on purpose or not.
as to middle class entitlements i would suggest based upon what i have seen that they can be provided for , but higher taxes on middle income earners will have to take place. The Denmark, Norway and Sweden all provide for high levels of entitlements but in return they are taxed at much higher rates than Americans.
Bold empowered sex workers/victims of human trafficking. Prostitutes as Schrodinger's cats.
I'm all for scrutinizing social insurance -- employer "provided" health insurance, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ACA subsidies, SNAP -- benefits and revenues. The ideal time to do that would have been _before_ extending all the deficit creating tax cuts of 2017 and adding to them. Why try to reduce social insurance benefits toward the amounts being generated by a _wage tax_ at rates set in the '70's?
The Illinois inheritance tax works the same way as the proposed 2% tax. At $4M estate no tax, at $4,000,001 tax starts at $32K.
Most states match the federal exemption but Illinois want your $
I’d love to hear more of your thinking on the issue of medical care. My understanding is that the subsidies were to Medicaid recipients who, by definition, are lower income. RK
It only dawned on me now that you seem to have conflated the higher federal taxpayer money going to states to enroll more people into Medicaid who agreed to Obamacare rules to allow higher limits on Medicaid eligibility (with the Feds paying for 100% of the increase in the short term and 90% in the long term) with the subsidies for people buying Obamacare policies.
I opposed and oppose both parts, but I acknowledge one can make a reasonable leftist case for the Medicaid expansion being “goodness”.
But that is separate from the reality that people who buy Obamacare policies - and the current complaints about how health insurance prices to consumers are going up - are NOT Medicaid recipients.
The ACA subsidies added during COVID were about higher income people, not lower income people.
There is a separate discussion about what to do about the 10 year subsidies put in place when ObamaCare was enacted (budget rules gimmicks related).
The former is simply indefensible.
The latter I hope is eliminated and Obamacare’s one-size-fits-all policies go away - which given that the penalties for non-Obamacare-compliant plans are now zero is indeed feasible - but in any case that is a much more complicated question.
Ok. Help me out here. There’s a report in the Times “Here’s How Much Obamacare Prices Are Rising Across the Country” based on data provided by KFF. The report claims:
1. About half of the folks on the Obamacare marketplaces make less than $24k per year.
2. Around 40% of enrollees earn between $24k and $63k, leaving 10% in higher pay levels.
3. At these highest levels of income, only those who are older will be eligible for a subsidy. These folks typically have very high insurance costs.
Is this what you are talking about?
I agree that the system is hopelessly complicated. But in order to make it better and not have the least efficient healthcare delivery system in the developed world, we will have to have a much broader consensus than we have had so far. RK
The percentage claims you cite are not accurate.
Here’s ChatGPT with much more accurate data:
https://chatgpt.com/share/690a7bc4-633c-8005-94d5-ba3336f3e2f3
There is no good reason to assume that almost all of the people on Obamacare receiving subsidies are single people without children, yet that is what you and your stats seem to be doing,
Beyond that, you and it sounds like the report you cite are conflating two separate things:
1. GOP refusal to extend the 2020 subsidies (passed without a single Republican vote) for much higher income people and the EVEN GREATER THAN ORIGINAL higher subsidies for those with lower incomes.
2. GOP unwillingness to unilaterally fix the reality that the already generous subsidies in the original Obamacare that was passed without a single Republican vote are insufficiently high for a ridiculously generous and expensive medical plan.
Andy, perhaps I’m misreading the ChatGPT output incorrectly, but what I see is of the output is that it is almost identical to the Times report.
Besides that, my point about needing more of a consensus is not really covered in the report. What I am saying is that in my opinion, if we have to fix our healthcare system (generally acknowledged to be really inefficient in terms of cost vs outcomes) we need more agreement nation-wide. RK
I don’t disagree with your last statement.
But in reality it is Dems who have shut down the government because they don’t like that elections have consequences and they don’t get their way.
Their actions here say “do what we want or we will shut down the government, and our allies in the media will blame you for this, and our voters will believe that”.
Yet the media you are reading and citing not only doesn’t acknowledge this but they imply and often outright state the opposite.
Trump has even stated that if they end the government shutdown he will negotiate with them on Obamacare subsidies. And no doubt do far more than I would and help perpetuate the horribly inefficient, economically wasteful system we have now.
The more complete ChatGPT response seems accurate. I, at least, have not confused the temporary subsidies with the permanent ones. Note that ChatGPT cites the same study that is the basis for the Times article. The article itself is a pretty easy read.
Regarding government shut downs, and one can throw in debt ceiling crises here, I am fine with calling it what it is — politics. By my count this is the first one triggered by Democrats. Correct?
BYW, do I read your last sentence correctly? Anyways, I do think we are at least lined up on some of the main facts. RK
https://chatgpt.com/share/690a7e3b-4898-8005-9092-8b91ae76a7b5
Here is more detail for you on the subsidies that I thought I had also included previously but clearly forgot to insert.
I thought the point of the ACA subsidies was to keep the pool of insured people diverse and avoid adverse selection.
How does the Fed changing its approach to QT/QE impact rates, if at all?
> "The problem with decriminalization, versus legal and well-regulated frameworks, is that it becomes impossible to address the bad — exploitation, trafficking, and quality-of-life issues."
Actually it's exactly the opposite!
When something it's considered criminal, it goes underground and society can hardly control or handle it. It becomes "out of reach" because criminals operate "in the dark" (socially speaking), at the fringe and not in the open.
Instead when something is legal it can be regulated and controlled, and its bad sides examined and addressed - because then it operates in the open. It becomes visible, because there's no need to hide it "in the dark".
Prostitutes themselves have said, time and again, that criminalizing sex work does not protect them, but it hurts them first; because then they cannot seek lawful protection or help.
You have it backwards. Maybe your morality clouded your ability to reason?
I'm not going to shed crocodile tears over a 2% surcharge when there's an allowance for depreciation on commercial properties.
I also don't engage with women who are obviously more intelligent than me. A man's gotta know his limitations!