112th Congress: Everybody's Angry At Everybody

JihadJesus

Well, yeah. And Medicaire/medicaid is sure to be metric fucktons larger than they are, which is why it's stupid that we don't use them to negotiate collectively on pricing across the board. Of course then there's also shit like this. It cost $250 million to perfect a drug they intended to sell for $30k....of a treatment that already exists and is availble for around $400. Of course they expected to get the FDA to shut down the competition and then they'd hold the patent and make literally billions, but thankfully the FDA told them where to stick it.

Fuck. That. Noise.

schuss

JihadJesus wrote: »

Well, yeah. And Medicaire/medicaid is sure to be metric fucktons larger than they are, which is why it's stupid that we don't use them to negotiate collectively on pricing across the board. Of course then there's also shit like this. It cost $250 million to perfect a drug they intended to sell for $30k....of a treatment that already exists and is availble for around $400. Of course they expected to get the FDA to shut down the competition and then they'd hold the patent and make literally billions, but thankfully the FDA told them where to stick it.

Fuck. That. Noise.

Errr, if you think medicare/medicaid doesn't negotiate prices at all, you'd be wrong. They have a certain price they'll pay for treatments and no more. Apparently the big issue is usually medicare/medicaid not paying enough to cover costs (but it's non-negotiable), and the costs being passed onto other patients, which insurance generally fights as much as possible. On drugs, I have no idea if they negotiate.

AngelHedgie

SageinaRage wrote: »

Nice to know that agreeing with him for the wrong reasons is enough to get yelled at.

Seriously, he agrees with you. Calm down.

So...I shouldn't be bothered with him continuing to foster the big lie that keeps fueling the voter ID nonsense?

enlightenedbum

Rationing should be done by insurance companies, dammit! Specifically, the ones that keep getting me elected.

/Congress

Taramoor

schuss wrote: »

JihadJesus wrote: »

Well, yeah. And Medicaire/medicaid is sure to be metric fucktons larger than they are, which is why it's stupid that we don't use them to negotiate collectively on pricing across the board. Of course then there's also shit like this. It cost $250 million to perfect a drug they intended to sell for $30k....of a treatment that already exists and is availble for around $400. Of course they expected to get the FDA to shut down the competition and then they'd hold the patent and make literally billions, but thankfully the FDA told them where to stick it.

Fuck. That. Noise.

Errr, if you think medicare/medicaid doesn't negotiate prices at all, you'd be wrong. They have a certain price they'll pay for treatments and no more. Apparently the big issue is usually medicare/medicaid not paying enough to cover costs (but it's non-negotiable), and the costs being passed onto other patients, which insurance generally fights as much as possible. On drugs, I have no idea if they negotiate.

I thought Medicare Part D specifically prevented them from negotiating on drug prices.

JihadJesus

schuss wrote: »

JihadJesus wrote: »

Well, yeah. And Medicaire/medicaid is sure to be metric fucktons larger than they are, which is why it's stupid that we don't use them to negotiate collectively on pricing across the board. Of course then there's also shit like this. It cost $250 million to perfect a drug they intended to sell for $30k....of a treatment that already exists and is availble for around $400. Of course they expected to get the FDA to shut down the competition and then they'd hold the patent and make literally billions, but thankfully the FDA told them where to stick it.

Fuck. That. Noise.

Errr, if you think medicare/medicaid doesn't negotiate prices at all, you'd be wrong. They have a certain price they'll pay for treatments and no more. Apparently the big issue is usually medicare/medicaid not paying enough to cover costs (but it's non-negotiable), and the costs being passed onto other patients, which insurance generally fights as much as possible. On drugs, I have no idea if they negotiate.

It's my understanding that prescriptions and so forth aren't subject to the same price controls that other specific treatments are, which is why I said 'across the board' - I was saying it was very odd we used the programs collective powers in one area but not in the other, and that it wasn't a coincidence.

I could be wrong about that, but I've heard a lot of talk about using the two as a cost control mechanism in both prescriptions and more importantly requiring effective and substantiated best practices.

Deebaser

schuss wrote: »

Errr, if you think medicare/medicaid doesn't negotiate prices at all, you'd be wrong. They have a certain price they'll pay for treatments and no more. Apparently the big issue is usually medicare/medicaid not paying enough to cover costs (but it's non-negotiable), and the costs being passed onto other patients, which insurance generally fights as much as possible. On drugs, I have no idea if they negotiate.

There are very few procedures where the medicare rate doesn't cover costs. For example, I recall an instance where there were major complications that turned a fairly routine surgery into a 10+ hour affair and the NEUROSURGEON was only paid about $1000 for the effort, because that was the contracted rate for the procedure. (numbers are approximations, this was a long ass time ago) Shit like this is a fluke and sneaks it's way into private provider contract agreements as well.

There's no law that says doctors have to accept Medicare. It's network development people are just really fucking good at leveraging their massive headcount into getting the best deal possible, like any private insurance carrier.

schuss

I just know based on what my Sister has told me (manages a nursing unit), as a higher proportion of medicare/medicaid makes it tougher to run the department, so they try to have a solid mix of private/public.

Deebaser

JihadJesus wrote: »

It's my understanding that prescriptions and so forth aren't subject to the same price controls that other specific treatments are, which is why I said 'across the board' - I was saying it was very odd we used the programs collective powers in one area but not in the other, and that it wasn't a coincidence.

I could be wrong about that, but I've heard a lot of talk about using the two as a cost control mechanism in both prescriptions and more importantly requiring effective and substantiated best practices.

This is correct. The Pharm lobby is HUGE. Insurance companies are now largely cost prohibited from actually insuring Rx and have outsourced the actual insuring of their Rx benefits to companies owned by pharm companies (ie Medco and ummm... I dont know off the top of my head. I think Medco may be one of the last ones standing).

kdrudy

schuss wrote: »

I just know based on what my Sister has told me (manages a nursing unit), as a higher proportion of medicare/medicaid makes it tougher to run the department, so they try to have a solid mix of private/public.

It ends up being a double-edged sword from what I remember of my time working in the middle of this process. It isn't as much but you always know the medicare/medicaid money will be coming and what it will be, the private insurance money might not be what you charged and it might take a while to get there because of the run-around the insurance company will cause. That's at least what a number of people I worked with saw anyways.

The Muffin Man

AngelHedgie wrote: »

SageinaRage wrote: »

Nice to know that agreeing with him for the wrong reasons is enough to get yelled at.

Seriously, he agrees with you. Calm down.

So...I shouldn't be bothered with him continuing to foster the big lie that keeps fueling the voter ID nonsense?

Yeah, if Spools not with you, then he's against you!
Now where have I heard that ignorant "If you don't agree with me EXACTLY, you might as well disagree with me" rhetoric before...

a5ehren

kdrudy wrote: »

schuss wrote: »

I just know based on what my Sister has told me (manages a nursing unit), as a higher proportion of medicare/medicaid makes it tougher to run the department, so they try to have a solid mix of private/public.

It ends up being a double-edged sword from what I remember of my time working in the middle of this process. It isn't as much but you always know the medicare/medicaid money will be coming and what it will be, the private insurance money might not be what you charged and it might take a while to get there because of the run-around the insurance company will cause. That's at least what a number of people I worked with saw anyways.

The hospital (or at least the unit) my wife works at claims they haven't gotten any of their Medicaid payments since last June. I'm assuming that's a state problem, though.

enlightenedbum

Paul Ryan's plan is a bit of an oopsie.

Also, I wish this were longer, but the derisive laughter at the idea that we "tax the top" from Ryan's constituents amuses me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5kgnE1Xvec&feature=player_embedded

TheOtherHorseman

schuss wrote: »

JihadJesus wrote: »

Well, yeah. And Medicaire/medicaid is sure to be metric fucktons larger than they are, which is why it's stupid that we don't use them to negotiate collectively on pricing across the board. Of course then there's also shit like this. It cost $250 million to perfect a drug they intended to sell for $30k....of a treatment that already exists and is availble for around $400. Of course they expected to get the FDA to shut down the competition and then they'd hold the patent and make literally billions, but thankfully the FDA told them where to stick it.

Fuck. That. Noise.

Errr, if you think medicare/medicaid doesn't negotiate prices at all, you'd be wrong. They have a certain price they'll pay for treatments and no more. Apparently the big issue is usually medicare/medicaid not paying enough to cover costs (but it's non-negotiable), and the costs being passed onto other patients, which insurance generally fights as much as possible. On drugs, I have no idea if they negotiate.

They are legally not allowed to negotiate drug prices. They don't really negotiate non-drug treatments either - they just tell hospitals how much they'll be reimbursed for treatments.

nexuscrawler

Yeah there's some real dumb shit with how medicare is handled

like they'll pay for an xray every month or so. Guess what grandma's getting another x-ray! what do you mean she has parkisans she totally needs another one

s7apster

I'm not sure how it works in the U.S, but in Canada, prescription drug pricing is completely absurd. With drugs whose patents have expired (ie there are a slew of generic substitutes on the market) it works like this:

Instead of putting them all on the shelf and having them compete on price for sales (like in, say, EVERY OTHER INDUSTRY with perfect substitutes) the pharmacy only stocks one generic brand. How do they decide which one? Well, they stock the one that gives the biggest rebate to the pharmacy in return for being stocked. The sticker price is therefore, very highly inflated. Luckily, old, sick people aren't always prepared to go shopping around for the best price for their meds, and when it's covered by their insurance, that likelihood goes to zero.

DevoutlyApathetic

nexuscrawler wrote: »

Yeah there's some real dumb shit with how medicare is handled

like they'll pay for an xray every month or so. Guess what grandma's getting another x-ray! what do you mean she has parkisans she totally needs another one

It has had a long history of stupid dealing with medicare money.

It started without any kind of price controls at all. Just treat grandma and send the government the bill.

A system to kind for this world.

JihadJesus

Yeah, the pricing system for medical care is stupidly opaque, and for the most part people don't care as long as insurance covers it. Shit, if you're getting charged more than all your other bills outside the mortgage combined for your premiums every month you almost feel vindicated. Fuck yeah that ER visit cost 2 grand for 6 stitches and 5 minutes with an ER doc, it better or why am I paying for insurance!

Speaker

Megan McArdle - Just a Little Tax Hike

Kevin Drum doesn't think it will be so hard to solve our fiscal problems with tax hikes:

Kevin Drum wrote:

I said that federal taxes had averaged 21% of GDP over the past 30 years, and Ross correctly points out that it's federal spending that's averaged 21%. On a macro level this might or might not matter ("to spend is to tax"), but it does matter if we're trying to figure out how voters will react to an increase in the total tax take. However, I continue to believe that the impact would be much less than Ross thinks. The federal tax take was around 20% of GDP during the Clinton era, so here's what we're talking about: letting the Bush tax cuts expire in a couple of years and then raising tax rates by about four or five points of GDP over the next 20 or 30 years. Done reasonably and fairly, I just don't believe that an increase this gradual would be wildly oppressive.

This is not true, and it's important to point out why it's not true. First of all, while it is technically true that the federal tax take was "around 20% of GDP" during the Clinton era, this was only true at the height of the stock market bubble. Tax revenues exceeded 20% of GDP for exactly one year: 2000. The average tax take under Clinton was 19%. And if you exclude 1999 and 2000, the very height of the bubble, it was more like 18.5%.

Without arguing about whether our tax system is fair or not, the fact is that the federal income tax is the most variable part of the code, and the federal income tax is now very progressive; it collects most of its revenue from people at the top. (Whether it should collect even more is an argument for another day.) Because it collects most of its income from people at the top, and because the incomes of the wealthy are more variable than the incomes of the poor and middle class (Warren Buffett's income can drop by $300,000; mine can't), we're going to get deep troughs in recessions, and high peaks in boom times. We will get particularly high peaks when the booms are delivering huge chunks of income to a handful of people in a very short timeframe. According to the CBO, capital gains receipts alone, which more than doubled in Clinton's second term, accounted for more than 30% of the increase in income tax receipts above the rate of GDP growth. Obviously the ancillary ordinary income, like banking fees, also contributed substantially. Between 1996 and 2000, payroll taxes increased a tidy 30%. But income taxes increased by 55%. In 1996, social insurance receipts were about $500 billion, while income tax receipts were $650 billion. By 2000, payroll tax receipts had grown to $656 billion--but the income tax was collecting over a trillion. Today they're roughly at par again (though that won't last--social insurance contributions will drop as the worker to population ratio declines.)

Saying "all we have to do is go back to the tax rates under Clinton" is effectively saying "all we need is another asset price bubble that funnels a huge amount of money into the pockets of the rich". This seems neither particularly feasible, nor desirable.

If we pick, somewhat optimistically, the mean tax take of the Clinton years, that means that we need a tax hike of 5-6% of GDP. And not over 20-30 years. The CBO's baseline projection of the budget deficit, which assumes that the Bush tax cuts expire (and that the AMT is allowed to hit middle class incomes, and that the "doc fix" doesn't happen), is for budget deficits in the range of $750 billion. If you allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, but assume that we are not going to slash Medicare reimbursements for doctors by 30%, or let the AMT hit people making $75,000 a year, then it's more like $900 billion. If you assume that discretionary spending grows roughly in line with nominal GDP, it will be $1.2 trillion. Maybe that's only 5% of GDP by 2021. But it's still not a healthy and sustainable level of borrowing; we're going to have to raise taxes pretty quickly.

A tax hike of 5-6% of GDP doesn't sound like much. But that's a big tax hike if your baseline is 19%--it means that everyone's taxes go up by about a third. If the equilibrium tax revenue at Clinton rates is more like 18-18.5% of GDP, then obviously, they have to go up even higher, from a lower baseline. If you try to concentrate the pain on the wealthy or corporations, it's an even bigger whack. Meanwhile, state and local taxes will be going up too; they have many of the same pension and entitlement problems that the federal government does.

These aren't little adjustments. They're huge changes in the overall tax burden, and they will have big effects on peoples lives, and the economy.

enlightenedbum

I know this is attacking the source and bad form, but given her history, I'm going to assume McCardle's math is wrong.

Speaker

I'm unfamiliar with that history.

This should be easily check on wikipedia I think - let me see what the ratio of gdp to government revenue was in, say, 1996.

edit: for some reason I'm having a devilishly hard time finding a number for gdp in 1996 - can anyone get that number?

It looks like the 1996 budget was 1.6 trillion.

Found 7.8 trillion as gdp

making taxation 20.5%

Assuming the numbers I got from random places weren't bad (adjusted for inflation from other years etc.) then I'd say you hit the mark EB.

That's frustrating. On the other hand, go internet.

Deebaser

Why is it that "GDP to government revenue" is all of a sudden the new metric that everything has to be judged by? This stat seems to have only really entered policy discussion in the past month. Where the fuck did it come from? What does it really mean? Can we backwards shady math it to imply that raising taxes actually magically increases GDP?

AngelHedgie

The Muffin Man wrote: »

AngelHedgie wrote: »

SageinaRage wrote: »

Nice to know that agreeing with him for the wrong reasons is enough to get yelled at.

Seriously, he agrees with you. Calm down.

So...I shouldn't be bothered with him continuing to foster the big lie that keeps fueling the voter ID nonsense?

Yeah, if Spools not with you, then he's against you!
Now where have I heard that ignorant "If you don't agree with me EXACTLY, you might as well disagree with me" rhetoric before...

And the point continues to go over heads.

What he's doing is similar in dynamic to a backhanded compliment. Yes, he is saying that we shouldn't enact voter ID laws - while at the same time arguing that whether the vote fraud that these laws combat happens to any significant degree is an open question, despite all the evidence it isn't. The result is that he gets all of you to see him as agreeing, while continuing to fuel the bullshit that keeps bringing voter ID laws back.

Preacher

One thing I find alarming with all this "Well if we raise taxes on the rich it doesn't fix the problem fast enough!" malarkey is that its coming from similar sources that champion defunding NPR and planned parenthood like those are the end all.

enlightenedbum

Showing how wrong she is and how bad at math she is is a small cottage industry in the blogosphere. Examples (with more linked) here. Went with Think Progress as it's more respectable than most. Or Ezra Klein if you'd like a real reporter.

And then there's the purely snarky liberal version. Wherein Megan divides 75 billion by 300 million and gets 25. And then ignores her commenters when they correct her and continues making her argument baesd on her 25 number. What's an order of magnitude?

Speaker

Deebaser wrote: »

Why is it that "GDP to government revenue" is all of a sudden the new metric that everything has to be judged by? This stat seems to have only really entered policy discussion in the past month. Where the fuck did it come from? What does it really mean? Can we backwards shady math it to imply that raising taxes actually magically increases GDP?

I think it entered into things when the long term budget became an issue and the terms became total government revenue and the size of the economy to accomodate it over a span of several decades.

Speaker

enlightenedbum wrote: »

Showing how wrong she is and how bad at math she is is a small cottage industry in the blogosphere. Examples (with more linked) here. Went with Think Progress as it's more respectable than most. Or Ezra Klein if you'd like a real reporter.

And then there's the purely snarky liberal version. Wherein Megan divides 75 billion by 300 million and gets 25. And then ignores her commenters when they correct her and continues making her argument baesd on her 25 number. What's an order of magnitude?

Good to know.

enlightenedbum

Also, she became famous blogging under the moniker Jane Galt, sooooo

Jragghen

On the topic of tax cuts and who gets what and whatnot, reddit comment worth a read.

The big part:

The AP ran a pie chart in 2001 that I saw in a newspaper once and haven't seen since. It broke down who, exactly, benefited from the Bush Tax Cuts - remember, back when you got a $300 check as pablum to get you to shut up? Prosperity for everybody, right?

That graph had a lot of stuff on it that wouldn't surprise you. "Businesses" got a big chunk of it. "The Middle class" got a tiny chunk of it. "The wealthy" got a big chunk of it. But way down at the bottom, next to a "2%" there was an asterisk. That asterisk, down in the footnotes, said "Samuel, John, Christy, Alice and James Walton."1

2% of the benefits of an entire national tax cut - about four billion dollars - went directly to five people. Who happen to own Walmart. They cut you a $300 check so yo wouldn't grumble about it. Each Walton, individually, got more tax cut than 2.5 million people, collectively.

Speaker

enlightenedbum wrote: »

Also, she became famous blogging under the moniker Jane Galt, sooooo

That's so sad.

On Sullivan's blog today I learned that Greenwald married a 19 year old boy from Rio when he was 37.

All these top bloggers are a weird, freakish crew.

I suspect Yglesias was engineered in a lab by elite liberal scientists.

MuddBudd

Jragghen wrote: »

On the topic of tax cuts and who gets what and whatnot, reddit comment worth a read.

The big part:

The AP ran a pie chart in 2001 that I saw in a newspaper once and haven't seen since. It broke down who, exactly, benefited from the Bush Tax Cuts - remember, back when you got a $300 check as pablum to get you to shut up? Prosperity for everybody, right?

That graph had a lot of stuff on it that wouldn't surprise you. "Businesses" got a big chunk of it. "The Middle class" got a tiny chunk of it. "The wealthy" got a big chunk of it. But way down at the bottom, next to a "2%" there was an asterisk. That asterisk, down in the footnotes, said "Samuel, John, Christy, Alice and James Walton."1

2% of the benefits of an entire national tax cut - about four billion dollars - went directly to five people. Who happen to own Walmart. They cut you a $300 check so yo wouldn't grumble about it. Each Walton, individually, got more tax cut than 2.5 million people, collectively.

I suddenly want to burn down a Wal-Mart or three.

enlightenedbum

Speaker wrote: »

enlightenedbum wrote: »

Also, she became famous blogging under the moniker Jane Galt, sooooo

That's so sad.

On Sullivan's blog today I learned that Greenwald married a 19 year old boy from Rio when he was 37.

All these top bloggers are a weird, freakish crew.

I suspect Yglesias was engineered in a lab by elite liberal scientists.

Yeah, that raised my eyebrows a bit when I read it today. Andrew's pretty weird himself and is also really, really bad at math. I still read him because he does tend to grapple with his critics. Like the one who wrote a much longer version of the thing I posted in the Primary thread about gas prices (which I also e-mailed Sullivan about).

Digby and Atrios aren't weird to the best of my knowledge!

SageinaRage

AngelHedgie wrote: »

The Muffin Man wrote: »

AngelHedgie wrote: »

SageinaRage wrote: »

Nice to know that agreeing with him for the wrong reasons is enough to get yelled at.

Seriously, he agrees with you. Calm down.

So...I shouldn't be bothered with him continuing to foster the big lie that keeps fueling the voter ID nonsense?

Yeah, if Spools not with you, then he's against you!
Now where have I heard that ignorant "If you don't agree with me EXACTLY, you might as well disagree with me" rhetoric before...

And the point continues to go over heads.

What he's doing is similar in dynamic to a backhanded compliment. Yes, he is saying that we shouldn't enact voter ID laws - while at the same time arguing that whether the vote fraud that these laws combat happens to any significant degree is an open question, despite all the evidence it isn't. The result is that he gets all of you to see him as agreeing, while continuing to fuel the bullshit that keeps bringing voter ID laws back.

He's saying that he didn't see any evidence of fraud, therefore he didn't see a need for the laws. I really don't get what you're on about here. You're going to have to explain how you're not just being a pedantic bigot.

shryke

SageinaRage wrote: »

AngelHedgie wrote: »

The Muffin Man wrote: »

AngelHedgie wrote: »

SageinaRage wrote: »

Nice to know that agreeing with him for the wrong reasons is enough to get yelled at.

Seriously, he agrees with you. Calm down.

So...I shouldn't be bothered with him continuing to foster the big lie that keeps fueling the voter ID nonsense?

Yeah, if Spools not with you, then he's against you!
Now where have I heard that ignorant "If you don't agree with me EXACTLY, you might as well disagree with me" rhetoric before...

And the point continues to go over heads.

What he's doing is similar in dynamic to a backhanded compliment. Yes, he is saying that we shouldn't enact voter ID laws - while at the same time arguing that whether the vote fraud that these laws combat happens to any significant degree is an open question, despite all the evidence it isn't. The result is that he gets all of you to see him as agreeing, while continuing to fuel the bullshit that keeps bringing voter ID laws back.

He's saying that he didn't see any evidence of fraud, therefore he didn't see a need for the laws. I really don't get what you're on about here. You're going to have to explain how you're not just being a pedantic bigot.

No, Spool is saying we lack the ability to measure the fraud.

AngelHedgie is saying the fraud doesn't exist and that by couching the argument in terms of "well, we aren't sure, so we shouldn't do anything" he's continuing the bullshit beliefs that fraud actually does occur somewhere which is the thing that perpetuates the stupid voter ID laws in the first place.

It's not that fraud (the kind in question anyway) can't be proved or can't be measured or shown, it's that it doesn't happen. It's not even realistic for it to happen.

Voter ID laws are stupid because they fight a problem that doesn't even exist. And everytime you backhandedly pretend the problem does or might exist somewhere, you perpetuate their stupidity.

enc0re

Deebaser wrote: »

Why is it that "GDP to government revenue" is all of a sudden the new metric that everything has to be judged by? This stat seems to have only really entered policy discussion in the past month. Where the fuck did it come from? What does it really mean? Can we backwards shady math it to imply that raising taxes actually magically increases GDP?

It's been a standard measure ever since GDP measurement has been widespread. It's a first answer to the question: What part of your economy is run by the government?

Notice I say 'run' not 'paid for.' Transfer payments (like Social Security) aren't counted.

Speaker

enc0re wrote: »

Deebaser wrote: »

Why is it that "GDP to government revenue" is all of a sudden the new metric that everything has to be judged by? This stat seems to have only really entered policy discussion in the past month. Where the fuck did it come from? What does it really mean? Can we backwards shady math it to imply that raising taxes actually magically increases GDP?

It's been a standard measure ever since GDP measurement has been widespread. It's a first answer to the question: What part of your economy is run by the government?

Notice I say 'run' not 'paid for.' Transfer payments (like Social Security) aren't counted.

They aren't?

Maybe McArdle's numbers are right then. The number I used was the total budget number.

SageinaRage

shryke wrote: »

SageinaRage wrote: »

AngelHedgie wrote: »

The Muffin Man wrote: »

AngelHedgie wrote: »

SageinaRage wrote: »

Nice to know that agreeing with him for the wrong reasons is enough to get yelled at.

Seriously, he agrees with you. Calm down.

So...I shouldn't be bothered with him continuing to foster the big lie that keeps fueling the voter ID nonsense?

Yeah, if Spools not with you, then he's against you!
Now where have I heard that ignorant "If you don't agree with me EXACTLY, you might as well disagree with me" rhetoric before...

And the point continues to go over heads.

What he's doing is similar in dynamic to a backhanded compliment. Yes, he is saying that we shouldn't enact voter ID laws - while at the same time arguing that whether the vote fraud that these laws combat happens to any significant degree is an open question, despite all the evidence it isn't. The result is that he gets all of you to see him as agreeing, while continuing to fuel the bullshit that keeps bringing voter ID laws back.

He's saying that he didn't see any evidence of fraud, therefore he didn't see a need for the laws. I really don't get what you're on about here. You're going to have to explain how you're not just being a pedantic bigot.

No, Spool is saying we lack the ability to measure the fraud.

AngelHedgie is saying the fraud doesn't exist and that by couching the argument in terms of "well, we aren't sure, so we shouldn't do anything" he's continuing the bullshit beliefs that fraud actually does occur somewhere which is the thing that perpetuates the stupid voter ID laws in the first place.

It's not that fraud (the kind in question anyway) can't be proved or can't be measured or shown, it's that it doesn't happen. It's not even realistic for it to happen.

Voter ID laws are stupid because they fight a problem that doesn't even exist. And everytime you backhandedly pretend the problem does or might exist somewhere, you perpetuate their stupidity.

Lack the ability to measure the fraud? a) what the hell does that mean, b) where did he say that, and c) how is that functionally different? I actually did read the thread and am not an idiot, you're not just gonna bullshit me.

So far it's still pedantic bigots, people.


edit:: Looking a little more closely, is the issue that Spool is implying that fraud does or might exist? And Angel is saying that fraud doesn't exist AT ALL? Because if so, I wholeheartedly agree with Spool. Saying that fraud NEVER exists, and so therefore we don't need the laws, is a much more ignorant position than 'We need to see if the harm to the poor is worth any possible fraud prevention gains'.

shryke

Yeah, alright there. I'm not bullshiting you, I'm telling you what AngelHedgie is saying.

Here's where spool gathers his quotes together, you can look for yourself:
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?p=19032875#post19032875

I've already explained quite clearly the difference between what the 2 are saying. I'm not sure why you want to ignore it.

The position can best be summed up in this quote:

It seems unproven that a voter ID requirement is an effective way to prevent non-citizens from voting

Which again tacitly admits that this non-problem even exists. AngleHedgie's point is that he is propping up some seriously anti-democratic bullshit by pretending voter fraud of this sort is even realistic.

enlightenedbum

The point is that he's perpetuating the basis on which these discriminatory laws are based. The basis is faulty and should be stamped out. Hedgie's point (and the rest of ours) is that there is no evidence of voter fraud in this country and thus these laws are "solving" a non-existent problem. Which makes them doubly wrong.

shryke

enlightenedbum wrote: »

The point is that he's perpetuating the basis on which these discriminatory laws are based. The basis is faulty and should be stamped out. Hedgie's point (and the rest of ours) is that there is no evidence of voter fraud in this country and thus these laws are "solving" a non-existent problem. Which makes them doubly wrong.

Not just no evidence, but no realistic way it could be done anyway.

It's like saying "I'm not saying we should lock up all the unicorns. After all, we shouldn't have laws against being raped by a unicorn because there's no evidence that unicorns have ever raped anyone".