June 20, 2017 · OPINION
Repeal of health law could damage local economy
The emergency department at Fauquier Health, which employs 1,200 people throughout the local system.
By Robert Gettings
Opponents of legislation to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act contend that tens of millions of low and moderate income Americans would lose access to health care if the House-passed replacement bill, the American Health Care Act (AHCA; H.R. 1628), were to be enacted into law. Often overlooked in discussions of the legislation, however, are the potentially devastating impacts the AHCA could have on the economy of Warrenton and other communities across the nation.
A research team at George Washington University recently concluded that legislation along the lines of the ACA repeal bill vetoed by President Obama last year would result in the loss of $140 billion in federal health care funding in 2019, leading to the elimination of 2.6 million jobs nationwide (primarily in the private sector) and a $2.6 trillion reduction in business output between 2019 and 2023.
Job losses in Virginia would total about 52,000 in 2019, according to the study team. Approximately a third (31 percent) of the job losses would occur in health care, two-thirds (67 percent) in other private sector jobs and two percent in government jobs. Meanwhile, between 2019 and 2023, the gross product of the commonwealth would drop by $31 billion, business output would decline by $54.4 billion and state and local governments would lose $922.7 million in tax revenues.
Between 2013 and 2015, the rate of uncompensated hospital care in the 31 states (plus D.C.) that elected to expand Medicaid eligibility declined from 3.9 percent to 2.3 percent, according to a recent report by The Commonwealth Fund. In contrast, the rate of uncompensated care dropped only slightly in non-expansion states. Researchers estimate that expansion states saved a total of $6.2 billion over the two-year period. Enhanced federal funding for the expansion population would be terminated under the provisions of the AHCA, effective Jan. 1, 2020, providing states with a strong incentive to tighten eligibility.
A separate study compared the health status of Medicaid beneficiaries in three states – two that expanded Medicaid (Arkansas and Kentucky) and one that did not (Texas). Approximately 40 percent of the residents of each state were uninsured when the ACA was enacted. The study concluded that the percentage of uninsured residents dropped to 7.4 percent in Kentucky and 11.7 percent in Arkansas by 2015, while plateauing in Texas at 28.2 percent. More importantly, patients in Kentucky and Arkansas were 41 percent more likely to have a regular source of health care, expended $337 less annually on out-of-pocket expenses, and were 23 percent more likely to rate their own health as “excellent.”
Fauquier Health employs approximately 1,200 workers, making it the second largest employer in the county (trailing only Fauquier County Public Schools). According to the Virginia Employment Commission, 13 percent of workers in the county are employed in the health care and social assistance sector. These workers – doctors, nurses, therapists, social workers, orderlies, janitors, cafeteria workers, etc. — buy groceries, renovate their homes and purchase other goods and services from local businesses. Job reductions in the health sector would have a ripple effect across the entire county, state and national economy, tending to further destabilize the finances of hospitals and other health care providers. Over a quarter of the hospitals in the commonwealth, including 42 percent of rural hospitals, operated in the red during 2015, according to the Virginia Hospital and Healthcare Association.
As the GWU study and other analyses demonstrate, the loss of health insurance has potentially far-reaching economic effects, even in comparatively prosperous areas like Fauquier County. Let’s make sure our elected officials step up to this challenge of assuring that Virginians with low and moderate incomes retain access to health care.
GuyFromBealeton · July 10, 2017 at 12:29 pm
Citizen Observer - In response to your reply to my comment (which has been shuffled off the screen). Congratulations on reading the Hot Air contained in that bill. What actually matters though is how the legislation actually impacts the current landscape. Ted Cruz's "plan" that he just announced this past weekend should be a pretty good indication about the fact if you want cheap coverage, you're going to have to accept how things were pre-ACA. For Cruz's plan did you notice how there was a press blurb about having one ACA compliant plan, and then they can also offer non-compliant plans (read: excludes pre-existing conditions). This is the GOP testing the water with that idea. If you think it's right for families to pay a couple hundred in premiums every month (as opposed to a thousand or so going by exchange rates) for sub-par coverage that can most likely result in filing bankruptcy anyways, then that's fine. But you and your party need to own that.
Regarding congress - They exempted themselves most likely because A) They have enough money that they don't care about insurance and B) This bill didn't impact them anyways because their insurance wasn't crap to begin with? Besides, it's congress, I'm surprised they didn't try to sneak in some bullshit surveillance bill into it. Nevertheless This is an argument that really has nothing to do with the topic at hand as it only impacts ~535 people total.
Secondly - I don't get why you point to illegals as being the issue. Show me some proof that there's a systematic issue of illegal entry into this country that is costing us more than a trivial amount of money (in U.S. budget terms). The Systematic issue was with how (some, but not all) Insurance Companies were denying claims automatically and playing games with people's well-being and livelihood. Any other suggestions by arm chair politicians such as yourself is mere speculation that detracts from the primary issues. That's why I said you're part of the problem. You'd rather focus energy and effort on something that accounts for (total guess) less than .1% of an issue, that's not a very good use of time.
Regarding free care while you're overseas....I think you're a bit mistaken. No hospital in the world will turn away a critical patient. They will STABILIZE the patient, but may not operate (in your example, which you conveniently left out many details, perhaps in an attempt to appeal to emotion?) Sounds like your "Friend" was stabilized overseas, then flown home for a major operation where he could be closer to his personal and family support network? Please, you'll need to elaborate more because this is the first I hear about a patient in critical danger being refused emergency care overseas. On top of that, almost every single insurance plan out there has international travel baked into the plan, if your friend's policy didn't, then he should have been responsible enough to make sure he's covered when outside of the country. What happened to personal responsibility? Oh wait, you must expect the government to take care of you, even when you're not in the country. Once again, this is an example of you focusing on edge cases.
Now - Regarding your company. This is an excellent point you bring up. I'm sorry that your company is unable to provide quality health care for you and your fellow employees. As I stated previously, if fees rose sharply after the passage of your bill, it was most likely because your plan was deemed non-compliant in some aspect with ACA, most likely due to the pre-existing conditions clause. I'm not sure why you get frustrated at requiring pre-approval for a surgery either. That's 100% status quo for insurance operations in this country, as every insurance company SHOULD be policing large claims up front for fraud, as it's very prevalent, especially in medicaid. Your story is a textbook example of why we should go to single payer. Why would you put your livelihood and healthcare at the mercy of your companies profits? I mean clearly if the owner made more than he could have subsidized your plans more, right? Why should YOU have to suffer so they can make more? It just doesn't make sense.
Concur with the Pharmaceuticals, Go Single Payer, Stop watching Fox, and Stick the Topic at hand.
citizen observer · July 8, 2017 at 9:15 am
Here is a press release from the Border Patrol that the media isn't reporting because it is obvious when Obama told the Border Patrol to back off on illegals it opened the doors for the drug cartels. Many previous articles about the massive increase in heroin overdose, which seemed to have tapered off. Not letting the drugs in has to be saving lives. Unfortunately, Obama was all about weakening America.
“U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers working at the ports of entry along the California border with Mexico over the weekend intercepted 700 pounds of narcotics valued at more than $5.2 million...From Friday, June 30, through Sunday, July 2, CBP officers intercepted more than 300 pounds of methamphetamine, 223 pounds of cocaine, 22 pounds of Fentanyl, 77 pounds of marijuana and more than 45 pounds of heroin,” the press release states.
citizen observer · July 7, 2017 at 3:01 pm
"Blaming Obama is an easy excuse for the white population's fear of the new world system." Haha! He divided this country more in his last 2 years than any President since the civil war.
No one is worried about dealing with people of different backgrounds. It's losing control and freedoms to a Marxist government that has people worried. Soros thought he had it in the bag, until hard working Americans rejected his corrupt Hillary. Even his European Union is waking up and diminishing.
And speaking of the past how many people were killed trying to climb over the Berlin Wall to escape the oppression and poverty on the Marxist side; while no one was shot trying to get in because it was better? If you don't remember the past, you are condemned to repeat it.
BJ · July 6, 2017 at 4:56 pm
citizen observer - This country has been divided by class, race, religion, and political affiliation from the beginning. Blaming Obama is an easy excuse for the white population's fear of the new world system. It is no longer one country we are dealing with, it is now a GLOBAL planet, with many people of different backgrounds involved. Pull yourself out of the past, it's past.
citizen observer · July 5, 2017 at 11:54 am
And America is burning because Obama ignited it. He divided this country by class, race religion, and political affiliation for a reason. And Soros and his Marxist globalists are continuing to fan the flames to bring America down.
BJ · July 3, 2017 at 5:03 pm
"Nero fiddled while Rome burned." and "Trump tweeted while America burned." End of debate.
Jim Griffin · July 1, 2017 at 10:30 pm
Rover 530: It's easy! Don't read it if you prefer not to do so. Such a simple solution.
Rover 530 · July 1, 2017 at 10:11 pm
Can there be a stop to this turgid drivel? I think everyone interested here has made their point but not addressed the original question. Give it up already!
Jim Griffin · June 29, 2017 at 6:13 pm
Yes, I believe the US can afford health care for its citizens, much as do many modern democracies worldwide, including our Western alliances and closest partners.
You mistake me for someone demanding change. It's you who wants change. Your job to justify your solution and people are clearly not buying whatever it is you are selling.
You ask about other countries. We already help other countries, and I favor that policy. I would not oppose joining global risk pools, public or private, if the deal is right. Spreading risk helps, just as does growing actuarial pools.
BTW, lower taxes doesn't mean paying less, though it can. Base and rate are two different concepts. Those who tout lower rates often suggest they produce higher revenues. Especially with health -- investment in prevention pays dividends in less-crowded, less-costly emergency room bills.
What was your first paragraph? A denial that you proposed two new taxes in your prior comment, where you advocate using taxes to produce policy results? Why deny it? You did it once before. You call yourself NoNewTaxes but you propose new taxes. Got it.
Buffett is not vicious when it comes to money; He is forgiving of those who lose money, but vicious with those who cost him reputation. You obviously know little about Buffett, but pretend to know more than you do.
You continue to display ignorance by suggesting that myself, Buffett or anyone else suggests anything should be free or balanced on any one person's financial accounts. We are not communists. Like most rational people, we recognize costs must be paid, one way or the other, and we are willing to meet the progressive tax burden required to produce the results needed.
nonewtaxes · June 29, 2017 at 5:48 pm
No new tax JG - insurance. Force the high risk to buy insurance via the US tax system just like it forces the young and healthy to do.
If you know Buffett than you know that he is vicious when it comes to money. If he's suggesting a single payer system its because he knows how to profit out of it. Brk.A owns a big chunk of insurance business. Let know know how many policies they write that require no premium payment.
You think a single payer system is great? The US has one already. It's called the VA. Ask your veteran friends how they like that. Isn't it so bad that people die waiting for treatment? You want to expand that?
You favor lower taxes? That means paying less! The only way you can have government pay for everything you want is to raise taxes or increase debt. That debt is lalalala money. IS it morally acceptable to you to make future generations pay for your life style?
Please be clearer JG. You propose to provide healthcare for everybody in the US regardless of whether or not they have insurance or some other means to pay for it? It's immoral for one human being to refuse another human being healthcare.
Would you also be in favor of paying for the healthcare of someone who lives in Africa or Asia? Does you moral compass recognize borders? Are only people in the US, legally or not, rich or poor, deserving of healthcare? Are the lives of people living in the US more important than those not living in the US.
If your moral compass tells you that everybody in the US should get healthcare because a life is a terrible thing to waste, shouldn't your moral compass suggest that the US should provide all people in the world healthcare?
Still JG lets be even more clear. Have you gone down to the collection department at the hospital and started paying off those bills? After all, its what you propose everybody else should do.
Jim Griffin · June 29, 2017 at 8:22 am
Pardon me, I just spit out my coffee: NNT suggesting new taxes!
And suggesting I "learn about Warren Buffet" when in fact I've read multiple books about him, having done business with him and thinking I know where my money is invested (a hint: BRK.A & BRK.B).
I think money comes from "Lala land"? I did move here from LA, but not "Lala land".
I favor lower taxes, but I'm not penny wise and a pound foolish. Emphasizing preventative care is smart spending, far better than waiting for the emergency room to treat the result of a lack of preventative care.
Please be clearer NNT: Do you favor the current policy of requiring hospitals to treat all who arrive at the emergency room, yes or no? If yes, how shall we pay? If no, what shall we do -- do you propose leaving these people without needed care?
nonewtaxes · June 29, 2017 at 7:51 am
Transfer the the costs to the risks. Raise taxes on smokes to $10/pack. Start a fat and sugar tax.
JG you know the cost and value of nothing. You think money just comes from lala land. Wherever there is a need JG is there with a basket of money. In real life that money comes from other people's labor. And enough of us have said "Enough is enough" and we want it stopped -repeal and replace. But you should still be happy JG because I'm not getting repeal and replace and you are getting 90% of Ocare.
Taxes devalue work. The more taxes you pay the less money you keep the less value your labor has. Its unAmerican.
Trust Warren Buffett? You should learn about WB before you put him forth as an example to follow.
Jim Griffin · June 28, 2017 at 9:58 am
Agreed, CO, and as regards the general proposition here as regards health care, I will add this:
Health care is provided regardless of ability to pay, which means we inherently add costs from those who cannot pay to the bills of those who do. Do we end this treatment requirement to stop cost sharing? I do not favor turning people away from health care treatment.
If we continue to treat how best to address the shared burden? It cannot be a tip jar, so we need to seriously address the shortfalls that occur. I do not have a better suggestion than dividing the cost among us through the federal budget; failing to do so simply imposes costs on the states, or the hospitals themselves (which will put it on our bill for those who do pay).
citizen observer · June 28, 2017 at 9:46 am
Haha! They choose to be in Congress and we should pay their housing bill. The government is what is making DC so expensive. A former President buys an $8M house there, so go figure.
So if I decide to go work in Manhattan instead of a lower cost of living area, I should get a tax refund to cover my expensive choice?!
I had the opportunity to dine in their 5 star dining room. Very nice if it wasn't at taxpayer's expense. Someone told me they order new expensive china every 3 months, and congressional members can take the "old ones" as they desire.
The corruption in both parties is rampant. I just read an article on John McCain proving he is another do as I say, not as I do congressional hypocrite. And Sanders under investigation for abuse of power and potential fraud. The list is growing.
It's been a long time since a President has addressed Congress to solicit bi-partisan support for something. I think Clinton/Gingrich was the last team to reach across the aisle to get good things done; like balance the budget.
Definitely time for Congressional reforms!
Jim Griffin · June 28, 2017 at 8:23 am
NNT: Both examples spread health care costs across a wider base. Insurance and other actuarial products/services benefit from a wider base. NNT, you know the cost of everything, the value of nothing. I trust Warren Buffet, clearly you do not. (Didn't Trump say the wealthy should guide us, who better to trust with your money?)
CO: You'll love Republican Jason Chaffetz's idea from yesterday's WaPo:
"On his way out of Congress, Rep. Jason Chaffetz gave many District residents another reason to gripe Tuesday when he called for members of Congress to receive a housing stipend of up to $30,000 a year."
"Chaffetz (R-Utah), who chaired the committee that has oversight of the nation’s capital, said federal lawmakers have trouble stretching their $174,000 salaries to cover housing in Washington, which he called “one of the most expensive places in the world,” and homes in their congressional districts."
“I really do believe Congress would be much better served if there was a housing allowance for members of Congress,” Chaffetz told The Hill, which first reported his stipend proposal.
nonewtaxes · June 27, 2017 at 6:38 pm
JG, there is a difference between health insurance and welfare health insurance. Health insurance is a financial product I pay for to transfer the risk of a big healthcare bill. I do this by paying relatively small premiums. In essence, I'm hedging.
Welfare health insurance is insurance I pay for somebody else. It's just like welfare housing and welfare food stamps, and welfare college.
If you are a supporter of socialized health insurance I urge you to follow your heart and take out an ad in the paper promising to pay the healthcare bills of others.
Never trust a socialist who has more money than you.
BJ · June 27, 2017 at 5:29 pm
CO - Mea Culpa, I forgot to add that Bill & Hillary Clinton's hands aren't clean either. I don't think anyone that gets to the 1% level did it by being nice guys. Gotta step on someone to get to the top of the pyramid. Speaking of Venezuela, that all happened when they elected a "Populist" President as Americans elected Trump, who is a "Populist". When did people's well-being take second fiddle to politicians getting re-elected? And giving a bail-out to Wall Street was totally back a**wards. Again, completely agree that Congress and the lobbyists for special interests need to be reminded who put them where they are, and that they are not the boss. Now, if we can only convince the people of the United States of America that they have to step up and own the position of boss of the politicians.
My wife has cousins that didn't have healthcare, and would go to the emergency room, get whatever they needed done, and say "Sorry, we have no money!"), when it came time to pay. They were furious that they 'had" to buy health care under the ACA. They are white, mid-westerners, and able bodied, but lazy, so it isn't only the illegals disrupting the country.
citizen observer · June 27, 2017 at 2:23 pm
BJ- Trump was wealthy before getting elected. Stats show there are now more Democratic millionaires than Republican. Ever wonder why the bailout package went to Wall Street so they could get bonuses after causing a financial crisis, instead of the "shovel ready jobs" to fix the infrastructure and poor ghettos?
How come you make no mention of Pelosi, Reid, Waters, Sanders, the Clintons, and even Obama who all became rich while in office as public servants?
I said the rich, ruling elite class because our schools are teaching that under a Marxist socialist government everyone is equal. The reality is the rich get richer, the middle class disappears, and the lower class are equally poor. You have to look no further than Venezuela.
This whole healthcare "crisis" started when hospitals in Arizona and Texas were going broke and closing, because the laws said they had to provide care to illegals crossing the border. No country in the world allows it, but the Obama administration did. Not because he really cared about them, but his boss George Soros saw an excellent opportunity to promote their Marxist New World Order agenda.
Funny how there are videos of Senators Clinton, Schumer, and Obama all calling for Bush to address illegal immigration and build a wall. What made them suddenly change? Obviously lots of backdoor pocket money and the potential of creating a one party system.
The media is focused on Russian influence on the election, but not a mention of all the illegals allowed to vote in NY and California. No country in the world allows illegals to vote, why did the US?
Until we clean up Congress it really doesn't matter who is in the White House. Rome fell because their Senate became so corrupt they could no longer function. If this country doesn't wake up to the real problems, we will lose our independence and freedoms.
Jim Griffin · June 27, 2017 at 1:08 pm
CO: I can support your proposal.
NNT: Socializing the expense of health care insurance is the same as health care insurance itself -- or any insurance. Your premiums pay for the claims of others, hoping you don't incur them yourself (but knowing that if you do incur them they will be covered).
Our society *does* carry across its shoulders the burden of all its members' health care. Everyone must be treated by any emergency room regardless of ability to pay. It is the law and it represents the views of our society. How best to allocate that burden is the debate.
Without question, adding prevention to cure helps limit the cost we bear, so let's make the preferred path. Easy access to health services limits costs down the road.
BJ · June 27, 2017 at 11:32 am
Citizen Observer - I agree wholeheartedly that we NEED Congressional reform! It is kind of ironic though with this bit, "When the rich, ruling, elite class becomes corrupt, etc" because that is describing Trump, his family, and most of his Cabinet and Congress.
Nonewtaxes - Yep, death is inevitable no matter who you are, rich or poor. Yet the rich seem to die much more comfortably, don't you think? What with private nurses so they can stay at home as long as possible, and top of the line medical attention, and lawyers to handle all the paperwork for the families. The health care issue has been long standing and it can't be fixed in a couple of years, and we have to work to fix it for EVERYONE not just a few.
nonewtaxes · June 27, 2017 at 10:01 am
I after reading all of this drivel I can deduce that the Democrats want all citizens to live a full life even at the expense of other people. The taxes that are collected from my paycheck, even before I get to see it, pay to subsidize that health insurance. That means I have to extend the amount of my working years and have less time to spend with my family and friends. I choose family and friends.
Everybody, regardless of their healthcare or party, will experience death. You make it sound like death is a Republican concept. Republicans don't let people die. Neither do Democrats.
citizen observer · June 27, 2017 at 9:59 am
When the rich, ruling, elite class becomes corrupt; the only solution is to clean house.
Congressional Reform Act
1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman / woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office.
2. Congress (past, present, & future) participates in Social Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.
3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women.
Rover 530 · June 26, 2017 at 10:19 pm
After reading all of this drivel, I can deduce that Democrats would like all citizens to have an opportunity to live a full life even in the face of medical issues and the Republicans would let those who cannot afford adequate health care will languish and experience natural deaths. Which will the American people choose?
Jim Griffin · June 26, 2017 at 9:23 pm
Both sides must compromise, but polarization makes it tough. After all, if Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are tools of communism, we'll not make progress. If optimizing quantity and quality of care is the goal, we can get there.
Needs, not wants, must rule the day from both sides of the aisle. We need a Congress that sets aside running for office for running the government, but a two-yr election cycle means Congress rules with one hand on the tiller, the other in the till.
Delighted to share time and space with any and all who comment here, even those who lurk and read with a smile. Or a frown. At most, we disagree, and share more in common than that which separates us.
martinkus · June 26, 2017 at 9:01 pm
Yep, that would work also!
It's a shame that both donkeys & elephants alike cannot broker a deal regarding the current health care debacle. Inflexible political ideologies combined with continued inflammatory rhetoric will do nothing to achieve success. The current Congressional stalemate is yet another reason for implementing term limits on these congressional bozos!
Jim Griffin · June 26, 2017 at 7:05 pm
Martinkus: I avoid mood-altering prescription drugs, but believe my time-honored offer of sharing a drink meets the need.
martinkus · June 26, 2017 at 7:02 pm
I believe XANAX should be prescribed on this post!
Jim Griffin · June 26, 2017 at 7:09 am
I don't do this to change anyone's mind, though it might. I engage in discourse because I enjoy it, because it is a rough stone that sharpens and it pushes me to grow.
Neither am I pushing for change. I like things the way they are around here, but I do not pretend this is capitalism. If it is, then I am one, but that isn't the definition that fits.
Especially when government owns so much of the development rights, having purchased them with tax money.
I would find it joyful to meet as a group somewhere every now and then. It would be my pleasure to meet you, NNT, Traverse, and anyone who posts here. We are neighbors and this is community.
BJ · June 25, 2017 at 9:40 pm
Jim, I admire your tenacity, yet as far as some people and their reasoning there is an old saying, "The only difference between a rut and a grave is their dimensions." ~Ellen Glasgow OR "The circumstances of the world are so variable that an irrevocable purpose or opinion is almost synonymous with a foolish one." ~William H. Seward
nonewtaxes · June 24, 2017 at 9:33 pm
Don't build. Donate all of your money to charity. Aint nothing but writing a check.
Jim Griffin · June 24, 2017 at 2:05 pm
Let's say (and Traverse does) Jim is a Communist and wants to follow NNT's advice: Build a commune on the back 40. If it's a Capitalist society, Jim gets to decide. It's his capital, his real estate, Jim's decision. Done. Commune built.
But we all know that's not how it works in Fauquier. Private property is "regulated by the community as a whole" (Traverse's definition). We meet the definition of socialism because it isn't Jim's decision. Jim must ask permission because it is regulated and there's no way he's going to be allowed to build the commune on the back 40. Not in the plans.
If Jim wants to change that, he needs to socialize the idea amongst his neighbors and the government. Short of socializing the idea and winning the approval of his neighbors and the various boards, it's not happening.
Which is also the point: Central planning. We have a central plan and we employ people to pursue it on behalf of our governments, local, county, state and federal.
Means of production provided/regulated, too: Water, electricity, telephone, utilities generally, either provided wholly or in part by government, all regulated through defined franchise agreements that run thousands of pages. Did we wait for private capital to build us a Metro? No. Taxes built us a Metro. And a VRE.
Traverse, we do not voluntary pay for water, sewers, public safety and more. Taxes are not voluntary cooperation. Taxes are imposed by government and they are nothing like a tip jar.
Now who's twisting words? Voluntary cooperation! Ha! That's rich!
You offered the definitions, we meet them, buddy. You're a socialist! So am I, with the difference that I admit it, and I like this community and the way it operates very much. I like you, too, Traverse, and the invitation to meet and share drinks like a couple of Socialist/Capitalists remains open!
Traverse · June 24, 2017 at 1:40 pm
Socialism - a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. (in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of communism.
Jim uses examples of a sovereign people’s voluntary cooperation on things like water, sewer, and public safety as examples of socialism, which they’re not. Just because a free people willingly decide to cooperate with each other to “promote the general welfare”, does not make them socialists.
This is what socialist do. They can’t garner support letting their true ideals stand on their own, so they redefine words and twist concepts to show socialism in a false positive light, to try and gain support they otherwise cannot obtain.
Jim Griffin · June 24, 2017 at 12:33 pm
Traverse, Answer the questions, please. You hide behind a made-up name and now you run from simple questions.
Do you let the government handle your trash or do you hire a private trash hauler?
When you need an ambulance, do you call a private ambulance? Or do you lean on the public ambulance?
I do know the difference, and that is why I observe that we devote tax money to all manner of social programs on the local, county, state and federal levels. Our county devotes five times the millions spent on the library to "Social Services" (>$10m).
Here in Fauquier County, we devote public money to schools, libraries, safety -- the budget overview says 4.19 cents of every dollar goes to "culture" (and that does not include more than 62 cents of every dollar for schools).
We're building broadband, we've built sewers, water, even an aquatic facility. We fund an airport for less than 200 planes and charge no landing fee.
When we lure private companies, we kick in tax dollars for them, too -- we're buying OVH a fiber connection to the net and +$4m more.
We're socialists, a lot like the founders living in the Plymouth Colony, which was more commune than I prefer. We're forming a more perfect Union here in America, just like we said we would, and you're both funding it and enjoying its fruits.
I am not a hypocrite. I call it what it is: Socialism, and so I am a socialist with my neighbors in this county, which includes you, Traverse, a Socialist.
Traverse · June 24, 2017 at 12:10 pm
As I suspected... Jim's gone way too far down the "Bernie" rabbit hole to grasp the true nature of our free republic. Most likely indoctrinated by liberal professors at an early age.
Jim, if you don't know by now, the difference between socialism and a democratic republic, I'm not going to waste my time trying to deprogram you from the liberal sauce you've obviously been marinated in.
Jim Griffin · June 24, 2017 at 11:11 am
Oh, and Traverse, please rise to the bait and tell us what you prefer, what is your plan. Why are you too timid to answer direct questions such as do you favor the continuation of Social Security and Medicare?
Describe for us Traversecare. Let us discover how many people and states you will leave behind in your pursuit of whatever plan you favor. It will be fun reading! Please!
Jim Griffin · June 24, 2017 at 11:08 am
We don't know your plan, but I guess you pretend you're capitalist, which would mean private capital built the aquatic center or the airport or the water or sewer or ... well, you get the idea, and it's fiction. They're all socialized, along with many more programs, schools, defense, ambulances and so on.
Indeed, our county government uses tax money to buy development rights from private citizens, socializing the use of that land, transitioning it from private use.
This is how we live. It is socialism and it's a fantasy to pretend otherwise.
Again, Traverse: I don't favor communes because I am not a communist. Like you, I am a socialist. This is what we choose.
Traverse · June 24, 2017 at 10:53 am
Jim is easily confused indeed... he thinks the Constitution is a socialists creed. Trying not to laugh.
I'll try to clear things up for Jim again, but I'm pretty sure he's gone too far down the "Bernie" rabbit hole to reach.
Jim, its "promote" the general welfare, not "provide", and the Constitution also speaks of the blessings of liberty, which if you knew your history, is something socialism has never been able to accomplish... ever. Quite the contrary, tens of millions have died as despot after despot has tried to force socialism down the throats of unwilling people. But you, being much smarter than our founders, want to bastardize our more perfect union, and give socialism another go. Dude!
Here's an idea for Jim. If he's so enamored by socialism, he can form a commune on his land, live out his commie dream of social justice and economic equality, and leave the sovereign people of America and their free republic alone. Just an idea.
The ACA is a socialist concept, and it only took a few short years to implode. Just one more example, in a long string of historic examples, of the inevitable failure of the deadly concept called socialism.
Jim Griffin · June 24, 2017 at 8:31 am
You are thinking of communism, NNT. I'm a socialist -- as are you -- not a communist. I support a democratic approach, so that means doing it with others in a democratic fashion.
Free stuff? Lots of taxes to meet their needs, nothing is free. Aye, health care, a roof over their head, a meal, all of which our community can and does provide for those in need. Library has plenty of bandwidth to share, schools for the kids. Even an aquatic facility!
Airplane socialism, too, at our county airport. I don't think there any landing fees, last I checked (though I've never used it, am not a pilot, but I do pay for it).
The quality of life is terrific here, thanks to you and my fellow socialists. Call yourselves whatever you want, there is no doubt that by any honest measure we practice here democratic socialism.
The socialist's creed: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
A more perfect Union, indeed.
nonewtaxes · June 23, 2017 at 11:56 pm
If JG was a socialist he'd convert his 40 acre spread in the Plains to a low income housing commune. 40 acres yields 100 houses. Of course he'd had to share bandwidth with them so that's not going to float.
Lead by example JG and put 50 or 75 houses on your land and let people live there for free. Give them free stuff.
Jim Griffin · June 23, 2017 at 7:17 pm
Face it, you're a socialist.
You pay taxes to fund socialist federal, state, county and local programs. You are protected by federal, state and local employees who will pick you up in a government ambulance or helicopter and drop you off at a hospital compelled to treat you regardless of your ability to pay. You must have health insurance and vehicle insurance as specified by your government.
The government funds trash disposal, sewers, water, food stamps, jails. An aquatic center, an airport. Government regulates electricity, broadband and communications through franchise agreements. Not to mention public schools at every level, public libraries and community centers. Social security awaits you, as does medicare and perhaps medicaid. Government licenses the airwaves, grants or denies copyrights, patents, trademarks.
In Fauquier County, some of your tax money funds acquisition of private property development rights. All property is zoned and regulated by various government agencies, including soil and conservation management. Dog tags and concealed permits.
Public parks, too. Do you avoid those, Traverse? Or do you prefer private parks? Are you a hypocrite like Russian immigrant Ayn Rand, who argued against social welfare, then relied upon it in her old age? Keep your government hands off my Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security, indeed!
Could it be that my commie utopia is this community we know and love? Your community, too, Traverse.
Jim Griffin · June 23, 2017 at 5:23 pm
Because of health care like Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security?
Is that you, writing off Florida, Arizona and Nevada, Mr. Republican?
Traverse · June 23, 2017 at 5:02 pm
You're easily confused. Let me clear things up for you. I'm no socialist as you falsely assert. But you are, and 'm glad your a proud of it, but don't try to associate me with your commie little utopia, or try to tell me what I know. America will always resist leftists like you, and your attempts at subterfuge.
Jim Griffin · June 23, 2017 at 4:50 pm
My question: Is Nevada Republican Dean Heller in fact on Traverse's list of Socialists? If not, why not?
From today's WaPo:
Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) said Friday that he cannot support Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s health-care bill without changes to it, becoming the fifth GOP senator to take that position since the bill was released on Thursday.
Heller, who is up for reelection in 2018, has expressed concerns about the way the measure addresses the future of Medicaid. The proposal would impose long-term federal spending cuts on the program.
“I cannot support a piece of legislation that takes away insurance from tens of millions of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Nevadans,” Heller said in a news conference held in his home state.
Jim Griffin · June 23, 2017 at 3:35 pm
In fact, the direct provision of health care is the world standard. Whatever you want to call it, it works.
As you and I both know, America is a socialist country. Our state and county are socialist in their orientation. We fund all manner of projects but at their core we think them necessities and we leave the remainder to the market. Socialism is not Communism.
Health care should be bi-partisan. Lives are at stake in a very real way. It is ill-suited to partisan vitriol, or do you think our Veterans, politicians and soldiers should be the subject of a socialist approach but our citizens should be left to fend for themselves when it comes to health care? Is it your position that hospital emergency rooms ought not be required to treat? Or are you a socialist who sees the need for a societal net when it comes to health care?
You confuse me, Traverse. I thought you acknowledged that you and we are Socialists, but now you sling it around like a bad thing. Do you favor the end of social security? Medicare? Medicaid?
Do let me know what you have planned. Maybe we can call it Traversecare.
Traverse · June 23, 2017 at 3:13 pm
Yes, yes, Jim… we all know that meme… Socialism would work fine if everyone would just abandon their core beliefs, and cooperate with the socialists.
Squirm as they may to deflect their culpability, this is ALL the fault of the Democrats.
They knew darn well when they “deemed’ this law passed, they had no bipartisan support, but rammed it down Republican throats anyway… and grinned a laughed in their faces to boot. “You lost” they said smiling in the cameras…. remember? And then they (and you) have the stones to expect bi-partisan support after illegally deeming it passed. C’mon man.
It’s perfectly proper and logical to expect a full court press by the Republicans to dismantle this horrible law…. by any means necessary… that’s what the Dems did to get passed. Fair is far yes? If Democrats needed help getting the ACA to “work”, then they should have secured bipartisan support, and didn’t.
The Dems have made their bed, now they can lie in it… with all the excrement that comes with the collapsing ACA.
Keep the pressure on Mr. President, you have’m on the ropes! Rid us of this horrible law… by any means necessary… one paragraph at a time if that’s what it takes.
nonewtaxes · June 23, 2017 at 3:04 pm
How did buying insurance on an exchange help you start a business?
Jim Griffin · June 23, 2017 at 2:36 pm
That's actually funny, the claim that Republicans "stood by and did nothing."
You know better: They gutted the basic premise of funding insurers for low-income subsidies:
No fake news, please. Obamacare isn't perfect, but the core of the trouble is Republicans undercutting the law for the past six years. If you cut the funding promised for the insurance companies, they pull out. Of course they do, and Republicans made that happen. Now they face the mess they created.
Traverse · June 23, 2017 at 2:29 pm
Correction... "with the election of Scott Brown (Mass)"... apologies
Traverse · June 23, 2017 at 2:28 pm
Democrats… “They knew what would happen, and through their arrogance ignored all warnings, and "deemed" the ACA passed in the dead of night right before Christmas, without a single Republican vote.”
Never ever forget that folks!
Deeming this law passed was sinister act by liberals who knew with the election of Scott Walker (Mass), they didn’t have the votes. This law and all it’s after effects, is owned lock-stock-and-barrel by the Democrat Party.
And all the while submissive and subservient Republicans, cowering in the corner, afraid of the predictable accusations of racism from the frantic left, stood by and did nothing.
The crap-storm we’re all about to experience trying to fix this mess will cause much pain. All knowingly inflicted by selfish, arrogant Democrats, willing to sell the American people down the road so their Lord and Savior (Obama) could start his march towards the dream of a socialist utopia, and to secure votes from illegal aliens.
And after inflicting all that on an unwilling America, they had the gall to exempt themselves from the law.
Repeal. Replace. ASAP.
citizen observer · June 23, 2017 at 10:53 am
GuyfromBealeton- Thanks for the compliment. I bought a copy of the ACA shortly after it was passed. It is way too big and obviously written by lobbyists. There was a reason the Speaker Of The House at the time told everyone to pass it so we can see what is in it.
You still haven't answered the basic question. If this was a good plan for all Americans; why did the rich, ruling, elite class exempt themselves from it so they could keep their top shelf coverage?
My employer announced our plan was considered a Cadillac and had to be cut and our coverage costs increased. They most definitely have. As I said I know many hard working, blue collar, middle class folks who are struggling with high premiums and deductibles. It stunned me when my doctor told me I needed a procedure, but they had to wait to see if my insurance company approved it. Sad we have taken healthcare out of the hands of physicians into the profit margins of insurance companies.
How come the ACA doesn't address illegals crossing the border to get care for free? No country in the world allows that. I have a friend who was working in Europe and had to fly back to the US for emergency cardiac surgery because he wasn't a citizen and his insurance invalid there. We weren't sure he would survive the flight back. Shouldn't he have just been operated on over there, and the hospital suffer the loss as we do to illegals here?
BJ is absolutely right. The pharmacuetical companies have their lobbyists in the pockets of Congress, so the real issues are not being addressed.
Enter your email address above to begin receiving
news updates from FauquierNow.com via email.
Monday, July 24
Re-enactors gathered Saturday afternoon to bring Warrenton's ghosts to life for television show
Monday, July 24
The Fauquier County Circuit Court clerk’s office recorded these real estate transfers July 17-21, 2017
More Fauquier news
Saturday, July 22
Fifty-nine youngsters learn language, culture in eight-day STARTALK program funded by federal government grant