Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (16798)	4/13/2010 4:19:30 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Wait until you're on the wrong end of the means testing If that causes a later objection it would fall more under the "in practice" area, than the "in theory". The other problem is the breach of contract. I don't see that as an issue. You pay taxes and you get benefits, but there is no contract for the benefits. The complaint has little more behind it than a similar complain from a farmer would have that he's paid income taxes for many years and expected to continue to receive farm price supports. I say "little more", rather than "no more", because there is more of an association between the taxes and the spending, but there is no contract for the benefits in either case. For non-welfare distributions, not so much. The idea of applying means testing to the non-welfare distributions is in a sense to make them in to welfare distributions. Behind that idea is the idea that helping the very poor is more justifiable then sending transfer payments to just about everyone. Of course an alternative way to get rid of the non-welfare distribution is just as you say, to not have the programs in the first place (or since we have them already they could be wound down).