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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (68128)	4/23/2018 8:13:45 PM
From: neolib	Respond to of 362493

Tim likes the entitlement to pollute...

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (68128)	4/24/2018 6:50:33 AM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Recommended By TimF Respond to of 362493

You seem to be completely hung up on the word entitlement. It's not a hang-up. In discussions about the federal budget, Tim reliably uses the word as the term of art that it is. An entitlement program is one that is not budgeted by total dollar amount but loosely recognizing the then end cost will vary by the number of beneficiaries who turn up to claim their "entitlement" benefit, which is a legal right. In common parlance, an entitlement is something that is fairly claimed, as in being entitled to courteous treatment by service people. since you seem to think they should not get an "entitlement"? If you read his use of the term as common parlance, you will misunderstand him. What may be in common parlance an entitlement, what one thinks is fairly claimed, is not necessarily an entitlement in the federal budget. One can have an issue with entitlement™<g> as a budgeting mechanism without necessarily begrudging anyone what you consider to be a fair claim. The problem with entitlement programs is that they can't be budgeted because you never know how many claims will be made. For fiscal conservatives, this obviously and understandably presents a problem.

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (68128)	4/24/2018 10:59:33 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 362493

You seem to be completely hung up on the word entitlement. No called something else you would still have a problem. If those getting subsidies are paying a portion of the cost of health care that they would otherwise get at the emergency room for free - because they have so little money - isn't that a move in the right direction? I'll break that down in to different parts. 1 - Moving away from using the emergency room because now they have insurance and can get care outside of emergency care. That would be a move in the right direction, but it doesn't seem to have happened that much. 2 - Having the emergency room care paid for by insurance. That would be good for the financial security of those getting the care, and to a lesser extent for the hospital's emergency services, for them its a move in the right direction. But increasing the entitlement burden, or to avoid the word because you think I'm so hung up on it increasing the amount of spending promised by law that doesn't have to be reauthorized each year and which is considered the legal right of the recipient, or more generally just increasing government spending, is a move in the wrong direction.