Most adults know that by now, though children still have to learn it. (For example.)
(I am not old enough to remember the "free" lunches, but I do remember a joint in Chicago called the Pickle Barrel, which offered "free" popcorn and dill pickles, both likely to make you thirsty enough to buy another beer.)
So why do people think — or at least say — that there is this kind or that kind of "free" health care?
It's the same principle. Someone, probably you, is paying for the "free" lunch or that "free" health care.
For example, last week political consultant Cathy Allen was touting all the "free" health care benefits from ObamaCare on the John Carlson show. She's a smart woman, so she should know that those benefits are not free.
And you have probably heard the same claim from others, perhaps even from a journalist or two.
When she made that claim about free benefits, I was left wondering, as I often am, whether the person making the claim understands the Tanstaafl principle, and is trying to fool listeners — or whether they don't understand something all competent adults should understand.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(During the 2008 campaign, an unfortunate woman drew much attention, and considerable derision, for saying that she was going to receive many benefits after Obama was elected — from Obama's "stash". That woman may not be an expert on the federal budget, but she did understand that those benefits had to come from somewhere.)
Posted by Jim Miller at July 01, 2012 01:33 PM | Email ThisThey think (and I use that term very loosely) it's noble when actually it's punishing to those who contribute and humiliating (yes, even though they don't realize it's humiliating) to those who don't.
Until liberals realize they are throwing into pot from which they is not allowed to dine, they will never learn.
We need to stop banging against their refusal to learn and just let the proof of their failure speak to them.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on July 1, 2012 02:00 PMI've never heard a serious policy discussion that claims the benefits of the ACA are free. If your point is that the ACA doesn't really provide free healthcare, then I will concede that to you. If you had some more substantive point to make, you've failed.
Here's an example from Obama himself:
"[Insurance companies] are required to provide free preventive care like checkups and mammograms, . . ."
And with a little searching, you can find an AP Q&A that talks about the "free" vaccines that ObamaCare provides for kids.
Posted by: Jim Miller on July 1, 2012 03:46 PMInsurance isn't free, most of us know that. We're already paying much more than the rest of the developed world but we're not getting better outcomes -- so it's obviously not free. I have no problem if the government requires that the insurance I buy actually provides useful benefits. They already do that with other forms of insurance.
Your complaint is basically that Obama said "free" when he should have said "at no additional charge." Meh.
I understand that you don't like the ACA. I think that's mainly for ideological reasons, but maybe not. I just haven't heard anything more substantive from you. Folks who already agree with you on ideology will probably find this post persuasive. I just don't think anyone's going to change their mind because you've pointed out that healthcare is actually not free, even under the ACA.
Posted by: scottd on July 1, 2012 04:23 PMI don't wish to debate this with you. My point is that just pointing out the healthcare isn't free doesn't make much of a point. If Jim wants to make a more persuasive argument, I'm all ears.
Posted by: scottd on July 1, 2012 04:59 PMSince this scam is a tax (Gotta wonder why the White House moron had to lie about it so much if it was such a great idea) that means that the 50% who don't pay any tax now will be paid by those of us who are paying now... in addition to the taxes you fringe leftists are already forcing us to pay for your scams.
"Lose weight... go on food stamps!"
Seriously?
Odd, isn't it? The disasters that are Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, England and in health care, Canada seem to teach the left nothing. And, as we all know, we are doomed to repeat the disaster of socialism if we don't wise up and learn from it.
Posted by: Hinton on July 1, 2012 06:09 PMSomeone should study their capacity for self-delusion. Maybe the self-delusion something in their brain chemistry can be isolated and marketed... to use against our enemies.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on July 1, 2012 08:40 PMOh. Could it be because no one can get past the end result of death, destruction and evil dictators? Could it be because there was ultimately NO freedom after the willing restraints of freedom? Could it be that FREEDOM is a basic human need?
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on July 1, 2012 08:50 PMI think we should take a lesson from Bill Clinton and welfare reform in the '90s. If a democrat president wants to take a Republican idea and make it his own, why stop him?
Posted by: AD on July 1, 2012 08:53 PMTo me, it would be in the best interest of the government to encourage wealth creation by the private sector, but I don't really think our politicians (with the exception of those who are or lean towards being Libertarians) understand how important private wealth creation is. Private wealth creation is everything in a democracy.
Posted by: Politically Incorrect on July 1, 2012 11:26 PMWe have one chance to rid ourselves of these vermin. How will you vote in November?
Posted by: Saltherring on July 2, 2012 08:01 AMConservatives often rely upon anecdotal evidence to support their claims.
In the face of massive statistical proof that many countries have taxpayer supported healthcare that is cheaper and better than what we have, I always hear about the guy ar gal from (Canada, Britain, France, etc...) who says that they don't like their system because, blah, blah, blah....
This is not proof and is unconvincing except to someone who shares you prejudices.
Posted by: dorky dorkman on July 2, 2012 08:11 AMIt's a never ending stream of failures and wasted tax dollars. Imagine the world we would have if Leftists actually compared about success and merit instead of skin color and class.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 2, 2012 08:18 AMBut better that these kids learn this now, than later in life.
Hope and Change!
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 2, 2012 08:32 AMRemember what Obama said to get this monstrosity passed, that it was deficit neutral. Seriously, how many times do people need to eat his lies?
Posted by: UnfitForTheInternet on July 2, 2012 08:40 AM"NOT GONNA DO IT!" George HW Bush
Posted by: dorky dorkman on July 2, 2012 08:55 AMThe people who get free medical care through emergency room visits cost us all in higher premiums.
Posted by: dorky dorkman on July 2, 2012 09:02 AMRiiiiighhht. So the solution is to let people sign up for insurance after they get sick. The Leftist always manages to find a way to take something that doesn't work, and make it worse, and more expensive for all.
Here's a novel idea. How about just having everyone pay for their own insurance as we do with cars, homes, etc. And do so in an open market without the interference and subordination to a large consortium of healthcare lobbyists that wrote and passed the ACA?
As with soda. Leftists fear a world in which Americans are allowed to make their own insurance choices and succeed or fail as they see fit. Because absent a nanny, who would be there to tell all of the victims to vote Democrat?
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 2, 2012 09:13 AMAnd who is the arbiter of what's merely anecdotal? The OWS crowd with their 'claims'? The legalize dope crowd with theirs? Pelosi's claims with regards to the Catholic Church (pardon my dismissive snort). Or is anecdotal whatever is convenient to YOUR narrative?
Anecdotal evidence adds up to a great big body of direct evidence... ESPECIALLY in regard to the glories of communism and Obamacare
It's good to be kommissar when there are so many stupid and easily manipulated proletariat, eh dopey?
Uh oh ... a direct question that requires a definitive answer... Run, dopey, RUN (pssst, do you take your cues from Homeland Security? ... OOPS, another direct question...
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on July 2, 2012 09:52 AMJim: Healthcare is not free! (noted)
Hinton: The UK spends much less per person than we do on a system that in no way resembles the reforms in the ACA -- and they have some problems.
Ragnar: Communism! FREEDOM!
saltherring: Jackbooted Bolshevik thugs!
JeffB: Leftists don't have any better ideas. (Would love to hear something workable from the right. Maybe something like Romneycare? Oops, not allowed to mention that in the GOP.)
You guys are already convinced, but I doubt you're going to persuade anyone else if that's all you have.
Posted by: scottd on July 2, 2012 10:52 AMWorse, the government overhead cost is ~50%. Consequently, the public benefit from taxes paid to operate Obamacare is at best 50 cents of each tax or borrowed dollar, the exclusive sources of government revenue. Add to this cost of systemic fraud and mismanagement and it becomes apparent that we real are getting screwed.
Posted by: Paddy on July 2, 2012 10:59 AMAnyone else with a brain should not need persuading, given the government's abysmal record with Social Security, Medicare and virtually any other "entitlement" program federal bureaucrats have concocted, mismanaged, corrupted and ultimately driven into bankruptcy.
Only the delusional left and idiots who believe in free lunches could possibly believe the government will somehow get it right this time.
Posted by: Saltherring on July 2, 2012 11:16 AMBTW, Social Security isn't a free lunch and it is doing fine. People like you have been calling it a disaster from day one. My grandmother collected her SS checks for 20 years. My mother has been collecting for 18 years and, I hope, will continue for years to come. A slight bump in the payroll tax rate or tax base can keep it running indefinitely.
If you want to get rid of it, please encourage GOP candidates to run on that platform. I'm sure it will be a real winner.
Posted by: scottd on July 2, 2012 11:47 AMPlease define "doing fine". So where is the money coming from to payoff the IOUs it has been cashing in the last few years?
Posted by: It Takes a Village to Convene a Grand Juty on July 2, 2012 12:51 PMAnd, yes, scottd, anyone who believes in a free lunch is an idiot.
Posted by: Saltherring on July 2, 2012 01:11 PMAnd exactly how much of all they collected for all those years did they actually contribute to it? I suggest everything over and above their contributions was THEFT from you, your children you grandchildren and their grandchildren.
Still proud?
You shouldn't be: it's despicable, Robin Hood.
So why did Obama and the Democrats push so hard for a reduction in the payroll tax rate this year (and last)?
Posted by: It Takes a Village to Convene a Grand Juty on July 2, 2012 01:33 PMIf you are paying attention, you'd know that at least the GOP is talking about the magnitude of the liability. Democrats are not even willing to entertain a discussion, and instead have passed or proposed even larger entitlements.
It's only a matter of time before there is an electoral swing from the productive or those outside the Democrat patronage. A patronage, that will necessarily continue to decline.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 2, 2012 02:16 PMThe 2% temporary tax cut that reduced government revenues is just the same as the temporary tax cut for rich Americans via the Bush Tax Cuts. It is meant to spur the economy. The only difference is the target audience. One audience spends it immediately, the other audience "invests" it in the future (or so we are led to believe by the proponents of the latter tax cut).
All the revenue (or reduction of revenue) contributes to the bottom line of government operations and funds programs both things like SS and Medicare and Defense contractors who build equipment not requested by DOD, just to satisfy local senators and congressman's reelection bids.
I will take serious a politician that addresses both sides of the equation and not ones who only talk out of one side of their mouth. Wasteful, non-requested, bloated defense spending should be on the table just as much as SS and Medicare cuts, and revenues also need to be in the discussion. Revenues need to match expenses and expenses need to match revenues. No more wishful thinking that tax cuts will grow revenues and that sacred programs can't be cut.
Posted by: tc on July 2, 2012 03:07 PMHow is it that you say only the "rich" benefited from the "Bush Tax Cuts", now the "Obama Tax Cuts"? Since when is an annual income of $6000 the "rich"?
I find your class warfare talking points lacking.
She is a Democrat though and a political operative, just like Stephanopolous. Once again she lies and Republicans like Carlson still play be the Marquis of Queensbury rules and let the lie pass instead of calling her on her bullcrap. That's why he lost big to Gary Locke for Gov. in 2000. Nice guy, but not a smart politician.
That's why the Republicans are in dire danger of losing to Owebama in November. The Tea Party might be the edge they need, but I have a hard time stomaching squishy Republicans during the election season. McCain was that type of a candidate and the jury is out on Romney, but he was most formidable of a mediocre lot. Mr. Romney may be a nice guy too, and he is smarter as a candidate than McCain, but there's a long ways to go. He's also running against a known disaster and a wickedly dangerous incumbent.
He is too smart not to see this and he had better get some new advisors because that argument does not resonate well. The future of this country is at stake !
Posted by: KDS on July 3, 2012 05:10 AMGod, your ideological blindness is really rich.
How many references to the massive tax increase that is Obamacare do you need?
Do you even understand the magnitude of what President Downgrade has perpetrated on ALL of us, especially the poor with this boondoggle, with his failed stimulus, with his debt?
Really, you need to read something more than KOS and talking point dispatches from MoveOn.
You lefty's can't have it both ways: you can't bitch that "the rich" are holding their money and not spending it then bitch because you want to tax them for that same money.
Sucks to be a confused you, eh lefty's?
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on July 3, 2012 01:52 PMForgot one: Rationed care kills patients, as will the IPAB
Ragnar @ 40: I know you are a conservative, and as such, the truth doesn't matter as much as what you feel should be true, but check out the actual facts and figures:
We used the Treasury Department's four-year data on the revenue effects of large tax increases signed by Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton; along with CBO projections of the revenue effect of the mandate adjusted for its GDP projections during the mandate's first four years.
The mandate is tiny by comparison. Not, as Scott Walker warned, a "massive tax increase on the people of Wisconsin and America."
As others have noted, even if you include the sum total of all the revenue-raising provisions in the ACA -- and there are many taxes in it -- it's still smaller than the Reagan, Bush and Clinton tax increases.
As I asked in another thread, how much of a dent would the "Buffet Rule" or phasing out of the Obama Tax Cuts on the "rich" or even confiscating all the "rich"'s wealth make to Obama's projected yearly deficits, much less the federal debt?
It's a spending problem, stupid!
Posted by: It Takes a Village to Convene a Grand Jury on July 3, 2012 05:30 PMDear tc, please explain to us all what has happened to the state of California, Stockton CA, Detroit MI, Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain now that they have taxed, taxed and taxed to the end result that there is simply no one from whom to extract more taxes.
You want the US to "tax the rich"! OK we'll we are indeed bigger than the state of California, Stockton CA, Detroit MI, Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain and yep, we do have more "rich"... so it will just take the US a bit longer to head down the drain that the state of California, Stockton CA, Detroit MI, Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain are circling.
But, I guess that's OK with you. I guess it's OK that your children and grandchildren will have no motive to succeed when any success will be to pay the debt you left them.
We anxiously await your solutions.
Nós nervosamente esperamos suas soluções.
Attendiamo ansiosamente le sue soluzioni.
Αναμένουμε εναγωνίως λύσεις σας
Aguardamos con preocupación sus soluciones
Nous attendons avec impatience vos solutions.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on July 3, 2012 08:04 PMYou might want to add 'How can you be so damned short-sighted?' to the list of questions I hope you have the courage to answer.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on July 3, 2012 08:27 PMWhat is liberalism's current equivalent of "Of course I'll still respect you in the morning!," or, "The [welfare] check is in the mail"?* Without question it is that they only want the "rich" to pay their "fair share." You can waterboard a liberal, but you'll never get a specific definition of what constitutes the "fair" tax rate for "the rich" that isn't always "more than the rate they're paying now."Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on July 4, 2012 11:50 AM
The big lie is that liberals only want to tax the rich alone, because even a fiscal dunce like Obama knows that complete confiscation of the wealth of the rich won't begin to come close to filling our fiscal hole. "Tax the rich" is always just misdirection for raising taxes on the middle class, where the real money is.
I sympathize with the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement. I feel their pain.
They are rightfully angry that a small group of people can control their lives and manipulate their freedom. They are right to object to a system that treats them as subjects. They are fully justified in their rage against those who would force them to do what they don't believe in.
The sad thing is is that the people the OWS people rage against aren't the people who in fact control our lives or deny our freedoms.
The 1% can't raise the taxes of anyone. The 1% can't force you to buy things you don't want. The 1% can't make you violate your religious beliefs. The 1% can't tell you how to live your life.
But the 0.000001%, the one millionth, can. The president plus the members of Congress and the Supreme Court who side with him are the one millionth, and they can do and have done all the things that OWS ascribes to the wealthy.
The wealthy can't just take money from us, but the the one millionth can; they can raise taxes anytime they like.
The wealthy can't force us to buy health insurance, or broccoli, but the the one millionth can.
The wealthy can't force us to violate our religious beliefs, but the the one millionth can.
In reality, the oppressors in America today are the the one millionth, not the 1%. It's the one millionth who make the rules that the rest of us have to follow. And if we don't follow those rules, we will be fined or imprisoned
**Emphasis mine
The Food Safety bill passed into law last year grants the federal government the power to destroy your private vegetable garden and shut down small, organic farms, in the interests of food "safety" of course.
And Obongocare, as we know, will drive healthcare through the roof to all but welfare recipients and illegal aliens. The ultra rich will pay cash to private clinics while those who pay for the whole system will wait in lines behind illegals and indolents.
But all this means little given Obongo the Dictator has signed an executive order granting him the power to declare martial law anytime he chooses and take anything he wants from us anyway.
Sure glad you leftists like living in an oppressive oligarchy, because it's coming soon to a neighborhood near you.
Posted by: Saltherring on July 4, 2012 12:31 PMThe republic is in peril.
And both our candidates for Governor are willing to accept Obamadon'tcare.
I am shocked. McKenna has bent over for the Marxist Democrats in an effort to be elected.
Posted by: JoeBandMember on July 4, 2012 01:18 PMHe has always believed that the individual mandate is a tax. His lead advisor, Fernhstorm needs to take vacation until November 7th
Posted by: KDS on July 4, 2012 06:26 PMFrance to Set Top Marginal Tax Rate at 75%, France Poised to Implode
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on July 4, 2012 09:39 PMJust be honest enough - especially to yourselves - to admit that the "FREE" stuff is being pick-pocketed out of your own wallet, the wallets of your children, your parents, your grandchildren, your neighbors, your friends.
Just as sure as you believe Robing Hood was hero, he was in fact a THIEF. And that's who you're putting in power with votes.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on July 5, 2012 09:29 AMA fortuitous and yet irrefutable typo!
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on July 5, 2012 09:37 AMAs for your list of countries, you may also want to consider the trouble Ireland is now in and it is a country that has been following Romney's prescription for several years now. So, just as you can point to countries that are failing with tax us to death agenda, one can also point to countries like Ireland that tried the tax cut us to oblivion approach and are also now failing. It gets back to my point. Balance in the approach is the best method. You can't just adjust one side of the equation.
Posted by: tc on July 5, 2012 09:58 AMBalance in the approach is the best method.
OK BALANCE.
Name ONE entitlement recent liberals are willing to discuss? Hells bells even though Clinton took credit for welfare, he was dragged into it ... then used it for his own political purposes.
Privatize Social Security? "Grandma will starve!"
Reduce welfare? "Children will die!"
Cut Planned Parenthood? "Women won't get mammograms!"
Education funding? "Classes will be too big"
National Endowment of the Arts? "We must treasure the vision of "Christ in Piss""
PUHLEASE. They have an excuse against every proposed cut and a reason for every increase.
It's nice of you to attempt to scoot over the middle the fence, though. I'd bet it's painful.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on July 5, 2012 10:31 AMPick an issue and take a stand!
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on July 5, 2012 03:17 PMSo, I'm listening to my 23yr old arguing with a liberal online... evidently the liberal is (yawn) Bush bashing... so my son says: "I'd rather have Clinton back than have Obama because blowjobs are better than no jobs"
I about choked on my ice water.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on July 5, 2012 05:41 PM