Tennessee Declines Federal Funding for HIV/AIDS Testing, Prevention and Treatment

[Hammster]

So when you shoot your neighbour, you're loving him then?

No.

 

[rambot]

No.

So how does a gun help you love your neighbour exactly?

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

It seems that it is not only cheaper but generally preferable to some people that a particular population be reduced.

Sadly true. Except many HIV patients are Christians and people, that were born with HIV.

 

[DaisyDay]

Sadly true. Except many HIV patients are Christians and people, that were born with HIV.

Collateral damage?

 

[Green Sun]

I can use some more guns for protection of my home. Can I get tax money for that?

Alright, I'll work with you here. If in this scenario, I would say "yes", would you be OK with nationalizing healthcare? You get something you want, I get something I want, win-win, right?

I do find it strange that you like, didn't respond to anything in my post really.

But the thread's already derailed I guess, since it's about guns now.

 

[Green Sun]

And their employer?

Heathcare being tied to your employer is one aspect that's so utterly strange when you think about it. Lose your job? Get laid off? Simply need to switch jobs? Enjoy having to upend your entire doctor-patient relationship, and god help you if you're in the middle of treatment during that time.

I recall my dad having to go to a completely different healthcare org for his primary care than the rest of our family, simply because they both had different "in-network" providers, and my mom's workplace didn't let her cover a spouse if their job had coverage... Even if that coverage was worse!

And it doesn't even result in cheaper or better care. The US spends more money on healthcare for worse results than other wealthy countries.

Makes sense when the goal seems to be to maximize profit all the time, rather than maximizing people's health.

 

[Hammster]

Alright, I'll work with you here. If in this scenario, I would say "yes", would you be OK with nationalizing healthcare? You get something you want, I get something I want, win-win, right?

I do find it strange that you like, didn't respond to anything in my post really.

But the thread's already derailed I guess, since it's about guns now.

It wasn’t about guns. It was about the use of taxes.

 

[linux.poet]

I honestly think if all 50 States in the United States stopped taking funding from the federal government, period, for anything, the United States would be a lot better place to live, and the country would have less debt overall.

It's also clear that Tennessee, home to a ton of Christian organizations, wants to criminalize having sex outside of marriage or other non-Christian sexual activities, and force the people engaged in those activities to either perish or move to other states. The latter is the more likely result.

 

[rambot]

I honestly think if all 50 States in the United States stopped taking funding from the federal government, period, for anything, the United States would be a lot better place to live, and the country would have less debt overall.

There are a LOT of states that couldn't even come CLOSE to supporting themselves because they have been unwilling to increase taxes in a fashion that can create a flurishing state (and then the argument becomes....did they want a flurishing state to begin with)

 

[linux.poet]

There are a LOT of states that couldn't even come CLOSE to supporting themselves because they have been unwilling to increase taxes in a fashion that can create a flurishing state (and then the argument becomes....did they want a flurishing state to begin with)

Depends on how you define "flourishing". In Wyoming, flourishing may mean to cut state spending to the bare minimum and to get out of everyone's way. In California, it might be to increase taxes to provide more government services. But the states need to be free to make those decisions without the federal government getting in the way and standardizing everything.

 

[rambot]

Depends on how you define "flourishing". In Wyoming, flourishing may mean to cut state spending to the bare minimum and to get out of everyone's way. In California, it might be to increase taxes to provide more government services. But the states need to be free to make those decisions without the federal government getting in the way and standardizing everything.

Or you could look at Kentucky, Mississippi and other low tax states and compare how they perform in things like Education, or health care.

 

[Desk trauma]

Or you could look at Kentucky, Mississippi and other low tax states and compare how they perform in things like Education, or health care.

While taking in more in federal benifits then they send back in taxes.

 

[linux.poet]

Or you could look at Kentucky, Mississippi and other low tax states and compare how they perform in things like Education, or health care.

I'm sure they are deficient. The problem isn't really the money, it's poor administration of what money they do have, and unwillingness to acquire what they need.

 

[FireDragon76]

Depends on how you define "flourishing". In Wyoming, flourishing may mean to cut state spending to the bare minimum and to get out of everyone's way. In California, it might be to increase taxes to provide more government services. But the states need to be free to make those decisions without the federal government getting in the way and standardizing everything.

It doesn't work like that in a country where people can just move to try to obtain favorable services.

 

[linux.poet]

It doesn't work like that in a country where people can just move to try to obtain favorable services.

Or freedom from taxation, if they think they don't need those services.

Moving isn't free though, and it's actually difficult - need a new job, for one thing. Not everyone is freely mobile.

 

[JustOneWay]

You can't do that as a rush job. You have to phase that in, gradually withdrawing government support for services and allowing the private sector to take over providing them. People will not make affordable private education overnight, especially if your state hasn't been doing it for as long as people can remember and people have no concept of that. The same goes with healthcare and "other vital services".

That was an incorrect response. That was tax cuts not reduced government spending. I deleted it.

 

[rambot]

I'm sure they are deficient. The problem isn't really the money,

Let me stop you right there.

The problem IS the money. The ONLY solution Republicans have ever REALLY shared that is going to be popular is "tax cuts" because the idea of "small government" means you don't need much money. Unfortunately, governments do need money. Well, that affects what kinds of support can be given and offered to their citizenry
Now I also grant that the populations of these states definitely have lower household incomes but that would also suggest they would require supportive governance.

it's poor administration of what money they do have, and unwillingness to acquire what they need.

[my emphasis]...I'm on the fence about the first half but whoa....1000% on board with the bolded.

 

[linux.poet]

The problem IS the money. The ONLY solution Republicans have ever REALLY shared that is going to be popular is "tax cuts" because the idea of "small government" means you don't need much money. Unfortunately, governments do need money. Well, that affects what kinds of support can be given and offered to their citizenry
Now I also grant that the populations of these states definitely have lower household incomes but that would also suggest they would require supportive governance.

I don't think that you can just apply a philosophy to a system, in this case a state, and instantaneously come to a conclusion. If people are low-income in your state, you have to ask why they are low-income, if that's a problem that needs to be solved, and how to best serve those people without damaging the interests of everyone else in the state. And this has to be done on a case by case basis.

A state will always have money in it somewhere. The government simply needs to know where that money is and tax it accordingly. For example, let's say I have a state filled with farmers and ranchers who pay migrants and their families to work on their farms. It makes the most sense to impose property taxes on the landowners to pay for healthcare and education for the migrants. However, if my state has an expensive private education system in it with a lot of students, the students are getting their services paid for by their respective universities. I would do better to place a minimal tax on the universities and private schools to ensure protection for them, and get out of their way otherwise.

 

[rambot]

I don't think that you can just apply a philosophy to a system, in this case a state, and instantaneously come to a conclusion. If people are low-income in your state, you have to ask why they are low-income, if that's a problem that needs to be solved, and how to best serve those people without damaging the interests of everyone else in the state. And this has to be done on a case by case basis.

Fair point but certainly it could be argued that poor governance is systemic AND long term in some of these states. What gets strange is.....why don't the citizens vote to improve their governance?
For example, several of those southern states have quite high sales taxes (state and local). It's been shown that these kind of taxes put undue burden on lower income people (people who cannot afford it) and virtually no burden on higher income people (people who can).

These poor states are being governed by rich people who are protecting (or at least making lives easier) for their upper crust friends, for the most part.

 

[linux.poet]

Fair point but certainly it could be argued that poor governance is systemic AND long term in some of these states. What gets strange is.....why don't the citizens vote to improve their governance?

It's probably not a matter of voting, it's a matter of who is running for office. The low-income folk don't have enough money to run for office or fund a candidate for them, so they get the choice of voting for a rich person who is going to not care, or a rich person who is going to not care, over and over again. At which point, why vote?

Also, what I just said in the previous post is actually rare sanity in America. It's far easier there to get swept up by parties, political positions, and rhetoric rather than the realities of governance and what needs to be done. This means that it's far less likely for the low-income folks to see that voting is a way to help themselves, and instead to see politics as a zero-sum game connected to the success of their particular party's rhetoric at any given moment. In order to see voting as a way to inspire change, they need to look past the parties and see the people.