(03-28-2018 09:59 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-28-2018 09:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Point taken about the overreach in my response. I'll quibble that inherently all of the government spending is linked back to legislation in some way or another, but you're right that I went a bit further.
My response to OO stuck more to legislation and some benefits I saw. And I have to say, even you benefited from Obamacare with regards to pre-existing conditions being covered.

Nope. Because I, like many if not most Americans, already had that covered.

Quote:That's one of those laws where you don't recognize the benefit until you need it. So you got some of the benefit to the kick to the nads. I'm not the only one in this conversation benefiting from that "welfare."
Plus, let's be honest, a lot of the programs/research the government funds with the revenue it takes in via taxes are very hard to value at the time of that revenue receipt. But the list of government funded research that affects our day-to-day lives in a net positive manner is vast.
And finally, to your comment about no specific legislation making your life tangibly better, is that because, perhaps, you're only focusing on the direct effect to your wallet because that is the easiest place for you to see a tangible effect? It's often difficult to see the benefit of say, environmental or safety regulations, because they are in place to prevent certain acts from happening, so much so that we often start taking them for granted and forgetting their benefit.

Here's the thing. Government can't create anything. All they can do is rob from Peter to pay Paul. So every government "benefit" comes with a cost. A benefit might be a net positive, taken in a vacuum, but when offset against the cost, maybe it's a net loser. Many governmental actions are.

No disrespect, but no sh**. I even explicitly stated that earlier that there are net negatives. Just like the free market, there are imperfections in the government and it certainly is not the answer for every problem. I was pushing back against the very literally stated opinion that no legislation had benefited tanq.

And to your comment about pre-existing conditions, I’m not sure what you mean. I did not state that no insurers covered pre-existing conditions, but Post-ACA, you could not be denied coverage because of one. So everyone benefited because if anyone who was previously covered ever had to change insurance providers, they can not be denied by the new provider. Or do I misunderstand how the new system works?