Plus, it's going to be expensive as hell and time consuming for the individual DMV offices to verify everything. I didn't see the federal government stepping up to the plate to provide funding in the bill.

medical insurance
 

I nver called for a single-payor solution. I suggested that two first steps would be to (1) regulate health care delivery costs such that the costs imposed for a given item are reflective of the value (i.e., no more $12 plastic urinals or $5 aspirin) and (2) ensure that access to costly procedures and medications is not allocated purely on tha basis of ability to pay (e.g., sorry, you can't pay for a bypass, that means you die).

The first step would actually restore some measure of market-based economics to the system. People of modest means would be able to afford to pay for basic health care needs, thus allowing the existence of a catastrophic insurance market to meet many consumers' needs. I specifically declined to suggest who should supply that catastrophic insurance, because until the pricing is rationalized more, I really can't say that the market will or will not be able to meet the need.

Apparently reading comprehension is contagious, and at times epidemic on this board.

Having recently been through it...
 

The Wonk Princess just got her license in November. Having been through the process with her, I have to say that no, I don't think it's too easy to get a driver's license. She needed multiple forms of id, proof of insurance, and me to vouch for her, since she didn't have a utility bill or mortgage bill in her own name to establish proof of residence.

So, I guess you could put me in the group of people who feel nothing needs to be done. This is just more bureaucratic idiocy designed to mask the fact that there isn't really a whole lot the government can do to prevent illegals from coming into the country or to prevent people who come in on student or tourist visas from overstaying their welcome. If anything, allowing illegals to get driver's licenses would make it easier to track them, since they would need to show proof of a current address.

I honestly don't see much in the way of verification costs. The cost is twofold: 1) pissing citizens off because they need a bunch of docs (although I think Wonk is already pissed off, so how much worse can it get*); 2) the added cost of having tellers say "sorry, you also need X, please come back tomorrow."

Do the DMVs actually have to authenticate the documents?

*it would be far too outable to tell my DC DMV story. Suffice it to say, they required documents that could obtained only with a drivers license in order to get a drivers license.

A national Identity card would solve all sorts of problems. Voting, Social Security and Medicare Fraud, etc. We have needed one for years. Unfortunately, a national identity card is a political nonstarter. The American public sees such a card as the first step towards a police state.

What would a national ID card get you for reducing voting fraud, SS fraud and Medicare fraud (I assume that's what you were saying) that a driver's license wouldn't?

I'm not being sarcastic. Until recently, I didn't have a valid passport, and I don't know where my Social Security card is. I can produce a birth certificate, and a driver's license, and that's about it for ID. If they want me to produce a bunch of stuff to get the driver's license, I don't know how I'd do that.

The problem is that there are all sorts of other reasons to need a national ID card, which have nothing to do with driving. State drivers licenses are de facto ID cards, although that is not literally what they are. (Hence the fuss about giving them to illegal immigrants.)

That was my understanding from the NPR story. The states are fighting the bill, because the burden will fall onto them to do the leg work in making sure that all the documents were accurate.

I read somewhere that it's always easy to get fake documentation. Every single time the process changes, the forgers are able to figure it out. And that's just for kids getting fake IDs to drink.

This is sarcasm right? Do you really need me to outline the obvious.

Congress legislated a national patient identifier in 1996 in HIPAA, but everyone keeps on putting off implementing it. I have serious doubts that it will ever happen. The biggest benefit for a national patient identifier is continuity of care and ease of billing. If we ever get an electronic patient record system off the ground, having a patient identifier will be extraordinarily useful.

Most high dollar Medicare fraud, btw, is on the provider side, not the patient side. National ID isn't going to do anything about upcoding, unbundling, or billing for services that were never delivered.

You want a national ID card? So you go to your local national ID card office, they ask you for six forms of ID and a few weeks later a nice hard plastic card with holograms and fingerprints and imbedded chips and other neato keeno Tom Swifty type stuff arrives in the mail. Presumably, all that great information they got in the process now resides on a database somewhere. You believe that information isn't already available? What info will you get through a national ID card system that isn't already available? The new passports already have fingerprints on them, and will soon have biometric chips, if I understand correctly. If you want to keep track of people, the problem isn't obtaining data - it's that the Feds aren't in the 20th century when it comes to data transmission, sharing and analysis. You think the Feds will be any better than the states when it comes to administering this system? And as RT points out, the forgers are never too far behind the curve.

Now Maybe If We Cut Spending . . .
 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...050402134.html

[Tax Receipts $50 Billion higher than anticipated]

Sounds like Larry Franklin had many, many more top-secret documents in his house than Sandy Berger ever did. I'm waiting for the conservative outrage.

Now Maybe If We Cut Spending . . .
 

God-damned AMT.

So, the trick is to convince them of the truth: That step was already taken through the Patriot act and DHS.

Now Maybe If We Cut Spending . . .
 

In a way, yes. But realistically, it makes more sense to scrap the regular income tax, and make everyone pay the AMT. It's a lot more simple, and the marginal rates are lower.

Of course, in a few years, a bunch of exemptions and deductions will creep back in, but at least for a bit it's better than what we have.

Your papers, please.
 

Fuckers. Absolutely not. This is America, not Mittle-europe (and I am serious). The SC decision in that case out of Wyoming, or wherevever, still pisses me off -- the one that says you have to tell a cop who you are or get arrested.

Now Maybe If We Cut Spending . . .
 

My sibling claims to be unable to find one of the worksheets for the AMT and, therefore, that the AMT is not understandable.

I'm just saying.

On the plus side for you AMT-haters, apparently whatever advisory council the Admin has working to make a recommendation at the end of July (or possibly the first of July, but I think the end) is definitely not going to have the AMT in their proposal. On the other hand, they also apparently are supposed to be proposing a flat tax that is revenue-neutral. We'll see how *that* pans out. At least it might publicize how much more "regular" people will have to pay in taxes if there is a "fair" flat tax.

.

Here we go. To state the painfully obvious, the best way to ferret out fraud is cross referencing. Right now there are many people that use mulitple Social Security numbers for various reasons. There is no picture that comes with the Social Security cards so it is really hard to pick them out. The voter registration is also not cross referenced against social security numbers. When someone dies there information is not automatically passed to the voter rolls or the social security administration, or anywhere for that matter. If there was one central ID card for all government stuff, then it would be easy to require that all deaths be reported to that system. That would automatically clear all the old social security numbers and the dead people on voter rolls. IN addition, you would get one when you were born and therefore would not have to get a social security card later or any other ID later. As far as voting, everyone would already be registered, therefore ending all that registration nightmare. When you moved and re-registered, your old registration would automatically be deleted when you re-registered, preventing the tens of millions of double registrations in this country. In addition, all medical history etc would be correlated in one place that would be availabe to a physician when he or she needs to provide emergency medicine. Everyone has been complaining about multiple forms of ID, but with a national ID card, with a picture and fingerprint, you would only need one form of ID for everything. Most developed nations have national ID cards and it clears up all these problems and more. I had a national ID when I lived in Japan, and it was the only form of ID I ever had to show for anything I ever did. Every other resident and citizen had the same thing. You really can't see the problem of having multiple ID systems, with different requirements.

You have a lot of faith in computers.

You're missing my point. I asked what the national ID card would get you that a driver's license does not. How many states do NOT currently have a picture on the face of the driver's license? Agreed that SS cards aren't worth the paper they're printed on, and that the voter registration is a mess. But you don't need a national ID card to require that a decedent's information be passed along to a national database, or even that we have a national emergency medical database. What is the level of differences among state driver license programs?

A drivers license is only for "Drivers". It is not an ID card but a "license". A national ID card would be your citizenship card. You would automatically have one. That way the US government could keep track of who is a citizen and who is not (And who getrs to vote). Driver's licenses are given to non-citizens. Legal alien residents need to be able to get driver's licenses. A drivers license is not the proper place for voter registration information, medical information etc. Are you really suggesting that when someone dies that that information be sent to the DMV and then the DMV notify everyone else, and that the DMV be the clearling house for all this information. And what about people that can't drive, or are not of driving age.

Anyone for a drink after work? Let's meet at Tech Noir.

This is an inside Joke right? Or is this for real? - I got burned the last time someone suggested this.

I have a lot of faith in the DMV.

Your chief concern seems to be verifying citizenship so as to reliably identify potential voters, and purge rolls of deceased voters and old addresses. For this, you don't need to get an ID card at birth. The only time I think you'd need an ID card for minors is to keep track of the juvenile delinquent's rap sheets. As for medical emergencies, I doubt there are all that many times a doctor pounds on the desk and cries, "Holy Mother of God, if only we had a national ID card so that I could have known that sweet child was allergic to mint julep-flavored lollipops!" I know you spend a lot of time thinking about voting-related issues, but that's not so high on my list.

I think there's something to be said for decentralization. What shape would the Japanese be in if a terrorist targeted their national ID card servers? Or if someone hacked into the system? Talk about identity theft.

But I have to admit the chief motivation for my position is that I'm fighting for Patty and Selma's jobs, dammit. Animated characters of the world, unite!

Now Maybe If We Cut Spending . . .
 

The AMT is not currently understandable, but that's because it's an alternative. Instead of just calculating it, you back out a bunch of deductions, etc. What a mess. But if calculating it straight up, it wouldn't be so bad.

Now Maybe If We Cut Spending . . .
 

Ah. Is it a flat tax, or does it have progressive rates?

Genocide
 

It took me a while to get that. Nice reference. Anyway, for all you milk toast wimpy non-necons, I was watching Richard Holbrook last night discuss Genocide. He admits that the biggest mistake of his tenure was not responding quickly enough to the Bosnian Genocide and not doing anything about Rwanda. So what panzy ass liberal, or self centered "only in American Interests" conservative is going to argue that we shouldn't send the Marines into Darfur right now. It is time to start our zero tolerance Genocide policy right now.

Genocide
 

I had a joke to insert here about Barney Miller, but apparently I had Hal Holbrook and Hal Linden confused, so nevermind. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Genocide
 

Not this pansy ass liberal. Send 'em yesterday. When they're done, can we send them to Uganda to take on the Lord's Army? We'll save a hell of a lot of people that way.

I throw a lot of money at Doctors Without Borders, and in return I get more-than-occasional accounts of what is going on in sub-Sahara Africa generally. It's horrific - it really is. It is beyond comprehension why so many self-professed Christians whip themselves into a frenzy over a brain-dead Florida woman and can't spare a thought for scores of thousands in Africa dying from violence, AIDS, malaria, etc.

Now Maybe If We Cut Spending . . .
 

You're kidding, right?

But it's neither; mild progressivity both from rates and the standard deduction.

But how hard is it to calculate? Take AGI, take standard deduction, take mortgage and charity deductions. Multiply by .26 or .28. Done

Genocide
 

It is sort of guache to forget "Lest we Forget."

Genocide
 

To their credit, many self-professed Christians care more about what's happening in sub-Saharan Africa than most non-self-professed Christians.

And let me play devil's advocate here on Darfur, to some extent. I'm all for intervention if you think it can accomplish something, but what are you trying to do? Sudan is 2.5 million square kilometers -- eight times the size of Poland. If we had 100,000 troops to drop into the country, they could still get lost very quickly. What's their mission? Is there any reasonable prospect that we could bring law and order?

Now Maybe If We Cut Spending . . .
 

Ah. Much more like a flat tax, though I'd call that progressive. I have not ever been affected by the AMT (I am so poor) and have only ever run through the worksheets. Ignorance, right over here, check it out.

Interestingly, the person who is on the committee thingy did not explain their flat-tax thingy this way to my AMT-hating sibling, even though some kind of mortgage/charity things were the things to keep, and what you describe sounds like what she described.

Can AMT affect anyone who does not itemize?

Genocide
 

Bull. Wiping out their air force and/or enforcing a no-fly zone (the Sudanese government has been bombing the villages) will require no US ground troops. And the Darfur region is not the entire country. The goal is not to impose law and order; it is to stop a lightly armed government approved and directed group -- supported by the government's air force -- from killing unarmed civilians.

Genocide
 

They could do what the UN does but actually do it right. The UN sets up these safe areas and refugee camps and lets the Janjaweed or whatever the hell they are ransack them. We should do it right by putting Marines around our safeareas and if any Janjaweed shows up we introduce them to the Marine philosophy ("we believe in peace through superior firepower and swift retaliation"). It is also pretty flat out there. Not much protective covering. It would be pretty easy hunting with our Hueys and Warthogs. We should assign a whole Division to protect that French Doctor association (even though they are french).

Genocide
 

Do you mean non-self-professed Christians, or self-professed non-Christians? Because if the people are Christian but not identifying themselves as such, how can you identify the group to ascribe beliefs to them?

Genocide
 

You could stop the air force from flying, and that would help some. But you cannot stop people on the ground from killing each other, and killing civilians, and that has been going on for years and years. And not just in Darfur -- all over the country. The Arab north has always dominated the national government, but it does not control most of the south. There are many, many factions, and who is fighting with whom keeps changing.

I'm not defending inaction. But there's not a lot we can do, either.

I recommend this book highly:

http://content.powells.com/cgi-bin/i...sbn=0375703772

It's about Sudan, framed around the story of a British relief worker who married one of the southern rebel leaders.

Genocide
 

Yeah, I was venting. At least the non-self-professed Christians aren't being hypocrites.

I have no large scale military ops experience, so I can't say. Off the top of my head, though, first, we're not talking the entirety of Sudan, but one region. However, your point remains, since Darfu is about the size of France. I would think about turning the whole region into a no-fly zone, since the janjaweed apparently often rely on geovernment aerial bombing runs to soften up their target of choice. I'd also pay a visit to Khartoum, to politely ask them to rein in the militias.

Now that I've googled it, I find some experts say that between 25-50,000 troops should be a minimum force.

Genocide
 

You could set up some refugee camps with Marine guards, but know that in twenty years, we will still be protecting refugee camps while the civil wars there continue. Unless an American president gets tired of the occasional calls to parents of Marines.