Saturday, December 14, 2013

Conservatives Love Government Intrusion As Long As It Hurts Only Poor People

If not for Democratic Governor Steve Beshear and the Democratic majority in the state House, instead of the acclaimed and exceptional kynect Obamacare program, Kentucky could have Iowa's conservative piece of shit:

A single person at 50 percent of the poverty line makes less than $500 per month. That's obviously not someone who can afford even a nickel in extra expenses. But that was the income level in Iowa's initial application, which means that for all practical purposes the original goal of this program was to (a) deny government benefits to poor people who are smokers, drinkers, drug users, or overweight, but (b) provide the benefits if these poor people agree to fairly intrusive government monitoring that ensures they improve these behaviors.

So here's a question: what's the liberal party line on this kind of thing? Are we opposed because conservatives are once again trying to deny benefits to the "undeserving" poor? Or are we in favor of this because using incentives to improve destructive lifestyles among the most vulnerable is a worthy effort? Does it matter whether the motivation for these incentives is something we approve of? If a lefty foundation launched a program that helped out poor families via a tough-love style approach that insisted on modifying destructive behavior, would it be OK? How much difference does it make that one is a public program and the other is private?
Answers: The liberal party line should be government intrudes on the personal lives of only the parasite rich, yes, no, yes, no, all the difference in the world.

No comments: