healthcare Mandate Penalty Could Lead to Prison

Originally posted by FMF
I wasn't denying anything. I was asking you what you were satirizing with your post.

I would never do that, that is, not since the days when I was a writer for the Connan O'brien show.

Originally posted by eljefejesus
You left out the part where some people are for the freedom of people to make the money to get a or b or to fail to make money and be stuck with neither, or to support other options that involve subsidy but not force.

I am assuming that everyone in my example is making as much money as their skill allows. Just because you are "free to make money" doesn't mean that you'll be able to make very much of it.

So once everyone has maximized their money-making potential, they're going to be stuck if they're in Group B and can't afford the premiums or to pay their own healthcare expenses.

I'm not saying that insurance mandates are the only option here - just illustrating the dilemma facing anyone looking for an alternative approach.

And options that involve subsidy do involve force -- it requires the government to raise someone's taxes to produce the additional money. (Unless, of course, we just borrow more from that never-ending money pit that is Communist China).

Originally posted by joe beyser
How about the fact it is overpriced.

good point

Originally posted by Melanerpes
I am assuming that everyone in my example is making as much money as their skill allows. Just because you are "free to make money" doesn't mean that you'll be able to make very much of it.

So once everyone has maximized their money-making potential, they're going to be stuck if they're in Group B and can't afford the premiums or to pay their own health ...[text shortened]... course, we just borrow more from that never-ending money pit that is Communist China).

Ok, technically, even small subsidies involve force, but there is room for much less force to be used with simple subsidies than with massive government intervention with whole bureaucracies of government workers with their benefits administering programs such as public options and forcing everyone to get a health insurance or facing tax penalties. Big difference in the degree of force from small subsidies.

I agree the dilemma exists, but that does not make it right force everyone to pay more to resolve the market dilemma of the few. If you're sick, you have to pay. If you want the best care, you have to work to earn it. If there incentive to cotribute to society rather than live off government jobs and government programs, then more people will create wealth. Not that some level of government investment in its people through education and supporting innovation, etc.

Question: when was the last year we could all consider Communist China to actually be Communist rather than moving strongly towards capitalism.

Originally posted by eljefejesus
Still can't agree with you there, you can be a libertarian with full understanding of externalities and expect the government only to involve itself when absolutely nescessary regardless of the fact that it could do what many people would consider a socially nice and good thing if it became even more involved.

I guess our two senses of Libertarian are different here. I'm thinking of the hardcore types. Basically no market ever fails unless the government messed it up. All the information and externalities problems that may cause the market not to price things correctly do not actually exist. There are no true public goods.

That's the sort of capital L Libertarian I'm constantly deriding. A less extreme version that just dislikes the inefficiency of governments but recognizes that it may be necessary in some cases is fine by me. I do have colleagues that are self-described libertarians. We have a few disagreements, but we get along pretty well. After all, my initial position is that markets are to be preferred. Then I may be persuaded away from this position if I think that the classic wedges are present in a significant way.

Originally posted by whodey
I would never do that, that is, not since the days when I was a writer for the Connan O'brien show.

Good one, whodey. 🙂

Originally posted by telerion
I guess our two senses of Libertarian are different here. I'm thinking of the hardcore types. Basically no market ever fails unless the government messed it up. All the information and externalities problems that may cause the market not to price things correctly do not actually exist. There are no true public goods.

That's the sort of capital L Li away from this position if I think that the classic wedges are present in a significant way.

As with so many general philosophical descriptions, they don't always capture the degree or particulars. I would consider myself a moderate leaning libertarian on issue of new government spending and on the need to trim existing government spending and expanding civil liberties. Very conservative on issues of government spending/finances and on crime and punishment. Rule of law and capitalism. If not for the anti-immigration bout of the Republican Party, I would favor them over the Democrats. There have been a couple of cycles though where sinister government officials have decided that their political careers could possibly benefit by demonizing immigrants and proposing government force to reduce immigration. I cannot support such government-endorsed xenophobic nativism. I think that fits best with the libertarian philosophy overall.



Edit, naming source as WIKI:
"All forms of libertarianism support strong personal rights to life and liberty, but do not agree on the subject of property.[8] The most commonly known formulation of libertarianism supports free market capitalism[8] by advocating a right to private property, including property in the means of production,[9] minimal government regulation of that property, minimal taxation, and rejection of the welfare state, all within the context of the rule of law.[10][11][12] Some pro-property libertarians are anarchists who call for the elimination of the state.[13] Some call the pro-property view propertarian, and some pro-property libertarians believe a "propertarian philosophy" is a weak basis for libertarian morality.[14] A number of countries worldwide have libertarian parties which run candidates for political office."

Originally posted by eljefejesus
Ok, technically, even small subsidies involve force, but there is room for much less force to be used with simple subsidies than with massive government intervention with whole bureaucracies of government workers with their benefits administering programs such as public options and forcing everyone to get a health insurance or facing tax penalties. Big nsider Communist China to actually be Communist rather than moving strongly towards capitalism.

The idea behind the individual mandate is that everyone is required to get insurance OR else pay a certain % of their income as an extra tax. If everyone in Group A were to choose not to get coverage, the effective result would be the subsidy approach that you support. I'm sure a certain amount of trial and error would be needed to come up with the precise tax rate needed to ensure that everyone in Group B could afford coverage.

So the issue then becomes whether or not the uninsured members of Group A should be taxed, or if some other group should be taxed instead to provide those subsidies?

(and I consider China to be Communist as long as China does) 😉

Originally posted by Melanerpes
The idea behind the individual mandate is that everyone is required to get insurance OR else pay a certain % of their income as an extra tax. If everyone in Group A were to choose not to get coverage, the effective result would be the subsidy approach that you support. I'm sure a certain amount of trial and error would be needed to come up with the precis ...[text shortened]... to provide those subsidies?

(and I consider China to be Communist as long as China does) 😉

The level and degree of subsidization doesn't have to amount to whatever universal coverage affords and ensure universal coverage, but instead could be what is not a crushing and unreasonable burden for everyone else, what doesn't slow growth too much, what also considers the rights and anticipated reactions of those people being taxed more.