Can we just shut the government down already?
-
Devils Advocate
This is an outrage! My post was deliberately edited and redacted to reflect this sickos agenda!QuakerOats;1514923 wrote:Thank you.
Correct My Post Immediately or Expect a Certified Letter!!! -
BoatShoes
1. You are not forced to buy health insurance under this regime. Case closed. The Supreme Court ruled that taxing irresponsible people who don't insure their health is not a direct tax requiring apportionment therefore indicating that it is not something we're forced to pay or do. You are free to not purchase health insurance but this behavior that causes external harms which are not priced into your decision can justifiably be charged a fee by the Congress.WebFire;1515020 wrote:1. Forcing people to buy something they don't want or possibly even need is theft. Also, making people who earn more money to pay for the same service for someone who doesn't make as much can be theft.
2. When I was insured and went to the ER, I got a bill in the mail. I had to pay it or default. Why is this different? Private health care, private person.
2. Choosing to charge a person a different price than somebody else is not theft. Hope this helps.
3. I take it you mean uninsured??? I'm not sure what you're getting at in the part you labeled 2. Please forgive me.
If the idea is that uninsured people already face the risk of bankruptcy and that should encourage them to insure themselves and why would a tax be different??? We know that human beings are biased and discount the probability of bankruptcy due to cancer, etc. and don't properly insure. That is part of the reason we're in this mess today...people act irresponsibly as the risk is not palpable and that risk transfer harms us all. The clear and present potential harm of monetary punishment and loss can have a benefit. We know Pigovian taxation works...it has well documented effects in deterring smoking and alcohol consumption as just a few examples. -
BoatShoes
Karl Mark opposed social insurance and would've certainly opposed insuring corporate profits through cementing the provision of privately delivered health insurance by capitalist, self-interested private enterprises. Hope this helps.QuakerOats;1515022 wrote:Thank you. Obviously though, you are not a person with marxist tendencies, lofty morals, and intellectual superiority; so keep it to yourself and take your medicine. Karl will take of you; he knows best. -
WebFire
1. Correct. Buy it or be taxed. Theft either way. Also, it is not up to (rather, should not be up to) the federal gov't to decide what personal choices are irresponsible and make them pay a fine. Not making my kid go to bed at a decent hour is irresponsible. Should I be taxed for it?BoatShoes;1515032 wrote:1. You are not forced to buy health insurance under this regime. Case closed. The Supreme Court ruled that taxing irresponsible people who don't insure their health is not a direct tax requiring apportionment therefore indicating that it is not something we're forced to pay or do. You are free to not purchase health insurance but this behavior that causes external harms which are not priced into your decision can justifiably be charged a fee by the Congress.
2. Choosing to charge a person a different price than somebody else is not theft. Hope this helps.
3. I take it you mean uninsured??? I'm not sure what you're getting at in the part you labeled 2. Please forgive me.
If the idea is that uninsured people already face the risk of bankruptcy and that should encourage them to insure themselves and why would a tax be different??? We know that human beings are biased and discount the probability of bankruptcy due to cancer, etc. and don't properly insure. That is part of the reason we're in this mess today...people act irresponsibly as the risk is not palpable and that risk transfer harms us all. The clear and present potential harm of monetary punishment and loss can have a benefit. We know Pigovian taxation works...it has well documented effects in deterring smoking and alcohol consumption as just a few examples.
2. Sure it is. At the very least, it is discriminatory. Imagine your outcry if a restaurant charged you $69.99 for a hamburger so the poor guy could eat one for $1.
3. Yes, I meant UNINSURED. -
WebFire
Because it is the right of an individual to decide what risks to take. Many people forgo health insurance because they are young and healthy and the take a calculated risk. That is none of the feds' damn business. So what if they go bankrupt? IT'S THEIR CHOICE.BoatShoes;1515032 wrote:
If the idea is that uninsured people already face the risk of bankruptcy and that should encourage them to insure themselves and why would a tax be different??? We know that human beings are biased and discount the probability of bankruptcy due to cancer, etc. and don't properly insure. That is part of the reason we're in this mess today...people act irresponsibly as the risk is not palpable and that risk transfer harms us all. The clear and present potential harm of monetary punishment and loss can have a benefit. We know Pigovian taxation works...it has well documented effects in deterring smoking and alcohol consumption as just a few examples.
I don't know why healthcare has turned into such a government controlled idea. Healthcare is private. If people don't pay their bills, then that is for the PRIVATE healthcare provider to worry about. No different than if I don't pay my credit card bills. Should the feds make everyone have credit card fraud insurance too?
My biggest issue with Obamacare is that it doesn't address the real issues. We need to get healthcare costs down, not mask the costs by forcing everyone to buy insurance to pay the inflated bills, or else be fined (taxed). And social insurance sure doesn't help anything. -
BoatShoes
1. The Public determines what choices and behaviors deserve punitive pigovian taxes all of the time. I.e. Sin Taxes. It's like saying "I should be free to engage in conduct that harms people and society and it is wrong that society is charging a price for engaging in this behavior that harms them." That's not theft or an unjust infringement and/or limitation or proper liberty when the harms caused by freeloading on health insurance are well documented and observable.WebFire;1515037 wrote:1. Correct. Buy it or be taxed. Theft either way. Also, it is not up to (rather, should not be up to) the federal gov't to decide what personal choices are irresponsible and make them pay a fine. Not making my kid go to bed at a decent hour is irresponsible. Should I be taxed for it?
2. Sure it is. At the very least, it is discriminatory. Imagine your outcry if a restaurant charged you $69.99 for a hamburger so the poor guy could eat one for $1.
3. Yes, I meant UNINSURED.
Putting your kid late to bed does not have well documented and observable harms that would create a compelling societal interest to tax or regulate such bad behavior that would outweigh your liberty to put your kid to bed when you want.
2. Taxation is not theft, it is the social contract price, at a meta-level. You are free to emigrate but you begrudgingly accept the benefits of the social contract even though you would like to renegotiate the terms. It's not unlike a football player who wants a new contract but begrudgingly plays anyways because the benefits of playing outweigh the costs. All Americans are free to do a Carson Palmer and choose not to play if they think the burdens and harms outweigh the benefits. For anti-tax folks who stay, taxation is a begrudgingly accepted contract price.
3. Sure it's "discriminatory" but we discriminate all of the time. We don't let kids drive or contract, etc. We can charge people different prices in all of our affairs. Discrimination is not outlawed unless it is done for illegal reasons....i.e. discriminating based on race. Discriminating based on ability to pay is done regularly.
I don't suppose it upsets you if a coffee owner gives a poor bum a free cup of coffee now and again but charges everyone else?? -
WebFire
Taxation can absolutely be theft. Not all tax is.BoatShoes;1515049 wrote:1. The Public determines what choices and behaviors deserve punitive pigovian taxes all of the time. I.e. Sin Taxes. It's like saying "I should be free to engage in conduct that harms people and society and it is wrong that society is charging a price for engaging in this behavior that harms them." That's not theft or an unjust infringement and/or limitation or proper liberty when the harms caused by freeloading on health insurance are well documented and observable.
Putting your kid late to bed does not have well documented and observable harms that would create a compelling societal interest to tax or regulate such bad behavior that would outweigh your liberty to put your kid to bed when you want.
2. Taxation is not theft, it is the social contract price, at a meta-level. You are free to emigrate but you begrudgingly accept the benefits of the social contract even though you would like to renegotiate the terms. It's not unlike a football player who wants a new contract but begrudgingly plays anyways because the benefits of playing outweigh the costs. All Americans are free to do a Carson Palmer and choose not to play if they think the burdens and harms outweigh the benefits. For anti-tax folks who stay, taxation is a begrudgingly accepted contract price.
3. Sure it's "discriminatory" but we discriminate all of the time. We don't let kids drive or contract, etc. We can charge people different prices in all of our affairs. Discrimination is not outlawed unless it is done for illegal reasons....i.e. discriminating based on race. Discriminating based on ability to pay is done regularly.
I don't suppose it upsets you if a coffee owner gives a poor bum a free cup of coffee now and again but charges everyone else?? -
like_that
I always find it funny how this country was practically founded on the opposition of taxes, yet now we have delusional radicals who think higher taxes is what is best for this country. Shouldn't be surprised, we have enough idiots in this country who are slowly, but surely destroying the constitution and foundation of this country. -
WebFire
Also your coffee example is irrelevant. Giving a bum free coffee is not affecting my price. That is charity. Now, if the price of my coffee goes up just so he can give some away, I would probably go to a different coffee shop, unless I supported the charity.BoatShoes;1515049 wrote:1. The Public determines what choices and behaviors deserve punitive pigovian taxes all of the time. I.e. Sin Taxes. It's like saying "I should be free to engage in conduct that harms people and society and it is wrong that society is charging a price for engaging in this behavior that harms them." That's not theft or an unjust infringement and/or limitation or proper liberty when the harms caused by freeloading on health insurance are well documented and observable.
Putting your kid late to bed does not have well documented and observable harms that would create a compelling societal interest to tax or regulate such bad behavior that would outweigh your liberty to put your kid to bed when you want.
2. Taxation is not theft, it is the social contract price, at a meta-level. You are free to emigrate but you begrudgingly accept the benefits of the social contract even though you would like to renegotiate the terms. It's not unlike a football player who wants a new contract but begrudgingly plays anyways because the benefits of playing outweigh the costs. All Americans are free to do a Carson Palmer and choose not to play if they think the burdens and harms outweigh the benefits. For anti-tax folks who stay, taxation is a begrudgingly accepted contract price.
3. Sure it's "discriminatory" but we discriminate all of the time. We don't let kids drive or contract, etc. We can charge people different prices in all of our affairs. Discrimination is not outlawed unless it is done for illegal reasons....i.e. discriminating based on race. Discriminating based on ability to pay is done regularly.
I don't suppose it upsets you if a coffee owner gives a poor bum a free cup of coffee now and again but charges everyone else??
With Obamacare, I am forced to pay higher prices for a charity I do not support. -
BoatShoesWebFire;1515038 wrote:Because it is the right of an individual to decide what risks to take. Many people forgo health insurance because they are young and healthy and the take a calculated risk. That is none of the feds' damn business. So what if they go bankrupt? IT'S THEIR CHOICE.
I don't know why healthcare has turned into such a government controlled idea. Healthcare is private. If people don't pay their bills, then that is for the PRIVATE healthcare provider to worry about. No different than if I don't pay my credit card bills. Should the feds make everyone have credit card fraud insurance too?
My biggest issue with Obamacare is that it doesn't address the real issues. We need to get healthcare costs down, not mask the costs by forcing everyone to buy insurance to pay the inflated bills, or else be fined (taxed). And social insurance sure doesn't help anything.
Healthcare is different because anything beyond ordinary medical procedures like routine exams is paid for with insurance...they're risks you insure against....and everyone should insure against these risks and if people do not get in the risk pool when they should they are harming all of the others in the risk pool.
If healthcare consumers operated like we do in everything else, "Oh gee that's a good deal you have on Chemo at U of M...way better than the Cleveland Clinic...and it just so happens I budgeted for it in my savings"....then maybe you'd have a point but in real life demand for healthcare goes from being relatively elastic to totally inelastic and without adequate ability to discern between the advice of medical professionals in an instant...and that's why we get insurance hoping that they'll pay for those treatments when we suddenly demand them.
The problem affects all of us when people take the risk and pass it on to the rest of us in the risk pools when they don't insure against a sudden demand for healthcare services that cannot be budgeted for. -
BoatShoes
How are you forced to pay higher prices for a charity you do not support? In reality, when people don't have insurance and then use healthcare providers when they suddenly get sick....that is when you are paying the price of charity for the freeloaders.WebFire;1515052 wrote:Also your coffee example is irrelevant. Giving a bum free coffee is not affecting my price. That is charity. Now, if the price of my coffee goes up just so he can give some away, I would probably go to a different coffee shop, unless I supported the charity.
With Obamacare, I am forced to pay higher prices for a charity I do not support. -
BoatShoeslike_that;1515051 wrote:I always find it funny how this country was practically founded on the opposition of taxes, yet now we have delusional radicals who think higher taxes is what is best for this country. Shouldn't be surprised, we have enough idiots in this country who are slowly, but surely destroying the constitution and foundation of this country.
One of the first things the Founders did was pass a Whiskey Tax and then used military, federal force to crush the people who rebelled against the tax. They also mandated that Merchant Sailors have health insurance in 1798. They also employed protectionist tariffs which have similar economic effects to taxation.
The Founders did not oppose taxation. They opposed colonization.
Your knowledge of the founders is based on tropes and throwaway lines by conservatives who discount at least half of the Founding Fathers existence. Hope this helps. -
jmog
Actually, as much as I'd love to agree with you. The issues that he colonists had with taxes was not taxes in general or the amount of tax, it was taxation without represetation. They were being taxed without even getting a "vote" in parliament.like_that;1515051 wrote:I always find it funny how this country was practically founded on the opposition of taxes, yet now we have delusional radicals who think higher taxes is what is best for this country. Shouldn't be surprised, we have enough idiots in this country who are slowly, but surely destroying the constitution and foundation of this country. -
BoatShoes
Taxation in our country is only theft if rule by Constitutional Representative Republican Government and Democracy is illegitimate in and of itself.WebFire;1515050 wrote:Taxation can absolutely be theft. Not all tax is. -
jmog
So, you are saying that under the ACA, a healthy person in his/her 20s is NOT paying more than he/she would normally to lower the costs or old/sick people?BoatShoes;1515054 wrote:How are you forced to pay higher prices for a charity you do not support? In reality, when people don't have insurance and then use healthcare providers when they suddenly get sick....that is when you are paying the price of charity for the freeloaders.
In my opinion, that is being forced to pay higher prices for a "charity" that said person doesn't support. -
sleeper
I think what upsets me about it other than being young and healthy, paying more, and rarely using the service is that with the current system I can choose to pay lower prices for healthcare. For example, if I cut my hand I can go to the ER and pay a crap load of money to subsidize those with no health insurance OR I can go to the CVS and buy some ointment and a bandaid for $10. Under ACA, I'm already being forced to pay for those who cannot pay regardless of my health care choices and then being forced to subsidize them again via higher taxation.jmog;1515062 wrote:So, you are saying that under the ACA, a healthy person in his/her 20s is NOT paying more than he/she would normally to lower the costs or old/sick people?
In my opinion, that is being forced to pay higher prices for a "charity" that said person doesn't support.
ACA is nothing more than a transfer of wealth from the young and poor to the old and wealthy. -
BoatShoes
It's not any different than current insurance regimes except that the insurers aren't allowed discriminate against sick and old people. We decided that because somebody was sick that wasn't a good reason not to provide them a service they desired. We felt it to be a compelling interest of society. It's not charity....there's just a prohibition on certain underwriting standards for the risk pool you enter.jmog;1515062 wrote:So, you are saying that under the ACA, a healthy person in his/her 20s is NOT paying more than he/she would normally to lower the costs or old/sick people?
In my opinion, that is being forced to pay higher prices for a "charity" that said person doesn't support. -
jmog
1. You are using "we" wen the ACA has never had a majority approva across the country. How about you use the correct group and say the Democracts decided?BoatShoes;1515066 wrote:It's not any different than current insurance regimes except that the insurers aren't allowed discriminate against sick and old people. We decided that because somebody was sick that wasn't a good reason not to provide them a service they desired. We felt it to be a compelling interest of society. It's not charity....there's just a prohibition on certain underwriting standards for the risk pool you enter.
2. Name one type of insurance where others are required to pay more when they are low risk just to make it cheaper for those that are high risk? Car insurance? Nope, young male drivers with a bad record pay MUCH higher than 60 year old grandmas who never get a ticket. Life insurance? Nope, the younger/heathier you are the lower your payments.
The ACA is the ONLY type of insurance were those that are the "lower risk" consumers pay higher premiums to pay for the "higher risk" consumers.
You are wrong boat. -
sleeper
Bingo.jmog;1515076 wrote:1. You are using "we" wen the ACA has never had a majority approva across the country. How about you use the correct group and say the Democracts decided?
2. Name one type of insurance where others are required to pay more when they are low risk just to make it cheaper for those that are high risk? Car insurance? Nope, young male drivers with a bad record pay MUCH higher than 60 year old grandmas who never get a ticket. Life insurance? Nope, the younger/heathier you are the lower your payments.
The ACA is the ONLY type of insurance were those that are the "lower risk" consumers pay higher premiums to pay for the "higher risk" consumers.
You are wrong boat. -
QuakerOats
He has been wrong seemingly forever. To even attempt to call these exchanges 'insurance' is rather laughable. The government has FORCED upon them 'community rating'; at that point we are no longer talking about insurance and risk pools; we are talking about simple redistribution of wealth.sleeper;1515077 wrote:Bingo.
We all know it, including Karl. -
QuakerOats
-
QuakerOats
-
WebFire
My rates as a young healthy person are projected to go up about 50% by 2016 as a direct result of ACA.BoatShoes;1515054 wrote:How are you forced to pay higher prices for a charity you do not support? In reality, when people don't have insurance and then use healthcare providers when they suddenly get sick....that is when you are paying the price of charity for the freeloaders. -
I Wear PantsWhat happened to the importance of the magic confidence fairy that was going to die if Obama was reelected? If confidence is important maybe we should stop threatening/actually shutting down the government and threatening to default.
-
gut
Yeah, none of this pissing contest is having any real impact on long-term confidence/planning. In fact, the lack of caring prompted Obama to go so far as to try to induce a market panic by crying wolf. Now, if you want to talk about real confidence and growth we can discuss the massive debt and deficits spiraling out of control.I Wear Pants;1515287 wrote:What happened to the importance of the magic confidence fairy that was going to die if Obama was reelected? If confidence is important maybe we should stop threatening/actually shutting down the government and threatening to default.
But, sure, Obama got re-elected and the economy just started humming, right? His policies and leadership have not been good for this economy. I'm not sure how much more evidence/years it will take to convince you of this reality.