Conquer Club

Metsfanmax wrote:I'm impressed that we managed to spend over half a billion dollars on a website.

seriously. jesus f*ck. there are entire companies whose software does what this site is supposed to do, and aren't even worth a fraction of that.

then again, those companies aren't spending other people's money...

BigBallinStalin wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

oVo wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:The resulting ACA is a bastard child that no one really wants.

Obviously somebody wants it or it would have never lasted this long.

Metsfanmax wrote:Well, except possibly insurance companies.

BigBallinStalin wrote:and politicians.

Which reminds me:

What I enjoyed about TGD's basic position in any firearms debate was his point of view which considered politicians' interests--as well as their donators. In short, this is called 'rent-seeking'. Without a clear understanding of rent-seeking, then any appeal to the state will be counter-productive. Ignoring this approach leads to simply delectable regurgitations for the status quo of our rent-seeking societies (US and EU countries included).

I think my point on the firearms debate (and it applies here) is that a problem has been identified (gun violence, affordable health care/insurance) which some/many people expect the government to "solve." It appears, at least to me, that the "solutions" offered by the government do not actually solve the problem that has been identified; rather, there appear to be ulterior motives. This begs the question as to whether politicians glom on to these problems in an effort to generate the rewards from rent seekers.

Now that Obamacare is here, just call 1-800-F*CK-YOU to enroll today, or 1-800-F1UCKYO.

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

oVo wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:The resulting ACA is a bastard child that no one really wants.

Obviously somebody wants it or it would have never lasted this long.

Metsfanmax wrote:Well, except possibly insurance companies.

BigBallinStalin wrote:and politicians.

Which reminds me:

What I enjoyed about TGD's basic position in any firearms debate was his point of view which considered politicians' interests--as well as their donators. In short, this is called 'rent-seeking'. Without a clear understanding of rent-seeking, then any appeal to the state will be counter-productive. Ignoring this approach leads to simply delectable regurgitations for the status quo of our rent-seeking societies (US and EU countries included).

I think my point on the firearms debate (and it applies here) is that a problem has been identified (gun violence, affordable health care/insurance) which some/many people expect the government to "solve." It appears, at least to me, that the "solutions" offered by the government do not actually solve the problem that has been identified; rather, there appear to be ulterior motives. This begs the question as to whether politicians glom on to these problems in an effort to generate the rewards from rent seekers.

The rent-seeking position is a valid one, but shouldn't be used as a catch-all argument against government solutions to economic problems. For example, the acid rain problem was very effectively solved by government intervention in establishing, effectively, a market-based solution to emissions (this is a major reason why cap-and-trade for carbon was pushed so heavily in 2009). Even if the politicians do have ulterior motives, and end up making money, that is not a priori a reason to reject government solutions.

Obama(doesn't)Care

Oh I am so clever

Metsfanmax wrote:The rent-seeking position is a valid one, but shouldn't be used as a catch-all argument against government solutions to economic problems. For example, the acid rain problem was very effectively solved by government intervention in establishing, effectively, a market-based solution to emissions (this is a major reason why cap-and-trade for carbon was pushed so heavily in 2009). Even if the politicians do have ulterior motives, and end up making money, that is not a priori a reason to reject government solutions.

Forced participation, by definition, cannot be market-based.

Night Strike wrote:Forced participation, by definition, cannot be market-based.

Do you have auto insurance?

Sovereign citizens don't...

The good thing about a system like Obamacare is that it is more democratic. By giving all citizens a stake in their country's health care system, rather than restricting medical treatment to the 1% who can independently afford it, the government is ensuring that the health care system becomes accountable to all the people. This prevents the elites from monopolising physical health.

Unfortunately the USA is not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic. I've experienced subsidized health care in China and in Hong Kong, and medicare in Canada. I was all for it in the US until I realized that he isn't trying to change the system, he is merely trying to force people onto the existing overpriced one. That is, going against the concept of a constitutional republic.

mrswdk wrote:The good thing about a system like Obamacare is that it is more democratic. By giving all citizens a stake in their country's health care system, rather than restricting medical treatment to the 1% who can independently afford it, the government is ensuring that the health care system becomes accountable to all the people. This prevents the elites from monopolising physical health.

Problem that Obamacare is just that, the elites monopolizing physical health!

oVo wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Forced participation, by definition, cannot be market-based.

Do you have auto insurance?

Yep, because I choose to own a car. If I didn't own a car, I wouldn't have to participate. Under Obamacare, I'm forced to participate simply because I breathe.

Night Strike wrote:

oVo wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Forced participation, by definition, cannot be market-based.

Do you have auto insurance?

Yep, because I choose to own a car. If I didn't own a car, I wouldn't have to participate. Under Obamacare, I'm forced to participate simply because I breathe.

No one is forcing you to participate. You are choosing to live in the U.S.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

oVo wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Forced participation, by definition, cannot be market-based.

Do you have auto insurance?

Yep, because I choose to own a car. If I didn't own a car, I wouldn't have to participate. Under Obamacare, I'm forced to participate simply because I breathe.

No one is forcing you to participate. You are choosing to live in the U.S.

And I would be forced to participate in even worse programs in other countries. No, I'd prefer to fight for my Constitutional rights here in the US.

Metsfanmax wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

oVo wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Forced participation, by definition, cannot be market-based.

Do you have auto insurance?

Yep, because I choose to own a car. If I didn't own a car, I wouldn't have to participate. Under Obamacare, I'm forced to participate simply because I breathe.

No one is forcing you to participate. You are choosing to live in the U.S.

This analogy doesn't work. It's a popularly repeated, but sophistic, argument.

• - In the case of car insurance, if Night Strike takes no action, he incurs no obligation.
  
  - In the case of health insurance, if Night Strike takes no action, he still incurs an obligation (sell his house and move to Guatemala).

The analogy only works if Night Strike lives outside the United States and moves into the United States, in which case he's taken an action (moving into the U.S.) that creates an obligation (buying health insurance).

I know you probably had to take an undergrad logic class, Mets. Don't try to fool us with these fireworks shows.

I don't think "inalienable rights" was a suggestion to move.

saxitoxin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

oVo wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Forced participation, by definition, cannot be market-based.

Do you have auto insurance?

Yep, because I choose to own a car. If I didn't own a car, I wouldn't have to participate. Under Obamacare, I'm forced to participate simply because I breathe.

No one is forcing you to participate. You are choosing to live in the U.S.

This analogy doesn't work. It's a popularly repeated, but sophistic, argument.

• - In the case of car insurance, if Night Strike takes no action, he incurs no obligation.
  
  - In the case of health insurance, if Night Strike takes no action, he still incurs an obligation (sell his house and move to Guatemala).

The analogy only works if Night Strike lives outside the United States and moves into the United States, in which case he's taken an action (moving into the U.S.) that creates an obligation (buying health insurance).

I know you probably had to take an undergrad logic class, Mets. Don't try to fool us with these fireworks shows.

What made you think I was making an analogy between compulsory auto insurance and compulsory health insurance? I was merely commenting on the incorrectness of the statement that Night Strike is forced to participate in the health insurance market, and implying not very subtly that he is welcome to take his complaints elsewhere.

Night Strike wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

oVo wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Forced participation, by definition, cannot be market-based.

Do you have auto insurance?

Yep, because I choose to own a car. If I didn't own a car, I wouldn't have to participate. Under Obamacare, I'm forced to participate simply because I breathe.

No one is forcing you to participate. You are choosing to live in the U.S.

And I would be forced to participate in even worse programs in other countries. No, I'd prefer to fight for my Constitutional rights here in the US.

Come now, you can choose between any of the 37 countries whose health care systems are both better than ours, and cheaper per capita. I think you'd be just fine.

Metsfanmax wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

oVo wrote:

Night Strike wrote:Forced participation, by definition, cannot be market-based.

Do you have auto insurance?

Yep, because I choose to own a car. If I didn't own a car, I wouldn't have to participate. Under Obamacare, I'm forced to participate simply because I breathe.

No one is forcing you to participate. You are choosing to live in the U.S.

This analogy doesn't work. It's a popularly repeated, but sophistic, argument.

• - In the case of car insurance, if Night Strike takes no action, he incurs no obligation.
  
  - In the case of health insurance, if Night Strike takes no action, he still incurs an obligation (sell his house and move to Guatemala).

The analogy only works if Night Strike lives outside the United States and moves into the United States, in which case he's taken an action (moving into the U.S.) that creates an obligation (buying health insurance).

I know you probably had to take an undergrad logic class, Mets. Don't try to fool us with these fireworks shows.

What made you think I was making an analogy between compulsory auto insurance and compulsory health insurance?

because you did

Metsfanmax wrote:I was merely commenting on the incorrectness of the statement that Night Strike is forced to participate in the health insurance market

It was not an incorrect statement. The scenario you describe ("buy it or get out") describes an obligation [take action A or take action B]. The alternate scenario ("buy it or don't") describes an option [take action A or take no action at all].

saxitoxin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote: What made you think I was making an analogy between compulsory auto insurance and compulsory health insurance?

because you did

Metsfanmax wrote:I was merely commenting on the incorrectness of the statement that Night Strike is forced to participate in the health insurance market

It was not an incorrect statement. The scenario you describe ("buy it or get out") describes an obligation [take action A or take action B]. The alternate scenario ("buy it or don't") describes an option [take action A or take no action at all].

The concept of "take no action at all" is meaningless. In this and any other case, 'inaction' is really just a name for a different choice. To be concrete, in the case of auto insurance that would be "continue to be able to hold my job and pay auto insurance so I can get to work," say, versus "give up my car and also my job." There are always consequences to any of these actions, so choosing not to participate in the auto insurance market is itself an action. Your reasoning about Night Strike currently living in the U.S. applies to the fact that he owns a car as well. He does have to give something up to avoid paying for auto insurance. The implication here is that you are drawing false boundaries by using the word 'obligation.' This can be seen easily by recognizing that Night Strike is not simply limited to "buy health insurance or get out." There are other options, such as "choose not to buy health insurance, and be fined or jailed by the government."

Metsfanmax wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote: What made you think I was making an analogy between compulsory auto insurance and compulsory health insurance?

because you did

Metsfanmax wrote:I was merely commenting on the incorrectness of the statement that Night Strike is forced to participate in the health insurance market

It was not an incorrect statement. The scenario you describe ("buy it or get out") describes an obligation [take action A or take action B]. The alternate scenario ("buy it or don't") describes an option [take action A or take no action at all].

The concept of "take no action at all" is meaningless. In this and any other case, 'inaction' is really just a name for a different choice. To be concrete, in the case of auto insurance that would be "continue to be able to hold my job and pay auto insurance so I can get to work," say, versus "give up my car and also my job." There are always consequences to any of these actions, so choosing not to participate in the auto insurance market is itself an action. Your reasoning about Night Strike currently living in the U.S. applies to the fact that he owns a car as well. He does have to give something up to avoid paying for auto insurance. The implication here is that you are drawing false boundaries by using the word 'obligation.' This can be seen easily by recognizing that Night Strike is not simply limited to "buy health insurance or get out." There are other options, such as "choose not to buy health insurance, and be fined or jailed by the government."

none of the preceding made any sense

OK, I'll put it in terms even you can understand. The ACA gives individuals the option to either purchase health insurance or pay a (currently 1% of income) penalty to the government. Night Strike can pay the penalty and move on with his life with no health insurance if he so chooses.

Or the government can try to improve its ranking comparatively to other countries, bring prices down, and spend less on supporting Al Qaeda in Syria and elsewhere and use the money to provide a medical infrastructure at no additional cost to the taxpayer.

In this scenario, we don't punish the sick and fine the healthy.

Perhaps we could also do something similar with education. Instead of providing excessive student loans which artificially increase the cost of education and leave doctors several hundred thousand in the hole starting out, we could have reasonable tuitions. This might bring down the future cost of their services.

The argument that we would lose our talent, or that we couldn't attract more is unrealistic, as cutting salaries in the medical profession in half would still be far above the international demand. We have always attracted talent from abroad, and this was rarely based on blind greed.

Metsfanmax wrote:The ACA gives individuals the option to either purchase health insurance or pay a (currently 1% of income) penalty to the government.

• penalty: a loss, forfeiture, suffering, or the like, to which one subjects oneself by nonfulfillment of some obligation

No sane person would say 'people have the choice to commit homicide - they just need to pay a penalty of X years in prison if they choose to do so.' Homicide is a forbidden action for which a penalty has been prescribed. Failure to enter a commercial transaction with UnitedHealth or Aetna or one of Obama's other corporate donors is a forbidden action for which a penalty has been prescribed.