ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[PLAYER57832]

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).

You forget the other side of the equation. The reason you have to buy car insurance is not just because driving is a privilege, its because the act of driving can result in serious damage to others beyond your personal ability to pay. Insurance helps spread those costs around.

Health insurance does the same thing.. spreads the cost of care around. We all pay a bit, so that we are covered in the event we get really, REALLY sick. You don't choose to be born here, no. However, you cannot predict when you will get sick or injured. Its not a choice. If you get sick or injured, you WILL get care. If you don't have insurance the rest of us WILL have to pay for it. If you have insurance, then most of your care is already paid for.

The analogy does fail, but not for the reasons you point out. It fails because there is nothing at all you can do to really and truly ensure you won't get sick or injured, but you can so some things to insure you won't be driving a vehicle that results in damage to yourself or others. Ironically enough, you actually cannot fully prevent getting into a care accident, even by not driving, because pedestrians and by-standers ( not to mention passengers) can all be injured. All you can do is prevent yourself from being behind the wheel. Since paying for medical costs is a primary reason for increases in automobile insurance, this law might well wind up causing auto rates to drop, along with various other costs resulting from a high number of uninsured people in this country.

[saxitoxin]

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).

You forget the other side of the equation. The reason you have to buy car insurance is not just because driving is a privilege, its because the act of driving can result in serious damage to others beyond your personal ability to pay. Insurance helps spread those costs around.

Health insurance does the same thing.. spreads the cost of care around. We all pay a bit, so that we are covered in the event we get really, REALLY sick. You don't choose to be born here, no. However, you cannot predict when you will get sick or injured. Its not a choice. If you get sick or injured, you WILL get care. If you don't have insurance the rest of us WILL have to pay for it. If you have insurance, then most of your care is already paid for.

The analogy does fail, but not for the reasons you point out. It fails because there is nothing at all you can do to really and truly ensure you won't get sick or injured, but you can so some things to insure you won't be driving a vehicle that results in damage to yourself or others. Ironically enough, you actually cannot fully prevent getting into a care accident, even by not driving, because pedestrians and by-standers ( not to mention passengers) can all be injured. All you can do is prevent yourself from being behind the wheel. Since paying for medical costs is a primary reason for increases in automobile insurance, this law might well wind up causing auto rates to drop, along with various other costs resulting from a high number of uninsured people in this country.

The obvious benefits of car insurance are irrelevant.

Car insurance is a condition of access. As such, it's voluntary.

- If you choose to see Smurfs 2, you have to buy a ticket. You have the option of not seeing Smurfs 2 if you don't want to buy the ticket.

- If you choose to use the government's roads, you have to buy a ticket (car insurance). You have the option of not using the government's roads if you don't want to buy the ticket.

Health insurance is involuntary under the ACA. For Mets' car insurance analogy to work the ACA would have to be written thusly:

- You are free to purchase or not purchase health insurance, however, anyone without health insurance will be prohibited from access to a hospital.*

Nothing is taken away (penalty), but things are withheld (access). This is the model under which car insurance operates. It is not the model under which the ACA operates.

* this would instantly solve the issue of health care costs, BTW

[PLAYER57832]

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.

There are always ulterior motives. That is how profit works. . A representative Democracy is supposed to work similarly, in that instead of fighting over people's money, they fight over people's votes. The idea is supposed to be that by fighting each other to get what hey all, individually (and we all, individually) want, we wind up with what is OK for all. The problem here is not, as BS likes to claim "rent seeking", it is that the rents are not being paid. Promises are being made that are not kept and real, serious needs are plain being ignored as some kind of stance on "principle". Pretending that there IS such as thing as not "rent seeking" or that all is "just" rent-seeking, that is the real problem. Everyone wants things. They want, so they seek. Still, there are some things that are truly needed for the good of society.

We have decided that being able to provide healthcare for all is a basic facet of decent civilization (the argument on how this is really self-serving is legitimate, but belongs elsewhere). In the past, that was relatively easy and cheap to do. Now its not. But, because people are used to it being cheap and easy, they demand that this continue. The real truth is that healthcare IS EXPENSIVE, and will continue to get more expensive. There are no tricks or gamets or pretences that can get around that. No policy position or belief system will change the basic fact that it costs a lot of money to provide MRIs, cancer treatments, organ transplants and to save the lives of very premature infants, some as young as 4-5 months, even (a boundary that is constantly being pushed). These things are expensive!

YET... these same people who say "no forced healthcare" were the exact same ones who, a few months ago were complaining about "rationing" and "death panels". THAT is why we are at this impasse. A bunch of greedy people who are happy to tell everyone else how to live, but who claim "freedom" when they are asked to step up and just take responsibility for their own lives.

[Night Strike]

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).

You forget the other side of the equation. The reason you have to buy car insurance is not just because driving is a privilege, its because the act of driving can result in serious damage to others beyond your personal ability to pay. Insurance helps spread those costs around.

Health insurance does the same thing.. spreads the cost of care around. We all pay a bit, so that we are covered in the event we get really, REALLY sick. You don't choose to be born here, no. However, you cannot predict when you will get sick or injured. Its not a choice. If you get sick or injured, you WILL get care. If you don't have insurance the rest of us WILL have to pay for it. If you have insurance, then most of your care is already paid for.

The analogy does fail, but not for the reasons you point out. It fails because there is nothing at all you can do to really and truly ensure you won't get sick or injured, but you can so some things to insure you won't be driving a vehicle that results in damage to yourself or others. Ironically enough, you actually cannot fully prevent getting into a care accident, even by not driving, because pedestrians and by-standers ( not to mention passengers) can all be injured. All you can do is prevent yourself from being behind the wheel. Since paying for medical costs is a primary reason for increases in automobile insurance, this law might well wind up causing auto rates to drop, along with various other costs resulting from a high number of uninsured people in this country.

You do not have to buy car insurance if you can prove you have assets available to cover expenses of a crash. Opt-outs are not allowed under Obamacare.

And costs being spread out to everybody is precisely why Obamacare doesn't work. That's why young, healthy people are forced to subsidize old, sick people and others with pre-existing conditions. Insurers are banned from charging people different prices based on the coverage they need. They're only allowed to charge based on the age and smoking status of a person, and even then the premiums can only be 3 times different. That's why prices have skyrocketed for young people.....who ironically were the same people who voted for Obama in droves. Obama repaid them with a huge middle finger....it's just that too many won't even pay attention to realize it.

[PLAYER57832]

The obvious benefits of car insurance are irrelevant.

Car insurance is a condition of access. As such, it's voluntary.

This is the irrelevant part, because its not just the benefits that are voluntary, its the fact that unless you drive, you won't be at risk of causing damage with a car, being involved in damage resulting from driving a car.

Health insurance is involuntary under the ACA. For Mets' car insurance analogy to work the ACA would have to be written thusly:

- You are free to purchase or not purchase health insurance, however, anyone without health insurance will be prohibited from access to a hospital.*

Nothing is taken away (penalty), but things are withheld (access). This is the model under which car insurance operates. It is not the model under which the ACA operates.

\
No, this is not a correct analogy, though I realize many try to make that claim (somewhat surprised you are). The correct analogy would be "if you don't want insurance, you cannot be born". That is absurd.

A close, but not exact, analogy might be "If you don't buy insurance, you don't get to live in society past the point when your parents provide your insurance". Or, maybe "if you go without insurance, and get injured or sick, you will then be branded and not given care until you pay for the damage you have already caused and buy this extremely expensive insurance for risky people".

Humorous as that last option might be, its not practical for many reasons. The primary one being that it takes too long to correctly identify things like insurance at, say a car wreck. In many cases, even the identity of the people involved are not discovered until hours or days, very occasionally even months later.

* this would also, instantly, solve the issue of health care costs, BTW

This option has appeal, but its not practical... nor does it fit in with what we consider (have decided as society) to be "civilized". Maybe that needs debate, but it is another topic, for another thread.

[saxitoxin]

A close, but not exact, analogy might be ... "if you go without insurance, and get injured or sick, you will then be branded and not given care until you pay for the damage you have already caused and buy this extremely expensive insurance for risky people".

I don't think you know what an analogy is ...

[PLAYER57832]

You forget the other side of the equation. The reason you have to buy car insurance is not just because driving is a privilege, its because the act of driving can result in serious damage to others beyond your personal ability to pay. Insurance helps spread those costs around.

Health insurance does the same thing.. spreads the cost of care around. We all pay a bit, so that we are covered in the event we get really, REALLY sick. You don't choose to be born here, no. However, you cannot predict when you will get sick or injured. Its not a choice. If you get sick or injured, you WILL get care. If you don't have insurance the rest of us WILL have to pay for it. If you have insurance, then most of your care is already paid for.

The analogy does fail, but not for the reasons you point out. It fails because there is nothing at all you can do to really and truly ensure you won't get sick or injured, but you can so some things to insure you won't be driving a vehicle that results in damage to yourself or others. Ironically enough, you actually cannot fully prevent getting into a care accident, even by not driving, because pedestrians and by-standers ( not to mention passengers) can all be injured. All you can do is prevent yourself from being behind the wheel. Since paying for medical costs is a primary reason for increases in automobile insurance, this law might well wind up causing auto rates to drop, along with various other costs resulting from a high number of uninsured people in this country.

You do not have to buy car insurance if you can prove you have assets available to cover expenses of a crash. Opt-outs are not allowed under Obamacare.

The Amish are not required to buy insurance.

Per the rest... an opt out is not possible because no one has enough money to cover unlimited, necessary to sustain life, care.

And costs being spread out to everybody is precisely why Obamacare doesn't work. That's why young, healthy people are forced to subsidize old, sick people and others with pre-existing conditions. Insurers are banned from charging people different prices based on the coverage they need. They're only allowed to charge based on the age and smoking status of a person, and even then the premiums can only be 3 times different. That's why prices have skyrocketed for young people.....who ironically were the same people who voted for Obama in droves. Obama repaid them with a huge middle finger....it's just that too many won't even pay attention to realize it.

You just explained how insurance works...

AND, what you and many making this argument like to ignore is that NO ONE, no one who lives, stays in that "young and healthy... and cheap" category forever. You can say you are "paying for other's healthare" or you can admit you are paying for your future costs, which you are. OR.. you could just say that having healthcare is part of being a civilized nation and you are a part of this nation, so paying for it is partly your responsibility. See how that works, its not all about what you get.. its about what you need to do to GET those things.

[Metsfanmax]

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.

It sounds like you describe the legitimacy of any action purely based on how the government describes it. That's awful statist of you, saxi.

I have heard perfectly sane people describe speeding tickets as a tax one pays for the luxury of driving fast. You've just gotta free your mind, man.

A simple thought experiment reveals the flaw in your reasoning. Would any reasonable person describe themselves as being "forced" to purchase health insurance if there was no penalty for failing to do so, even if the law did say that individuals are required to do so? What if the penalty was one cent per year?

[thegreekdog]

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.

There are always ulterior motives. That is how profit works. . A representative Democracy is supposed to work similarly, in that instead of fighting over people's money, they fight over people's votes. The idea is supposed to be that by fighting each other to get what hey all, individually (and we all, individually) want, we wind up with what is OK for all. The problem here is not, as BS likes to claim "rent seeking", it is that the rents are not being paid. Promises are being made that are not kept and real, serious needs are plain being ignored as some kind of stance on "principle". Pretending that there IS such as thing as not "rent seeking" or that all is "just" rent-seeking, that is the real problem. Everyone wants things. They want, so they seek. Still, there are some things that are truly needed for the good of society.

We have decided that being able to provide healthcare for all is a basic facet of decent civilization (the argument on how this is really self-serving is legitimate, but belongs elsewhere). In the past, that was relatively easy and cheap to do. Now its not. But, because people are used to it being cheap and easy, they demand that this continue. The real truth is that healthcare IS EXPENSIVE, and will continue to get more expensive. There are no tricks or gamets or pretences that can get around that. No policy position or belief system will change the basic fact that it costs a lot of money to provide MRIs, cancer treatments, organ transplants and to save the lives of very premature infants, some as young as 4-5 months, even (a boundary that is constantly being pushed). These things are expensive!

YET... these same people who say "no forced healthcare" were the exact same ones who, a few months ago were complaining about "rationing" and "death panels". THAT is why we are at this impasse. A bunch of greedy people who are happy to tell everyone else how to live, but who claim "freedom" when they are asked to step up and just take responsibility for their own lives.

I literally laughed out loud at the bold.

[Phatscotty]

Player, where do you get your news. just curious

[Night Strike]

Per the rest... an opt out is not possible because no one has enough money to cover unlimited, necessary to sustain life, care.

Then stop providing it. If people don't have insurance or the means to pay for treatment, then stop treating them (locations that provide charity work not withstanding). This notion that hospitals have to treat everybody beyond stabilizing them and then forcing others to pay for the costs is incredibly stupid. If they don't have insurance, then demand they pay all of the debts if they get further treatment.

And if you think my statements are harsh, just wait until socialized medicine bans you from having routine treatments that are available today.

[Metsfanmax]

Per the rest... an opt out is not possible because no one has enough money to cover unlimited, necessary to sustain life, care.

Then stop providing it. If people don't have insurance or the means to pay for treatment, then stop treating them (locations that provide charity work not withstanding). This notion that hospitals have to treat everybody beyond stabilizing them and then forcing others to pay for the costs is incredibly stupid. If they don't have insurance, then demand they pay all of the debts if they get further treatment.

And if you think my statements are harsh, just wait until socialized medicine bans you from having routine treatments that are available today.

OK, so let's suppose you think hospitals should treat people in emergency situations to stabilize them even if the person does not have insurance and cannot get paid back. What happens when that person is stabilized and released and then comes back a month later, being ill from the same thing that brought them in the first place? Should we just keep this up until they die?

[Night Strike]

Per the rest... an opt out is not possible because no one has enough money to cover unlimited, necessary to sustain life, care.

Then stop providing it. If people don't have insurance or the means to pay for treatment, then stop treating them (locations that provide charity work not withstanding). This notion that hospitals have to treat everybody beyond stabilizing them and then forcing others to pay for the costs is incredibly stupid. If they don't have insurance, then demand they pay all of the debts if they get further treatment.

And if you think my statements are harsh, just wait until socialized medicine bans you from having routine treatments that are available today.

OK, so let's suppose you think hospitals should treat people in emergency situations to stabilize them even if the person does not have insurance and cannot get paid back. What happens when that person is stabilized and released and then comes back a month later, being ill from the same thing that brought them in the first place? Should we just keep this up until they die?

Under socialized medicine they won't even get in in the first place due to the long waiting line, so the outcome would be the same.

[Phatscotty]

...as if being able to pay a bill at the hospital is a "cure" for anything, or prevents people from dying.

Everybody is going to die. If you have $800,000 to try to possibly stay alive another 6 months, God bless ya, ut that is by no means a right. I don't think people should be able to take money from or just charge it to other people though, no matter the situation.

[Metsfanmax]

Per the rest... an opt out is not possible because no one has enough money to cover unlimited, necessary to sustain life, care.

Then stop providing it. If people don't have insurance or the means to pay for treatment, then stop treating them (locations that provide charity work not withstanding). This notion that hospitals have to treat everybody beyond stabilizing them and then forcing others to pay for the costs is incredibly stupid. If they don't have insurance, then demand they pay all of the debts if they get further treatment.

And if you think my statements are harsh, just wait until socialized medicine bans you from having routine treatments that are available today.

OK, so let's suppose you think hospitals should treat people in emergency situations to stabilize them even if the person does not have insurance and cannot get paid back. What happens when that person is stabilized and released and then comes back a month later, being ill from the same thing that brought them in the first place? Should we just keep this up until they die?

Under socialized medicine they won't even get in in the first place due to the long waiting line, so the outcome would be the same.

I was actually asking you this question instead of being rhetorical. Do you think that hospitals should be required to treat patients that are unable to pay for the service and then release them as soon as they are stable? I hope you understand that the cause of the shorter waiting times in the U.S. is due in large part to the fact that people who don't have health insurance can't get on the waiting lists*. But, as you point out, they get treatment either way if they show up at a hospital. So the only way to improve the system under your logic is quite simply for hospitals to deny treatment to those without insurance or who cannot pay for it. So I am seriously asking if that is what you're advocating.

*There is also a contribution from how much we spend on healthcare (which is of course what is necessitating this change in the first place). I assume you are in agreement that we should cut down on government spending, and in particular this needs to happen in the arena of healthcare just as much as anywhere else. If we do so, we will inevitably decrease the quality and speed of health care delivery.

Everybody is going to die. If you have $800,000 to try to possibly stay alive another 6 months, God bless ya, ut that is by no means a right. I don't think people should be able to take money from or just charge it to other people though, no matter the situation.

So, presumably, you would agree that the government should refuse to spend $800,000 of taxpayer money to keep someone alive for six months if it could keep ten people alive for six months at the same price?

[Phatscotty]

I would agree a highly politicized big government model should not be in the business of making those decisions.

You only need to listen to the first 2 minutes to get the gist of the other point of view

[saxitoxin]

It sounds like you describe the legitimacy of any action purely based on how the government describes it.

dictionary.com is published by IAC Corporation, which is not a government agency

A simple thought experiment reveals the flaw in your reasoning. Would any reasonable person describe themselves as being "forced" to purchase health insurance if there was no penalty for failing to do so, even if the law did say that individuals are required to do so? What if the penalty was one cent per year?

What are some examples of state requirements that aren't accompanied by a penalty for non-compliance? There are none. This isn't that thoughtful of a thought experiment.

There are only five tools (according to Ingram & Schneider) that can be used to deploy public policy - authority tools, capacity-building tools, hortatory tools, learning tools, and sanctions. In cases where the government has a policy that is not a requirement (Americans should lose weight), it uses the first four tools. In cases where the government has a policy that is a requirement (Americans must purchase one of the products produced by Obama's campaign donors), it uses the fifth tool (sanctions / penalty).

[saxitoxin]

Another satisfied Obama voter ...

If the 33-year-old single father wants the same level of coverage next year as what he has now with the same insurer and the same network of doctors and hospitals, his monthly premium of $233 will more than double. If he wants to keep his monthly payments in check, the Carpentersville resident is looking at an annual deductible for himself and his 7-year-old daughter of $12,700, a more than threefold increase from $3,500 today.

"I believe everybody should be able to have health insurance, but at the same time, I'm being penalized. And for what?" said Weldzius, who is not offered insurance through his employer. "For someone who's always had insurance, who's always taken care of myself, now I have to change my plan?"

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013 ... h-coverage

Why does Barack Obama want to keep Adam Weldzius' little daughter from getting any toys, and having to eat peanut butter sandwiches instead of Tofurkey, this Christmas?

[Metsfanmax]

It sounds like you describe the legitimacy of any action purely based on how the government describes it.

dictionary.com is published by IAC Corporation, which is not a government agency

A simple thought experiment reveals the flaw in your reasoning. Would any reasonable person describe themselves as being "forced" to purchase health insurance if there was no penalty for failing to do so, even if the law did say that individuals are required to do so? What if the penalty was one cent per year?

What are some examples of state requirements that aren't accompanied by a penalty for non-compliance? There are none. This isn't that thoughtful of a thought experiment.

There are only five tools (according to Ingram & Schneider) that can be used to deploy public policy - authority tools, capacity-building tools, hortatory tools, learning tools, and sanctions. In cases where the government has a policy that is not a requirement (Americans should lose weight), it uses the first four tools. In cases where the government has a policy that is a requirement (Americans must purchase one of the products produced by Obama's campaign donors), it uses the fifth tool (sanctions / penalty).

Yes, but if the sanction is inconsequential (say one cent per year) then most people would not consider themselves forced to participate. What this demonstrates is that this is not a black and white issue -- how much people feel compelled to obey a law scales with the punishment for disobeying it.

There are other parallels as well. For example, if the DOJ declares its intention to not enforce marijuana laws, would anyone consider themselves forced not to smoke pot by the federal government simply because the law is technically on the books?

[_sabotage_]

Those in prison might.

[saxitoxin]

It sounds like you describe the legitimacy of any action purely based on how the government describes it.

dictionary.com is published by IAC Corporation, which is not a government agency

A simple thought experiment reveals the flaw in your reasoning. Would any reasonable person describe themselves as being "forced" to purchase health insurance if there was no penalty for failing to do so, even if the law did say that individuals are required to do so? What if the penalty was one cent per year?

What are some examples of state requirements that aren't accompanied by a penalty for non-compliance? There are none. This isn't that thoughtful of a thought experiment.

There are only five tools (according to Ingram & Schneider) that can be used to deploy public policy - authority tools, capacity-building tools, hortatory tools, learning tools, and sanctions. In cases where the government has a policy that is not a requirement (Americans should lose weight), it uses the first four tools. In cases where the government has a policy that is a requirement (Americans must purchase one of the products produced by Obama's campaign donors), it uses the fifth tool (sanctions / penalty).

Yes, but if the sanction is inconsequential (say one cent per year) then most people would not consider themselves forced to participate.

Then you're not describing a sanction.

[Metsfanmax]

It sounds like you describe the legitimacy of any action purely based on how the government describes it.

dictionary.com is published by IAC Corporation, which is not a government agency

A simple thought experiment reveals the flaw in your reasoning. Would any reasonable person describe themselves as being "forced" to purchase health insurance if there was no penalty for failing to do so, even if the law did say that individuals are required to do so? What if the penalty was one cent per year?

What are some examples of state requirements that aren't accompanied by a penalty for non-compliance? There are none. This isn't that thoughtful of a thought experiment.

There are only five tools (according to Ingram & Schneider) that can be used to deploy public policy - authority tools, capacity-building tools, hortatory tools, learning tools, and sanctions. In cases where the government has a policy that is not a requirement (Americans should lose weight), it uses the first four tools. In cases where the government has a policy that is a requirement (Americans must purchase one of the products produced by Obama's campaign donors), it uses the fifth tool (sanctions / penalty).

Yes, but if the sanction is inconsequential (say one cent per year) then most people would not consider themselves forced to participate.

Then you're not describing a sanction.

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

[saxitoxin]

It sounds like you describe the legitimacy of any action purely based on how the government describes it.

dictionary.com is published by IAC Corporation, which is not a government agency

A simple thought experiment reveals the flaw in your reasoning. Would any reasonable person describe themselves as being "forced" to purchase health insurance if there was no penalty for failing to do so, even if the law did say that individuals are required to do so? What if the penalty was one cent per year?

What are some examples of state requirements that aren't accompanied by a penalty for non-compliance? There are none. This isn't that thoughtful of a thought experiment.

There are only five tools (according to Ingram & Schneider) that can be used to deploy public policy - authority tools, capacity-building tools, hortatory tools, learning tools, and sanctions. In cases where the government has a policy that is not a requirement (Americans should lose weight), it uses the first four tools. In cases where the government has a policy that is a requirement (Americans must purchase one of the products produced by Obama's campaign donors), it uses the fifth tool (sanctions / penalty).

Yes, but if the sanction is inconsequential (say one cent per year) then most people would not consider themselves forced to participate.

Then you're not describing a sanction.

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

Correct. In the non-existent scenario you've proposed, people don't face suffering by a one-cent fine.

sanction: something that serves to support an action

a one-cent fine doesn't support an action, as you've described it, because it doesn't inspire compliance

[Metsfanmax]

It sounds like you describe the legitimacy of any action purely based on how the government describes it.

dictionary.com is published by IAC Corporation, which is not a government agency

A simple thought experiment reveals the flaw in your reasoning. Would any reasonable person describe themselves as being "forced" to purchase health insurance if there was no penalty for failing to do so, even if the law did say that individuals are required to do so? What if the penalty was one cent per year?

What are some examples of state requirements that aren't accompanied by a penalty for non-compliance? There are none. This isn't that thoughtful of a thought experiment.

There are only five tools (according to Ingram & Schneider) that can be used to deploy public policy - authority tools, capacity-building tools, hortatory tools, learning tools, and sanctions. In cases where the government has a policy that is not a requirement (Americans should lose weight), it uses the first four tools. In cases where the government has a policy that is a requirement (Americans must purchase one of the products produced by Obama's campaign donors), it uses the fifth tool (sanctions / penalty).

Yes, but if the sanction is inconsequential (say one cent per year) then most people would not consider themselves forced to participate.

Then you're not describing a sanction.

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

Correct. In the non-existent scenario you've proposed, people don't face suffering by a one-cent fine.

They do suffer a forfeiture and loss of one cent. The resulting suffering is perhaps miniscule, but that does not mean the penalty is non-existent.

I'm happy to adjust the thought experiment so that the penalty for choosing not to purchase health insurance is large enough for people to take note and feel uncomfortable at the loss, but small enough that anyone could simply pay the fine without substantially diminishing their funds. As you gradually increase the penalty for non-compliance, the reaction will shift from "who cares?" to "OK, that's annoying but I'll deal" to "This is really unfortunate and going to seriously affect my finances" to "it makes no sense for me not to comply."

This type of thinking is reflected well in speeding ticket fines. If the fines were very high, no one would speed because they couldn't afford the penalty. If the fines are very low, no one will obey the speed limit. If the fines are intermediate in size, some people will choose not to speed and most people will choose to speed less, balancing the risk of the fine against the other factors influencing them to drive faster. Overall the speeding ticket system is set up well to maximize revenue to the state while also keeping the average speed 10-15 miles above the speed limit.

[saxitoxin]

They do suffer a forfeiture and loss of one cent. The resulting suffering is perhaps miniscule, but that does not mean the penalty is non-existent.

Listen, I don't know what to tell you. This isn't a sanction. Either you get it or you don't.

I'm happy to adjust the thought experiment so that the penalty for choosing not to purchase health insurance is large enough for people to take note and feel uncomfortable at the loss, but small enough that anyone could simply pay the fine without substantially diminishing their funds. As you gradually increase the penalty for non-compliance, the reaction will shift from "who cares?" to "OK, that's annoying but I'll deal" to "This is really unfortunate and going to seriously affect my finances" to "it makes no sense for me not to comply."This type of thinking is reflected well in speeding ticket fines. If the fines were very high, no one would speed because they couldn't afford the penalty. If the fines are very low, no one will obey the speed limit. If the fines are intermediate in size, some people will choose not to speed and most people will choose to speed less, balancing the risk of the fine against the other factors influencing them to drive faster. Overall the speeding ticket system is set up well to maximize revenue to the state while also keeping the average speed 10-15 miles above the speed limit.

Huh?

This is not a logical progression of understanding from the original thesis and is so far removed so as to be totally incomprehensible. You've had to apply so many caveats, corollaries and addenda to your car insurance analogy that it's devolved into completely disconnected absurdity.