ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[BigBallinStalin]

I don't exclusively support government provision of welfare. I donate my own money to charity as well, and I hope other people would not rely solely on government for this. But ultimately what shifts me to government provision is the nudging effect it has; most people do actually want to help out those less fortunate than them, but don't do it, perhaps because of forgetfulness or other factors. Having the government collect mandatory taxation for this purpose can often be a way to get people to do what they want to do anyway. To that end, I would prefer a solution that respected freedom of choice. One solution would be an opt-out scheme where taxes are automatically withheld at the higher rate necessary to collect money for the welfare provision, but where people could voluntarily choose not to pay the higher tax rate, say by some easily accessible internet form.

Coercing people into paying taxes for government welfare isn't what the nudge effect is about. Your use of "nudging" makes it sound nice, but it's not a nudge. About 30% of federal government spending to total GDP is welfare entitlements (social security, medicare, medicaid). Considering the size of that impact, it's hardly a nudge. It's a large wealth transfer.

Nudging is like offering tax credits for charitable contributions, e.g. writing a check to Red Cross or donating clothes. That accomplishes what you want with nudging. Taxation simply isn't nudging. It doesn't teach people to care about others or to encourage them to desire donating to others--especially since that money is being taken anyway. Labeling taxation and government spending on welfare as nudging is contrary to that book's main point. Just sayin'.


The underlined is simply not true. If you want people to donate more, then don't force them to pay more taxes and don't subsidize strangers with the tax revenue. If you examine the history of mutual aid societies, then you'll realize that people once had a greater capacity to care for others and to become more communally involved.

People were already doing what you think they should be doing. The problem was that the federal government's provision of welfare crowded out mutual aid societies. As the government increased its scope of authority over the citizens' decision-making, then more local forms of self-government and communal activities were rendered less profitable because the gains were small. Discretion over the more important decisions was bottled into D.C.

Nowadays people go to the city council to complain about sewage and roads. It wasn't like that back in the day. More people were involved.

Here's the unintended consequence of your 'nudging' example: Why join a mutual aid society or donate to others when the government takes >15-39% (+5-10%) of your income and then irresponsibly and inefficiently uses it while giving it to people who aren't in your community? The local knowledge is missing; it's been removed from the picture by federal government. If Red Cross spends your donation irresponsibly, then you stop donating to them. With the federal government, the feedback is lacking. The autonomy is nil. The lessons which you seek to impart are not learned. Read Tocqueville's Democracy in America. Local government and communal involvement was the bedrock of democratic education. We've lost those roots with the expansion of the federal government. (just something to think about).


My main point here is that all these great things that you want for society were already being provided by society yet have been inadvertently removed by the federal government itself. Your stance (in support of the fed. government) is another story about good intentions leading to bad outcomes. It's another example of unintended consequences. We try to help but make things worse.

All of this needs to stop, and the change can occur when the federal government's scope of authority is narrowly limited into more appropriate categories (e.g. international diplomacy, regulating the economic union--i.e. prohibiting interstate tariffs, and national defense). That's classical liberalism in a nutshell, and if you want to respect freedom of choice, then you should become more like a classical liberal.

tl;dr

1. that ain't nudging, and it's counter-productive.
2. self-government and classical liberalism FTW
3. Since nudging is not occurring OR is not imparting the intended lessons, then what else justifies the ethical obligation for government provision?

[Metsfanmax]

Coercing people into paying taxes for government welfare isn't what the nudge effect is about. Your use of "nudging" makes it sound nice, but it's not a nudge. About 30% of federal government spending to total GDP is welfare entitlements (social security, medicare, medicaid). Considering the size of that impact, it's hardly a nudge. It's a large wealth transfer.

Nudging is like offering tax credits for charitable contributions, e.g. writing a check to Red Cross or donating clothes. That accomplishes what you want with nudging. Taxation simply isn't nudging. It doesn't teach people to care about others or to encourage them to desire donating to others--especially since that money is being taken anyway. Labeling taxation and government spending on welfare as nudging is contrary to that book's main point. Just sayin'.

Yes, obviously taxation does cross the line from being nudging into coercion (although much less so if, as I have expressed, we made taxation voluntary and opt-out for welfare provision purposes). Nevertheless, the main idea of getting people to do the right thing, that they wanted to do anyway, is still there. We could find much less coercive ways to get people to do these things than mandatory taxation, but they would involve government action.

The underlined is simply not true. If you want people to donate more, then don't force them to pay more taxes and don't subsidize strangers with the tax revenue. If you examine the history of mutual aid societies, then you'll realize that people once had a greater capacity to care for others and to become more communally involved.

I doubt quite strongly that we would collect as much money for welfare services if it was made optional. At that point, one has to choose between respect for individual freedom, and fulfilment of ethical obligations towards the poor.

People were already doing what you think they should be doing. The problem was that the federal government's provision of welfare crowded out mutual aid societies. As the government increased its scope of authority over the citizens' decision-making, then more local forms of self-government and communal activities were rendered less profitable because the gains were small. Discretion over the more important decisions was bottled into D.C.

Some people were already doing what I think they should be doing. You haven't provided any evidence to support the claim that people were healthier or better off prior to government intervention (and if you look at the historical record, it's going to be hard to make that claim, since the 20th century saw a rapid increase in quality of life due to advancements in nutrition and medical care), or that people were doing it to a larger extent than they do now.

Nowadays people go to the city council to complain about sewage and roads. It wasn't like that back in the day. More people were involved.

Source?

Here's the unintended consequence of your 'nudging' example: Why join a mutual aid society or donate to others when the government takes >15-39% (+5-10%) of your income and then irresponsibly and inefficiently uses it while giving it to people who aren't in your community? The local knowledge is missing; it's been removed from the picture by federal government. If Red Cross spends your donation irresponsibly, then you stop donating to them. With the federal government, the feedback is lacking. The autonomy is nil. The lessons which you seek to impart are not learned. Read Tocqueville's Democracy in America. Local government and communal involvement was the bedrock of democratic education. We've lost those roots with the expansion of the federal government. (just something to think about).

Well, since many people do donate to others despite the large amount of federal taxation, I am not convinced of your argument. I don't know the numbers, but there would have to be a lot of people who choose not to donate at all specifically because of taxation before I reconsidered my point of view.

My main point here is that all these great things that you want for society were already being provided by society yet have been inadvertently removed by the federal government itself. Your stance (in support of the fed. government) is another story about good intentions leading to bad outcomes. It's another example of unintended consequences. We try to help but make things worse.

I don't think government use of taxation needs to be nearly as inefficient, in principle, as it currently is. The main issue with government welfare services (and foreign aid services) is that our government does not take the time to read and commission the studies needed to figure out what forms of intervention are actually effective. One of the lessons making its way around the humanitarian community is that simply transferring wealth to a problem, even if it means more money ends up being donated, is usually much less effective than efforts that take the time to figure out what works using randomized controlled trials, even if that means more money is spent on administrative costs. I do not think this has to be the case though, and we should all push the government to take the research more seriously.

All of this needs to stop, and the change can occur when the federal government's scope of authority is narrowly limited into more appropriate categories (e.g. international diplomacy, regulating the economic union--i.e. prohibiting interstate tariffs, and national defense). That's classical liberalism in a nutshell, and if you want to respect freedom of choice, then you should become more like a classical liberal.

I am not a classical liberal, I am basically a socialist that is trying to figure out how to work with American principles to achieve the best ends. I respect freedom of choice in many arenas, but it's not clear to me that this is enough in some cases. If millions don't have access to the basic health care services that they need, then I contend that freedom of choice has failed in that arena, and more aggressive steps should be taken by government. The laissez-faire approach you recommend, to me stops being viable when basic services that all people should have access to (health care and education, for example) are frustrated because of market inefficiencies. Although I hate using the phrase "human rights," I think of access to health care and education basically as human rights, and in those cases leaving it to the market may very well not be enough.

[BigBallinStalin]

So, is a marginal tax rate of >45% or so percent nudging?

[Metsfanmax]

So, is a marginal tax rate of >45% or so percent nudging?

If we combined that with heavy tax deductions for charitable giving, then people aren't required to donate to charity, even though the money will no longer be theirs either way. Of course, one benefit of doing it this way is that people are allowed to donate to the charities they find most important (though I would not allow religious organizations to count). Would Sunstein and Thaler call that a nudge? Probably not. But the idea of enhancing personal freedoms to the maximum extent possible while still achieving the desired goal is there, which is the level to which I will compromise.

[BigBallinStalin]

So, is a marginal tax rate of >45% or so percent nudging?

If we combined that with heavy tax deductions for charitable giving, then people aren't required to donate to charity, even though the money will no longer be theirs either way. Of course, one benefit of doing it this way is that people are allowed to donate to the charities they find most important (though I would not allow religious organizations to count). Would Sunstein and Thaler call that a nudge? Probably not. But the idea of enhancing personal freedoms to the maximum extent possible while still achieving the desired goal is there, which is the level to which I will compromise.

So, in the real world, it's not a nudge.

1. Ethical obligation = help others
2. Must help others through optional voluntary exchange and through mandatory involuntary exchange by government.

And, what is the reasoning now for the underlined?

3. "I doubt quite strongly that we would collect as much money for welfare services if it was made optional."
----i.e. not enough money through voluntary exchange


And why is money the only criterion?

And most importantly, how much money is necessary?
(where does price: Marginal cost = marginal benefit?)

[BigBallinStalin]

Coercing people into paying taxes for government welfare isn't what the nudge effect is about. Your use of "nudging" makes it sound nice, but it's not a nudge. About 30% of federal government spending to total GDP is welfare entitlements (social security, medicare, medicaid). Considering the size of that impact, it's hardly a nudge. It's a large wealth transfer.

Nudging is like offering tax credits for charitable contributions, e.g. writing a check to Red Cross or donating clothes. That accomplishes what you want with nudging. Taxation simply isn't nudging. It doesn't teach people to care about others or to encourage them to desire donating to others--especially since that money is being taken anyway. Labeling taxation and government spending on welfare as nudging is contrary to that book's main point. Just sayin'.

Yes, obviously taxation does cross the line from being nudging into coercion (although much less so if, as I have expressed, we made taxation voluntary and opt-out for welfare provision purposes). Nevertheless, the main idea of getting people to do the right thing, that they wanted to do anyway, is still there. We could find much less coercive ways to get people to do these things than mandatory taxation, but they would involve government action.

The underlined is simply not true. If you want people to donate more, then don't force them to pay more taxes and don't subsidize strangers with the tax revenue. If you examine the history of mutual aid societies, then you'll realize that people once had a greater capacity to care for others and to become more communally involved.

I doubt quite strongly that we would collect as much money for welfare services if it was made optional. At that point, one has to choose between respect for individual freedom, and fulfilment of ethical obligations towards the poor.

People were already doing what you think they should be doing. The problem was that the federal government's provision of welfare crowded out mutual aid societies. As the government increased its scope of authority over the citizens' decision-making, then more local forms of self-government and communal activities were rendered less profitable because the gains were small. Discretion over the more important decisions was bottled into D.C.

Some people were already doing what I think they should be doing. You haven't provided any evidence to support the claim that people were healthier or better off prior to government intervention (and if you look at the historical record, it's going to be hard to make that claim, since the 20th century saw a rapid increase in quality of life due to advancements in nutrition and medical care), or that people were doing it to a larger extent than they do now.

Nowadays people go to the city council to complain about sewage and roads. It wasn't like that back in the day. More people were involved.

Source?

Here's the unintended consequence of your 'nudging' example: Why join a mutual aid society or donate to others when the government takes >15-39% (+5-10%) of your income and then irresponsibly and inefficiently uses it while giving it to people who aren't in your community? The local knowledge is missing; it's been removed from the picture by federal government. If Red Cross spends your donation irresponsibly, then you stop donating to them. With the federal government, the feedback is lacking. The autonomy is nil. The lessons which you seek to impart are not learned. Read Tocqueville's Democracy in America. Local government and communal involvement was the bedrock of democratic education. We've lost those roots with the expansion of the federal government. (just something to think about).

Well, since many people do donate to others despite the large amount of federal taxation, I am not convinced of your argument. I don't know the numbers, but there would have to be a lot of people who choose not to donate at all specifically because of taxation before I reconsidered my point of view.

My main point here is that all these great things that you want for society were already being provided by society yet have been inadvertently removed by the federal government itself. Your stance (in support of the fed. government) is another story about good intentions leading to bad outcomes. It's another example of unintended consequences. We try to help but make things worse.

I don't think government use of taxation needs to be nearly as inefficient, in principle, as it currently is. The main issue with government welfare services (and foreign aid services) is that our government does not take the time to read and commission the studies needed to figure out what forms of intervention are actually effective. One of the lessons making its way around the humanitarian community is that simply transferring wealth to a problem, even if it means more money ends up being donated, is usually much less effective than efforts that take the time to figure out what works using randomized controlled trials, even if that means more money is spent on administrative costs. I do not think this has to be the case though, and we should all push the government to take the research more seriously.

All of this needs to stop, and the change can occur when the federal government's scope of authority is narrowly limited into more appropriate categories (e.g. international diplomacy, regulating the economic union--i.e. prohibiting interstate tariffs, and national defense). That's classical liberalism in a nutshell, and if you want to respect freedom of choice, then you should become more like a classical liberal.

I am not a classical liberal, I am basically a socialist that is trying to figure out how to work with American principles to achieve the best ends. I respect freedom of choice in many arenas, but it's not clear to me that this is enough in some cases. If millions don't have access to the basic health care services that they need, then I contend that freedom of choice has failed in that arena, and more aggressive steps should be taken by government. The laissez-faire approach you recommend, to me stops being viable when basic services that all people should have access to (health care and education, for example) are frustrated because of market inefficiencies. Although I hate using the phrase "human rights," I think of access to health care and education basically as human rights, and in those cases leaving it to the market may very well not be enough.

Sources:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=184010&p=4020544&hilit=neoteny+welfare#p4020337

Read books, dude.

Health benefits are largely through technological advances. Not monopolization of licenses or government welfare.

RE: the underlined, I agree, and that's a problem, but think about public choice theory. You're holding unreasonable expectations of normal human beings who interact within a incentive structure that is not as conducive to change and innovation---compared to the incentives provided by markets (freer prices, freer competition, profit and loss incentives, private property rights, feedback loops--i.e. especially through prices).

You ever had lengthy conversations with people who work within government bureaucracies? I have. It's very eye-opening, and it would help you re-align your unrealistic expectations.

[Metsfanmax]

Sources:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=184010&p=4020544&hilit=neoteny+welfare#p4020337

Read books, dude.

Health benefits are largely through technological advances. Not monopolization of licenses or government welfare.

You haven't provided any evidence to support the claim that people were healthier or better off prior to government intervention (and if you look at the historical record, it's going to be hard to make that claim, since the 20th century saw a rapid increase in quality of life due to advancements in nutrition and medical care)

Read posts, dude. The point I was making is that it's hard to separate out the effects of government intervention (that increase medical access) from simple improvements in the quality of medical care itself, and so people making arguments either way have to deal with this.

The reason your argument doesn't really respond to mine is that for you, people just being more inclined to help others, seems to be enough to set your mind at ease. That is not the case for me. I believe that access to certain services such as health care and education ought to be fundamentally protected by government, and even with the right economic incentives (which we don't have now), markets and public donations are not enough to guarantee access to these services. A primary purpose of government (to me) is to ensure access when the market fails; that is precisely the point (at least in principle) of a law like Obamacare. In that sense, I don't see the late 1800s/early 1900s as better when it comes to guaranteeing health care. It may have been better in terms of an ethos of charitable giving, but I think there are some things we should not be leaving up to private charity, because too many people can fall through the cracks that way. It's not 1890 where you know everyone in your community because there were only like 500 people in your community.

I only value freedom of choice in this matter to the extent that in this country, respect for freedom of choice may simply be a more effective way to raise the necessary funds than mandatory taxation. But have no doubts that I feel every person is ethically obligated to contribute to the income redistribution.

[BigBallinStalin]

If you want to help the poor, then you have to examine the history and engage in comparative institutional analysis. More extreme forms of central planning (e.g. the Soviet Union) failed. More extreme forms of national regulation and control (e.g. national socialism, fascism) failed. What works in uplifting the poorest to higher standards of living is economic freedom (freetheworld.com).

So what political environment is most conducive to economic freedom? A genuine shift toward market 'forces'--in other words, freer markets.

Wealth transfers (via taxation) simply do not work and are not the main driver in helping the poor. Increases in labor productivity, more secure property rights, freer pricing, and freer competition is what you want. This entails lower taxes and lower government spending (i.e. less central planning). The historical cases of many countries which shift more toward central planning and regulation reveals that your plan will not produce your desired outcomes. All you're doing is supporting previous mistakes of history.

Again, what is the optimal amount of government provided welfare? What are the marginal costs and benefits?

The problem is that no one can answer that question because the price is simply set by the government (it's centrally planned prices--recall the Soviet Union). Without free prices, you can't have rational planning. Without an objective criteria for measuring performance (profit and loss), then you won't get the necessary changes through central planning in helping others. The major lifter from poverty are markets. The optimal balance between government and markets is small government. Steps toward larger government (Venezuela, Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, modern day Japan) either fail or stagnate. You don't understand the limits of central planning.

[BigBallinStalin]

You haven't provided any evidence to support the claim that people were healthier or better off prior to government intervention (and if you look at the historical record, it's going to be hard to make that claim, since the 20th century saw a rapid increase in quality of life due to advancements in nutrition and medical care)

Suppose we lived in a society where there were no markets--only central planning. The question is shoes. Should they be produced on the free market or should the status quo remain? I'd insist on a free market, but of course I can't project future prices and quality. I can only explain the importance of free prices, competition, secure property rights, and profit and loss incentives which lead to better outcomes. Those mechanisms and the spontaneous order which arises from the interactions and plans of many individuals will lead to better shoes. Obviously, in a freer market shoes are better than centrally planned shoes. A priori, I can't exactly show how that works because I can't design that which defies design (i.e. spontaneous order).

Of course, we can use comparative institutional analysis to reveal which countries have wealthier residents. That'll help.

We can also compare the incentives and knowledge problems of those in the market compared to those in government. That'll help too.

But that's a very long conversation, and incentive and knowledge problems and institutions is hardly something you've seriously addressed. This is why I'll keep insisting that you need to educate yourself about these matters before advocating for a larger state.

I'm not mad at you, I'm not upset, nor am I trying to belittle you. I'm just stating what's necessary for you to offer a stronger criticism of markets. I can give you plenty of resources which offer the strongest criticisms against free markets, but before that, you need to understand that which you criticize and that which you support. Understanding markets, institutions, and knowledge problems (in a word, PPE: politics, philosophy, and economics) is necessary. Without that understanding, your good intentions will lead you astray.

[Metsfanmax]

As I've mentioned in other threads, it would be conducive to productive debate if you stop telling me what you think I do or do not know and instead focus on what arguments you think I need to make, or whether I have justified my assertions. I treat you with enough respect in these arguments to assume you've educated yourself on what you are saying, and I would expect you to do the same. I have been careful to only make statements that I can justify, and I think some of your arguments miss the point. For example, your insistence that I argue for a central planning state. That is not my intent. I don't think the government ought to be the one providing the actual services themselves (e.g. healthcare), because I of course don't disagree with the standard economic analysis about efficiency and optimality in markets. Also, you've assumed that I fully support high levels of taxation as the required way to redistribute wealth, but I don't believe in that as a core principle either. My stance as a "socialist" is really just that if there is an inefficiency in the market that leads to a failure for the market to provide these basic services to everyone at the level I desire, then government is obligated to step in and correct the inefficiency in whatever way is necessary. As I said, I am not tied to any one method for making this happen; if taxation is not necessary, we should not do it. But it seems to me, and I think you're conceding this, that we can never guarantee some baseline standard of services without some amount of regulation and government intervention (because the entire point of the free market system is to raise the quality of life for society in general but can never guarantee that all individuals will see equal benefits from it). My point, essentially is that in today's market, some people simply aren't able to get shoes because the shoe retailers don't sell shoes to people with pre-existing conditions, and I think all people should be able to wear shoes (non-leather, of course).

If you really want to connect with me on this issue, talk to me about the most effective way to combine government regulation and the market to ensure that everyone has shoes to wear. I am quite honestly fully open to whatever way is the most effective.

Between my local public library and my university library I have access to most of the books you mentioned in that other thread, and I'll try to pick up a couple at some point.

[Neoteny]

[BigBallinStalin]

As I've mentioned in other threads, it would be conducive to productive debate if you stop telling me what you think I do or do not know and instead focus on what arguments you think I need to make, or whether I have justified my assertions. I treat you with enough respect in these arguments to assume you've educated yourself on what you are saying, and I would expect you to do the same. I have been careful to only make statements that I can justify, and I think some of your arguments miss the point. For example, your insistence that I argue for a central planning state. That is not my intent. I don't think the government ought to be the one providing the actual services themselves (e.g. healthcare), because I of course don't disagree with the standard economic analysis about efficiency and optimality in markets. Also, you've assumed that I fully support high levels of taxation as the required way to redistribute wealth, but I don't believe in that as a core principle either. My stance as a "socialist" is really just that if there is an inefficiency in the market that leads to a failure for the market to provide these basic services to everyone at the level I desire, then government is obligated to step in and correct the inefficiency in whatever way is necessary. As I said, I am not tied to any one method for making this happen; if taxation is not necessary, we should not do it. But it seems to me, and I think you're conceding this, that we can never guarantee some baseline standard of services without some amount of regulation and government intervention (because the entire point of the free market system is to raise the quality of life for society in general but can never guarantee that all individuals will see equal benefits from it). My point, essentially is that in today's market, some people simply aren't able to get shoes because the shoe retailers don't sell shoes to people with pre-existing conditions, and I think all people should be able to wear shoes (non-leather, of course).

If you really want to connect with me on this issue, talk to me about the most effective way to combine government regulation and the market to ensure that everyone has shoes to wear. I am quite honestly fully open to whatever way is the most effective.

Between my local public library and my university library I have access to most of the books you mentioned in that other thread, and I'll try to pick up a couple at some point.

Okay, I'll strive to be less dickish.

RE: underlined,
Market-preserving federalism is one route. This essentially is a shift to classical liberalism because the federal government becomes unnecessary in almost all of its current areas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market-pre ... federalism
(See Barry Weingast).

Another is FOCJs, which means "functional, overlapping, competitive jurisdictions." So, instead of a State government providing X amount of services, different organizations would contract with State governments and/or municipal governments to provide specific services. It's the opposite of the federal government's one-size-fits-all package.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOCJ

Those are ways of getting more elements of markets into government-provided goods.

The problem with federal government planning is getting the prices right and that it faces no threat of bankruptcy or loss. In a more competitive political environment, at least you'd have a better semblance of freer pricing, and with it, the benefits of a quasi-market process.

My stance as a "socialist" is really just that if there is an inefficiency in the market that leads to a failure for the market to provide these basic services to everyone at the level I desire, then government is obligated to step in and correct the inefficiency in whatever way is necessary.

Yeah, this is the market failure argument. The problem is that people can be impatient because although participants in the market can overcome many problems, the advocates for government insist on 'doing something' now (which in many cases has proven regrettable). There's also the analytical problems of neo-classical economics and its unreal assumptions. So, when 'market failure' occurs, people jump to the government for a solution. What ends up happening is that the government doesn't fix the problem and/or it does kind of fix the problem but creates more problems (unintended consequences), which in turn create more excuses for further government 'solutions' and further unintended consequences. Repeat ad infinitum.

Over time, what you get is "Democracy in Deficit." Instead of dealing with long-term problems, the Fed drops interest rates to essentially reduce the government's costs of borrowing. In turn, politicians are more reluctant to plan for the future because spending is so much cheaper since borrowing (deficit spending) is cheaper. Therefore, the general status quo in the present is maintained. Currently, we're headed into the same route as Greece or Japan (i.e. failure or stagnation). This is why you won't get what you want from the federal government, and it's one of the dangers of the market failure argument (because it places 'solutions' at the door of the federal government).


The reason why I mention high taxation is because your reasoning leads us to those outcomes. "Market failure; therefore, insert more government" or "help the poorest; therefore, insert more government." You yourself were justifying taxation earlier. Look at the past 100 years, and you'll see the increasing marginal tax rates, expenditures, and deficit spending. Although you may not want higher taxes nor direct government provision of healthcare, you're still going to get it--because of the ongoing political process. It's profitable for politicians to lead themselves to these outcomes. The only way out of this is for the voters to become more informed--to become more skeptical of federal government's capabilities and intentions and to become more cognizant of the market process (not "capitalism", but the market process). In turn, the prevalent ideology should shift more toward classical liberalism (e.g. actual federalism like in the past, or FOCJs).

Political power has to be more decentralized in order for your desired goals to even have a chance of becoming reality. One of the main points about FOCJs and market-preserving federalism is that it allows for the necessary trial-and-error for discovering that optimal balance between markets and government control. With one organization at the helm (the federal government), then the trial-and-error process imposes more costs to more people while becoming more impervious to change for the better. That power needs to be decentralized, and hopefully we can agree with that.

[BigBallinStalin]

but it seems to me, and I think you're conceding this, that we can never guarantee some baseline standard of services without some amount of regulation and government intervention (because the entire point of the free market system is to raise the quality of life for society in general but can never guarantee that all individuals will see equal benefits from it). My point, essentially is that in today's market, some people simply aren't able to get shoes because the shoe retailers don't sell shoes to people with pre-existing conditions, and I think all people should be able to wear shoes (non-leather, of course).

But neither does the federal government provide this solution. Instead, it unintentionally creates 'poverty traps' or destroys substitutes for helping the poorest (e.g. mutual aid societies) through its attempts to help the poor. Also, it directs 'all roads to D.C.', thus reducing the costs of crony capitalism (in capturing regulatory agencies or influencing politicians).

And even if I concede that state intervention can in some ways help the poorest of the poor, I think you're neglecting many of the costs and unintended consequences from the state's pursuit to do so. For me, do the benefits of Federal Government welfare, spending, and control offset the costs? No. The political process needs to be broken up--like the terrible monopoly it is.


So, imagine a political union of 50 States, or even 100,000 political boundaries under one federal government (which only provides intl. diplomacy and national security). If you and your friends wish to implement particular changes in one of those places, then it's easier for y'all to do so (less transaction costs). And if the public policies work, then hey other places can learn from y'all's success and then adopt your public policies or make some changes to adjust for their particular circumstances. If the policies didn't work, then you and your friends incur nearly all the costs of your mistakes, thus encouraging y'all to stop repeating the mistakes. (With federal government, costs are dispersed over 330+ million people, so the mistakes generally continue or get worse, and the transaction costs for implementing political change are significantly higher).


But my main contention with 'state socialists' and 'liberals' is that they always jump to the gun for national/federal government. They tend to dismiss classical liberalism and decentralized forms of democratic governance. And with that, if they want the federal government to do something in particular, then they already lose that chance because their intentions have led to a centralized form of governance which can easily ignore their idealistic changes. (Or it would be happy to accommodate their intentions but cannot produce the desired outcomes, e.g. today's government--specifically crappy federal healthcare services and regulation, Obamacare).

If we can all agree on striving for a more democratic form of governance (i.e. a smaller, federal government), then I'd be happy.

[Phatscotty]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/op ... CJ0ZTwHJ/1

We’ve now reached the third anniversary of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a k a ObamaCare. The Obama administration celebrated this important milestone by announcing that it was postponing part of the law that was designed to reduce costs for small businesses.

Oops.

This was hardly the first ObamaCare promise to fall by the wayside. Indeed, the entire first three years of the new health-care law have been one long story of unfulfilled expectations.

Take, for example, the “affordable” part of the Affordable Care Act. While the recession has artificially held down health-care costs and the associated rise in insurance premiums over the past couple of years, now that the economy has begun to recover, both are expected to rise rapidly. For example, the American Society of Actuaries estimates that claims costs (the primary driver of premiums) for the individual insurance market will rise by an average of 32% over the next three years.

Rising health-care costs are already beginning to show up as higher premiums. California health insurers are proposing increases for some customers of 20% or more: 26% by Blue Cross, 22% by Aetna and 20% by Blue Shield.

In New York, the Department of Financial Services has limited insurers to a 7.5% increase this year, better but still substantial. And, according to The Wall Street Journal, insurers are warning that premiums in the individual and small group markets could double in the next few years. While these are worst-case scenarios — and it would be unfair to attribute all the premium rise directly to ObamaCare — there is no doubt that the new health-care law will drive premiums up.

Even HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius admits that some Americans will face higher premiums, especially for the young and healthy. “It’s sort of a one-to-one shift,” Secretary Sebelius told reporters, “some of the older customers may see a slight decline, and some of the younger ones are going to see a slight increase.”

That is because of ObamaCare’s “community rating” provisions, which prohibit charging premiums based on a person’s health and limit the degree to which insurers can charge based on age.

Then again, the premium increases might not be so “slight” after all. According a survey by the American Action Forum, healthy young people in the individual or small-group insurance markets can look forward to rate increases averaging as much as 169%.

In addition, ObamaCare requires all insurance plans to offer new and more expensive benefits. Remember President Obama’s promise that “If you like your health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period?” Well, a recent study of more than 11,000 plans on the individual market found that less than 2% of existing plans are fully in compliance with the law’s benefit requirements. While current plans are technically grandfathered in, allowing people to keep them for now, any change in the plans requires that their coverage be brought into compliance.

Moreover, because non-compliant plans cannot enroll new members, most of the existing plans will eventually disappear, requiring even those members who have been grandfathered in to switch plans eventually, even if that means more expensive plans that include benefits that people don’t necessarily want.

As Secretary Sebelius puts it, “These folks will be moving into a really fully insured product for the first time, and so there may be a higher cost associated with getting into that market.”

New federal subsidies will offset rising premiums to some degree. But that will only further drive up the law’s already rising price tag, shifting the cost to taxpayers. The price of the average exchange subsidy per person is now projected to be $5,510 in 2014, $700 more than was estimated to be last year. Indeed, according to the CBO, the total cost of exchange subsidies under ObamaCare has increased by $125 billion, on a year-over-year basis, since initial estimates.

That means more taxes or more debt to pay for the program. A report issued last month by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), based on information provided by the Government Accountability Office, concluded that Obamacare would add $1.4 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years, and as much as $6.2 trillion over the next 75 years.

And while taxpayers will have to pay more, those subsidies might not exactly make exchange plans affordable. The IRS recently estimated that in 2016, for a family of five, a policy available through the exchange would cost roughly $20,000. At the same time, the IRS has decided that subsidy eligibility will be based on whether one’s employer offers an “affordable” individual plan (meaning the premium is less than 9.5% of the worker’s income), whatever the cost of a family plan might be. As a result, the Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that 3.9 million family dependents could be left unable to afford either employer-provided family coverage or insurance offered through an exchange.

That is just one more reason why ObamaCare won’t even accomplish its expressed goal of providing health insurance for all Americans. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office now estimates that by 2023, there will still be more than 30 million uninsured Americans. Moreover, roughly 40% of those that ObamaCare does cover don’t really receive health insurance but are simply dumped into Medicaid, hardly known for high-quality care. In fact, according to the CBO, by the end of the decade almost 11 million fewer Americans will have private unsubsidized health insurance than do today.

Just three years old and already ObamaCare is a monster. One trembles at the thought of what it will be like as a teenager.

[BigBallinStalin]

Another reason why you can't get what you want from federal-mandated healthcare plans:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... llbusiness

(Small businesses would rather pay the $2000 penalty than pay for the additional healthcare insurance--since it would run them in the red. Government isn't induced to correct this problem (or this waste) because it's getting rewarded--even when it fails to have various people's healthcare insurance subsidized.

Pretty stupid, but what more to people expect from federal government?
(Hint: too much).

[PLAYER57832]

In that sense, I don't see the late 1800s/early 1900s as better when it comes to guaranteeing health care. It may have been better in terms of an ethos of charitable giving, but I think there are some things we should not be leaving up to private charity, because too many people can fall through the cracks that way. It's not 1890 where you know everyone in your community because there were only like 500 people in your community.

Its also worth noting that the1800's contained the civil war and then, a mini Depression, included a gold hoarding incident that almost destroyed or at least could have very seriously harmed our entire monetary system.

AND, the early 1900's saw a couple of World Wars and a Depression.


It is precisely because of what happened then that we have many of the systems we have now. Pretending those were some kind of ideal economic times is an extreme misreading of what most people experienced back then.

[PLAYER57832]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/lies_of_obamacare_dYCsCHrFn3qNAQCJ0ZTwHJ/1

We’ve now reached the third anniversary of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a k a ObamaCare. The Obama administration celebrated this important milestone by announcing that it was postponing part of the law that was designed to reduce costs for small businesses.
.....

SUMMARY:The program has just begun and as projected is costing more initially. It is too soon to tell if there will be an overall savings, but of course the vultures who were against the plan from the start, first because it was "socialism", not to mention being "Obama's" plan (never mind that it really mirrors an earlier Republican plan), and now just out of "principle".

Also, as Metafax, several others have stated, the above makes no distinction between rises in costs that come from increased technology and costs that come from the Healthcare reform act.

Further, it utterly dismisses any benefit in having more people covered by insurance.

[Night Strike]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/lies_of_obamacare_dYCsCHrFn3qNAQCJ0ZTwHJ/1

We’ve now reached the third anniversary of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a k a ObamaCare. The Obama administration celebrated this important milestone by announcing that it was postponing part of the law that was designed to reduce costs for small businesses.
.....

SUMMARY:The program has just begun and as projected is costing more initially. It is too soon to tell if there will be an overall savings, but of course the vultures who were against the plan from the start, first because it was "socialism", not to mention being "Obama's" plan (never mind that it really mirrors an earlier Republican plan), and now just out of "principle".

Also, as Metafax, several others have stated, the above makes no distinction between rises in costs that come from increased technology and costs that come from the Healthcare reform act.

Further, it utterly dismisses any benefit in having more people covered by insurance.

Do you realize that the president made none of those distinctions when he made his claim that the law would lower health insurance costs? He said it will lower health care costs, you will get to keep your doctor, you will get to keep your plan. Since none of those things have happened, why can't you admit that he was at best wrong and at worst lying to get it passed? Also, who cares if it was a Republican plan at one point? It's certainly not a conservative or libertarian plan. There are a lot of Republican plans that are just as progressive as Democratic plans.

[PLAYER57832]

Another reason why you can't get what you want from federal-mandated healthcare plans:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... llbusiness

(Small businesses would rather pay the $2000 penalty than pay for the additional healthcare insurance--since it would run them in the red. Government isn't induced to correct this problem (or this waste) because it's getting rewarded--even when it fails to have various people's healthcare insurance subsidized.

Pretty stupid, but what more to people expect from federal government?
(Hint: too much).

How about analyzing why? The "why" is (simplistically) that pro-business lobby groups advocate for these benefits and politicians like to have their donations and other types of support, so will cater to them.

But here is the question, since business fighting for specific interests is the problem, how is it that simply turning it all over to business will solve the situation?

[PLAYER57832]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/lies_of_obamacare_dYCsCHrFn3qNAQCJ0ZTwHJ/1

We’ve now reached the third anniversary of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a k a ObamaCare. The Obama administration celebrated this important milestone by announcing that it was postponing part of the law that was designed to reduce costs for small businesses.
.....

SUMMARY:The program has just begun and as projected is costing more initially. It is too soon to tell if there will be an overall savings, but of course the vultures who were against the plan from the start, first because it was "socialism", not to mention being "Obama's" plan (never mind that it really mirrors an earlier Republican plan), and now just out of "principle".

Also, as Metafax, several others have stated, the above makes no distinction between rises in costs that come from increased technology and costs that come from the Healthcare reform act.

Further, it utterly dismisses any benefit in having more people covered by insurance.

Do you realize that the president made none of those distinctions when he made his claim that the law would lower health insurance costs? He said it will lower health care costs, you will get to keep your doctor, you will get to keep your plan. Since none of those things have happened, why can't you admit that he was at best wrong and at worst lying to get it passed?

I see, apparently we have some definitional issues here.
See, in English the term "will" speaks to the future, not necessarily the immediate. Per the doctor, nothing in the law is prohibiting people from keeping their doctors. HOWEVER, doctors and insurance companies are and always have been free to opt out of various programs. The issue is whether this law is directly responsible.

and note... I am quite sure you can find some doctors saying "I [retired, left the company, changed practice,etc] because of Obamacare." But that's like the guy who told his employees if Obama was elected, they would all be fired. Jerks can use whatever excuse they want, it doesn't mean they truly were forced to make those decisions.

Also, who cares if it was a Republican plan at one point? It's certainly not a conservative or libertarian plan. There are a lot of Republican plans that are just as progressive as Democratic plans.

Ah, well see, you keep pretending this was some plan that Obama, all on his own and without any context just cooked up to try and trick the American people. I am simply showing the error in your analysis.

A better question is why so many attackers, including you, are so very insistant that the bill be attributed almost entirely to Obama?

[Night Strike]

I see, apparently we have some definitional issues here.
See, in English the term "will" speaks to the future, not necessarily the immediate. Per the doctor, nothing in the law is prohibiting people from keeping their doctors. HOWEVER, doctors and insurance companies are and always have been free to opt out of various programs. The issue is whether this law is directly responsible.

Except now we can't opt out of THIS program, so "always" isn't an accurate term. And the future is now player. We were promised on the president's post-election campaign trail that we could keep our doctors and plans if we wanted to. Yet, the government banned high-deductible catastrophic insurance plans, so obviously those people couldn't keep their plans. You should also include the limits on flexible spending accounts and the higher threshold for deducting medical expenses as plans that the government has forced to change, not to mention forced higher taxes on the middle class.

and note... I am quite sure you can find some doctors saying "I [retired, left the company, changed practice,etc] because of Obamacare." But that's like the guy who told his employees if Obama was elected, they would all be fired. Jerks can use whatever excuse they want, it doesn't mean they truly were forced to make those decisions.

Do you realize that there are actually real consequences to legislation that's passed, and the results aren't always things that are great for everybody? There ARE negative consequences to laws. And people aren't jerks for pointing out those negative consequences and even acting in response to those negativities. If you want to name jerks, start looking at the people in government who think they have the authority to control our lives.

Also, who cares if it was a Republican plan at one point? It's certainly not a conservative or libertarian plan. There are a lot of Republican plans that are just as progressive as Democratic plans.

Ah, well see, you keep pretending this was some plan that Obama, all on his own and without any context just cooked up to try and trick the American people. I am simply showing the error in your analysis.

A better question is why so many attackers, including you, are so very insistant that the bill be attributed almost entirely to Obama?

Well, Obama spent over a year after his election to campaign for the law, and he signed it, so he clearly had a large role in it. And I'm well aware that there are plenty of other bad legislators that forced this law down our throats, and we've been working to get them out of power and out of office all together.

[PLAYER57832]

I see, apparently we have some definitional issues here.
See, in English the term "will" speaks to the future, not necessarily the immediate. Per the doctor, nothing in the law is prohibiting people from keeping their doctors. HOWEVER, doctors and insurance companies are and always have been free to opt out of various programs. The issue is whether this law is directly responsible.

Except now we can't opt out of THIS program, so "always" isn't an accurate term.

Nor did we in the past. Only a very few, mostly wealthy people had any choice. And, as per your claim that you could choose not to have insurance in the past... that was not chioce, it was abuse of your fellow taxpayers, because we all wound up paying for those who did not have insurance.

And the future is now player.

Part of it, a very small part of it, but not "the" future, no.

We were promised on the president's post-election campaign trail that we could keep our doctors and plans if we wanted to. Yet, the government banned high-deductible catastrophic insurance plans, so obviously those people couldn't keep their plans.

Becuase those "plans" were abusive, not real insurance. They were mildly better than no insurance, but not real coverage.

Also, employers were the ones with the choice, not the people using the insurance. They could and often did change the policies to suit themselves, regardless of any choices the employees might make. And, their "choice" was too often just on what would save them the most money, not what provided the best coverage or care or any other standard.

You should also include the limits on flexible spending accounts and the higher threshold for deducting medical expenses as plans that the government has forced to change, not to mention forced higher taxes on the middle class.

Limits to flexible spending accounts... since the overall deductables and costs are less, the need for those is less. Per the rest.. too soon to make claims that this is a net loss to the middle class.

Projections prior to the bills passage and shortly afterward showed that a few people would wind up paying more, but most would wind up saving money with this law in the long run. You want to claim failure before the bill has even been fully implemented. There is nothing about objective logic or truth in your claims. Its pure "find an excuse and attack, regardless of outcome".

and note... I am quite sure you can find some doctors saying "I [retired, left the company, changed practice,etc] because of Obamacare." But that's like the guy who told his employees if Obama was elected, they would all be fired. Jerks can use whatever excuse they want, it doesn't mean they truly were forced to make those decisions.

Do you realize that there are actually real consequences to legislation that's passed, and the results aren't always things that are great for everybody? There ARE negative consequences to laws. And people aren't jerks for pointing out those negative consequences and even acting in response to those negativities. If you want to name jerks, start looking at the people in government who think they have the authority to control our lives.

Ah here we go... the old rant against any government regulation...

Try sticking to the topic.

Also, who cares if it was a Republican plan at one point? It's certainly not a conservative or libertarian plan. There are a lot of Republican plans that are just as progressive as Democratic plans.

Ah, well see, you keep pretending this was some plan that Obama, all on his own and without any context just cooked up to try and trick the American people. I am simply showing the error in your analysis.

A better question is why so many attackers, including you, are so very insistant that the bill be attributed almost entirely to Obama?

Well, Obama spent over a year after his election to campaign for the law, and he signed it, so he clearly had a large role in it. And I'm well aware that there are plenty of other bad legislators that forced this law down our throats, and we've been working to get them out of power and out of office all together.

LOL.
And here I thought you were championing freedom and democracy. See, Obama was elected by the MAJORITY of the population.

[BigBallinStalin]

And another thing...

[Phatscotty]

It says something when unions want out. Guess they didn't get a corruption waiver. I'm sure these guys at one time were shouting down "racists" and supporting Obamacare. Except, now we know what's in it....

Roofer Union Calls for Repeal of Obama Health Law

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/04/1 ... um=twitter

[BigBallinStalin]

I expect that they'll get an exemption if they have the political clout. Let the suckers general voters bear additional costs because they're not nearly as organized.