Conquer Club

ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: ObamaCare

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:28 pm

saxitoxin wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote: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.


The car insurance analogy wasn't mine. Learn to read.

And yes, it is. You have essentially advanced the thesis that there is some arbitrary level of penalty above which people will feel compelled to obey laws and below which people will ignore them. This obviously does not comport with typical human behavior. The original thesis was this: people do not, in general, feel forced to obey laws simply because there is a penalty associated with non-compliance. Rather, they balance the size of the penalty against the benefits of non-compliance, and make a judgment call based on the relative benefits and costs. What I said above is precisely in line with that.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: ObamaCare

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:43 pm

So, is the hypothetical 1-cent penalty relevant to Obamacare?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: ObamaCare

Postby saxitoxin on Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:45 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote: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.


The car insurance analogy wasn't mine. Learn to read.

And yes, it is. You have essentially advanced the thesis that there is some arbitrary level of penalty above which people will feel compelled to obey laws and below which people will ignore them. This obviously does not comport with typical human behavior. The original thesis was this: people do not, in general, feel forced to obey laws simply because there is a penalty associated with non-compliance. Rather, they balance the size of the penalty against the benefits of non-compliance, and make a judgment call based on the relative benefits and costs. What I said above is precisely in line with that.


Uh huh.

The economic, social, and cultural costs a person would incur with the penalty you identified - exile from the United States - makes it a bright line for 99% of the population. Again, you've had to apply so many caveats, corollaries and addenda to back away from that, that it's devolved into completely disconnected absurdity.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
User avatar
Corporal saxitoxin
 
Posts: 13397
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: ObamaCare

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:51 pm

saxitoxin wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote: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.


The car insurance analogy wasn't mine. Learn to read.

And yes, it is. You have essentially advanced the thesis that there is some arbitrary level of penalty above which people will feel compelled to obey laws and below which people will ignore them. This obviously does not comport with typical human behavior. The original thesis was this: people do not, in general, feel forced to obey laws simply because there is a penalty associated with non-compliance. Rather, they balance the size of the penalty against the benefits of non-compliance, and make a judgment call based on the relative benefits and costs. What I said above is precisely in line with that.


Uh huh.

The economic, social, and cultural costs a person would incur with the penalty you identified - exile from the United States - makes it a bright line for 99% of the population. Again, you've had to apply so many caveats, corollaries and addenda to back away from that, that it's devolved into completely disconnected absurdity.


The relevant penalty to discuss is not exile from the United States but the 1% fine levied on individuals who do not purchase health insurance starting in January. This is almost certainly significantly lower than the price a person would pay for health insurance. Even the 2.5% it will eventually rise to is cheaper than purchasing health insurance for many people. The fact that most people won't choose the fine route, and instead will choose to just pay for health insurance, speaks to the fact that most people do want to receive health care.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: ObamaCare

Postby saxitoxin on Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:59 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote: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.


The car insurance analogy wasn't mine. Learn to read.

And yes, it is. You have essentially advanced the thesis that there is some arbitrary level of penalty above which people will feel compelled to obey laws and below which people will ignore them. This obviously does not comport with typical human behavior. The original thesis was this: people do not, in general, feel forced to obey laws simply because there is a penalty associated with non-compliance. Rather, they balance the size of the penalty against the benefits of non-compliance, and make a judgment call based on the relative benefits and costs. What I said above is precisely in line with that.


Uh huh.

The economic, social, and cultural costs a person would incur with the penalty you identified - exile from the United States - makes it a bright line for 99% of the population. Again, you've had to apply so many caveats, corollaries and addenda to back away from that, that it's devolved into completely disconnected absurdity.


The relevant penalty to discuss is not exile from the United States but the 1% fine levied on individuals who do not purchase health insurance starting in January. This is almost certainly significantly lower than the price a person would pay for health insurance. Even the 2.5% it will eventually rise to is cheaper than purchasing health insurance for many people. The fact that most people won't choose the fine route, and instead will choose to just pay for health insurance, speaks to the fact that most people do want to receive health care.


While it's true that everything you just said is incorrect and invalid, it doesn't seem to have anything at all to do with the discussion in which I was participating, to wit:

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

Do you have auto insurance?


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


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


I think it would be better if I don't participate in this new discussion about the purchasing efficiency of Obamacare if the M.O. is going to be to switch direction once the thesis has been falsified.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
User avatar
Corporal saxitoxin
 
Posts: 13397
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: ObamaCare

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:04 pm

saxitoxin wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:The relevant penalty to discuss is not exile from the United States but the 1% fine levied on individuals who do not purchase health insurance starting in January. This is almost certainly significantly lower than the price a person would pay for health insurance. Even the 2.5% it will eventually rise to is cheaper than purchasing health insurance for many people. The fact that most people won't choose the fine route, and instead will choose to just pay for health insurance, speaks to the fact that most people do want to receive health care.


While it's true that everything you just said is incorrect and invalid, it doesn't seem to have anything at all to do with the discussion in which I was participating, to wit:

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

Do you have auto insurance?


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


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


I think it would be better if I don't participate in this new discussion about the purchasing efficiency of Obamacare if the M.O. is to switch direction once the thesis has been falsified.


The thesis was: it is not the case that if you live in the U.S. you are forced to participate. This has not changed since the original post. I have demonstrated this in the preceding posts. It is the case that if you live in the U.S. you are forced to choose between paying a fine and participating, and that is a decision individuals will have to come to terms with. If you do not desire to participate in this discussion or did not understand the statement "no one is forcing you to participate" and so have decided to remove yourself, that is fine.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: ObamaCare

Postby _sabotage_ on Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:09 pm

So then the fine is not going towards the support of Obamacare? The thing you have chosen not to participate in?
User avatar
Captain _sabotage_
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:21 am

Re: ObamaCare

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:15 pm

_sabotage_ wrote:So then the fine is not going towards the support of Obamacare? The thing you have chosen not to participate in?


The reasoning here is sound, at least in principle. People participate in the health care market whether they want to or not (due to getting sick and going to the hospital even if you can't afford treatment). A tax on those who do not purchase health insurance helps society recuperate from the costs these people instill on the rest of society (this follows because people who do not purchase health insurance almost certainly are unable to pay for the staggering cost of American hospital bills). This is why the fact that Night Strike chooses to live in the U.S. is relevant: he may not want to participate in the health insurance market, but everyone participates in the health care market.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: ObamaCare

Postby saxitoxin on Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:20 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:It is the case that if you live in the U.S. you are forced to choose between paying a fine and participating


Correct, participation is compulsory - if you fail to participate you will be punished (fined) until you begin to participate.

Your new and unconventional definition of what constitute "compulsion" means there is, and never has been, anything that is mandatory. That's okay, I laughed, anyway. We need you editing history textbooks, Mets.

    Before: In Egypt, slaves were required to work on pyramids.
    After: In Egypt, slaves enjoyed the freedom to choose (a) to work on pyramids, or, (b) to be whipped.
Last edited by saxitoxin on Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
User avatar
Corporal saxitoxin
 
Posts: 13397
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: ObamaCare

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:21 pm

"A tax on those who do not purchase health insurance helps society recuperate from the costs these people instill on the rest of society "

But if the government policy (inadvertently) increases the price of health insurance while imposing various taxes to fund this endeavor, then it may be the case that the social cost with ObamaCare would be greater than the social cost without ObamaCare.

If this is true, then the less social costly choice would be... no ObamaCare.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: ObamaCare

Postby _sabotage_ on Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:28 pm

Is that a yes or a no?

If the fine is going towards health care it would appear to be a form of participation.

For example, in Hong Kong the government heavily subsidizes health care, but they do not subsidize what is considered cosmetic. As the market for cosmetic operations is expensive, I can choose to take a day trip to China or Thailand where it is cheaper. I do not incur a penalty nor am required to move. I also am not required to pay a separate tax to get the health care which I am covered for.

So I have free market participation with its benefits, am not penalized for it and have the option to choose to receive unsubsidized benefits elsewhere.
User avatar
Captain _sabotage_
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:21 am

Re: ObamaCare

Postby saxitoxin on Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:29 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:"A tax on those who do not purchase health insurance helps society recuperate from the costs these people instill on the rest of society "

But if the government policy (inadvertently) increases the price of health insurance while imposing various taxes to fund this endeavor, then it may be the case that the social cost with ObamaCare would be greater than the social cost without ObamaCare.

If this is true, then the less social costly choice would be... no ObamaCare.


That's a great point. Adam Weldzius had to pay $233 for health insurance before Obamacare. He now has to pay $467 for the same health insurance after Obamacare. If Adam makes $50,000, he will ultimately face:

    $3,000 - health insurance post-Obamacare
    $1,500 - health insurance pre-Obamacare
    $1,250 - no health insurance / fine
Since lack of food will result in a more immediate medical crisis for Adam than lack of hospital access, Adam may choose to pay the fine. Obamacare has incentivized Adam to drop his health insurance.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
User avatar
Corporal saxitoxin
 
Posts: 13397
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: ObamaCare

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:46 pm

saxitoxin wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:It is the case that if you live in the U.S. you are forced to choose between paying a fine and participating


Correct, participation is compulsory - if you fail to participate you will be punished (fined) until you begin to participate.

Your new and unconventional definition of what constitute "compulsion" means there is, and never has been, anything that is mandatory. That's okay, I laughed, anyway. We need you editing history textbooks, Mets.

    Before: In Egypt, slaves were required to work on pyramids.
    After: In Egypt, slaves enjoyed the freedom to choose (a) to work on pyramids, or, (b) to be whipped.


What you speak of as 'compulsion' is actually just the limit of a penalty that most reasonable people would agree is so heavy as to never be worth it. There are things that humans are literally compelled to do, but those are generally constraints of physical reality. For example, a slave can be physically compelled to stay in one place with shackles but cannot be physically compelled to work, in the truest sense of the word -- only to be given a choice so dire that doing the work is the most rational choice, given the circumstances. Now, I agree that colloquially we usually do mean mandatory or compelled in that latter sense. And if the penalty for disobeying the health insurance purchase were slave labor or prison time, I would not haven taken exception to Night Strike's statement. But as the fine associated with ACA is less than the cost of the thing that you would otherwise purchase, it is not obviously reasonable to me, to argue that participation in the health insurance market is compulsory. You agreed that the mere existence of a fine for disobeying does not induce people to comply with the law -- the fine needs to be large enough for people to change their behavior. You stated clearly that people would not be compelled to participate in the health insurance market if the fine is one cent per year. Are you willing to argue that people would be compelled to participate if the fine were $1 per year? What if it were $100? Or $5,000?
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: ObamaCare

Postby _sabotage_ on Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:51 pm

If the fine, even of .001%, of not participating is being used for Obamacare, then it is compulsory as you are participating through the fine.
User avatar
Captain _sabotage_
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:21 am

Re: ObamaCare

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:56 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:"A tax on those who do not purchase health insurance helps society recuperate from the costs these people instill on the rest of society "

But if the government policy (inadvertently) increases the price of health insurance while imposing various taxes to fund this endeavor, then it may be the case that the social cost with ObamaCare would be greater than the social cost without ObamaCare.

If this is true, then the less social costly choice would be... no ObamaCare.


Yes, obviously if the net social cost of the law is negative, we should not support it. However, it is not clear that a net rise of insurance costs is enough to cause this. First, because that doesn't necessarily mean health care costs in total go up on average. Second, because the government revenues subsidize those at the bottom of the market who cannot afford health insurance. So, if health insurance prices go up but more people are able to get health care, we may find a net social benefit to the law, depending on how much we value the ability of the poor to get access to health care. The substantive debate on the ACA is essentially in that last link in the chain: will the law really provide more access to health care for the millions who didn't previously have health insurance?
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: ObamaCare

Postby _sabotage_ on Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:03 pm

Metsfanmax wrote: will the law really provide more access to health care for the millions who didn't previously have health insurance?


Call 1-800-F*CK-YOU to find out. My wife thought this was a joke, until she called. She still thought it was a joke until we proceeded through the steps. Each step through the process darkened her brow.
User avatar
Captain _sabotage_
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:21 am

Re: ObamaCare

Postby saxitoxin on Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:21 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:But as the fine associated with ACA is less than the cost of the thing that you would otherwise purchase, it is not obviously reasonable to me, to argue that participation in the health insurance market is compulsory.


First, that's a non-sequitur that has nothing to do with anything.

Second, it's not even true.

    -If you purchase a product manufactured by one of Obama's corporate campaign donors you pay $X and get $Y of value returned in services.
    -If you pay a fine you pay $Z and get $0 of value.
If $X-$Y is greater than $Z you are paying a penalty greater than your cost of compliance. If it's not, then the entire premise of Obamacare is flawed.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
User avatar
Corporal saxitoxin
 
Posts: 13397
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: ObamaCare

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Oct 15, 2013 3:09 pm

saxitoxin wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:But as the fine associated with ACA is less than the cost of the thing that you would otherwise purchase, it is not obviously reasonable to me, to argue that participation in the health insurance market is compulsory.


First, that's a non-sequitur that has nothing to do with anything.

Second, it's not even true.

    -If you purchase a product manufactured by one of Obama's campaign donors you pay $X and get $Y of value returned in services.
    -If you pay a fine you pay $Z and get $0 of value.
If $X-$Y is greater than $Z you are paying a penalty greater than your cost of compliance. If it's not, then the entire premise of Obamacare is flawed.


What you said is backwards. $X - $Y is your cost of compliance, and $Z is your cost of non-compliance, so if $X-$Y is greater than $Z then the penalty is less than the cost of compliance. What happens here is more complicated than what you just sketched out, because of course a person likely still needs health care even if they pay the penalty, but I imagine they're likely to seek out less health care if they don't have insurance.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: ObamaCare

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Oct 15, 2013 3:12 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:"A tax on those who do not purchase health insurance helps society recuperate from the costs these people instill on the rest of society "

But if the government policy (inadvertently) increases the price of health insurance while imposing various taxes to fund this endeavor, then it may be the case that the social cost with ObamaCare would be greater than the social cost without ObamaCare.

If this is true, then the less social costly choice would be... no ObamaCare.


Yes, obviously if the net social cost of the law is negative, we should not support it. However, it is not clear that a net rise of insurance costs is enough to cause this. First, because that doesn't necessarily mean health care costs in total go up on average. Second, because the government revenues subsidize those at the bottom of the market who cannot afford health insurance. So, if health insurance prices go up but more people are able to get health care, we may find a net social benefit to the law, depending on how much we value the ability of the poor to get access to health care. The substantive debate on the ACA is essentially in that last link in the chain: will the law really provide more access to health care for the millions who didn't previously have health insurance?


If you want to throw in subjective values such as " depending on how much we value the ability of the poor to get access to health care," then we can insert any amount of other subjective values which can drive the costs up or down, so let's drop the subjective costs.

ACA cost per year is projected to be $35 billion for the next 10 years--as of April 2012. This cost only considers government expenditures; rising prices of health insurance are omitted. Nevertheless, this cost is expected to rise:

The positive case for the ACA's financial integrity hung on two improbable outcomes: that all of its cost-savings provisions would work exactly as hoped, while none of its spending provisions would cost more than envisioned. Yet CBO warned at the time that many of the law's cost-saving provisions "might be difficult to sustain," while the Medicare Chief Actuary also warned that projected savings "may be unrealistic."

One of the first provisions to bite the dust was the CLASS long-term care program, suspended in 2011 due to its financial unsoundness. This wiped out a revenue source counted on to produce $70 billion during the first decade to help finance the ACA's coverage expansion.

The 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision further complicated the law's financing. the Court rendered Medicaid expansion optional for states, thus giving them an incentive to let the federal government shoulder the entire cost of subsidizing more generous insurance coverage for those above the poverty line. Many states are now taking advantage of this latitude, likely increasing federal costs for the exchanges.

Another of the ACA's important financing sources-supposedly delivering $140 billion in revenues over 10 years-was the requirement that employers offer affordable coverage to workers or pay a penalty. But earlier this year the Obama Administration announced it would not enforce this requirement during its statutory implementation year of 2014.



And on and on and on. The per-year cost will much be greater than $35 billion. Looks like $>50bn per year if those cost-savings are not realized (which they won't be, while some will hardly like be).



So, the ACA would reduce health care costs because presumably more people would be insured while spending >$50 billion per year to do so.

Then, the ACA would provide health insurance at a lower price to one group while raising prices for all others (and either the prices rise to cover those at a lower price--or the quality would drop in order to compensate for the losses, which would otherwise occur).

So, govt. EXP + the additional rise in prices and/or reduction in insurance quality = the current total cost to society


But what about an increase in supply for health care? Given that the health insurance market is not that competitive, then I wouldn't expect the supply of health insurance providers to dramatically increase, thereby lowering the prices (especially since the prices are basically being controlled by government). Therefore, if the provision of insurance to more people would induce them to use health care services more often, then the demand for health care rises (thus, the price rises). And if the price doesn't rise--because of government regulations, then quality drops (because businesses try not to run themselves bankrupt). For those services of health care provided/funded by government, then the increased price will be eaten by the government, thereby raising their expenditures.

So, it's initial G expenditures on ACA + additional rise in insurance prices and/or reduction in insurance quality + additional rise in health care prices (thus costs for private and govt. sector)* and/or reduction in health care quality

*maybe the supply of health care services would increase, but it depends on the inflexibility of prices due to government regulation, and on the supply of doctors, nurses, technicians, etc. which doesn't react quickly and which enjoy their per-State control over their respective markets (thanks to having an exclusive license per State). Given the tight regulation of the health care market, I would still expect prices to rise with the increased demand yet somewhat increased supply.


I don't see how the ACA would reduce the costs of health care.

For your argument to hold, you'd have to have health care costs reduce enough to offset the government's >$50 bn per year, the annual rise in health insurance prices and/or reduction in quality, and most likely the annual rise in health care prices and/or reduction in quality. (Of course, if quality for these services is decreased, then the money-measured cost would decrease, but obviously a reduction in overall quality is not a good thing).
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: ObamaCare

Postby BigBallinStalin on Tue Oct 15, 2013 3:18 pm

Also, if the uninsured simply pay the penalty, then they're even worse off. Before, they didn't have to pay any insurance, but they gained from not having to pay a penalty. Now they have to pay a penalty, so the benefit of being uninsured is eliminated. How does this decrease social costs? It increases social costs....
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: ObamaCare

Postby saxitoxin on Tue Oct 15, 2013 3:26 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:But as the fine associated with ACA is less than the cost of the thing that you would otherwise purchase, it is not obviously reasonable to me, to argue that participation in the health insurance market is compulsory.


First, that's a non-sequitur that has nothing to do with anything.

Second, it's not even true.

    -If you purchase a product manufactured by one of Obama's campaign donors you pay $X and get $Y of value returned in services.
    -If you pay a fine you pay $Z and get $0 of value.
If $X-$Y is greater than $Z you are paying a penalty greater than your cost of compliance. If it's not, then the entire premise of Obamacare is flawed.


What you said is backwards. $X - $Y is your cost of compliance, and $Z is your cost of non-compliance, so if $X-$Y is greater than $Z then the penalty is less than the cost of compliance. What happens here is more complicated than what you just sketched out, because of course a person likely still needs health care even if they pay the penalty, but I imagine they're likely to seek out less health care if they don't have insurance.


Irrelevant. You said something isn't mandatory (which itself rejects the very title of the individual mandate) if the penalties for non-compliance are less than the costs of compliance. Which, of course, is ridiculous and I choke a little even entertaining that absurd distortion of the English language. But, going down that absurd path, we can see that Obamacare meets your - admittedly strange and essentially previously unheard of -

"Building the pyramid is completely voluntary. You are free to choose to (a) be whipped until you build the pyramid, or, (b) build the pyramid."
Image

- litmus test for what constitutes something that is mandatory.

Again, in this example Obamacare would be voluntary:

You are free to buy health insurance or not. However, you will not be treated by a state-licensed physician unless you've purchased.

In this scenario Obamacare would be voluntary; a price of admission. This is not how the ACA is structured.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
User avatar
Corporal saxitoxin
 
Posts: 13397
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: ObamaCare

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Oct 15, 2013 3:44 pm

BBS wrote:But what about an increase in supply for health care? Given that the health insurance market is not that competitive, then I wouldn't expect the supply of health insurance providers to dramatically increase, thereby lowering the prices (especially since the prices are basically being controlled by government). Therefore, if the provision of insurance to more people would induce them to use health care services more often, then the demand for health care rises (thus, the price rises). And if the price doesn't rise--because of government regulations, then quality drops (because businesses try not to run themselves bankrupt). For those services of health care provided/funded by government, then the increased price will be eaten by the government, thereby raising their expenditures.


There are a couple of things you are neglecting here and I am not sure how they change the balance of the equation. First, competition in the health insurance market notwithstanding, if millions more people are insured then it is likely that total supply in health care providers will increase with the demand. More importantly, the uninsured are already using health care services and so providers have raised their prices to compensate for the fact that they often can't pay, which means that the insured pay more. When the uninsured become insured, then health care providers can decrease their costs to keep net revenue constant. This means that the previously insured spend less on health care, which (partially? fully?) offsets the tax that is now imposed on them to subsidize insurance for the previously uninsured.

The point about people using more health care services if they're insured is valid -- but if people are healthier in general, then they are more productive and that seems like something in the 'pro' column when it comes to economic output.

BBS wrote:Also, if the uninsured simply pay the penalty, then they're even worse off. Before, they didn't have to pay any insurance, but they gained from not having to pay a penalty. Now they have to pay a penalty, so the benefit of being uninsured is eliminated. How does this decrease social costs? It increases social costs....


How it decreases social costs is obvious: Previously the uninsured were gaining from the rest of society at no cost to themselves, as you just said. Now, they have to pay for the services that they are getting for free (either by getting insurance or by paying the penalty).

saxi: if you're continuing this discussion just to debate semantics, I'm no longer interested in it. I'm actually more interested in what BBS is saying than you, which is remarkable.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

Re: ObamaCare

Postby saxitoxin on Tue Oct 15, 2013 4:39 pm

Metsfanmax wrote:saxi: if you're continuing this discussion just to debate semantics,


lolwut ... semantics has been your bag this entire time

We noted Obamacare is mandatory; the rational, scientific consensus position. You insisted the discussion grind to a halt until an exhausting, tortured series of linguistic adjustments, corollaries and absurd what-if scenarios presenting the idea that "mandatory" doesn't actually mean "mandatory," be discussed.

But even that dodge didn't work out so ...

Metsfanmax wrote:I'm no longer interested in it.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
User avatar
Corporal saxitoxin
 
Posts: 13397
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: ObamaCare

Postby Metsfanmax on Tue Oct 15, 2013 5:06 pm

saxitoxin wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:saxi: if you're continuing this discussion just to debate semantics,


lolwut ... semantics has been your bag this entire time

We noted Obamacare is mandatory; the rational, scientific consensus position. You insisted the discussion grind to a halt until an exhausting, tortured series of linguistic adjustments, corollaries and absurd what-if scenarios presenting the idea that "mandatory" doesn't actually mean "mandatory," be discussed.

But even that dodge didn't work out so ...

Metsfanmax wrote:I'm no longer interested in it.


I merely noted that Night Strike is not being forced to purchase health insurance. I obviously was not disagreeing with the statement that there is a legal mandate to purchase health insurance; rather, I was remarking on the conditions under which people feel compelled to obey legal mandates. I think the only part of this discussion that's interesting and worth having is about the effectiveness of such financial penalties in inducing people to obey laws, and it seems to be the only part of the discussion you don't want to participate in. So we should probably conclude this discussion.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Metsfanmax
 
Posts: 6722
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:01 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users