ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Phatscotty]

It used to be called the emergency room. Now, people who do not have insurance are instructed by emergency room personnel to first call an insurance company. According to the one person I know who works in the ER.

Legally mandated access to ER treatment is not what any reasonable person should call access to basic healthcare.

Well, that's COMPLETELY your opinion, and I'm pretty sure there are over 300 million different opinions on what people think is 'basic healthcare access'. It's my reasonable opinion, that anyone who needs healthcare can walk into an ER and get the healthcare, actually does seem a lot like access to basic healthcare, and in fact, is usually access to pretty darn good healthcare. All costs aside, we have the best healthcare in the world. When Kings and Queens and leaders all around the world start going to Sweden for their surgeries, let me know. (Mets finds one world leader who got surgery in Sweden, and therefore overturns the overwhelming norm that the other 90% go to America)

And here is a post just made from one of the handful of people I know are on Obamacare. I wonder what her opinion is of what constitutes 'access to basic healthcare'.

Being sick and having to stand in the check in line at the doctors office for 16 min, thats the kinda stuff that makes me mad.

The point is, with people like this, nothing is ever good enough. Nothing is ever going to fill that empty hole. Give them free healthcare, and they bitch about how long they have to stand in line to receive their free healthcare.

Aside from a woman being in labor, the only types of treatment ER personnel are required to give are in response to serious, imminent danger to a person's health. So if you're having a heart attack, you have to be treated, but the ER isn't required to give you any tests or preventive medicine to stop a future heart attack. And so this is why it's just a bad economic argument. If we're choosing between giving people free ER treatment for heart attacks and giving them free cholesterol medication, which do you think is cheaper?

Oh, so after you admit people do get top of the line life saving 'basic' healthcare treatment through the ER, it's not 'basic healthcare access' because, according to you, the hospital doesn't spend $300,000 on them? As if a hospital can even guarantee you will never have a heart attack again the rest of their life? Oh, you mean it's possible a future heart attack could be prevented, and of course none of the responsibility is on the individual who smoked all their lives and is morbidly obese, it's all the responsibility of the hospital...People who have health problems have always went to the emergency room. It is noble to treat anyone who comes in, I don't like what it does to the costs, but it is access to healthcare, with virtually no questions asked, and I think that is expected for a moral and compassionate society. Not sure who is ready to tell people they can't enter the hospital because they don't have any money, but it's not me. The patient in the ER gets to talk to the doctor the whole time...you make it sound like the doctors just do the surgery but don't tell the patient anything and dump them on the streets. They tell people what they're going to need, where they can find it, how they can get access to it. And of course, if any kind of emergency should pop up, call 911, and an ambulance will come pick you up, pulling over all traffic on the way speeding through red lights and will bring you directly to the emergency room again. Nothing about the emergency room is 'basic'. Of course preventative medicine is a high priority of discussion. I think I need to take you literally there when you say "they don't give you preventive medicine....", you mean, for free, right? Besides, what is more preventative than the professional advice that is 'given' to you, and is usually the common sense advice the patient has heard their whole life but has been (sometimes blatantly) ignoring their entire lives, that is to eat healthy and exercize regularly. I just don't look at preventability as a responsibility of the health care provider or insurer, or even a possibility. That is entirely up to the individual, in most cases.

And I wasn't making any kind of economic argument; that's you. I was talking about access, period, specifically through the ER. I know someone who is the #3 in charge here in the ER, I hear all the stories, I know how it used to work, and how it works now.

[BigBallinStalin]

Let's define poorest as having less than $10k per year in income.

All people who make >$10k per year will incur a cost from that redistribution--e.g. being demoted to part-time, being fired, being taxed more, etc. How does your approach compare their loss to those who make <= $10k per year?

The marginal utility argument. I take it as valid that a dollar is worth more to someone to who has a lower income than someone who has a higher income, and so it is self-evident that utility is increased if the dollar is given to the person with the lower income.

That marginal utility argument won't work though. Try stating your assumptions on how interpersonal comparisons of value--as measured by dollars--is valid.

"X won't work though" is not an argument.

That's just not true. 1. You can't measure this in order to know that what you're saying is true. Try "adding happiness" and compare the responses across individuals. 2. Individual's marginal utilities over anything can differ because it depends on each person's opportunity cost, which also varies. You're asking us to make interpersonal comparisons across the values that could have been gained by each individual. Who knows what that value may be. Using your argument, it could be the case that a marginal utility of a dollar to rich guy X is greater than the MU of $1 to poor guy Y. You've switched from 'value' to 'utility', but let's assume you'll stick with utility. You can't interpersonal comparisons of utility because it's cardinal utility which assumes that utility is comparable across individuals. It's like assuming: "assume I'm right. Then, my conclusions follow."

In other words, for example, would you say that the utility of a person with "basic needs + $1" is greater than the utility of a person with “99% basic needs”? With your current position, you must say, “Yes.” But how do you know this? You're presuming that you have an unexplained knowledge of each person’s utility function. You’d have to assume that U = f(x,y,z) (whatever that may be) holds for all individuals. You have yet to demonstrate that this is true. Another implication of your stance is that “rich people have more utility than poor people,” but this is false because it doesn’t follow that having an income greater than “basic needs” leads to greater utility for all individuals. You lack a valid means for making interpersonal comparisons of utility because cardinal utility–measured in whatever form–would fail to capture each person’s utility in a form suitable for making such comparisons. Obviously, there are people with incomes of “< basic needs” who have greater utility than a person with “> basic needs.”

Also, you're still ignoring the biggest problem of your approach:

How does your approach compare their loss to those who make <= $10k per year? That is, how do you compare the loss incurred by the person who has "basic needs +$1" to the gain by person Y who has "x% of basic needs"? You're still transferring wealth from obviously poor people ("basic needs + $1") to poorer people ("99% basic needs").

In turn, you would be pushing some people in the 2nd poorest category into the poorest category.

The point about income mobility is that individuals do cross categories, but a focus on categories neglects to factor this is in. By implication, focusing on the poorest category can be less fruitful since more and more subsidies would go to those who remain the longest in the poorest category. Comparisons of poorness have to be made. There's no such thing as "absolute" poverty since it absolutely varies by country, by city, and by person (rich people can be poor in terms of well-being). You'd have to make a comparison of income levels or some unit of measurement in order to define the "absolutely" poor.

You're straw manning me because you're focusing on the individual, and I am not. That is, I'm not discussing ways to make for stronger income mobility (for any individual to be able to climb from relatively poor to relatively wealthy). I'm discussing ways to bring the poorest out of absolute poverty. I don't have to make any income comparisons to do so; that's the whole point of an absolute wealth measurement. The unit of measurement is as I described: whether or not the income is sufficient for sustaining basic human needs.

No, that's not a straw man. You have to focus on individuals in order for your analysis to make sense. "The poorest" involves some individuals who do move out of that category, but also "the poorest" refers to a group of individuals who will remain in that category. Do you want to help those who have the highest chances of moving to greater incomes? Or do you want to continue subsidizing those who'll remain in the poorest category?

Your insistence on "absolute" poverty still doesn't make sense because it compares one bundle of goods ("basic needs") to other bundles of goods. You wouldn't know what "basic" means without making a comparison to other goods. So, you are making income comparisons since income is just a proxy of goods. How can you deny that??

The point about income mobility is that individuals do cross categories, but a focus on categories neglects to factor this is in. Focusing on the poorest category can be less fruitful since more and more subsidies would go to those who remain the longest in the poorest category. You keep ignoring this, which is odd. You do realize how counterproductive your approach can be, right?

Finally, you don't know that your policy would be helpful because you focus on one arbitrary category. Fifty years ago, your standard would've changed, and 50 years from now, "basic needs" will be greater than the "basic needs" of today. There is no "absolute poverty"; it's a nonsensical term. There's no way of satisfying your position because you'll be stuck on subsidizing that category.

Who is 'society', and how do 'they' provide the framework? Short answer: you're appealing to some vague group. No one should buy that argument.

I didn't create the idea of geopolitical borders, but I'm fine with using them for this purpose. Broadly speaking, "they" are the people who contributed to building the economic framework in which your wealth was created.

Regarding the "you didn't build that" argument, so what? Legitimate title ownership depends on the contract which delineate the terms. "Your social capital," thus your brain, wasn't created by you uniquely; therefore, we are entitled to some portion of mental control over you. You wouldn't even accept such terms; it's practically slavery. The only way out of this is reductio is to drop your argument and recognize the role of property rights.

"Recognizing property rights" is not a binary where either A) no one owns anything or B) anyone can claim whatever they want to. Any property rights system would have to have some method of adjudication between competing claims, and in this case there is a conflicting claim between the wealth a person has generated, and the mooching of the system's resources that the person engaged in to generate that wealth. As a concrete example, if I have a trucking business and I'm using public roads to transport my goods, then I owe some fee to the society that constructed the roads for that usage. Describing this in terms of property rights is simply re-defining the problem; it doesn't change the nature of the exchange (since the construct of property rights was implicit in the original claim).

1. Your position still supports slavery.

2. The Social Contract argument is nonsense. You can appeal to any vague thing provided by government and claim, "ah people owe government X-amount of whatever." Who knows how that calculation is done (in reality, it isn't, and current tax rates don't capture it. It's easily the case that government is taking too much for the services it provides--which most (a) don't want, and (b) aren't asked. This goes back voluntary v. involuntary exchange. You can't tell if people demanded goods from government due to the nature of exchange; you magically can though.

[Metsfanmax]

That's just not true. 1. You can't measure this in order to know that what you're saying is true. Try "adding happiness" and compare the responses across individuals. 2. Individual's marginal utilities over anything can differ because it depends on each person's opportunity cost, which also varies. You're asking us to make interpersonal comparisons across the values that could have been gained by each individual. Who knows what that value may be. Using your argument, it could be the case that a marginal utility of a dollar to rich guy X is greater than the MU of $1 to poor guy Y. You've switched from 'value' to 'utility', but let's assume you'll stick with utility. You can't interpersonal comparisons of utility because it's cardinal utility which assumes that utility is comparable across individuals. It's like assuming: "assume I'm right. Then, my conclusions follow."

Again, your focus on the individual leads you astray. It's entirely possible that any given person who makes $100,000 may value the next dollar as much as someone who makes $10,000. But when you're discussing national (tax) policy, you are forced to average over all those utility functions. And, on the average, the value of the marginal dollar will be substantially greater to the person with the lower income than the person with the higher income. You can focus on the fringe cases if you want, but then you're no longer interested in maximizing utility (in other words, if I hurt a few millionaires who really do care about every cent I make, that's ok because I'm still immensely increasing the quality of life for many very poor people, and so utility is still increased).

Do you really want to insist that I prove that the average person making $10,000 values a marginal dollar more than the average person making $100,000?

Also, you're still ignoring the biggest problem of your approach:

How does your approach compare their loss to those who make <= $10k per year? That is, how do you compare the loss incurred by the person who has "basic needs +$1" to the gain by person Y who has "x% of basic needs"? You're still transferring wealth from obviously poor people ("basic needs + $1") to poorer people ("99% basic needs").

This is why we have a progressive tax system. The lower you are on the "basic needs" scale, the less your wealth is redistributed to those below you. A properly designed redistribution scheme of this kind would take that into account, and would never allow you to become poorer than the person you're giving your wealth to. Someone with basic needs +$1 is going to be a net receiver of tax revenue, not a net contributor, so discussing what happens to their input dollar is meaningless.

No, that's not a straw man. You have to focus on individuals in order for your analysis to make sense. "The poorest" involves some individuals who do move out of that category, but also "the poorest" refers to a group of individuals who will remain in that category. Do you want to help those who have the highest chances of moving to greater incomes? Or do you want to continue subsidizing those who'll remain in the poorest category?

I am not talking about categories of poverty here. I'm not trying to have a discussion on income mobility, so you are straw-manning. Imagine a zero relative mobility world, if you like. I'm only taking about how to move the absolute level of the bottom up, without trying to make any of them richer than their peers.

Your insistence on "absolute" poverty still doesn't make sense because it compares one bundle of goods ("basic needs") to other bundles of goods. You wouldn't know what "basic" means without making a comparison to other goods. So, you are making income comparisons since income is just a proxy of goods. How can you deny that??

You can compare that bundle of "goods" but that is not the point. I believe there's a minimum access to that bundle of goods that is a moral requisite, which therefore perhaps transcends a normal economic description. I can say that someone should have access to food and water without making comparisons to owning a car, because you can't eat a car. (If you want to give them a car so that they can sell the car and have enough food to eat, though, I'm fine with that.)

The point about income mobility is that individuals do cross categories, but a focus on categories neglects to factor this is in. Focusing on the poorest category can be less fruitful since more and more subsidies would go to those who remain the longest in the poorest category. You keep ignoring this, which is odd. You do realize how counterproductive your approach can be, right?

Again, you're straw-manning because I'm not focusing on categories. I'm focusing on whether people have what they need to survive. If the poorest segment of population all had mansions and nice cars, then I wouldn't be nearly as fervent in my hope for such a redistribution scheme.

Finally, you don't know that your policy would be helpful because you focus on one arbitrary category. Fifty years ago, your standard would've changed, and 50 years from now, "basic needs" will be greater than the "basic needs" of today. There is no "absolute poverty"; it's a nonsensical term. There's no way of satisfying your position because you'll be stuck on subsidizing that category.

People will need to eat 50 years from now.

2. The Social Contract argument is nonsense. You can appeal to any vague thing provided by government and claim, "ah people owe government X-amount of whatever." Who knows how that calculation is done (in reality, it isn't, and current tax rates don't capture it. It's easily the case that government is taking too much for the services it provides--which most (a) don't want, and (b) aren't asked. This goes back voluntary v. involuntary exchange. You can't tell if people demanded goods from government due to the nature of exchange; you magically can though.

This has nothing to do with the social contract. If you don't use the resources provided by a government, I don't think you owe them anything. But if you do, it's absurd to claim that you can mooch someone else's resources for free and then claim that you don't owe them anything. That would be making a mockery of the property rights you care about.

[BigBallinStalin]

That's just not true. 1. You can't measure this in order to know that what you're saying is true. Try "adding happiness" and compare the responses across individuals. 2. Individual's marginal utilities over anything can differ because it depends on each person's opportunity cost, which also varies. You're asking us to make interpersonal comparisons across the values that could have been gained by each individual. Who knows what that value may be. Using your argument, it could be the case that a marginal utility of a dollar to rich guy X is greater than the MU of $1 to poor guy Y. You've switched from 'value' to 'utility', but let's assume you'll stick with utility. You can't interpersonal comparisons of utility because it's cardinal utility which assumes that utility is comparable across individuals. It's like assuming: "assume I'm right. Then, my conclusions follow."

Again, your focus on the individual leads you astray. It's entirely possible that any given person who makes $100,000 may value the next dollar as much as someone who makes $10,000. But when you're discussing national (tax) policy, you are forced to average over all those utility functions. And, on the average, the value of the marginal dollar will be substantially greater to the person with the lower income than the person with the higher income. You can focus on the fringe cases if you want, but then you're no longer interested in maximizing utility (in other words, if I hurt a few millionaires who really do care about every cent I make, that's ok because I'm still immensely increasing the quality of life for many very poor people, and so utility is still increased).

Do you really want to insist that I prove that the average person making $10,000 values a marginal dollar more than the average person making $100,000?

For example, would you say that the utility of a person with "basic needs + $1" is greater than the utility of a person with “99% basic needs”? With your current position, you must say, “Yes.” But how do you know this? You're presuming that you have an unexplained knowledge of each person’s utility function. You’d have to assume that U = f(x,y,z) (whatever that may be) holds for all individuals. You have yet to demonstrate that this is true. Another implication of your stance is that “rich people have more utility than poor people,” but this is false because it doesn’t follow that having an income greater than “basic needs” leads to greater utility for all individuals. You lack a valid means for making interpersonal comparisons of utility because cardinal utility–measured in whatever form–would fail to capture each person’s utility in a form suitable for making such comparisons. Obviously, there are people with incomes of “< basic needs” who have greater utility than a person with “> basic needs.”

"Do you really want to insist that I prove that the average person making $10,000 values a marginal dollar more than the average person making $100,000?"

If you wanted to be guided by valid reasoning, sure. If not, then why should people take your flawed argument seriously?

The underlined doesn't follow. I can still be pro-utility-maximization while not favoring your approach. You're just assuming that the your favored policies actually do maximize the utilities of people temporarily within an arbitrary category.

If you rely on arguments which are not valid, then you shouldn't assume you're actually helping poor people.

Also, you're still ignoring the biggest problem of your approach:

How does your approach compare their loss to those who make <= $10k per year? That is, how do you compare the loss incurred by the person who has "basic needs +$1" to the gain by person Y who has "x% of basic needs"? You're still transferring wealth from obviously poor people ("basic needs + $1") to poorer people ("99% basic needs").

This is why we have a progressive tax system. The lower you are on the "basic needs" scale, the less your wealth is redistributed to those below you. A properly designed redistribution scheme of this kind would take that into account, and would never allow you to become poorer than the person you're giving your wealth to. Someone with basic needs +$1 is going to be a net receiver of tax revenue, not a net contributor, so discussing what happens to their input dollar is meaningless.

I know how a progressive tax system works, but that's not what is applied consistently because there are other taxes as well--e.g. sales tax, 'fees' imposed by bureaucracies, etc.--regardless of your income. Why does that matter? Because the assumption of a "properly designed redistribution scheme" is impractical; you'd get similar outcomes in the variety of taxes of today.

Also, there's expansionary monetary policy which causes inflation, thus hurting people of all income categories. At this point, you're against expansionary monetary policy in order for your scheme to work, so your scheme becomes incoherent too.

Then, progressive tax system along with subsidies to the poorest category creates perverse incentives (people get rewarded for remaining > "basic needs," which again is an arbitrary concept).

In turn, you would be pushing some people in the 2nd poorest category into the poorest category. If you're not going to be practical, then there's no way around this unintended consequence.

No, that's not a straw man. You have to focus on individuals in order for your analysis to make sense. "The poorest" involves some individuals who do move out of that category, but also "the poorest" refers to a group of individuals who will remain in that category. Do you want to help those who have the highest chances of moving to greater incomes? Or do you want to continue subsidizing those who'll remain in the poorest category?

I am not talking about categories of poverty here. I'm not trying to have a discussion on income mobility, so you are straw-manning. Imagine a zero relative mobility world, if you like. I'm only taking about how to move the absolute level of the bottom up, without trying to make any of them richer than their peers.

Talking about categories is inescapable. You just defined it as "basic needs." You're not making any sense.

So, yes, you want to continue subsidizing those who'll remain in the poorest category?

RE: Underlined, you want 100% wealth equality? Do you understand the implications of that?

Your insistence on "absolute" poverty still doesn't make sense because it compares one bundle of goods ("basic needs") to other bundles of goods. You wouldn't know what "basic" means without making a comparison to other goods. So, you are making income comparisons since income is just a proxy of goods. How can you deny that??

You can compare that bundle of "goods" but that is not the point. I believe there's a minimum access to that bundle of goods that is a moral requisite, which therefore perhaps transcends a normal economic description. I can say that someone should have access to food and water without making comparisons to owning a car, because you can't eat a car. (If you want to give them a car so that they can sell the car and have enough food to eat, though, I'm fine with that.)

Dude, again, your "basic needs"/"minimum access" relies on comparisons of bundles of goods to other bundles of goods. Without comparisons (which is what you are making), then you wouldn't know what "basic" means. My position holds here, but it won't make sense to you because you've been making categories without realizing it.

The point about income mobility is that individuals do cross categories, but a focus on categories neglects to factor this is in. Focusing on the poorest category can be less fruitful since more and more subsidies would go to those who remain the longest in the poorest category. You keep ignoring this, which is odd. You do realize how counterproductive your approach can be, right?

Again, you're straw-manning because I'm not focusing on categories. I'm focusing on whether people have what they need to survive. If the poorest segment of population all had mansions and nice cars, then I wouldn't be nearly as fervent in my hope for such a redistribution scheme.

Obviously, it has been demonstrated that your approach necessitates a focus on categories. " what they need to survive" is a standard which places people into at least two possible categories: those that have what they need to survive, and those that don't.

"Basic needs," "minimum access," and "what one needs to survive" require different amounts of goods. It's impossible to debate someone with a constantly shifting standard.

Finally, you don't know that your policy would be helpful because you focus on one arbitrary category. Fifty years ago, your standard would've changed, and 50 years from now, "basic needs" will be greater than the "basic needs" of today. There is no "absolute poverty"; it's a nonsensical term. There's no way of satisfying your position because you'll be stuck on subsidizing that category.

People will need to eat 50 years from now.

Okay, that response fails to address the problems with your argument. It follows that you don't understand the helpfulness (and harm) of your policy. Again, by relying on constantly changing standards of poverty, it is impossible to debate you. PLAYER does this.

2. The Social Contract argument is nonsense. You can appeal to any vague thing provided by government and claim, "ah people owe government X-amount of whatever." Who knows how that calculation is done (in reality, it isn't, and current tax rates don't capture it. It's easily the case that government is taking too much for the services it provides--which most (a) don't want, and (b) aren't asked. This goes back voluntary v. involuntary exchange. You can't tell if people demanded goods from government due to the nature of exchange; you magically can though.

This has nothing to do with the social contract. If you don't use the resources provided by a government, I don't think you owe them anything. But if you do, it's absurd to claim that you can mooch someone else's resources for free and then claim that you don't owe them anything. That would be making a mockery of the property rights you care about.

Sure, free-riding is a problem, but the underlined still holds.

Your position still supports slavery. If you get an education from a school which receives government money, then some portion of people can lay claim to your social capital. You really shouldn't ignore this flaw in your position.

If you don't address this flaw of your argument, then I really don't have to address your other caveats and weird conditions of imagined obligations that are based on nonexistent contracts. Contracts delineate duties, as do real informal rules--e.g. those within a family. Insisting on some flawed set of moral rules is a poor substitute.

[AndyDufresne]

You don't understand legitimate title ownership.

I understand WWE legitimate title ownership.


--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

You don't understand legitimate title ownership.

I understand WWE legitimate title ownership.


--Andy

Man, I lost all those WWE-BBS pics you made. I couldn't recover 'em from a broken hard drive and from the backup which was way too old.

[thegreekdog]

[AndyDufresne]

You don't understand legitimate title ownership.

I understand WWE legitimate title ownership.


--Andy

Man, I lost all those WWE-BBS pics you made. I couldn't recover 'em from a broken hard drive and from the backup which was way too old.

Ask and you shall receive:

show

--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

Mets, let's clarify your position.

1. What is your desired goal?

2. What are the means to attain that end?

[Metsfanmax]

For example, would you say that the utility of a person with "basic needs + $1" is greater than the utility of a person with “99% basic needs”? With your current position, you must say, “Yes.”

No, I must not. My position is that the marginal utility of $10 is much more to the average person whose net worth is $10 than to the average person whose net worth is $100,000, and so total utility would be increased if everyone who had $100,000 gave $10 to everyone who had $10. If you do not agree with this, then we aren't starting from anywhere near the same place, and this isn't worth discussing.

The underlined doesn't follow. I can still be pro-utility-maximization while not favoring your approach. You're just assuming that the your favored policies actually do maximize the utilities of people temporarily within an arbitrary category.

I don't have a favored policy, and I don't know the absolute best way to maximize the utility of people who don't have their basic needs met. I'm not arguing for a particular policy, only arguing for a moral stance that helps guide policy. My real purpose here is just to convince people that they're morally obligated to give their money to people who are substantially poorer than them in absolute terms. Effective government tax policy is above my pay grade.

I know how a progressive tax system works, but that's not what is applied consistently because there are other taxes as well--e.g. sales tax, 'fees' imposed by bureaucracies, etc.--regardless of your income. Why does that matter? Because the assumption of a "properly designed redistribution scheme" is impractical; you'd get similar outcomes in the variety of taxes of today.

My preferred economic system is politically infeasible? Why hello there, Mr. Kettle.

In turn, you would be pushing some people in the 2nd poorest category into the poorest category. If you're not going to be practical, then there's no way around this unintended consequence.

...

Talking about categories is inescapable. You just defined it as "basic needs." You're not making any sense.

If you want to define a two category system of "people who have their basic needs met" and "people who don't," that's fine. I'm advocating for moving people out of the latter and into the former. I'm just saying that the "2nd poorest" and "poorest" categories are 1) irrelevant and 2) likely meaningless.

Obviously, it has been demonstrated that your approach necessitates a focus on categories. " what they need to survive" is a standard which places people into at least two possible categories: those that have what they need to survive, and those that don't.

"Basic needs," "minimum access," and "what one needs to survive" require different amounts of goods. It's impossible to debate someone with a constantly shifting standard.

I apologize for not being able to clearly define exactly what a person needs to be able to have their basic needs met. Let's just let them starve since I can't.

Your position still supports slavery. If you get an education from a school which receives government money, then some portion of people can lay claim to your social capital. You really shouldn't ignore this flaw in your position.

It's not a flaw. That's my position. If you want to call it "slavery," that's fine.

If you don't address this flaw of your argument, then I really don't have to address your other caveats and weird conditions of imagined obligations that are based on nonexistent contracts. Contracts delineate duties, as do real informal rules--e.g. those within a family. Insisting on some flawed set of moral rules is a poor substitute.

You don't have to address anything I say.

Unless you went to school in my district, in which case you're my slave.

[saxitoxin]

[AOL] will now pay its 401(k) company match only to employees who are active on Dec. 31 of that year, as opposed to in their paychecks throughout the year. So those who leave the company before the end of the year will forfeit the match. AOL CEO Tim Armstrong blamed $7.1 million in additional Obamacare costs the company is facing this year. Had the company not made the change in its 401(k) payments, employees would have seen their health insurance costs increase, he told CNN Thursday.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/06/news/ec ... ?hpt=hp_t3

[BigBallinStalin]

[AOL] will now pay its 401(k) company match only to employees who are active on Dec. 31 of that year, as opposed to in their paychecks throughout the year. So those who leave the company before the end of the year will forfeit the match. AOL CEO Tim Armstrong blamed $7.1 million in additional Obamacare costs the company is facing this year. Had the company not made the change in its 401(k) payments, employees would have seen their health insurance costs increase, he told CNN Thursday.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/06/news/ec ... ?hpt=hp_t3

Well, if we arbitrarily fit them into the category, "already have basic needs," then those people don't matter. The ACA is still leading The People to the path of prosperity.

[BigBallinStalin]

For example, would you say that the utility of a person with "basic needs + $1" is greater than the utility of a person with “99% basic needs”? With your current position, you must say, “Yes.”

No, I must not. My position is that the marginal utility of $10 is much more to the average person whose net worth is $10 than to the average person whose net worth is $100,000, and so total utility would be increased if everyone who had $100,000 gave $10 to everyone who had $10. If you do not agree with this, then we aren't starting from anywhere near the same place, and this isn't worth discussing.

The underlined doesn't follow. You don't have access to people's utility functions; you simply presume that you do--without explanation. That's like saying, "assume I know about things which I can't know. Therefore, I'm right."


I can't argue against the rest because you've turned it into a giant shuffleboard. Some positions drop, some positions change, and some are right on the edge, but who knows where they'll be next. So..


let's clarify your position.

1. What is your desired goal?

2. What are the means to attain that end?

[PLAYER57832]

each person has a degree of belief whether or not a person actually needs the money or is just being a sponge.

That's why democracy is wonderful. I feel free to discuss what I feel people are morally obliged to do because ultimately my vote counts the same as anyone who disagrees with me.

ditto

THe point of all this is that the health of Americans should be first and foremost, and productivity (and hopefully prosperity) will follow.

i'm not against this a bit. it pains me to see how much that could be done that isnt. and how much is wasted on efforts disguised as progress. i'd hate to know the billions or trillions spent so far that could have just went directly towards actual healthcare.

That's the name of poltics. But the thing is perfection is impossible, and a big reason is that no 2 people can truly agree on what that perfection is. When Democracy works well, though, things generally move forward. Ironically enough, its often the "lack of perfection" that makes it work in reality, because it often turns out that what some thought would be perfection is not really, its the compromise that really is best.. Its when people insist on "perfection or nothing that it fails.

It also fails when people are allowed to widely disseminate purely false information. Both seem to be happening more lately.

[PLAYER57832]

For example, would you say that the utility of a person with "basic needs + $1" is greater than the utility of a person with “99% basic needs”? With your current position, you must say, “Yes.”

No, I must not. My position is that the marginal utility of $10 is much more to the average person whose net worth is $10 than to the average person whose net worth is $100,000, and so total utility would be increased if everyone who had $100,000 gave $10 to everyone who had $10. If you do not agree with this, then we aren't starting from anywhere near the same place, and this isn't worth discussing.

The underlined doesn't follow. You don't have access to people's utility functions; you simply presume that you do--without explanation. That's like saying, "assume I know about things which I can't know. Therefore, I'm right."

Except, you make that assumption yourself when you claim that the markets can properly assess these things.

[BigBallinStalin]

For example, would you say that the utility of a person with "basic needs + $1" is greater than the utility of a person with “99% basic needs”? With your current position, you must say, “Yes.”

No, I must not. My position is that the marginal utility of $10 is much more to the average person whose net worth is $10 than to the average person whose net worth is $100,000, and so total utility would be increased if everyone who had $100,000 gave $10 to everyone who had $10. If you do not agree with this, then we aren't starting from anywhere near the same place, and this isn't worth discussing.

The underlined doesn't follow. You don't have access to people's utility functions; you simply presume that you do--without explanation. That's like saying, "assume I know about things which I can't know. Therefore, I'm right."

Except, you make that assumption yourself when you claim that the markets can properly assess these things.

I don't require knowledge of people's utility functions for comparative institutional analysis.

There's a 80% chance that your next post will be more vague than your previous post.
There's a 99.99% chance that you won't present any evidence--except for whatever your imagination conjures up.

[Metsfanmax]

For example, would you say that the utility of a person with "basic needs + $1" is greater than the utility of a person with “99% basic needs”? With your current position, you must say, “Yes.”

No, I must not. My position is that the marginal utility of $10 is much more to the average person whose net worth is $10 than to the average person whose net worth is $100,000, and so total utility would be increased if everyone who had $100,000 gave $10 to everyone who had $10. If you do not agree with this, then we aren't starting from anywhere near the same place, and this isn't worth discussing.

The underlined doesn't follow. You don't have access to people's utility functions; you simply presume that you do--without explanation. That's like saying, "assume I know about things which I can't know. Therefore, I'm right."

The explanation is obvious. If you give a guy with a net worth of $10 another $10, you've doubled his net worth. He can go buy something cheap at a diner with that. He probably doesn't get to do that often. The guy with $100,000 can go get fries and a soda whenever he wants to; it's not special to him. Like I said, if you don't believe that $10 is worth more to the former guy than the latter -- on average -- then I'm not going to bother discussing this with you.

[BigBallinStalin]

I understand the 'on average' part. Good luck with the inability to find a valid unit of measurement for making interpersonal comparisons of utility.

Let's clarify your position.

1. What is your desired goal?

2. What are the means to attain that end?

[Metsfanmax]

Let's clarify your position.

1. What is your desired goal?

2. What are the means to attain that end?

My goal is to advance the position that people should feel morally obligated to share their wealth with people who are poorer than they. The means I am using to attain that end are arguing about on an internet message board.

So all of your comments about not being able to compare utility between people are irrelevant. Find at least one poor person who wants your money more than you do, and give it to them.

[Phatscotty]

[AOL] will now pay its 401(k) company match only to employees who are active on Dec. 31 of that year, as opposed to in their paychecks throughout the year. So those who leave the company before the end of the year will forfeit the match. AOL CEO Tim Armstrong blamed $7.1 million in additional Obamacare costs the company is facing this year. Had the company not made the change in its 401(k) payments, employees would have seen their health insurance costs increase, he told CNN Thursday.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/06/news/ec ... ?hpt=hp_t3

Arianna Huffington still own AOL??

[BigBallinStalin]

Let's clarify your position.

1. What is your desired goal?

2. What are the means to attain that end?

My goal is to advance the position that people should feel morally obligated to share their wealth with people who are poorer than they. The means I am using to attain that end are arguing about on an internet message board.

So all of your comments about not being able to compare utility between people are irrelevant. Find at least one poor person who wants your money more than you do, and give it to them.

Thanks for clarifying. You've been through a dizzying amount of positions, ranging from redistribution, 100% equality, pro-slavery, and what not. I can't really comment about your last paragraph because my criticism would be valid against some of your positions yet irrelevant to others because your standards/degree of required validity/etc. keep changing <shrugs>. Again it's impossible to debate someone with constantly shifting positions.


Anyway, your criteria would've been satisfied under the relative laissez-faire in pre-1900 USA. Was that your intention?

In other words, plenty of people have and do feel morally obligated to help others--e.g. their friends and family, or even complete strangers (to varying degrees). We can treat that moral position as a given and then compare various institutions which (1) either promote or discourage that moral position and which (2) attain similar outcomes--regardless of the moral position.

[Metsfanmax]

Let's clarify your position.

1. What is your desired goal?

2. What are the means to attain that end?

My goal is to advance the position that people should feel morally obligated to share their wealth with people who are poorer than they. The means I am using to attain that end are arguing about on an internet message board.

So all of your comments about not being able to compare utility between people are irrelevant. Find at least one poor person who wants your money more than you do, and give it to them.

Thanks for clarifying. You've been through a dizzying amount of positions, ranging from redistribution, 100% equality, pro-slavery, and what not. I can't really comment about your last paragraph because my criticism would be valid against some of your positions yet irrelevant to others because your standards/degree of required validity/etc. keep changing <shrugs>. Again it's impossible to debate someone with constantly shifting positions.

It would behoove you to learn how to evaluate an argument without needing to think of it as me holding a "position." An argument is an argument, regardless of who is saying it or what their motivation is.

Anyway, your criteria would've been satisfied under the relative laissez-faire in pre-1900 USA. Was that your intention?

Did people in pre-1900 USA mostly feel obligated to share a substantial portion of their wealth with people much poorer than them?

In other words, plenty of people have and do feel morally obligated to help others--e.g. their friends and family, or even complete strangers (to varying degrees). We can treat that moral position as a given and then compare various institutions which (1) either promote or discourage that moral position and which (2) attain similar outcomes--regardless of the moral position.

If that moral position were a given, then we wouldn't need institutions to achieve it, because people would just give on their own. But they largely don't. The median donation to charity for American households is under $1,000 every year, while the median income is like $45,000. Since something like half of all donations go to religious and educational institutions, the most generous estimate is that the median donation to the poor is about 1% of income.

[BigBallinStalin]

Let's clarify your position.

1. What is your desired goal?

2. What are the means to attain that end?

My goal is to advance the position that people should feel morally obligated to share their wealth with people who are poorer than they. The means I am using to attain that end are arguing about on an internet message board.

So all of your comments about not being able to compare utility between people are irrelevant. Find at least one poor person who wants your money more than you do, and give it to them.

Thanks for clarifying. You've been through a dizzying amount of positions, ranging from redistribution, 100% equality, pro-slavery, and what not. I can't really comment about your last paragraph because my criticism would be valid against some of your positions yet irrelevant to others because your standards/degree of required validity/etc. keep changing <shrugs>. Again it's impossible to debate someone with constantly shifting positions.

It would behoove you to learn how to evaluate an argument without needing to think of it as me holding a "position." An argument is an argument, regardless of who is saying it or what their motivation is.

I'll clear this up, so I don't have to address this again. It really doesn't matter if I equivocate 'position' and 'argument'. For example, "it's impossible to debate someone with constantly shifting arguments " (like this scenario). By 'your position', I mean the one you're presenting. Nothing about your motivations or who you are have affected my arguments because I don't care who you are or what your underlying motivation is (except for the stated motivation/intention in the argument).

Anyway, your criteria would've been satisfied under the relative laissez-faire in pre-1900 USA. Was that your intention?

Did people in pre-1900 USA mostly feel obligated to share a substantial portion of their wealth with people much poorer than them?

Initially, your position was: "people should feel morally obligated to share their wealth with people who are poorer than they."

But now, you've changed the criteria. Note the italicized.

So, what's your position now? The first one or this most recent one? I can't address future positions.

In other words, plenty of people have and do feel morally obligated to help others--e.g. their friends and family, or even complete strangers (to varying degrees). We can treat that moral position as a given and then compare various institutions which (1) either promote or discourage that moral position and which (2) attain similar outcomes--regardless of the moral position.

If that moral position were a given, then we wouldn't need institutions to achieve it, because people would just give on their own. But they largely don't. The median donation to charity for American households is under $1,000 every year, while the median income is like $45,000. Since something like half of all donations go to religious and educational institutions, the most generous estimate is that the median donation to the poor is about 1% of income.

Institutions are 'rules of the game'. The institution of charity has rules. Therefore, you would need institutions to attain your goal.
Think of "morality" as a given, a control variable, a condition against the backdrop of a society. If you change the morality of a society, would you get similar outcomes? (rhetorical question for now). For that question to be meaningful, you'd need to have other relevant variables--e.g. economic institutions Z, political institutions, X, etc. The rest of my response about comparative institutional analysis and attaining similar results regardless of morality still follows.

I can't address the rest because I don't know what your past/current/future position was/is/will be.

[Phatscotty]

Either you are for redistribution of the wealth, or you are against it. Either you are for class warfare, or you are against it. Either you are a Socialist, or you aren't. Either you think Marx was right, or you don't. No Freedom is going to overrule the dedicated Socialist's belief in their version of equality, redistribution of wealth, constantly expanding central power, or the collective mindset; and no guilt trip is going to get a principled Free Marketeer to give up on individuality, economic Freedom, Liberty, or the Constitution.



FLAWLESS VICTORY!

[Night Strike]

If that moral position were a given, then we wouldn't need institutions to achieve it, because people would just give on their own. But they largely don't. The median donation to charity for American households is under $1,000 every year, while the median income is like $45,000. Since something like half of all donations go to religious and educational institutions, the most generous estimate is that the median donation to the poor is about 1% of income.

They don't because the government already takes massive amounts of money from them in the name of helping the poor (even though they haven't helped the poor for 50 years).

Besides, why are YOU living a life of having a computer, and spending tons of time on a gaming website? Shouldn't you be giving all that to people who are worse off than you since that's your standard of someone having only $10 would be better off with your $10?