The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All

[Azalin]

 

I don't view it from a moral standpoint but purely from a transactional pragmatic view. Clearly there are services provided by federal, state and local governments, and the money has got to come from somewhere to pay for those services.

 

So the question is what should the proper rate of taxation be? The answer would be that it depends on all the services and debt that each level of government has. The best way to have lower taxation would be to reduce the reliance from the public of some of these services. I'm not advocating for taking a hatchet to government, as I know many here would want. But I do believe that it needs to be trimmed, and it should be something that we have people in government that are always looking to reduce wasteful government programs and projects.

 

I think most of us here are pretty much on the same page with regard to taxation. We may differ on what rates should be, what exactly is taxed, and means of collection, but that's a dialogue worth having. What's most important to me is the return benefit to society and the accountability on the part of government to spend those dollars in a responsible manner.

 

I've always believed that if taxes were not withheld from most people's paychecks and they instead had to write a check to the feds every year, that people would take a much keener interest in how much they pay and to what ends the money is used.

[Magox]

 

I think most of us here are pretty much on the same page with regard to taxation. We may differ on what rates should be, what exactly is taxed, and means of collection, but that's a dialogue worth having. What's most important to me is the return benefit to society and the accountability on the part of government to spend those dollars in a responsible manner.

 

I've always believed that if taxes were not withheld from most people's paychecks and they instead had to write a check to the feds every year, that people would take a much keener interest in how much they pay and to what ends the money is used.

 

Aside from the ideological argument, which I think if you've seen me post long enough, you know that I'm not a fan of rigid ideologies. It narrows the scope of reason, once you become a "believer" of whatever ideology that you are beholden to, you tend to not consider arguments outside that range. Essentially you become immune to changing conditions because the thought process is that whatever ideology you are captive to, that it will apply with the same effectiveness in every single situation. That would be a logical fallacy.

 

Back to the taxes issue, I think most people that have problems with taxation isn't so much the amount that they are taxed or rather the ideological argument against taxation but how their money is spent. They see waste and the more of it they see the less confidence that they have in the overall system.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

If you are robbed at gunpoint or held as a slave to the state, what are the two commonalities here?

Can you rephrase? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

Aside from the ideological argument, which I think if you've seen me post long enough, you know that I'm not a fan of rigid ideologies. It narrows the scope of reason, once you become a "believer" of whatever ideology that you are beholden to, you tend to not consider arguments outside that range. Essentially you become immune to changing conditions because the thought process is that whatever ideology you are captive to, that it will apply with the same effectiveness in every single situation. That would be a logical fallacy.

 

Back to the taxes issue, I think most people that have problems with taxation isn't so much the amount that they are taxed or rather the ideological argument against taxation but how their money is spent. They see waste and the more of it they see the less confidence that they have in the overall system.

An argument must be principled before it can be pragmatic.

[Magox]

Can you rephrase? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

An argument must be principled before it can be pragmatic.

 

If you are robbed at gunpoint and/or a slave to the state, that would imply that you don't have a choice. That is the point that you are making, correct?

 

In regards to the second point, sure.

 

It's not a yeah or nay proposition.

 

Let's revisit a discussion I had with firechan. In regards to guns and weapons, Where do you draw the line on what sort of weapon citizens should and should not own?

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

If you are robbed at gunpoint and/or a slave to the state, that would imply that you don't have a choice. That is the point that you are making, correct?

 

My point is that to advocate for a position in which the government has carte blanch to tax in any way it sees fit at the behest of a majority of it's citizens; removing the freedom of the individual, then the government is unjust, and the people are not free.

 

In regards to the second point, sure.

 

It's not a yeah or nay proposition.

 

Let's revisit a discussion I had with firechan. In regards to guns and weapons, Where do you draw the line on what sort of weapon citizens should and should not own?

I believe that individuals should be able to own any weapon which can be used in self defense without the automatic implied threat of aggression against parties non-aggressive toward the owner. Nuclear, biological, and other similar weaponry do not rise to this standard, as unlike a gun which can be pointed at an individual, a nuclear weapon is pointed at everyone.

Edited March 16, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[B-Man]

The Elephant in the Health Insurance Room

by John Steele Gordon

 

Washington is all atwitter (a word coined in 1833, but with new meaning in the 21st century) over the Congressional Budget Office scoring of the health bill introduced in the House recently. As has been pointed out, the CBO has a terrible track record when it comes to predicting the future ten years out. It predicted far higher enrollment in Obamacare than came about, so why should we put any faith in its prediction of lost coverage under the new health bill?

 

{snip}

 

When was the last time you saw an ad for regular health insurance? Exactly never.

 

There is no price competition in the health insurance market, which goes a very long way to explaining why medical costs keep ratcheting up. So the elephant in the room of health insurance reform, the elephant that almost everyone in Washington is studiously ignoring, is the lack of price discovery.

 

 

As former senator Tom Coburn (a physician by training) explains, as long as the costs of medical procedures are kept secret, no health insurance reform is really possible. Make health care providers post their prices, and those prices, now wildly disparate, will quickly begin to converge towards the low end once customers can find out where they can get a better deal.

 

 

The problem, of course, is that insurance companies and hospitals don’t want prices to be public and they are both very powerful lobbies in Washington.

 

Welcome to democracy.

[Azalin]

 

Aside from the ideological argument, which I think if you've seen me post long enough, you know that I'm not a fan of rigid ideologies. It narrows the scope of reason, once you become a "believer" of whatever ideology that you are beholden to, you tend to not consider arguments outside that range. Essentially you become immune to changing conditions because the thought process is that whatever ideology you are captive to, that it will apply with the same effectiveness in every single situation. That would be a logical fallacy.

 

Back to the taxes issue, I think most people that have problems with taxation isn't so much the amount that they are taxed or rather the ideological argument against taxation but how their money is spent. They see waste and the more of it they see the less confidence that they have in the overall system.

 

I don't believe it's good to always adhere to rigid ideologies - that leaves no room for growth or maturity, as it's essentially just shutting out other considerations purely out of stubbornness. It's the push-back inherent in this kind of dialogue that give me things to think about, and I like to think that I'm honest enough with myself to reconsider my stance on a given issue by taking the time to think before immediately gainsaying a conflicting point of view.

[Magox]

My point is that to advocate for a position in which the government has carte blanch to tax in any way it sees fit at the behest of a majority of it's citizens; removing the freedom of the individual, then the government is unjust, and the people are not free.

 

I believe that individuals should be able to own any weapon which can be used in self defense without the automatic implied threat of aggression against parties non-aggressive toward the owner. Nuclear, biological, and other similar weaponry do not rise to this standard, as unlike a gun which can be pointed at an individual, a nuclear weapon is pointed at everyone.

 

Ok, but that isn't quite the same as not having a choice, which is what being robbed at gunpoint or slavery explicitly implies.

 

The government in all practicality doesn't have the right to tax as they "see fit" without the validation of the people. Taxation is largely determined through legislation, which means you'd have to at least have the majority of house and senate along with the presidency. Same with state and local taxes, except they are done at the state/local level. If taxation is enacted through the decisions of our elected officials, that is indeed not theft, that is what we call Democracy.

 

To your last point, well I'm glad you didn't fall in the same trap as Firechan.

The Elephant in the Health Insurance Room

by John Steele Gordon

 

 

 

There is no price competition in the health insurance market, which goes a very long way to explaining why medical costs keep ratcheting up. So the elephant in the room of health insurance reform, the elephant that almost everyone in Washington is studiously ignoring, is the lack of price discovery.

 

 

As former senator Tom Coburn (a physician by training) explains, as long as the costs of medical procedures are kept secret, no health insurance reform is really possible. Make health care providers post their prices, and those prices, now wildly disparate, will quickly begin to converge towards the low end once customers can find out where they can get a better deal.

 

 

The problem, of course, is that insurance companies and hospitals don’t want prices to be public and they are both very powerful lobbies in Washington.

 

Welcome to democracy.

 

 

Bingo! Price transparency and providing patients the ability to choose from a menu of options without network restrictions would go a long way in helping drive down medical costs.

 

I don't believe it's good to always adhere to rigid ideologies - that leaves no room for growth or maturity, as it's essentially just shutting out other considerations purely out of stubbornness. It's the push-back inherent in this kind of dialogue that give me things to think about, and I like to think that I'm honest enough with myself to reconsider my stance on a given issue by taking the time to think before immediately gainsaying a conflicting point of view.

 

Yes, I sense that about you.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Ok, but that isn't quite the same as not having a choice, which is what being robbed at gunpoint or slavery explicitly implies.

 

The government in all practicality doesn't have the right to tax as they "see fit" without the validation of the people. Taxation is largely determined through legislation, which means you'd have to at least have the majority of house and senate along with the presidency. Same with state and local taxes, except they are done at the state/local level. If taxation is enacted through the decisions of our elected officials, that is indeed not theft, that is what we call Democracy.

We don't tax groups, we tax individuals, and only individuals can be party to contracts, unless and until they contract to be part of a group which their contract concedes empowers their group to be party to contracts.

 

Your argument is one in favor of the Social Contract, which I already addressed. The Social Contract philosophy is deeply flawed as no consent is asked of the individual citizen. It assumes the State has just authority simply because it is holds a monopoly on force, and has always held a monopoly on force, and that 51 individuals have just authority over 49.

 

 

 

To your last point, well I'm glad you didn't fall in the same trap as Firechan.

There is no trap, as any other position presented from a libertarian perspective isn't internally logically consistent.

Edited March 16, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[Magox]

We don't tax groups, we tax individuals, and only individuals can be party to contracts, unless and until they contract to be part of a group which their contract concedes empowers their group to be party to contracts.

 

Your argument is one in favor of the Social Contract, which I already addressed. The Social Contract philosophy is deeply flawed as no consent is asked of the individual citizen. It assumes the State has just authority simply because it is holds a monopoly on force, and has always held a monopoly on force, and that 51 individuals have just authority over 49.

 

I don't think that is a convincing argument. We elect officials who can change tax policy, and the decisions that our elected officials make has electoral consequences which in turn has consequences in tax policy. It is a part of our and other Democracies across the world, just count your lucky stars that we have a better system of checks and balances than other governments across the world.

[FireChan]

 

I think that TYTT was implying so.

 

It's what I call the Libertarian conundrum.

 

No offense to TYTT or Firechan, but they are victims of this conundrum. Just ask Firechan his beliefs whether or not private citizens should own Nukes.

You're welcome to believe that one man should dictate the life of another. To me, that's fascism on its most basic level.

 

That doesn't mean hand out nukes on the corner.

[IDBillzFan]

They see waste and the more of it they see the less confidence that they have in the overall system.

 

I wish this were all we had to contend with.

 

Unfortunately, the left is amazingly good at telling the citizens that the problem isn't that there is waste, but rather that the wealthiest Americans aren't paying their fair share, and if we can just get them to pay much, much more into the system, all will be well. Wouldn't you like free wifi? Free health care? Free college? Of course you would, and you can have it all...if we just take more from the people with the most money.

 

As Ben Shapiro typically explains, the left argues from emotion and the right argues from logic, and emotion overrules logic every day.

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

I don't think that is a convincing argument. We elect officials who can change tax policy, and the decisions that our elected officials make has electoral consequences which in turn has consequences in tax policy. It is a part of our and other Democracies across the world, just count your lucky stars that we have a better system of checks and balances than other governments across the world.

So your position is that a thing becomes moral as soon as a majority of elected officials make it permissible? That the State cannot act immorally assuming what it does is though the electoral and legislative process?

[FireChan]

My point is that to advocate for a position in which the government has carte blanch to tax in any way it sees fit at the behest of a majority of it's citizens; removing the freedom of the individual, then the government is unjust, and the people are not free.

 

I believe that individuals should be able to own any weapon which can be used in self defense without the automatic implied threat of aggression against parties non-aggressive toward the owner. Nuclear, biological, and other similar weaponry do not rise to this standard, as unlike a gun which can be pointed at an individual, a nuclear weapon is pointed at everyone.

I refuse to shackle myself and submit to the collective "state" that holds this kind of weaponry. It is immoral for the government to be allowed to do something that I am not. Lest they find it easy to forget who empowers them.

So your position is that a thing becomes moral as soon as a majority of elected officials make it permissible? That the State cannot act immorally assuming what it does is though the electoral and legislative process?

Magox doesn't argue morality, he argues from a basis of pragmatism.

[Magox]

You're welcome to believe that one man should dictate the life of another. To me, that's fascism on its most basic level.

 

That doesn't mean hand out nukes on the corner.

 

Yes, and you are welcome to believe that we should be able to own nukes.

 

and no one is handing out guns either. Sounds like you are backtracking from your previous argument.

 

There are limits, this is the conundrum that purists face, they take their argument to absurd levels and then get caught looking silly having to defend extreme examples, like the one you made regarding nukes.

[FireChan]

 

Yes, and you are welcome to believe that we should be able to own nukes.

 

and no one is handing out guns either. Sounds like you are backtracking from your previous argument.

 

There are limits, this is the conundrum that purists face, they take their argument to absurd levels and then get caught looking silly having to defend extreme examples, like the one you made regarding nukes.

I assure you, I'm not backtracking. You asked if private citizens should be allowed to own nukes. The answer is and will always be yes.

 

I don't believe the rights of the State are superior to the rights of the individual. It's that simple.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I refuse to shackle myself and submit to the collective "state" that holds this kind of weaponry. It is immoral for the government to be allowed to do something that I am not. Lest they find it easy to forget who empowers them.

 

Is it moral to point a gun at someone who is not in violation of your rights?\

 

 

 

Magox doesn't argue morality, he argues from a basis of pragmatism.

As I said earlier, you cannot have pragmatism without first having principle. He's free to be as pragmatic as he'd like after first making his case for just authority to act against human freedom.

Edited March 16, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[Magox]

 

I wish this were all we had to contend with.

 

Unfortunately, the left is amazingly good at telling the citizens that the problem isn't that there is waste, but rather that the wealthiest Americans aren't paying their fair share, and if we can just get them to pay much, much more into the system, all will be well. Wouldn't you like free wifi? Free health care? Free college? Of course you would, and you can have it all...if we just take more from the people with the most money.

 

As Ben Shapiro typically explains, the left argues from emotion and the right argues from logic, and emotion overrules logic every day.

 

Which is why I have a hard time for ever voting for someone with modern day progressive values. Everyone out of their voting coalition is a victim, and since they are an aggrieved class they are entitled to A) punitive measures against those that aren't them and B) some sort of compensation because they are a victim.

 

If you really think about it, Nationalism is similar in the sense that they are victims as well. Which is why I adamantly oppose modern day progressives and nationalists.

[FireChan]

Is it moral to point a gun at someone who is not in violation of your rights?\

 

 

 

As I said earlier, you cannot have pragmatism without first having principle. He's free to be as pragmatic as he'd like after first making his case for just authority to act against human freedom.

Ask the State. Apparently you believe they are allowed to point a gun at me.

 

Since we cannot invent a time machine and uninvent WMD's, the only moral solution to a State who has taken aim at every citizen is for them to have that reciprocated/

Edited March 16, 2017 by FireChan

[TakeYouToTasker]

 

Which is why I have a hard time for ever voting for someone with modern day progressive values. Everyone out of their voting coalition is a victim, and since they are an aggrieved class they are entitled to A) punitive measures against those that aren't them and B) some sort of compensation because they are a victim.

 

If you really think about it, Nationalism is similar in the sense that they are victims as well. Which is why I adamantly oppose modern day progressives and nationalists.

According to the last argument you made in this thread, jingoistic nationalism is just and moral, assuming you wish to remain internally logically consistent.