This Is How Much Obamacare Penalties Will Cost You

[Grand Magus]

.

> Link Fu <

.

The penalty/tax will be phased in from 2014 to 2016. How it's calculated (in 2016):

• For those making less than $9,500 a year, they will pay nothing.
• For those with incomes between $9,500 and $37,000, they will pay $695 per person (or as much as $2,100 for a family plan).
• If you earn more than $37,000, you will pay 2.5 percent of your household income less $9,500.
• If you earn more than $200,000 or there abouts, you will pay the "Bronze" health insurance plan fee established through your state exchange, which will top out at about $5,000 per person (or $12,500 per family).

.

These are penalties if you are not buying your own health insurance.
Otherwise, it will cost you the price of your health insurance.

The CBO estimates that these policies will cost $4,500-$5,000 per person
and $12,000-$12,500 per family in 2016, with the costs rising thereafter.

.

[Asphere]

I would prefer a fully socialized system, but at least with the Affordable Care Act I can get better coverage for a lower price than I am paying now.

[Gark the Goblin]

That was the plan.

[thejeff]

And of course, if you get health insurance from your employer, as most people still do, you won't pay anything more.

Or if you already get it through the government: Medicare, VA, Tricare, etc.

[Grand Magus]

thejeff wrote:

And of course, if you get health insurance from your employer, as most people still do, you won't pay anything more.

Or if you already get it through the government: Medicare, VA, Tricare, etc.

.

As an analogy, I see Employee Health Care Plans going the way of Pensions.

I foresee companies dumping their Health Care plans now.

It will take a few years for this to become the norm. But the money being
spent on Employee Health insurance could be better spent elsewhere, or
paid out as a dividend.

I'm sure Paizo doesn't want to pay for it's employee's health insurance.
Now it has a choice.

.

[AnnoyingOrange]

Why would they dump their health plan exactly ?

I guess it will just be calculated as part of their salary, companies too have an interest in a proper health plan for their employees,

[BigNorseWolf]

Brilliant idea. Obviously that guy making 10k a year is who we need to squeeze for more cash so we can keep the bush era tax cuts in place...

[Comrade Anklebiter]

Grand Magus wrote:

thejeff wrote:

And of course, if you get health insurance from your employer, as most people still do, you won't pay anything more.

Or if you already get it through the government: Medicare, VA, Tricare, etc.

.

As an analogy, I see Employee Health Care Plans going the way of Pensions.

I foresee companies dumping their Health Care plans now.

It will take a few years for this to become the norm. But the money being
spent on Employee Health insurance could be better spent elsewhere, or
paid out as a dividend.

I'm sure Paizo doesn't want to pay for it's employee's health insurance.
Now it has a choice.

.

Have you added the ACA to your methods to oppress the lower classes with yet? 'Cuz I think it's a good one.

[A Man In Black]

Grand Magus wrote:

As an analogy, I see Employee Health Care Plans going the way of Pensions.

I foresee companies dumping their Health Care plans now.

Don't spread misinformation. Companies with more than the equivalent of 50 full-time employees (basically; it's a little more complex than that) have to provide health insurance or pay a hefty per-employee penalty. That is one of the core parts of the ACA, to carrot-and-stick employers into actually offering health insurance.

Grand Magus wrote:

The penalty/tax will be phased in from 2014 to 2016. How it's calculated (in 2016):

• For those making less than $9,500 a year, they will pay nothing.
• For those with incomes between $9,500 and $37,000, they will pay $695 per person (or as much as $2,100 for a family plan).
• If you earn more than $37,000, you will pay 2.5 percent of your household income less $9,500.
• If you earn more than $200,000 or there abouts, you will pay the "Bronze" health insurance plan fee established through your state exchange, which will top out at about $5,000 per person (or $12,500 per family).

Also, this is misleading. If you're making under 133% of the poverty line, you're not ever going to pay a penalty, because you're covered by Medicaid. Using 2012's poverty line, that means $14,856 for one person or $30,656 for a family of four, and it'll be more in 2016. So while there's a specific exemption for people under X income, it's moot because the Medicaid threshold is much higher.

Moreover, if employers don't pay for coverage, for many lower- and middle-class people, the tax credit will make buying insurance cheaper than the penalty. For example, for that $37,000 example? For a family of four with a household income of $37,000 (and no employers offering coverage), the maximum annual out-of-pocket cost for insurance premiums would be $1615 a year. Anything over that would be refunded by the federal government.

This calculator is very useful for determining how the self-purchased health insurance subsidy works.

[The Thing from Beyond the Edge]

Asphere wrote:

I would prefer a fully socialized system, but at least with the Affordable Care Act I can get better coverage for a lower price than I am paying now.

By chance, could you answer a few questions for me?

1. How much do you make in a year
2. Is your insurance purchased through your workplace?
3. How much is it?

Note: If part of a family unit, how much is the total income and how many are on the current plan.

Thanks.

[thejeff]

Grand Magus wrote:

thejeff wrote:

And of course, if you get health insurance from your employer, as most people still do, you won't pay anything more.

Or if you already get it through the government: Medicare, VA, Tricare, etc.

As an analogy, I see Employee Health Care Plans going the way of Pensions.

I foresee companies dumping their Health Care plans now.

It will take a few years for this to become the norm. But the money being
spent on Employee Health insurance could be better spent elsewhere, or
paid out as a dividend.

I'm sure Paizo doesn't want to pay for it's employee's health insurance.
Now it has a choice.

I foresee companies dumping their health care plans too. In fact I don't have to foresee it, they've been doing it for years.

Companies have always been able to drop insurance plans. The only difference is that now they'll have to pay a fine and the employees will be able to get insurance anyway.

[Asphere]

The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:

Asphere wrote:

I would prefer a fully socialized system, but at least with the Affordable Care Act I can get better coverage for a lower price than I am paying now.

By chance, could you answer a few questions for me?

1. How much do you make in a year
2. Is your insurance purchased through your workplace?
3. How much is it?

Note: If part of a family unit, how much is the total income and how many are on the current plan.

Thanks.

1. I am a graduate student so I make 24k per year when I have an RA but that ends periodically and I drop down to about 18k.

2. Mine is $1,500 as long as I am enrolled but the problem is adding my wife. I can add her for $3,500 per year.

I will graduate before any of this goes into effect (this December hopefully) and hopefully finding a job will not be a problem and paying for health insurance won't be such a burden - I won't forget how hard it was though.

[The Thing from Beyond the Edge]

Asphere wrote:

The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:

Asphere wrote:

I would prefer a fully socialized system, but at least with the Affordable Care Act I can get better coverage for a lower price than I am paying now.

By chance, could you answer a few questions for me?

1. How much do you make in a year
2. Is your insurance purchased through your workplace?
3. How much is it?

Note: If part of a family unit, how much is the total income and how many are on the current plan.

Thanks.

1. I am a graduate student so I make 24k per year when I have an RA but that ends periodically and I drop down to about 18k.

2. Mine is $1,500 as long as I am enrolled but the problem is adding my wife. I can add her for $3,500 per year.

I will graduate before any of this goes into effect (this December hopefully) and hopefully finding a job will not be a problem and paying for health insurance won't be such a burden - I won't forget how hard it was though.

Thanks.

I was just trying to figure something out but the calculator doesn't have an option for just a couple. Its two options are single and family of four. For single, the $18000 with access to an employee plan that costs less than 9.5% ($1710) of your income would make you ineligible for government subsidy and the various created plans. Since you have listed a wife with no income and no children, I'm not sure how qualification is handled. Perhaps the husband and wife with no children family is calculated as family of four with your total family premium exceeding the 9.5% (of $18,000 or $24,000) or perhaps she has to purchase hers separately with access to government subsidy and plans. I don't know.

Best of luck with your future and thanks for the reply.

[clawoftiamat]

Companies are going to drop health plans because the estimated insurance cost increase will be higher than the penalty they will pay for not providing coverage.

[A Man In Black]

clawoftiamat wrote:

Companies are going to drop health plans because the estimated insurance cost increase will be higher than the penalty they will pay for not providing coverage.

That's not true, or else they would have already dropped health plans. Any health plan that exists today costs more than the current penalty of $0. Why would giving them a reason not to drop health plans suddenly make them drop health plans?

[meatrace]

The Thing from Beyond the Edge wrote:

doesn't have an option for just a couple. Its two options are single and family of four.

Same with much insurance. I think it's kinda BS.

My gf (now my domestic partner) has insurance which I've just gotten on. She pays $80/month, which is dern cheap really. To put me on it's $120 more AND she gets taxed on the employer's contribution to my healthcare ($391/mo). Which is the same she would pay for up to one (1) spouse and six (6) dependents.

[Zombieneighbours]

Grand Magus, I'm sorry you live in a cold uncaring world where people are out just for themselves, and the only thing that matters 'how much something costs'. You are ofcause in my opinion welcome to come to britain, where all our nurses are Usain Bolt, and health care costs less per capita and is availible to all, free at point of use.

[meatrace]

Hey, aren't you the bloke who educated me about the privatization of NHS a while back? You can't fool me, things are going to hell across the pond as well!

[Zombieneighbours]

meatrace wrote:

Hey, aren't you the bloke who educated me about the privatization of NHS a while back? You can't fool me, things are going to hell across the pond as well!

Yes they are, sort of. But not for the reasons that many people in this thread would think.

Our health minister is a cronie capitalist who is carving up the NHS and selling of the "profitable bit" to private companies who funded him at the last election.

However, that is only just starting, and we may be able to save it in the next parliament or two. It is hard to imagine them entirely destroying the infrastructure of the NHS in one parliament, I mean, maggie couldn't do it in two, so I doubt the gray haired manky codger can ;) Especially as he is being nice to his patrons, and allowing them to cherry pick which services they want to provide.

Ofcause, all that said, we still get excillent treatment, free at the point of use for the time being. Its just now, it'll probably cost more to the country(though probably still less than the american system).

[Comrade Anklebiter]

I still hate Obamacare.

My fave bits:

"The real losers in the latest Supreme Court decision, however, are the people of the United States. Not those who will be required to go out and buy some over-priced, minimal coverage, rip-off insurance plan offered by the private insurance industry, or to pay a “tax” to the IRS for not doing so, but everyone.

This is because the Affordable Health Care Act is not affordable. It does little or nothing to control health care costs, which are destined to continue to gobble up an ever increasing amount of the total US Gross Domestic Product as well as of corporate profits and families’ incomes.

The new federal version of Romneycare simply prolongs the day when the US finally does what it should have done decades ago, should have done during the first Clinton administration, and should have done at the start of the Obama administration: namely expanding Medicare to cover all Americans."

This, of course, is too right-wing for me. I'd prefer something more on the Cuban model.

"ObamaRomneyCare is at its core an enrichment scheme for nearly all elements of the Medical Industrial Complex, with the possible exception of the lowly family practice physician, nurses, and hospital workers."

"No “progressives” should be cheering this decision. It stinks."

Amen.

[A Man In Black]

So, how is that accelerationism working out for you, AB?

[Drejk]

What I hate about any form of such schemes is the impossibility of opting out: one should always be able to decide that he rejects any medical aid (and as a separate option any pension - actually obligatory participation in pension schemes I find abhorent) and instead be allowed to be self-sufficient - he pays nothing for the program he opted out but won't get *any* benefits, not even the basic medical help. This would only cover the person that opted out and s/he should not be able to make such decision for his/her children, however.

[thejeff]

I agree with pretty much all of that. I'd love to see a decent single-payer model in the US.

But he's completely off-base when he he implies that "expanding Medicare to cover all Americans" could have been done at the start of the Obama administration. It should have been, as it should have been in the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, the other Bush administration, etc.
But there was no way that was going to happen. Every Republican and at least a few Democrats (or Independent Democrats, damn you Lieberman) would have fought it tooth and nail.

I do wish it had been proposed and properly scored by the CBO. I think that would have made it clearer what the options were and that the ACA is a compromise, not an optimal solution.

I do think the ACA is better than the actual alternative, doing nothing. A friend of mine who recently moved to Massachusetts has insurance for the first time in years thanks to Romneycare. It's expensive, but she can afford it and it's pretty good coverage. Much cheaper and better than she could afford here.

[A Man In Black]

If you have a valid religious reason for opting out, you can. Other than that, self-destruction or shortsightedness aren't rights.

[thejeff]

Drejk wrote:

What I hate about any form of such schemes is the impossibility of opting out: one should always be able to decide that he rejects any medical aid (and as a separate option any pension - actually obligatory participation in pension schemes I find abhorent) and instead be allowed to be self-sufficient - he pays nothing for the program he opted out but won't get *any* benefits, not even the basic medical help. This would only cover the person that opted out and s/he should not be able to make such decision for his/her children, however.

If you've opted out, should the hospital just let you bleed to death if you're injured and don't have cash on hand?

If you make that decision at 22 when you're healthy and feeling invulnerable (and broke), can you ever opt back in? How long should you have to pay before you're covered, if you do want to opt back in?
Remember that in insurance, size and condition of the risk pool matters a lot. If all the cheap healthy people opt out and then get back in when they're older and more at risk, then costs rise, forcing more people out, leaving only the sicker ones, etc, etc.

Is it really a decision you can make freely, when for many people the cost will simply be prohibitive?

[Comrade Anklebiter]

A Man In Black wrote:

So, how is that accelerationism working out for you, AB?

I don't know. Could you explain what "accelerationism" is? In the most condescending way possible? Please?

[Drejk]

A Man In Black wrote:

If you have a valid religious reason for opting out, you can.

Religion should not give any special right - if someone could claimthe right to opt out because of religion then everyone should be given the same right to opt out.

Quote:

Other than that, self-destruction or shortsightedness aren't rights.

Debatable. Right to self-destructive actions is part of personal freedom (with limit that one's self-destructive activity do not endanger others because then it infringes on others' right to live and thus comes beyond personal). Anyone can take mountain climbing, alone sailing aorund the world, hiking, extreme sports and dangerous activities and they involve taking much greater risk than lack of health insurance.

thejeff wrote:

If you've opted out, should the hospital just let you bleed to death if you're injured and don't have cash on hand?

Yes. One should be free to reject any form of help if he desires so.

Quote:

If you make that decision at 22 when you're healthy and feeling invulnerable (and broke), can you ever opt back in? How long should you have to pay before you're covered, if you do want to opt back in?

If one opted out and decides to opt back in he should get immediate access to the most basic forms of medical care but any more complex and more costly medical care should only be available after a certain period of paying health insurance - no "damn, I have cancer, get me back in NOW". The longer you pay, the greater access to medical help should be granted. Ok, with additional caveat that if one recives major medical help his right to opt out is frozen for an amount of time based upon the costs of his help and the amount of time he was insured prior to help. I do not give full solution as the exact number should be calculated and probably reevaluated from time to time, depending upon progress of medical technology.

[Stebehil]

Drejk wrote:

thejeff wrote:

If you've opted out, should the hospital just let you bleed to death if you're injured and don't have cash on hand?

Yes. One should be free to reject any form of help if he desires so.

Well, if the medical personal take their hippocratic oath seriously, they won´t let anyone bleed to death. I don´t know how the law is in the US, but failure to render assistance to somebody who is in danger can even be a crime over here. So, it might be not that easy (besides being bone-headed and not natural).

[A Man In Black]

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I don't know. Could you explain what "accelerationism" is? In the most condescending way possible? Please?

The most condescending way is a lmgtfy link, I think.

But jokes aside, I thought this was in your wheelhouse? Accelerationism is the idea that anarchists/communists should aggravate the consequences of capitalism, or at least oppose capitalist reforms, because those reforms only perpetuate capitalism. You c/ped an accelerationist argument against the ACA. You know more about anarchists and communists than I do, maybe I've got this wrong.

Drejk wrote:

Religion should not give any special right - if someone could claimthe right to opt out because of religion then everyone should be given the same right to opt out.

The first amendment disagrees. Moreover, all of the opt-outs are more or less self-contained communities, like the Amish.

Quote:

Debatable. Right to self-destructive actions is part of personal freedom (with limit that one's self-destructive activity do not endanger others because then it infringes on others' right to live and thus comes beyond personal). Anyone can take mountain climbing, alone sailing aorund the world, hiking, extreme sports and dangerous activities and they involve taking much greater risk than lack of health insurance.

Okay! A working insurance system is cheaper to operate the more people are involved (due to economies of scale and amortization of risk) so opting out hurts everyone who doesn't opt out. On top of this, emergency care doesn't allow the leisure to separate out those who opted out, so those people become freeloaders on a system they aren't supporting, harming others. Also, separating out people who can't pay is a whole extra unnecessary bureaucracy, so having the option to opt out harms everyone as they have to pay for that system.

Three ways opting out harms others, while being forced to opt in only removes one's ability to harm themselves with shortsightedness.

[Drejk]

Stebehil wrote:

Drejk wrote:

thejeff wrote:

If you've opted out, should the hospital just let you bleed to death if you're injured and don't have cash on hand?

Yes. One should be free to reject any form of help if he desires so.

Well, if the medical personal take their hippocratic oath seriously, they won´t let anyone bleed to death. I don´t know how the law is in the US, but failure to render assistance to somebody who is in danger can even be a crime over here. So, it might be not that easy (besides being bone-headed and not natural).

IF there would be law that would allow one to declare oneself rejecting outside help and one would excercise that right then the person not providing the help would not commit a crime obviously - it would require the one rejecting help to inform about his help-refuser status (possibly by a special card or such).

A Man In Black wrote:

The first amendment disagrees. Moreover, all of the opt-outs are more or less self-contained communities, like the Amish.

Giving a privilage to members of a religious group that is denied to people not sharing that faith is violation of freedom of (and from) religion that is considered basic human right. Also, as citizen of another country I am speaking on an international level, not only USA.

Quote:

Okay! A working insurance system is cheaper to operate the more people are involved (due to economies of scale and amortization of risk) so opting out hurts everyone who doesn't opt out.

The problems with this stance:

I. Lack of gain/improvement is not equal to loss/hurt: you falsely assume that increase is zero (no hurt) situation and the lack of increase is hurt - however in truth the lack of increase is zero (no hurt) situation and increase is gain. To check if hurt occured one has to retell the same suituation with the factor in question removed completely from equation and compare results to see if the factor questioned is source of hurt. In this case we remove the person that opted out of existence completely - do the others suffered? Nope.

II. It assumes that economic benefits are more important than personal freedom. Why hurt pocket is more important than violated freedom?

Quote:

On top of this, emergency care doesn't allow the leisure to separate out those who opted out, so those people become freeloaders on a system they aren't supporting, harming others.

If you are speaking that someone who opted out could try to sneak in to benefit from it: he would commit a crime by doing so. However the fact that it would be potential new venue of commiting crime should not be reason of denying expression of personal freedom. Otherwise we should shut down the internet immediately, after all people are commiting crimes on internet.

Quote:

Also, separating out people who can't pay is a whole extra unnecessary bureaucracy, so having the option to opt out harms everyone as they have to pay for that system.

Does not health care require identification of patient already? With actual technology checking if the patient is insured won't be costly, unless deliberately made so by corporation interested in balooning the costs - and the cited opinion about the laws that started the discussion already shows that it would be possible anyway.

[Kirth Gersen]

I thought Accelerationism was trying to share technology with the ship's passengers and their descendants, instead of hoarding it among the crew to live like Hindu gods. Or is that the wrong context?

[thejeff]

Drejk wrote:

IF there would be law that would allow one to declare oneself rejecting outside help and one would excercise that right then the person not providing the help would not commit a crime obviously - it would require the one rejecting help to inform about his help-refuser status (possibly by a special card or such).

Does not health care require identification of patient already? With actual technology checking if the patient is insured won't be costly, unless deliberately made so by corporation interested in balooning the costs - and the cited opinion about the laws that started the discussion already shows that it would be possible anyway.

In an emergency situation: heart attack or someone bleeding out from major trauma, seconds or minutes can count. If you've got a tattoo or a medical id bracelet, they might check it. They won't go through your wallet. They won't check your accounts online. These things happen to people with DNR orders. They get resuscitated before anyone finds the paperwork.

If you've been attacked and robbed of id and you're unconscious, should they wait for you to wake up or the police to get a positive id?

[thejeff]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

I thought Accelerationism was trying to share technology with the ship's passengers and their descendants, instead of hoarding it among the crew to live like Hindu gods. Or is that the wrong context?

That's what I thought too.

[Krensky]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

I thought Accelerationism was trying to share technology with the ship's passengers and their descendants, instead of hoarding it among the crew to live like Hindu gods. Or is that the wrong context?

Go Sam.

[A Man In Black]

Drejk wrote:

Giving a privilage to members of a religious group that is denied to people not sharing that faith is violation of freedom of (and from) religion that is considered basic human right. Also, as citizen of another country I am speaking on an international level, not only USA.

Feel free to apply for exemption as part of a separate religious colony, then. I'm sure if you actually live in a separate religious colony, they'll be happy to accept your application. I'm not sure how those separate colonies are oppressing you if you don't live in one, though.

Quote:

Lack of gain/improvement is not equal to loss/hurt: you falsely assume that increase is zero (no hurt) situation and the lack of increase is hurt - however in truth the lack of increase is zero (no hurt) situation and increase is gain. To check if hurt occured one has to retell the same suituation with the factor in question removed completely from equation and compare results to see if the factor questioned is source of hurt. In this case we remove the person that opted out of existence completely - do the others suffered? Nope.

Then the government will just deduct the cost of your medical care from your paycheck. After all, it's just the lack of gain from your employment, not an actual loss.

This is semantic trickery. Opting out harms everyone who doesn't opt out, either by increasing costs or simply making it impossible to amortize costs. This is the essential Libertarian fallacy of harm by action somehow being inherently more important than harm by inaction.

Quote:

It assumes that economic benefits are more important than personal freedom. Why hurt pocket is more important than violated freedom?

So your money is more important than everyone's freedom to live without dying of preventable disease. More semantics.

Quote:

If you are speaking that someone who opted out could try to sneak in to benefit from it: he would commit a crime by doing so. However the fact that it would be potential new venue of commiting crime should not be reason of denying expression of personal freedom. Otherwise we should shut down the internet immediately, after all people are commiting crimes on internet.

I'm saying that doctors are going to treat unconscious people or people with head injuries or people who can't speak or people who don't have their papers regardless of these facts. In fact, in the case of head injuries, suicide attempts, or self-harm, doctors will treat you even if you object. (In all three cases, you are assumed to be irrational until it can be proven otherwise.) People who need emergency care are not necessarily in the position to object to it. Not just that, but neither are doctors going to (and absolutely will object to being expected to) turn away people who need emergency care just because of a legal technicality.

Quote:

Does not health care require identification of patient already? With actual technology checking if the patient is insured won't be costly, unless deliberately made so by corporation interested in balooning the costs - and the cited opinion about the laws that started the discussion already shows that it would be possible anyway.

No, health care doesn't require identification of the patient. It's helpful, sure, but it's not strictly necessary. The health care industry requires it today, sure, but one of the nice things about universal coverage is that you can stop worrying about who merits health care and who doesn't.

Finally, more important than your "right" to play John Galt are human compassion and simple utility. If you are later destitute or critically ill, simple human compassion dictates that you deserve a chance to have a safe place to sleep, food to eat, and to see your illnesses and wounds tended. Alternately, simple utility dictates the same: very few people are less productive than the cost to keep them alive. What's more, if you neglect these needs, you create negative costs to society: destitute criminals, the untreated mentally ill, disease carriers, and rioters.

So no. I don't respect your "right" to opt out of supporting the society you live in. You aren't going to have that "right" outside of a failed state. I hear Somalia sucks this time of year.

[Drejk]

Quote:

Opting out harms everyone who doesn't opt out, either by increasing costs or simply making it impossible to amortize costs. This is the essential Libertarian fallacy of harm by action somehow being inherently more important than harm by inaction.

If difference between harm by action than harm by inaction is mere fallacy then I assume that you would punish the person that involuntarily caused death in the same way as murderer (murder = premeditated killing to avoid confusion*).

There is no fallacy in recognizing difference between harm by action being inherently worse than harm by inaction. It is result of certain assumption that are basis of Libertarian philosophy, there are no errors in reasoning that lead from those assumptions to that recognition - only refusal to agree with initial assumptions.

Quote:

So your money more important than everyone's freedom to live without dying of preventable disease. More semantics.

Please stop using words you seem to not understand. Semantics is studying meaning of words. It is not applicable here. The sentence I marked with * above, that was application of semantics, clarifing meaning to avoid misunderstanding).

Quote:

No, health care doesn't require identification of the patient. It's helpful, sure, but it's not strictly necessary. The health care industry requires it today, sure, but one of the nice things about universal coverage is that you can stop worrying about who merits health care and who doesn't.

Living in a country with mostly universal coverage I can asure you that

Quote:

Finally, more important than your "right" to play John Galt are human compassion and simple utility. If you are later destitute or critically ill, simple human compassion dictates that you deserve a chance to have a safe place to sleep, food to eat, and to see your illnesses and wounds tended.

And here we are at the core of the problem - you did not understood my point. I did not called for forbidding compassion to others. I called for the right to reject compassion of others.

Quote:

Alternately, simple utility dictates the same: very few people are less productive than the cost to keep them alive. What's more, if you neglect these needs, you create negative costs to society: destitute criminals, the untreated mentally ill, disease carriers, and rioters. So no. I don't respect your "right" to opt out of supporting the society you live in.

Which obviously don't exist in countries where more easy to get universal health care is available. So those multiple homeless I gave spare change (when I still had spare change a few years ago) were just figments of my imagination?

Quote:

So no. I don't respect your "right" to opt out of supporting the society you live in.

You are trying to boil down something much more complex to simple either-or situation, which is not the case. Society is much more complicated than that. We are touching one level of it and you attempt to make unsupported generalization: from the want for option of refusing support and being supported on one of the levels you immediately jump to the conclusion that one wants to avoid supporting the whole.

Quote:

You aren't going to have that "right" outside of a failed state. I hear Somalia sucks this time of year.

The current situation is Somalia wasn't caused by lack of national health care. Poor access to medicine didn't help the current situation and is result of ongoing civil war but not the cause (which was political and religious divisions between various regions and organizations vying for control over Somalia).

I am done as there is little more to discuss beyond basic incompatibility of some assumptions and some hasty conclusions.

[Drejk]

Krensky wrote:

Kirth Gersen wrote:

I thought Accelerationism was trying to share technology with the ship's passengers and their descendants, instead of hoarding it among the crew to live like Hindu gods. Or is that the wrong context?

Go Sam.

"He never claimed to be a god, but then he never claimed not to be a god."

[A Man In Black]

Drejk wrote:

If difference between harm by action than harm by inaction is mere fallacy then I assume that you would punish the person that involuntarily caused death in the same way as murderer (murder = premeditated killing to avoid confusion*).

Again, I said "inherently more important". If your goal is to reduce suffering and improve quality of life, a bullet in the face is just as dead as death by exposure. What I meant about how this idea is the rotten crack in libertarian thinking is its own thread's worth of discussion.

Quick version that I will absolutely not argue in this thread:

Libertarianism (an-caps, anyway, like most of the declared libertarians on this board) recognizes only coercion through direct threat of force and believes that, absent this direct threat, all contracts are made with free will. Coercion through the threat of being left to suffer from a third party or from impersonal forces is still coercive, however. "Accept this contract or starve" or "accept this contract or be left to the mercy of our enemies" is not a negotiation between equals. From this, all libertarian insanity ("voluntary" slavery, Rothbard's awful "flourishing free market in children", etc.) flows. Having capital is inherently coercive over those who do not, because without capital because capital owners have the absolute threat of causing suffering through inaction.

Quote:

There is no fallacy in recognizing difference between harm by action being inherently worse than harm by inaction. It is result of certain assumption that are basis of Libertarian philosophy, there are no errors in reasoning that lead from those assumptions to that recognition - only refusal to agree with initial assumptions.

Yes, because those initial assumptions create a dystopia and oppose measures that improve everyone's standard of living. I don't particularly want to live in Rothbard's an-cap Mad Max hellscape, or make the world I live in any more similar to same. Your initial assumptions—particularly the idea that property rights trump all other possible rights, freedoms, or benefits—suck pretty hard.

Quote:

Please stop using words you seem to not understand. Semantics is studying meaning of words. It is not applicable here. The sentence I marked with * above, that was application of semantics, clarifing meaning to avoid misunderstanding).

"Semantics" is also a colloquial expression for semantic manipulation in lieu of an actual argument. Once we set sophistry aside, we're faced with your freedom to go Galt versus everyone else's freedom to live in a society where people do not suffer when that suffering can be prevented. It's negative (freedom from) versus positive (freedom to) freedoms, and in this case your negative right isn't one that's recognized pretty much anywhere.

Quote:

Living in a country with mostly universal coverage I can asure you that

That's cool, don't care. Some countries do check eligibility, some don't because eligibility isn't conditional. This is the weakest and most disposable part of my argument.

Quote:

And here we are at the core of the problem - you did not understood my point. I did not called for forbidding compassion to others. I called for the right to reject compassion of others.

You do not have the "right" to prevent society from improving the standard of living in a way which does not significantly oppress you. Making you pay for a service you will certainly need (even if you see fit to pretend like you don't, either while healthy or to your death) is not oppressing you. It is increasing your freedom to make a decision once you're actually confronted with the suffering.

Quote:

You are trying to boil down something much more complex to simple either-or situation, which is not the case.

Nobody's stabbing you with needles. Nobody's telling you that you can't reject medical care while you are suffering and in your right mind, just that you can't reject supporting a system that gives you a choice to alleviate that suffering when it comes time to do so. You're arguing that you want to reject health care because you don't think you need it; the same "logic" leads to rejecting taxes to support roads because you don't care about leaving your home, nevermind how the entire society you live in relies on well-maintained roads and how you'll most likely want to go somewhere at some point.

Quote:

The current situation is Somalia

The point is that living in a country with a nonfunctional government sucks. Allowing people to go Galt means you get a nonfunctional government.

[Drejk]

A Man In Black wrote:

Again, I said "inherently more important". If your goal is to reduce suffering and improve quality of life, a bullet in the face is just as dead as death by exposure. What I meant about how this idea is the rotten crack in libertarian thinking is its own thread's worth of discussion.

** spoiler omitted **

(...)Yes, because those initial assumptions create a dystopia and oppose measures that improve everyone's standard of living. I don't particularly want to live in Rothbard's an-cap Mad Max hellscape, or make the world I live in any more similar to same. Your initial...

We are speaking about different strains of libertarianism, this explais some differences but not all. Yes, there are different strains.

One more thing not directly about the topic as there is no point in continuing argument between "give people choice" versus "don't give people choice, they must follow *my* way":

Quote:

"Semantics" is also a colloquial expression for semantic manipulation in lieu of an actual argument.

It is very bad colloqualism as it distorts the meaning of the word semantics into something closer to opposite. Please don't spread the misuse.

[Comrade Anklebiter]

A Man In Black wrote:

The most condescending way is a lmgtfy link, I think.

But jokes aside, I thought this was in your wheelhouse? Accelerationism is the idea that anarchists/communists should aggravate the consequences of capitalism, or at least oppose capitalist reforms, because those reforms only perpetuate capitalism. You c/ped an accelerationist argument against the ACA. You know more about anarchists and communists than I do, maybe I've got this wrong.

I am familiar with the argument, but have never heard the term before.

In which case, my accelerationism isn't working well at all, because I am not an accelerationist. Nor has any serious Marxist been. Ernst Thalmann during the "Third Period" hardly counts, the Stalinist hack.

I think I've been pretty consistent in opposing "Free health care for all!," or the Cuban model, to O/Rcare. That doesn't sound like "if it gets worse then it'll have to get better" to me.

You can say that I am counterposing (at least that's what I assume "c/p" means) "accelerationism" to the ACA if you like, but I think you are dressing up an inadequate piece of shiznit--written by the health care industry at the expense of the unions, and, indeed, all of the working class--and calling it a "reform."

Communist propaganda

and

More communist propaganda

[A Man In Black]

Drejk wrote:

We are speaking about different strains of libertarianism, this explais some differences but not all. Yes, there are different strains.

One more thing not directly about the topic as there is no point in continuing argument between "give people choice" versus "don't give people choice, they must follow *my* way":

Why is your choice to harm yourself and the commons is more important than protecting the commons for everyone? It's the same as claiming the "right" to burn garbage on your front lawn or play with explosives. What strain of libertarianism has a coherent argument for that?

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

I think I've been pretty consistent in opposing "Free health care for all!," or the Cuban model, to O/Rcare. That doesn't sound like "if it gets worse then it'll have to get better" to me.

You can say that I am counterposing (at least that's what I assume "c/p" means) "accelerationism" to the ACA if you like, but I think you are dressing up an inadequate piece of shiznit--written by the health care industry at the expense of the unions, and, indeed, all of the working class--and calling it a "reform."

Sure, single-payer (or some sort of German system, with both price-controlled insurance and price-controlled services) would be better than the ACA. The problem is that it's not a political reality. The choice, as a practical matter, is the ACA or the pre-ACA status quo. You can rail against the health insurance industry, and I'll be right there with you, but to suggest that a slate of new regulations on that industry leaves people worse off than if the bill hadn't been passed because it'd create more will to replace it with an even-better-than-ACA system is pure accelerationism. If single-payer is a good thing (and I think it is), the ACA increased single-payer coverage to more people than it's ever covered in the US since in the New Deal.

I find it hard to argue that the ACA leaves people worse off, especially in places where the Medicare threshold was four-digit income.

c/p was copy/paste.

[Comrade Anklebiter]

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

You can say that I am counterposing (at least that's what I assume "c/p" means) "accelerationism" to the ACA if you like, but I think you are dressing up an inadequate piece of shiznit--written by the health care industry at the expense of the unions, and, indeed, all of the working class--and calling it a "reform."

Damn it, my best line ruined because of a mistaken assumption!

[Andrew R]

All this "reform" is good for takers, not good for people being taken. But how dare they have the gall to not want to have their money taken. And for all of the high and mighty morally superior folks here how much do you earn? How much do you NEED to live on and how much do you VOLUNTARILY give to help the poor? Because if you do not give all you can what gives you the right to act like it is wrong for those of us being taxed and robbed to disagree?

[A Man In Black]

Andrew R wrote:

All this "reform" is good for takers, not good for people being taken. But how dare they have the gall to not want to have their money taken. And for all of the high and mighty morally superior folks here how much do you earn? How much do you NEED to live on and how much do you VOLUNTARILY give to help the poor? Because if you do not give all you can what gives you the right to act like it is wrong for those of us being taxed and robbed to disagree?

Hey, Andrew R, are you making more than ~100K a year? Because if not, and you're insured, you're probably getting a refund. But rich people thank you for your moral outrage anyway!

[Kirth Gersen]

Andrew R wrote:

But how dare they have the gall to not want to have their money taken.

Maybe they figure, since nobody argues against being taken for billions in tax dollars to support massive corporate intests (for-profit prison industry, numerous wars, Wall Street bailouts, no taxes on soil leases, etc.), asking for a couple of bucks for health care isn't too much.

[Andrew R]

A Man In Black wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

All this "reform" is good for takers, not good for people being taken. But how dare they have the gall to not want to have their money taken. And for all of the high and mighty morally superior folks here how much do you earn? How much do you NEED to live on and how much do you VOLUNTARILY give to help the poor? Because if you do not give all you can what gives you the right to act like it is wrong for those of us being taxed and robbed to disagree?

Hey, Andrew R, are you making more than ~100K a year? Because if not, and you're insured, you're probably getting a refund. But rich people thank you for your moral outrage anyway!

Thats the difference here, I don't give a *&^% about whats in it for me. robbing someone else to get what you want is wrong.

[Andrew R]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

But how dare they have the gall to not want to have their money taken.

Maybe they figure, since nobody argues against being taken for billions in tax dollars to support massive corporate intests (for-profit prison industry, numerous wars, Wall Street bailouts, no taxes on soil leases, etc.), asking for a couple of bucks for health care isn't too much.

That money should not be taken the way it is either, this is just looter mentality "might as well get what i can too" instead of recognizing that the robbery in inherently wrong.

[Andrew R]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

robbing someone else to get what you want is wrong.

But again, how come it's only wrong if they're robbing to support the poor -- robbing the middle class to make the rich even richer is A-OK?

Go ahead and show where I ever said that? I have argued against pretty much all tax breaks and subsides for anything and closing as many tax loopholes as possible.

[Kirth Gersen]

Andrew R wrote:

That money should not be taken the way it is either, this is just looter mentality "might as well get what i can too" instead of recognizing that the robbery in inherently wrong.

Now we're getting somewhere. If we agree that looting in the form of taxes for which we're not receiving fair value (I like having highways, etc.) is wrong, then it would make sense to combat the most egregious examples first, then clean up the small stuff. That means pulling troops out of the Middle East before we start cancelling grandma's Medicaid check.

[Kirth Gersen]

Andrew R wrote:

Go ahead and show where I ever said that? I have argued against pretty much all tax breaks and subsides for anything and closing as many tax loopholes as possible.

Let's just say you've been remarkably selective about which examples you choose to angrily rant about.

Also, I deleted the post you said this in reply to.