The individual mandate is a kind of slavery

[sub_thug]

I guess if you prefer a world where you constantly have to fight to keep what you earned so that someone bigger/better armed doesn't take it then more power to you. I like to think I'd do well in such a world but then I remember that eventually I'm going to grow old and less capable of defending myself and my loved ones.

So if you want to take a regressive stance into a full-on Hobbesian narrative, what you are saying applies. In the real world, it just means less regulation and stupid rules.

 

[sub_thug]

So if you want to take a regressive stance into a full-on Hobbesian narrative, what you are saying applies. In the real world, it just means less regulation and stupid rules.

It’s also worth noting that I’ve spent my entire adult life figuring out ways to better defend myself and kill others. I’d like to think that after 10 years, I’d be better at it than your average joe.

 

[sub_thug]

If you want to live in Fury Road go to Syria where you can make your own rules with guns and bullets.

Sweet use of trying to put extremist views in my mouth. But hey, if you like authoritarian governments to tell you what to do and how to do it, then you’re welcome to take your pick. There’s no shortage of them out there. You might find the DPRK to be the perfect place!

 

[Limbo Pete]

 

[JonnyRingo84]

No risk, no reward.

i dont think that really applies to healthcare, especially when kids are often involved lol.

 

[panamaican]

So if you want to take a regressive stance into a full-on Hobbesian narrative, what you are saying applies. In the real world, it just means less regulation and stupid rules.

Well, a full on libertarian perspective taken to it's logical conclusion is the regressive Hobbesian narrative you allude to. Short of that we're talking about finding where maximizing one person's liberty comes at the expense of someone else.

If the goal is to maximize liberty for the individual, while keeping a government apparatus, where are you drawing the line?

 

[sub_thug]

Well, a full on libertarian perspective taken to it's logical conclusion is the regressive Hobbesian narrative you allude to. Short of that we're talking about finding where maximizing one person's liberty comes at the expense of someone else.

If the goal is to maximize liberty for the individual, while keeping a government apparatus, where are you drawing the line?

But at no point do I claim that I need to be taken to the extreme. Just as any conservative is not required to be a fascist, nor a liberal required to be a communist. In fact, I would generally argue that extremism is a bad thing. So yes, a logical line should be drawn. To really spell out where that line is, we would need to take it on an issue by issue basis. In regards to a federal mandate for health insurance, I think that’s an overstep of government power. Not only do I think it’s a bad idea, I think it gives too much power to the government at the expense of the individual.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Sweet use of trying to put extremist views in my mouth. But hey, if you like authoritarian governments to tell you what to do and how to do it, then you’re welcome to take your pick. There’s no shortage of them out there. You might find the DPRK to be the perfect place!

I think I'd rather Singapore, I've always wanted to live in a giant mall.

 

[panamaican]

But at no point do I claim that I need to be taken to the extreme. Just as any conservative is not required to be a fascist, nor a liberal required to be a communist. In fact, I would generally argue that extremism is a bad thing. So yes, a logical line should be drawn. To really spell out where that line is, we would need to take it on an issue by issue basis. In regards to a federal mandate for health insurance, I think that’s an overstep of government power. Not only do I think it’s a bad idea, I think it gives too much power to the government at the expense of the individual.

I don't call it an extreme, it's the logical endpoint.

As for the line, the post of yours that I was responding to was very broad in its discussion.

We tend to argue that the person should be allowed to do whatever suits them best in regards to health, finances, guns, speech, drugs, or whatever.

Which is why my response was similarly broad in the logical endpoint of allowing people to do what they think suits them best across that range of subjects.

I see here that you're limiting it to just the healthcare mandate conversation. Are you against all forms of taxation or is there some specific criteria that you're applying here?

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

I kind of dig the do nothing tax. Extend it to people who dont work or have any taxable income (unless they are very disabled)

Wanna be a deadbeat but still can sit in a park, use a road, call the cops?
600 a year.

 

[sub_thug]

I don't call it an extreme, it's the logical endpoint.

As for the line, the post of yours that I was responding to was very broad in its discussion. Which is why my response was similarly broad in the logical endpoint of allowing people to do what they think suits them best across that range of subjects.

I see here that you're limiting it to just the healthcare mandate conversation. Are you against all forms of taxation or is there some specific criteria that you're applying here?

By that same logic, your logical endpoint is with an authoritarian government.

Would you like me to describe each of those issues to illustrate my views?

I am not opposed to all taxation. I think taxes should be used to secure and defend the homeland and perform extremely limited services things like roads. I do not believe in self-propagating social welfare programs or “safety nets,” however. However, I am willing to compromise a little bit, as I still have to live here with lots of people who think differently than I do.

 

[panamaican]

By that same logic, your logical endpoint is with an authoritarian government.

Would you like me to describe each of those issues to illustrate my views?

I am not opposed to all taxation. I think taxes should be used to secure and defend the homeland and perform extremely limited services things like roads. I do not believe in self-propagating social welfare programs or “safety nets,” however. However, I am willing to compromise a little bit, as I still have to live here with lots of people who think differently than I do.

How did you get to my logical endpoint being authoritarian government when my only point was that the libertarian perspective you'd presented is often presented in a way that ignores the biggest long term concern?

I don't advocate for the mandate, never did. But since it's a tax then it should be discussed in the context of a tax and not the OP's farcical "slavery" language.

So does your definition of securing and defending the homeland include medical benefits for former servicemen or only active duty? Their spouses? Their children? Isn't that a safety net or a social welfare program?

Is public education a self-propagating social welfare program?

I'm curious about the edges of your definition.

 

[sub_thug]

How did you get to my logical endpoint being authoritarian government when my only point was that the libertarian perspective you'd presented is often presented in a way that ignores the biggest long term concern?

I don't advocate for the mandate, never did. But since it's a tax then it should be discussed in the context of a tax and not the OP's farcical "slavery" language.

So does your definition of securing and defending the homeland include medical benefits for former servicemen or only active duty? Their spouses? Their children? Isn't that a safety net or a social welfare program?

Is public education a self-propagating social welfare program?

I'm curious about the edges of your definition.

At what point did I present that the libertarian perspective should be equated with anarchy though?

And at what point did I argue that the mandate was slavery or that TS was spot-on with his assessment? I think that the mandate is bad policy, and because it's a mandate, it's an overreach of government power. I personally think that the government has done much of that over the past 20 years.

So medical benefits are extended for a low cost only to Active Duty. Tricare costs spike when you include any dependents, so it is largely run like most employer healthcare plans, although I would say that Tricare is particularly competitive. This makes sense given that the pay of being in the military sucks, so the benefits package should be more attractive. As for the VA, I think that it should be completely privatized. Part of the problem with the VA is that there is a VA hospital in virtually every Congressional district in America, so no one wants to actually restructure the VA into anything other than a money pit that hurts vets because it would cost them jobs in their district. But the VA is a terribly-run institution, and I would like to see it privatized. It would reduce the burden on the taxpayer for one of the largest executive agencies, and it would help the vets who were promised access to the VA as part of their contract. I'm all for honoring contracts, and if we decide that we don't want a VA in the future, that's fine. I don't agree with the decision, but I understand it. And new contracts should be written accordingly.

I think that education belongs at the state and local levels. So the Department of Education used to be the Office of Education, started to monitor progress of Brown v Board of Education. President Carter elevated it to the Department of Education, but the mission of the institution wasn't changed. There was no national education standard until No Child Left Behind and then Common Core, so I struggle to justify what all those administrators and GS employees were doing to earn their checks. I don't think that the federal government needs to be involved in a national education policy, and having a Department of Education and those employees doesn't make the teachers in the classroom better or more well-financed. I would like to see the Department of Education abolished and part of that money actually be redirected to the classrooms instead of bureaucrats.

I think that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid should have been short-term solutions to address a problem. But they have become self-propagating. I don't know how old you are, but if you're young enough, you and I should never plan on being a beneficiary to any of these programs. You should be responsible for your health and retirement. So we, as a country, should work on phasing these programs out of existence. I feel that way about most of the Great Society programs and the ones established by FDR to help promote growth during the Great Depression.

 

[panamaican]

At what point did I present that the libertarian perspective should be equated with anarchy though?

It is the logical endpoint of libertarianism where there is no state dictated conduct. You said that people should be free to do what they want, I pointed out that the logical endpoint is "might makes right" and that people tend to disregard that reality.

And at what point did I argue that the mandate was slavery or that TS was spot-on with his assessment? I think that the mandate is bad policy, and because it's a mandate, it's an overreach of government power. I personally think that the government has done much of that over the past 20 years.

I didn't say that you did. I responded to your very specific post about libertarianism vs. authoritarianism. It appears that you've forgotten that you made the conversation about libertarianism vs. authoritarianism, not the OP.

So medical benefits are extended for a low cost only to Active Duty. Tricare costs spike when you include any dependents, so it is largely run like most employer healthcare plans, although I would say that Tricare is particularly competitive. This makes sense given that the pay of being in the military sucks, so the benefits package should be more attractive. As for the VA, I think that it should be completely privatized. Part of the problem with the VA is that there is a VA hospital in virtually every Congressional district in America, so no one wants to actually restructure the VA into anything other than a money pit that hurts vets because it would cost them jobs in their district. But the VA is a terribly-run institution, and I would like to see it privatized. It would reduce the burden on the taxpayer for one of the largest executive agencies, and it would help the vets who were promised access to the VA as part of their contract. I'm all for honoring contracts, and if we decide that we don't want a VA in the future, that's fine. I don't agree with the decision, but I understand it. And new contracts should be written accordingly.

You didn't directly answer my question. Should we eliminate extending healthcare benefits to family members, they are not defending or securing the homeland? And privatizing/eliminating the VA isn't the same thing as what I asked you. I asked if we should pay for it at all. Whether it's privatized or not is irrelevant if the tax payer foots the ultimate bill.

I think that education belongs at the state and local levels. So the Department of Education used to be the Office of Education, started to monitor progress of Brown v Board of Education. President Carter elevated it to the Department of Education, but the mission of the institution wasn't changed. There was no national education standard until No Child Left Behind and then Common Core, so I struggle to justify what all those administrators and GS employees were doing to earn their checks. I don't think that the federal government needs to be involved in a national education policy, and having a Department of Education and those employees doesn't make the teachers in the classroom better or more well-financed. I would like to see the Department of Education abolished and part of that money actually be redirected to the classrooms instead of bureaucrats.

The local, federal, state delineation that you're making is irrelevant to the point I was asking about. It's still government. Or are you saying that you support government social welfare programs when they come at the state level?

I think that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid should have been short-term solutions to address a problem. But they have become self-propagating. I don't know how old you are, but if you're young enough, you and I should never plan on being a beneficiary to any of these programs. You should be responsible for your health and retirement. So we, as a country, should work on phasing these programs out of existence. I feel that way about most of the Great Society programs and the ones established by FDR to help promote growth during the Great Depression.

You should also feel that way about insuring bank deposits and guaranteeing home loans, also things that helped promote growth during and following the Great Depression. Separately, you should also be against military pensions.

 

[sub_thug]

It is the logical endpoint of libertarianism where there is no state dictated conduct. You said that people should be free to do what they want, I pointed out that the logical endpoint is "might makes right" and that people tend to disregard that reality.



I didn't say that you did. I responded to your very specific post about libertarianism vs. authoritarianism. It appears that you've forgotten that you made the conversation about libertarianism vs. authoritarianism, not the OP.



You didn't directly answer my question. Should we eliminate extending healthcare benefits to family members, they are not defending or securing the homeland? And privatizing/eliminating the VA isn't the same thing as what I asked you. I asked if we should pay for it at all. Whether it's privatized or not is irrelevant if the tax payer foots the ultimate bill.



The local, federal, state delineation that you're making is irrelevant to the point I was asking about. It's still government. Or are you saying that you support government social welfare programs when they come at the state level?



You should also feel that way about insuring bank deposits and guaranteeing home loans, also things that helped promote growth during and following the Great Depression. Separately, you should also be against military pensions.

This is exactly what I am talking about. You don't have the ability to tell me what I should and shouldn't be supporting. And if you don't understand nuance, then that's your intellectual shortcoming, not my problem.

And stop trying to paint me into an ideological corner. I don't have to be an extremist who is against all government all of the time in order for me to support less government. You call it a logical endpoint, whereas a normal person would call it extremism. And it's only at that endpoint where you really have to worry about the use of force from other people. I support having a police force and a court system to mediate matters of dispute between two or more parties. But if you break into my house, I should be able to shoot you right in the face with any weapon that I legally own (which shouldn't be difficult to get or heavily restricted), and the law shouldn't take issue with that. So no wrongful death suits, no murder charges, or anything like that.

As for healthcare for military dependents, then it's as simple as this: Soldiers pay money out of their paychecks for their dependents to have access to healthcare. That doesn't present an ideological problem for me.

If the people support public education, then having it isn't an ideological problem for me. I would have a problem if the government placed undue restrictions or regulations on access to private education because people should have a choice.

I don't need you to tell me what I should and shouldn't support. That's for me to decide, just as your views are yours. This is the idea of libertarianism. Do what you want, and don't try to tell me how to live my life. It's really easy.

 

[SaiWa]

Did some retard in here equate universal health care to slavery???...

 

[Ruprecht]

A few facts and figures...

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Thread of the year candidate imo

 

[curryjunkie]

A few facts and figures...

add to that the fact that prescription drugs are 3 to 4 times the average price of other western nations, proper regulation and price controls could halve peoples insurance costs, but it aint gonna happen, cos "socialism"

 

[WTF2008]

The gap I was referring to was between the scheduled medicare fee and the private healthcare fee. For some reason you completely misconstrued this as being the gap between premiums and payouts, despite "following the conversation".
Actually medicare fraud is challenged and prosecuted fairly often. Most frequently though it's in the form of fake medicare cards.
Doctors that "bulk bill" (ie don't require at least a partial payment which is then reimbursed) are heavily audited. In fact the auditing and compliance costs more than is recovered (not just from fraud, but including incorrect filings). Last year there were 190 cases of fraud referred to the criminal system (by both healthcare practioners and patients), from 148.8 million medicare transactions.
Mostly the reimbursement system and data analytics covers the problem, although upgrading the cards with chip security is well overdue.
The bigger problem with medicare bulk billing abuse is hypochondriacs.
A small copayment replacing bulk billing was considered as a way of preventing both, but deemed not worth it in the estimated effect on health outcomes (the decline in preventative healthcare).

Wall of text gif