The Democrats are getting schooled....

[clacy]

.... on how hard it is to run a business.

Obamacare has been an operational and conceptual failure at just about every level.  Running a business that relies on consumer choice is very difficult.  That's something that most statists don't get.

[moda0306]

.... on how hard it is to run a business.

Obamacare has been an operational and conceptual failure at just about every level.  Running a business that relies on consumer choice is very difficult.  That's something that most statists don't get.

Thanks for the daily dose of meaningless conservative hyperbole. 

The only piece of your post that contains anything resembling an actual fact or analysis is the "consumer choice" aspect of Obamacare, though as the penalty rises, the "choice" of whether to get insurance will be less clear.  Which is the whole idea.  Then people have a CHOICE of which plan/company to pick, based on a community rating, allowing the market to work... or so it should, right?  A mandate is part of any attempt of the more conservative models of universal healthcare using private insurance companies to provide a payment system for healthcare w/ a community rating... more liberal ones involving at least a public option, if not being outright single-payer.

Conservatives loved to both challenge the legitimacy/constitutionality of a mandate (forcing people to buy a product of the private sector (even though SS reform would have done the same thing)), while complaining that people won't, in fact, buy coverage, thereby ruining the risk-pool.

Which is it?

And since abandoning this model as their preferred option, conservatives have gone on to saying that HSA's, tort reform, and individualizing health insurance applications/coverage will solve the cost-curve problem AND the uninsurability problem all at once.  I have yet to hear a sound analysis on that one... just more hyperbole about lawsuits and over-using the healthcare system.

I'm not usually a fan of anecdotes, as they're a far-cry from sound analysis, but they're still far better than hyperbole, so here's one for you...

I work with someone who is dropping our work plan, and WITHOUT any low-income subsidy is saving 30% on his premiums for FAR better coverage in every possible measure.  To be fair, our group coverage is piss-poor.

If you have a healthcare model out there that you'd like to advocate for, I'd love to hear it.

[Kshartle]

Parable of the forgotten man, as Browne wrote about. When A steals from B to give to C everyone sees the generosity of A and the plight of C. They don't realize B won't just stand around and take it, he'll act. He'll fight it, avoid it or maybe just start pretending to be C himself.

Don't confuse what they're doing with anything close to choice. They are still trying to use force in the form of tax penalties....even that won't work because the penalty is below the cost of what they are trying to force. The supreme court ruled it was only constitutional because it was so low it couldn't compel people to act.

This was all obvious. I and others wrote about exactly what would happen long before the law came into effect.

In hindsight the website has been the most successful part even though it was a total flop!

Don't worry though. Ultimately they will try to make everyone B when the insurance companies have to be bailed out. Inflation and taxes will be required to make up the losses. The individual fight against both will continue for some of us.

[moda0306]

Parable of the forgotten man, as Browne wrote about. When A steals from B to give to C everyone sees the generosity of A and the plight of C. They don't realize B won't just stand around and take it, he'll act. He'll fight it, avoid it or maybe just start pretending to be C himself.

Don't confuse what they're doing with anything close to choice. They are still trying to use force in the form of tax penalties....even that won't work because the penalty is below the cost of what they are trying to force. The supreme court ruled it was only constitutional because it was so low it couldn't compel people to act.

This was all obvious. I and others wrote about exactly what would happen long before the law came into effect.

In hindsight the website has been the most successful part even though it was a total flop!

There's still a lot to happen!  Your predictions of it functioning as a huge disaster a couple years from now still have yet to come to fruition... it's not like these Austrian inflation predictions that we've had half a decade now since 2008 (if not earlier for many) to tell that they're just wrong.  We'll have to wait a while on Obamacare.

[Kshartle]

Parable of the forgotten man, as Browne wrote about. When A steals from B to give to C everyone sees the generosity of A and the plight of C. They don't realize B won't just stand around and take it, he'll act. He'll fight it, avoid it or maybe just start pretending to be C himself.

Don't confuse what they're doing with anything close to choice. They are still trying to use force in the form of tax penalties....even that won't work because the penalty is below the cost of what they are trying to force. The supreme court ruled it was only constitutional because it was so low it couldn't compel people to act.

This was all obvious. I and others wrote about exactly what would happen long before the law came into effect.

In hindsight the website has been the most successful part even though it was a total flop!

There's still a lot to happen!  Your predictions of it functioning as a huge disaster a couple years from now still have yet to come to fruition... it's not like these Austrian inflation predictions that we've had half a decade now since 2008 (if not earlier for many) to tell that they're just wrong.  We'll have to wait a while on Obamacare.

The problem with government programs is when they're a disaster they just get doubled down on.

if welfare was actually a solution for poverty it would go away, instead it grows because it's a failure and expands poverty. Obamacare will make healthcare worse and more expensive so it will just be expanded to a full federal takeover.

It will take some time. The only way it can "succeed" is if all the losses are passed off somewhere else and not counted as a result of the program (taxes and inflation and job losses).

[clacy]

.... on how hard it is to run a business.

Obamacare has been an operational and conceptual failure at just about every level.  Running a business that relies on consumer choice is very difficult.  That's something that most statists don't get.

Thanks for the daily dose of meaningless conservative hyperbole. 

The only piece of your post that contains anything resembling an actual fact or analysis is the "consumer choice" aspect of Obamacare, though as the penalty rises, the "choice" of whether to get insurance will be less clear.  Which is the whole idea.  Then people have a CHOICE of which plan/company to pick, based on a community rating, allowing the market to work... or so it should, right?  A mandate is part of any attempt of the more conservative models of universal healthcare using private insurance companies to provide a payment system for healthcare w/ a community rating... more liberal ones involving at least a public option, if not being outright single-payer.

Conservatives loved to both challenge the legitimacy/constitutionality of a mandate (forcing people to buy a product of the private sector (even though SS reform would have done the same thing)), while complaining that people won't, in fact, buy coverage, thereby ruining the risk-pool.

Which is it?

And since abandoning this model as their preferred option, conservatives have gone on to saying that HSA's, tort reform, and individualizing health insurance applications/coverage will solve the cost-curve problem AND the uninsurability problem all at once.  I have yet to hear a sound analysis on that one... just more hyperbole about lawsuits and over-using the healthcare system.

I'm not usually a fan of anecdotes, as they're a far-cry from sound analysis, but they're still far better than hyperbole, so here's one for you...

I work with someone who is dropping our work plan, and WITHOUT any low-income subsidy is saving 30% on his premiums for FAR better coverage in every possible measure.  To be fair, our group coverage is piss-poor.

If you have a healthcare model out there that you'd like to advocate for, I'd love to hear it.

Nice anecdote.  Here's mine.  I am a business owner/operator and we cover about 30'ish employees.  We've seen massive increases the past 3 years, in preparation for Obamacare.  I'm talking an average of 25% for each of the past 3 years.  I'm told that the next two years will be much larger.

Most likely we'll dump the insurance benefit that we provide.  Time will tell, but we'll probably be forced to.  I'm pretty certain our employees and their families won't be super excited about that and it will be a net loss for them bottom line.

I don't have a "model" to advocate, but I'm pretty sure there would have been significantly more (bi-partisan) opposition to Obamacare, if they had realized that the end goal is to blow up employer-provided insurance.

[moda0306]

Parable of the forgotten man, as Browne wrote about. When A steals from B to give to C everyone sees the generosity of A and the plight of C. They don't realize B won't just stand around and take it, he'll act. He'll fight it, avoid it or maybe just start pretending to be C himself.

Don't confuse what they're doing with anything close to choice. They are still trying to use force in the form of tax penalties....even that won't work because the penalty is below the cost of what they are trying to force. The supreme court ruled it was only constitutional because it was so low it couldn't compel people to act.

This was all obvious. I and others wrote about exactly what would happen long before the law came into effect.

In hindsight the website has been the most successful part even though it was a total flop!

There's still a lot to happen!  Your predictions of it functioning as a huge disaster a couple years from now still have yet to come to fruition... it's not like these Austrian inflation predictions that we've had half a decade now since 2008 (if not earlier for many) to tell that they're just wrong.  We'll have to wait a while on Obamacare.

The problem with government programs is when they're a disaster they just get doubled down on.

if welfare was actually a solution for poverty it would go away, instead it grows because it's a failure and expands poverty. Obamacare will make healthcare worse and more expensive so it will just be expanded to a full federal takeover.

It will take some time. The only way it can "succeed" is if all the losses are passed off somewhere else and not counted as a result of the program (taxes and inflation and job losses).

Your "logic" on poverty is really annoying Kshartle.

You claim that we have expanded poverty... not removed it.

Then I show you that food, shelter, education, and medical services are far more available to people of all economic stripes than they were beforehand... you agree with this to the point of calling our safety net a "safety hammock."  You then claim that we're simply setting ourselves up for a "poverty bomb" when the whole system fails.

That's pure speculation, but doesn't affect current poverty levels.  Poverty, as measured by people who can't meet the basic needs of life, has dropped..  Period.  You can speculate about whether it will get worse in the future, but that's a different debate.  Try to stay consistent for now, or at least be clear in your definitions.  If poverty has dropped, your prediction of a future increase is not an argument for the fact "poverty has expanded."  It's a prediction of future poverty expansion.

[Kshartle]

I'm pretty sure there would have been significantly more (bi-partisan) opposition to Obamacare, if they had realized that the end goal is to blow up employer-provided insurance.

Unfortunatley people by and large don't understand economics, even simple economics.

This is a good argument for why we should accept having a group of humans stick guns in our face and tell us what we can, can't and have to buy.

[Kshartle]

Poverty, as measured by people who can't meet the basic needs of life, has dropped..  Period. 

Are you telling me the people on welfare, SS, unemployment and every other wealth redistribution scam can meet their basic needs? If that's the case then why must I be robbed to pay for those baby birds?

It's expanded and the expansion continues. You are standing in a monsoon claiming you aren't getting wet.

[Kshartle]

More people on the public dole is not evidence that the program succeded, it's evidence that it failed.

Unless you're into power over the pathetic, then it's a huge success.

[moda0306]

I'm pretty sure there would have been significantly more (bi-partisan) opposition to Obamacare, if they had realized that the end goal is to blow up employer-provided insurance.

Unfortunatley people by and large don't understand economics, even simple economics.

This is a good argument for why we should accept having a group of humans stick guns in our face and tell us what we can, can't and have to buy.

K, you're right... most people don't understand econ... the scary part is that Austrians do the best job of convincing people that they're the ones that do.

Regarding clacy's point though....I thought that was a conservative goal... move insurance to the individual market!

As long as we have community ratings, I think that's a great idea.  Get employers out of it.  But, again, conservatives try to play both sides of this so they can trash it no matter the outcome. 

My theory on Obamacare:

- If the masses are unhappy with it in 5 years, "Obamacare was a disaster," never-mind all the covered people getting preventative care.

- If the masses are happy with it in 5 years, "All these lazy shlubs are successfully stealing from the rich, healthy population, and America has lost the individualist spirit it once had. Just another welfare program keeping people stupid and happy.


I'm sure the libs have a couple options for both scenarios as well.  But conservatives have been embarassingly absent, idiotic, and/or dodgy on the fundamentals of this debate.

If they want to argue the free market from a negative-rights/NAP/Self-ownership moral standpoint, and that someone who gets sick w/o health insurance will have to just find a charity or die for their mistake, just have the b@lls to f*cking admit it!  I wouldn't even really judge them nearly as harshly (if much at all) as the bullsh!tters trying to dance around their real position.  It's FAR better than lie after false analysis after lie that comes out of their side on the economics and morality of healthcare.

[moda0306]

Poverty, as measured by people who can't meet the basic needs of life, has dropped..  Period. 

Are you telling me the people on welfare, SS, unemployment and every other wealth redistribution scam can meet their basic needs? If that's the case then why must I be robbed to pay for those baby birds?

It's expanded and the expansion continues. You are standing in a monsoon claiming you aren't getting wet.

They can meet their basic needs because of those programs.  I thought this was pretty obvious.

Problem: Poverty
Argued Solution: Government programs
Argued Solution: Signed into law
Poverty: Reduced

[moda0306]

More people on the public dole is not evidence that the program succeded, it's evidence that it failed.

Unless you're into power over the pathetic, then it's a huge success.

You defined poverty as people not being able to afford their basic needs, not their inability to afford those basic needs without government assistance.

An of course, if you put the phrase "without government assistance" as part of the problem, then of course government can't be the solution... you've precluded it from being so in your premise of what the problem is.

[Kshartle]

someone who gets sick w/o health insurance will have to just find a charity or die for their mistake, just have the b@lls to f*cking admit it!

I will admit that without the slightest hesitation.

Sh1t I might even drag myself to vote for someone who said that.

On second thought I wouldn't vote, but I might wear a button. 

[moda0306]

.... on how hard it is to run a business.

Obamacare has been an operational and conceptual failure at just about every level.  Running a business that relies on consumer choice is very difficult.  That's something that most statists don't get.

Thanks for the daily dose of meaningless conservative hyperbole. 

The only piece of your post that contains anything resembling an actual fact or analysis is the "consumer choice" aspect of Obamacare, though as the penalty rises, the "choice" of whether to get insurance will be less clear.  Which is the whole idea.  Then people have a CHOICE of which plan/company to pick, based on a community rating, allowing the market to work... or so it should, right?  A mandate is part of any attempt of the more conservative models of universal healthcare using private insurance companies to provide a payment system for healthcare w/ a community rating... more liberal ones involving at least a public option, if not being outright single-payer.

Conservatives loved to both challenge the legitimacy/constitutionality of a mandate (forcing people to buy a product of the private sector (even though SS reform would have done the same thing)), while complaining that people won't, in fact, buy coverage, thereby ruining the risk-pool.

Which is it?

And since abandoning this model as their preferred option, conservatives have gone on to saying that HSA's, tort reform, and individualizing health insurance applications/coverage will solve the cost-curve problem AND the uninsurability problem all at once.  I have yet to hear a sound analysis on that one... just more hyperbole about lawsuits and over-using the healthcare system.

I'm not usually a fan of anecdotes, as they're a far-cry from sound analysis, but they're still far better than hyperbole, so here's one for you...

I work with someone who is dropping our work plan, and WITHOUT any low-income subsidy is saving 30% on his premiums for FAR better coverage in every possible measure.  To be fair, our group coverage is piss-poor.

If you have a healthcare model out there that you'd like to advocate for, I'd love to hear it.

Nice anecdote.  Here's mine.  I am a business owner/operator and we cover about 30'ish employees.  We've seen massive increases the past 3 years, in preparation for Obamacare. 

I would love to see a sound analysis of Obamacare overall, and also address all the positive and negative anecdotes out there that seem to refute the general analysis.

So far, I haven't seen either, from what I can tell.

[clacy]

Regarding clacy's point though....I thought that was a conservative goal... move insurance to the individual market!

As long as we have community ratings, I think that's a great idea.  Get employers out of it.  But, again, conservatives try to play both sides of this so they can trash it no matter the outcome. 

No, conservatives want the government to stay out of it.  The free market had decided that employer sponsored health coverage was something that employees preferred.  For those that didn't like that option, there has always existed an individual market.

So far, there have been roughly 1-2 million people covered that previously didn't have insurance.  You could have easily put in place a government option that was intended for people that had pre-existing conditions and expanded medicade for those that thought the individual market was priced too high for low or middle income people.

Instead, it looks like we're all going to have to go towards a government insurance when this blows up the entire insurance industry.

[Kshartle]

More people on the public dole is not evidence that the program succeded, it's evidence that it failed.

Unless you're into power over the pathetic, then it's a huge success.

You defined poverty as people not being able to afford their basic needs, not their inability to afford those basic needs without government assistance.

An of course, if you put the phrase "without government assistance" as part of the problem, then of course government can't be the solution... you've precluded it from being so in your premise of what the problem is.

They are NOT able to meet their basic needs moda. OTHERs have to meet their needs. The group that cannot meet their basic needs is expanding, quickly, and the pace is expected to quicken. The government programs have not solved the problem because they can't solve problems.

I suppose if 99% were on welfare you would still consider it a success. How about when final 1% supporting everything decides they are done?

They can print slips of paper, but until they can print food and housing these governemnt redistribution scams will continue to fail.

It is clear we have a different definition of success and failure.

[moda0306]

someone who gets sick w/o health insurance will have to just find a charity or die for their mistake, just have the b@lls to f*cking admit it!

I will admit that without the slightest hesitation.

Sh1t I might even drag myself to vote for someone who said that.

On second thought I wouldn't vote, but I might wear a button.

I know you would.  Most will not.  I know when we're debating, that I'm debating an anarcho-capitalist.  Usually, I'm debating conservatives, liberals, and quasi-libertarians who have no real structure under their political mind-frame.

At least with anarchocaps you know the structure, even thought it's a house of cards, I know how it's built .

[Kshartle]

If a bank robber can meet his basic needs only by robbing a bank can we really say he's capable of meeting his needs? Is he a success story?

[Kshartle]

someone who gets sick w/o health insurance will have to just find a charity or die for their mistake, just have the b@lls to f*cking admit it!

I will admit that without the slightest hesitation.

Sh1t I might even drag myself to vote for someone who said that.

On second thought I wouldn't vote, but I might wear a button.

I know you would.  Most will not.  I know when we're debating, that I'm debating an anarcho-capitalist.  Usually, I'm debating conservatives, liberals, and quasi-libertarians who have no real structure under their political mind-frame.

At least with anarchocaps you know the structure, even thought it's a house of cards, I know how it's built .

ahaha-yes well....as I've said It's the libertarians I find the most frustrating because of the hypocriscy.

I don't even know what a conservative is.

I prefer to debate statist/liberals personally.

[moda0306]

More people on the public dole is not evidence that the program succeded, it's evidence that it failed.

Unless you're into power over the pathetic, then it's a huge success.

You defined poverty as people not being able to afford their basic needs, not their inability to afford those basic needs without government assistance.

An of course, if you put the phrase "without government assistance" as part of the problem, then of course government can't be the solution... you've precluded it from being so in your premise of what the problem is.

They are NOT able to meet their basic needs moda. OTHERs have to meet their needs. The group that cannot meet their basic needs is expanding, quickly, and the pace is expected to quicken. The government programs have not solved the problem because they can't solve problems.

I suppose if 99% were on welfare you would still consider it a success. How about when final 1% supporting everything decides they are done?

They can print slips of paper, but until they can print food and housing these governemnt redistribution scams will continue to fail.

It is clear we have a different definition of success and failure.

So the question is...

Is poverty the problem, or is the inability for people to self-sufficiently address poverty the problem?

I say poverty is the problem first.  A 5 year old kid with no parents and nowhere to live is a problem.  I'm not going to worry about trying to figure out a mechanism so that every 5 year old somehow knows how to be self-sufficient.

Secondly, and more hopefully, having poverty be a problem that's eliminated through self-reliance is an awesome achievement...

But be clear that this is what you're saying... because you're saying that they've "EXPANDED" poverty... but as a matter of fact it has not.  You can argue with the methods through which people are paying for these basic needs, but you can't argue that those needs aren't being met, if they are.

[moda0306]

If a bank robber can meet his basic needs only by robbing a bank can we really say he's capable of meeting his needs? Is he a success story?

So you're basically saying that any government program is NOT a success story by the very nature that it took theft to make it happen.

That's ok if that's your, but make that clear, as a matter of principal, rather than making consequentialist arguments as a function of effects, and confusing people as to how you're measuring "success" or "failure."

[Kshartle]

If a bank robber can meet his basic needs only by robbing a bank can we really say he's capable of meeting his needs? Is he a success story?

So you're basically saying that any government program is NOT a success story by the very nature that it took theft to make it happen.

That's ok if that's your, but make that clear, as a matter of principal, rather than making consequentialist arguments as a function of effects, and confusing people as to how you're measuring "success" or "failure."

No. I was saying that just because people who don't work or produce anything of value and have zero savings are still have their basic needs met....this is not evidence of success. The group in this situation is greatly expanded and set to grow even more. This is evidence of failure. Unless you measure success in terms of vote-getting as one of the political parties does. Even the other side is now courting part of that vote saying the dems are going to take away your free money and we want to protect.

The success of the programs is due to their failure (you know what I mean).

[moda0306]

I will admit that without the slightest hesitation.

Sh1t I might even drag myself to vote for someone who said that.

On second thought I wouldn't vote, but I might wear a button.

I know you would.  Most will not.  I know when we're debating, that I'm debating an anarcho-capitalist.  Usually, I'm debating conservatives, liberals, and quasi-libertarians who have no real structure under their political mind-frame.

At least with anarchocaps you know the structure, even thought it's a house of cards, I know how it's built .

ahaha-yes well....as I've said It's the libertarians I find the most frustrating because of the hypocriscy.

I don't even know what a conservative is.

I prefer to debate statist/liberals personally.

Conservative:

Social issues; statist
Economic issues; usually statist in the sense that they don't want to abolish gov't, but wanting to move certain things "in the direction of freedom" or something like that.
Foreign policy: Seem to be interventionist when a Repub is in office and isolationist when a Dem is (unless they don't take action, then they're interventionist again .

A lot of this is sarcasm from me colored by the fact that terms just don't apply to people as much as the political realities around them.  In its most pure sense, I think a conservative looks at all the good things about the way things USED to be... and tries to move us back into that time, not necessarily technologically, but morally and politically.  A liberal looks to what can be made better (in their minds, of course) into the future... usually supporting new, foreign ideas on how society should be governed or arranged.

Naturally, libs appear far more statist, because they advocate for a loss of a freedom we have, much less for one we lost decades/centuries ago.  For instance, abolitionists appeared far more "statist" than states-rights activists in 1850.

[moda0306]

If a bank robber can meet his basic needs only by robbing a bank can we really say he's capable of meeting his needs? Is he a success story?

So you're basically saying that any government program is NOT a success story by the very nature that it took theft to make it happen.

That's ok if that's your, but make that clear, as a matter of principal, rather than making consequentialist arguments as a function of effects, and confusing people as to how you're measuring "success" or "failure."

No. I was saying that just because people who don't work or produce anything of value and have zero savings are still have their basic needs met....this is not evidence of success. The group in this situation is greatly expanded and set to grow even more. This is evidence of failure. Unless you measure success in terms of vote-getting as one of the political parties does. Even the other side is now courting part of that vote saying the dems are going to take away your free money and we want to protect.

The success of the programs is due to their failure (you know what I mean).

If the problem is: Poverty (full stop)

Measurement of success will be: Reduction or elimination of poverty (full stop)

If the definition of poverty is: "affording the basic things one needs," even if it came in the form of a government check, if people are paying for those needs, you have solved the problem.


You're saying the problem hasn't been solved unless people are self sufficient, which means we have to add to what the original "problem" is, as follows.

Problem: Self-sustaining ability for families to keep themselves out of poverty.

That's a worthy goal!

But state it as such.  You state that we haven't solved the problem of poverty... you forget to add (what you deem to be) the other important part of that solution.

Definitions dude... you gotta be more clear on this stuff.