Congressional Budget Office - ObamaCare creates ‘disincentive’ to work

[Lithium381]

See, now he's all grown-up and he doesn't have to do anything he dosen't anymore.

Sometimes I think libertarians are the product of overly bearing parents.

How do you mean? did you miss a word or two in your first sentence?

 

[berzerker60]

so if i came to your home unsolicited and cleaned up your house, maybe mowed your lawn, and otherwise helped you and presented you with a bill, you'd be obligated to pay me my hourly rate? because you enjoyed the benefit of my labor?

People aren't governments. Facile analogies don't hold.

See also: Government finances aren't like household finances.

 

[Lithium381]

People aren't governments. Facile analogies don't hold.

See also: Government finances aren't like household finances.

So where does the government get the legitimacy to bill you for services you never ordered or requested, yet you benefited from them?

Definition #3 of government:
the governing body of persons in a state, community, etc.; administration.

So if it's a group of people, it's okay, but if it's only one person it's different?
So then my landscaping and cleaning company sent you the bill instead of just me. Pay up?

 

[Lithium381]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15345511

 

[senseamp]

Why stop at 10% then? Why not 20%, 50%, or 99.9% since that would give millions more the "freedom" to retire early?

It's an optimization problem, not a morality play.

 

[senseamp]

so you're saying i don't have to pay taxes if i don't want to? it's voluntary? it's not forced?

theft:
the act of stealing; the taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.

now, you'll hinge your arguement on the word "wrongful". . .lets work it out, i'm sure you're familiar with mr Larken Rose and his simple argument but i'll roll it out for those who haven't heard it in the context of taxes:

Do you have the right to steal from someone? <hint: no>

Can you delegate a right that you don't have (see above) to another person? example: give permission to bob to steal from alice. <hint: no>

Can two or more people get together and delegate a right that they do not have to a third party? example: the whole neighborhood gives bob permission to alice. <hint: no>

So then where does congress get the right to take money by force from people to pay for things they've dreamed up? OHHHHHH there are some signatures on a piece of paper that gave someone "authority" to some people who delegated rights they didn't have who delegated it further to people that didn't have the right. My signature isn't on that paper, nor any subsequent paper giving someone the right to my earnings. It's not voluntary therefore it's illegitimate.

Hmm, if only there was a way for a democratic society to decide what is "wrongful" and what isn't. That would be something.

 

[yllus]

Good summation, thanks. I'll make two points. First, we already have record low employment, so I doubt that more people giving up on working can possibly be a good thing. Especially given that these will generally be people living on government benefits, not saved capital.

Second, 100% of the people I know who have less hours as a result of Obamacare are from employers cutting hours to stay under the new, lower full time limits, or employers flat-out cutting jobs to stay under the size limit. I know close to a dozen people who are suffering this now; I do not know a single soul who has embraced Obamacare as allowing them to voluntarily work less. At my age, I would think it would be the opposite, that people I know would tend more toward those voluntarily working less.

I suspect you'll have figured this out at this point in the discussion, but your statement is directly opposite to what the CBO prediction is. They seem to be saying that Person A and Person B will be able to reduce their working hours from 40 hr/week to 30 hr/week each because the income from the extra hours is no longer necessary due to the health care subsidies of the ACA.

Assuming those extra 20 hours a week were productive ones, one would reasonably think that Person A and B's employer would then hire Person C to make up the dropped hours. Theoretically this improves participation of labour in the nation, which itself provides a number of positive spin-off effects.

Again, it being a "good thing" depends on which side of the transfer payment you're on. You want to focus on what you see as the good (couldn't afford to retire previously) without acknowledging the cost to others to allow that to happen. You just wave it away as being just one more thing "the rich" won't notice because to you, anyone other than the recipient of your generosity is rich and simply a source for money. You simply make a rationalization "well, that's one less yacht they can afford to buy" and glorify the "better uses" you're putting the money to.

I think this is a very valid point and would be interested in a discussion on it. Assuming we're not saying that ACA will achieve lower costs purely through cost savings, who is providing the cash for the subsidy? The only reasonable answer in my mind is that the middle class would play this role (not enough rich to pay for it, and the poor are the ones needing the money).

Fundamentally, aside from potential cost savings, the ACA seems to be a moral question: Are you willing to pay X% more to provide health insurance to 20 - 25 million of your fellow citizens that are worse off than you?

 

[Lithium381]

Hmm, if only there was a way for a democratic society to decide what is "wrongful" and what isn't. That would be something.

I think Rush had a very crude example of this....
100 people in a society, 75 men and 25 women. A majority vote was set to see if its lawful(ie not wrongful) for a man to rape a woman. It passed 70 to 30. Wow..

Yay, a democratic society decided what was "wrongful" and what isn't.
So a larger group can curtail the rights of another group simply by voting? Brilliant! Why does someone else's definition of "wrong" have anything to do with me? They dont' get to impose their will on me regardless of how many people agree with them.

Noone is allowed to initiate force or harm on another. . .

 

[Lithium381]

I suspect you'll have figured this out at this point in the discussion, but your statement is directly opposite to what the CBO prediction is. They seem to be saying that Person A and Person B will be able to reduce their working hours from 40 hr/week to 30 hr/week each because the income from the extra hours is no longer necessary due to the health care subsidies of the ACA.

Assuming those extra 20 hours a week were productive ones, one would reasonably think that Person A and B's employer would then hire Person C to make up the dropped hours. Theoretically this improves participation of labour in the nation, which itself provides a number of positive spin-off effects.



I think this is a very valid point and would be interested in a discussion on it. Assuming we're not saying that ACA will achieve lower costs purely through cost savings, who is providing the cash for the subsidy? The only reasonable answer in my mind is that the middle class would play this role (not enough rich to pay for it, and the poor are the ones needing the money).

Fundamentally, aside from potential cost savings, the ACA seems to be a moral question: Are you willing to pay X% more to provide health insurance to 20 - 25 million of your fellow citizens that are worse off than you?

That's a very interesting proposition. And the syntax/semantics are VERY sensitive. The difference between being forced to do something and voluntarily doing it has a very different psychological effect.

For an example see how the Morman church handles welfare for its members. I didn't know about it before late last year but it's fascinating!

 

[senseamp]

I think Rush had a very crude example of this....
100 people in a society, 75 men and 25 women. A majority vote was set to see if its lawful(ie not wrongful) for a man to rape a woman. It passed 70 to 30. Wow..

Yay, a democratic society decided what was "wrongful" and what isn't.
So a larger group can curtail the rights of another group simply by voting? Brilliant! Why does someone else's definition of "wrong" have anything to do with me? They dont' get to impose their will on me regardless of how many people agree with them.

Noone is allowed to initiate force or harm on another. . .

If only there was a branch of government specifically designed to address issues of majority violating minority's rights. That would be something.

 

[ivwshane]

I think Rush had a very crude example of this....
100 people in a society, 75 men and 25 women. A majority vote was set to see if its lawful(ie not wrongful) for a man to rape a woman. It passed 70 to 30. Wow..

Yay, a democratic society decided what was "wrongful" and what isn't.
So a larger group can curtail the rights of another group simply by voting? Brilliant! Why does someone else's definition of "wrong" have anything to do with me? They dont' get to impose their will on me regardless of how many people agree with them.

Noone is allowed to initiate force or harm on another. . .

What your dumbass and that other uber dumbass don't understand is that our government has three branches, two of which have to oppertunity to block a law and one that can block it out right and would have ruled your stupid hypothetical as unconstitutional.


I do now understand why you feel you are a slave though, you've been listening to rush for so long that you have lost your ability to think for yourself.

Sometimes those that you think are opening your eyes to the real world are the ones that aren't allowing to see the real world.

You are a sad little sheep, you are a good sheep though

 

[Lithium381]

If only there was a branch of government specifically designed to address issues of majority violating minority's rights. That would be something.

If only they did their jobs, that would be something.

"I want to smoke pot at home once a month" sorry you can't do that cause a bunch of people said you can't.

"i want to try a new drug that canada offers to its cancer patients" sorry, there are laws against that because a bunch of people said you can't

"i want to marry my friend who happens to be the same gender as me" sorry you can't do that because a bunch of people said you can't

"i want to keep my income" sorry you can't do that because a bunch of other people said you can't.

 

[Lithium381]

What your dumbass and that other uber dumbass don't understand is that our government has three branches, two of which have to oppertunity to block a law and one that can block it out right and would have ruled your stupid hypothetical as unconstitutional.


I do now understand why you feel you are a slave though, you've been listening to rush for so long that you have lost your ability to think for yourself.

Sometimes those that you think are opening your eyes to the real world are the ones that aren't allowing to see the real world.

You are a sad little sheep, you are a good sheep though

I don't listen to rush, i just heard his clip because it "caused an outrage"..
lawful doesn't mean something is okay
constitutional doesn't mean something is okay

what if in my clip those branches of government agreed with the 70 people that voted yes? oops.

 

[senseamp]

If only they did their jobs, that would be something.

"I want to smoke pot at home once a month" sorry you can't do that cause a bunch of people said you can't.

"i want to try a new drug that canada offers to its cancer patients" sorry, there are laws against that because a bunch of people said you can't

"i want to marry my friend who happens to be the same gender as me" sorry you can't do that because a bunch of people said you can't

"i want to keep my income" sorry you can't do that because a bunch of other people said you can't.

You are proposing what changes to our system of government, specifically?

 

[Victorian Gray]

On a related note, I've lived in Canada for over 9 years now, and I have to say that if our new goal in America is to mimic their health care, may God have mercy on us. Not only is this 'free' health care so expensive because people abuse it, but the care itself is horrible. I offer health insurance to my workers that costs a lot and the coverages don't seem worth what I'm paying. I just waited 8 months for an MR I session, and am on month 9 waiting for a nuclear dye scan.
Hope this is helpful.

Our health care costs are *lower* than those of the United States. Our health care system has results that are the equal of any other major country in the world. In many basic health standards (like infant mortality rate) Canada ranks above the US while at the same time providing health insurance to every citizen/landed immigrant. The system has it's issues but overall, it's one of the better systems in the world.

Some basic information:

"Myth #5: Americans may pay more for health care, but they get better health care as a result.

Reality: Studies show that on average, Canadians are more likely to receive needed care quickly than Americans. Canadians get more physicians visits per capita than Americans, more immunizations, more hospital admissions, and more surgical procedures. A survey of 10 OECD countries showed that Canadians were the most satisfied with the care they received, while Americans were the least satisfied. In fact, Canadians are more than five times as likely to be satisfied with the health care they receive than Americans.

Infant mortality, maternal mortality, and life expectancy were worse in Canada than in the U.S. before the introduction of medicare. Canada's infant mortality rate is now only 70% of that in the U.S., while American women are almost twice as likely to die during childbirth as their Canadian counterparts. The average Canadian now lives two years longer than the average American.

Myth #4: Government-run health care programs are bureaucratic and inefficient. Introducing private health insurance and competition would make the system more efficient.
Reality: The evidence from all OECD countries shows that the private sector is far more bureaucratic and much less efficient than the public sector when it comes to providing health care.


The United States, which has the most privatized health care system of any OECD country, spends 14% of its GNP on health care, compared to 9% for Canada.


The U.S. pays $911 per person per year in administrative costs. Canada by contrast pays $270 per person.


The disproportion in insurance overhead costs is even more marked: insurance overhead per capita comes to $212 in the U.S., $34 in Canada. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts, a typical major insurer, employs 6680 people to administer insurance for 2 1/2 million customers, more than are employed to administer public health insurance for all 28 million Canadians.


When Germany recently shifted dental services from the public system to private insurance, administrative costs tripled from 5% to 15%."


http://www.diemer.ca/Docs/Diemer-TenHealthCareMyths.htm


I'm curious, after 9 years in the country are you either a citizen or landed immigrant?

 

[Victorian Gray]

bro, that hat is from the "scumbag steve" meme . . . look it up

So, a meme built on a white guy trying to look like a black guy 'rapper type' and then applied back to a black president of the United States doesn't have anything to do with race?

Ok, I'll take your word for it.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Quote: Originally Posted by brycejones View Post But he didn't personally consent to the Constitution so that makes him a slave.

bingo.

makes as much sense as this:

 

[TerryMathews]

So, a meme built on a white guy trying to look like a black guy 'rapper type' and then applied back to a black president of the United States doesn't have anything to do with race?

Ok, I'll take your word for it.

TIL wearing your hat backwards was exclusively a black thing.

 

[Victorian Gray]

TIL wearing your hat backwards was exclusively a black thing.

Sorry, TIL?

 

[TerryMathews]

Sorry, TIL?

Today I learned.

 

[Lithium381]

You are proposing what changes to our system of government, specifically?

that no individual, group of individuals or an agent of any individual or group of individuals not be allowed to violate the rights of another through the initiation of force or threat of force.

Force or the threat of force in response to the initiation of force against the rights of another is permissible.

 

[Lithium381]

So, a meme built on a white guy trying to look like a black guy 'rapper type' and then applied back to a black president of the United States doesn't have anything to do with race?

Ok, I'll take your word for it.

if you take off your racist glasses once in a while, the world is a much brighter place...

 

[senseamp]

that no individual, group of individuals or an agent of any individual or group of individuals not be allowed to violate the rights of another through the initiation of force or threat of force.

Force or the threat of force in response to the initiation of force against the rights of another is permissible.

You are familiar with the Constitutional Amendment process?

 

[Lithium381]

makes as much sense as this:

um.....

 

[Lithium381]

You are familiar with the Constitutional Amendment process?

Which again requires VOTING which benefits the majority. Again, if the majority can VOTE to violate the rights of the minority that's not freedom.

Even in Rush's situation, lets say the 30 "dissenters" asked for another vote to address their grievances and there was a system in place for a simple vote override that only needs 35 votes to repeal. . . and it came out 30(for repeal) to 70(against repeal).... well, sorry! See, there is a system in place. . . .sucks for you lol!