Well if you knew that I was “desperately trying to counter the good news coming out about the ACA that was posted in #302”, then you shouldn’t have subsequently pretended that I was “posting this to imply that union workers are going to start voting republican now as a result of this”.
Unless you don’t really have any firm thoughts about any of this and just grab whatever seems to be handy at the time you make your post.
This is definitely a strong vision to have for America, and one that I often share as well. However, it’s not very quantitative, and is hard to provide concrete evidence that the “costs” associated with the “erosion of American values” (paraphrase) outweigh the benefits of an additional 20 million (or whatever the number is now) people having health insurance that enables them to stay fit, healthy, and able to work, thereby being productive members of a society that rewards people who are able to do that.
I suspect that you do not take “Even though I don’t have any evidence, I feel it is bad for America, therefore I’m against it” as a constructive argument against things you are in favor of.
Who cares if they engage in frivolous utilization - they are paying for it. Are there any other reasons to penalize high cost plans?
You’re only capable of holding one motivation in your mind at any given time?
That’s pretty weird.
But they’re not paying for it. The whole point of these super-generous plans is that the plans predominantly pay for it and not them. And from the broader health care spending picture that’s a problem - the people making the decisions about utilization don’t have enough skin in the game.
It’s not impossible, but once you know someone has one motivation it’s odd to just attribute to them another which is unconnected to the context of the discussion. Unless you’re just looking to score a cheap point. Or you’ve simply lost track of the discussion. Or both.
Employers or plan sponsors who are paying the other portion of the costs are making the decisions and are voluntary paying for it. Their money, their choice. But in this case they are being penalized. Why is it in the government’s interest to intercede in a transaction between private individuals in this fashion with a huge penalty? It’s not like there is substandard care or coverage, the argument seems to be it’s too good? It makes no sense.
Because society as a whole can’t overspend on health care with no penalty. In the big picture, the resources come out of somewhere.
Yes, their earnings. This isn’t a government transfer payment. It seems like it basically that folks don’t like it that people can afford to pay for stuff. Or as Terr put it, envy. I was hoping there was more substantive reasoning.
The problem with debates here is that no one concedes a point; they simply shift to another line of questioning.
I realize it was Cheesesteak’s commentary about compassion that started this sub-thread, and not an assertion of yours, but I’d like to clear up the compassion thing before moving on to quantitative or qualitative weights assigned to the erosion of American values.
Well, there a few of us weirdos who think maybe having money be the determining factor in a person’s well being is not the best idea. If you want to think that is founded in envy, you are free to do so, how could we prove otherwise? As a nation, we tend to idolize ambition and its ugly sister, greed. We lose track of the fact that only rats win rat-races.
If you insist on an amorally practical argument, keep in mind that healthy workers are more productive and also, better consumers for the loud, shiny crap we are so intensely fond of.
Which “American values”? Tom Joad or John Galt?
In your rush for clever quips, did you forget to read what you were responding to?
People are being penalized for paying too much for the health insurance. That’s disincentivizing people getting more care, not less. It’s like putting a sin tax on private insurance. What is the rationale for a sin tax on private insurance?
Don’t I have to agree with your analogy before I am compelled to defend it? Seems only fair.
Thomas Smythe and Thomas West of the Virginia Company of London.
But I’m not surprised to see you look for guidance from fictional characters.
http://www.nps.gov/jame/historyculture/the-virginia-company-of-london.htm
Good pick. Sure showed me! Though I can well imagine how sending people off to starve somewhere appeals to the Republican mindset. Demanding that they offer a profit just seals the deal.
That’s a fair point.
In my view, if someone doesn’t give money to a beggar on the street, that doesn’t mean they lack compassion for that person. I see at least 10 homeless people here in DC outside my building every day, and I don’t give them all money or cigarettes. That doesn’t mean I lack compassion for them, but I can’t help everybody by giving every homeless person on the street money.
However, if my taxes were going to go up $1 a year, just to provide a homeless shelter for 100 people, I would lack compassion for them if my reasoning was “They should be helping themselves” or “Just giving people food and shelter will erode American values” And, yes, there would probably be a tipping point in tax costs at which point I would no longer be inclined to do it. However, I’m not sure what that point is, nor do I think I could derive it for such a simple hypothetical.
Now, if I had a better plan for my $1 a year in taxes, that I felt could help the homeless even more, and I was able to articulate that plan with concrete implementation details, then I wouldn’t lack compassion, I would just feel I had a better way to spend my money.
That’s my thoughts on compassion, yours may vary, obviously, since, as I’ve seen you state many times, morality varies by person.
But it’s not just their earnings. Most of it is from the earnings of other people.
And that’s the crux of the issue for insurance. Each individual person is maximizing his or her own benefit by utilizing health care based on their own out-of-pocket costs. But since the majority is picked up by other people - either their employer, or the employee contributions of their fellow employees - they are passing most of the cost on to other people. And if a big percentage of people do the same thing for the same rationale, the overall added costs are significant.
Essentially each person acting on his own interests in his own situation results in a situation where overall everyone is worse off. (There is probably some sort of game theory economic principle discussing this more formally, but the general idea is pretty straightforward.)
It such situations it’s appropriate for the government to attempt to structure the rules so as to make the cost-benefit equation for individuals more closely mirror that of society as a whole.
And that’s exactly where the other issues become significant.
Is it really $1 for 100 people? Or maybe it’s $100 for 1 person? Both the costs and benefits of various proposed schemes are usually very much in dispute.
The point is that some have attempted to portray the mere fact that someone would get a benefit as settling the issue, such that anyone who opposes such a scheme therefore lacks compassion. You would presumably agree that this does not automatically follow.
So what. It’s their money. They should be able to spend it wisely or frivolously as they choose. At each hop you describe above as other people, the employer, the fellow employee contributions, etc., you are describing people voluntarily paying for a service they want.
How many other legal goods are discouraged the more you buy? You want broccoli, no problem, $1/lb. Oh, you want 10 lbs? That will be $15! At the same time we are encouraging everyone to have health insurance and eliminating so called sub-standard plans, we are discouraging high value plans. It’s a race to the mediocre. I understand but don’t agree with putting the floor in place. Putting a ceiling in place is baffling.
The costs and benefits of various proposed programs (I hesitate to call them ‘schemes’) would of course be something that would be debated, with actual facts and studies and projected outcomes and such. But such a debate breaks down with tactics that attack a debater’s values, without first proving your OWN case for the benefits of the program. And saying “It’s better, 'cause it helps people” is not really an argument that tends to be effective.
However, I do think that someone, without evaluating the costs/benefits of a program, automatically dismisses it because it looks like a ‘hand-out’ or ‘people getting something without working for it’ or ‘proposed by the party I am not a member of’ does indeed lack compassion for the people that the program will help. Someone working out AND SHOWING that the costs (concrete costs that can be measured and displayed) outweigh the benefits and basing their decision on that, then, no, they would not lack compassion by being against the program.