90% of all health care cost in US due to preventable illnesses

[PLC1]

No, you're just continuing to avoid the issue of morality.

Who gets to define what is and isn't "moral"?

What's the moral difference? Both resort to the threat, or use, of force to extract a value from an individual. How is forcibly taking money out of your wallet any morally different when done by a "collective", through taxation, than when done by a single individual through coercion?

The differences are (1) taxes are determined by elected representatives, at least in this country, and (2) the money collected is public and to be used for a public benefit, as opposed to whatever the street thugs have in mind for it.

Forcing me to pay for your HC, retirement, or home renovation is not a "collective benefit", it's a "benefit" to one specific individual at the expense of other individuals - it is a redistribution of wealth - a very specific concept that you're continuing to avoid addressing by constantly equating it with "collective" benefits. I'm pointing out that apples and bananas are two very different types of fruit, you're trying to claim that they aren't different at all because they're both fruit.

It is if your health care, education, fire, or police protection is also paid for. Home renovations are the responsibility of the home owner, of course, as this is not a collective benefit. Putting out your house fire is, especially if there is a chance it could spread to other properties.

In order for a society to actually be civilized, it must ban the initiation of the use of force from human relationships. That would be the moral thing to do, and until a society is moral, it cannot be considered civilized.

Can you name even one civilized society that doesn't pay for at least some things collectively?

Are you finally admitting that your views are ideological?

Perhaps. They are also practical, i.e., based in the real world and not some dystopian dreamworld.

 

[GenSeneca]

Who gets to define what is and isn't "moral"?

Go ahead and defend utilizing the use of force to extract a value from an individual as being moral. I can, and have, made the case that it is immoral.

The differences are (1) taxes are determined by elected representatives,

Perhaps you misunderstood the question: What is the moral difference between a lone thug and an elected gang of thugs? Both take my money by force, one does it with a gun and the other with the law, either way my money is being taken by force. Just because a legislature can make extortion legal when they do it, doesn't make it right.

the money collected is public and to be used for a public benefit...Home renovations are the responsibility of the home owner, of course, as this is not a collective benefit.

Your own personal HC, home, food, retirement, aren't "collective benefits" - they are a personal benefit, a "benefit" which you alone consume, and your "benefit" comes at the expense of everyone who is forced to pay for it.

Can you name even one civilized society that doesn't pay for at least some things collectively?

I can't name a single "civilized" society... Every single one has embraced, rather than banned, the use of force in human relationships.

Perhaps. They are also practical, i.e., based in the real world and not some dystopian dreamworld.

I desire a world where the use of force is banned from personal relationships, where coercion is replaced with volitional consent, a world where the practice of forcing individuals to sacrifice themselves for the good of the collective is replaced with mutually beneficial exchange. The fact that you find such a concept to be dystopian speaks to the immorality of your ideology.

That aside, I could argue that the ideological principle you ascribe to, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is anything but "practical", and I could do so using "real world" examples to support my argument, but your attempts at moving the discussion away from the immorality of your ideology to an utilitarian argument for your ideology is a red herring.

 

[PLC1]

Go ahead and defend utilizing the use of force to extract a value from an individual as being moral. I can, and have, made the case that it is immoral.


Perhaps you misunderstood the question: What is the moral difference between a lone thug and an elected gang of thugs? Both take my money by force, one does it with a gun and the other with the law, either way my money is being taken by force. Just because a legislature can make extortion legal when they do it, doesn't make it right.


Your own personal HC, home, food, retirement, aren't "collective benefits" - they are a personal benefit, a "benefit" which you alone consume, and your "benefit" comes at the expense of everyone who is forced to pay for it.


I can't name a single "civilized" society... Every single one has embraced, rather than banned, the use of force in human relationships.


I desire a world where the use of force is banned from personal relationships, where coercion is replaced with volitional consent, a world where the practice of forcing individuals to sacrifice themselves for the good of the collective is replaced with mutually beneficial exchange. The fact that you find such a concept to be dystopian speaks to the immorality of your ideology.

That aside, I could argue that the ideological principle you ascribe to, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is anything but "practical", and I could do so using "real world" examples to support my argument, but your attempts at moving the discussion away from the immorality of your ideology to an utilitarian argument for your ideology is a red herring.

There is no society in which collective payment is made by "volitional consent", because such a system does not work.
Marx's idea of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" doesn't work either. That's why no society uses that model, either.

 

[GenSeneca]

There is no society in which collective payment is made by "volitional consent", because such a system does not work.

Did you mean to say "collective payment"?

We have several examples of taxation that are entirely volitional. For example, the state lotteries raise billions in federal, state, and local revenues and the people who play the lottery do so voluntarily. That is one "tax" I really like because those "taxpayers" at least have a shot of winning big (it's a really crappy shot but the odds of winning millions just for paying your income/capital gains/FICA taxes is zero).

I don't have a choice whether or not I pay FICA, the Progressive Income Tax, or the Capital Gains Tax, I'm forced to pay those. Those are all "legal" forms of extortion and that use of force is immoral.

Now, I'm fine with taxing non-essential goods via sales taxes or other forms of a consumption tax, just so long as an individual could realistically avoid paying any kind of taxes and still be able to live a good life without fear of losing his life, liberty, or property to the State as punishment for not paying taxes.

The claim that government could not be run without taking money from it's citizens by force is twisted, you're arguing that the very existence of government necessitates that it be funded by immoral means. Government is a necessary evil, you say? Yes - government is necessary, but it isn't necessary for government to resort to evil (immoral) means for it's existence, we could choose to have a government funded exclusively by moral means.

Marx's idea of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" doesn't work either. That's why no society uses that model, either.

That's the principle you're arguing in favor of using, that's the principle that serves as the ideological foundation of every welfare state in the world.

You think everyone should be forced by government to have health care insurance. You do not, and cannot, dispute the fact that under such a system, those with less need and greater ability (the healthy and prosperous) will be forced to subsidize, or fully cover, the cost of those with the greatest need (the unhealthy, the poor, and/or the indigent).

Whether you realize it or not, whether you admit it or not, the policy you support is a real world application of Marx's principle to the issue of health care.

 

[Dr.Who]

That's precisely what is needed: Insurance against unforeseen and catastrophic costs, with the patient paying for ordinary care. Such a system would be orders of magnitude less expensive than what we have now. It would even be less expensive than what most of the rest of the world has. We could really have the best health care system in the world, as some say we have, instead of just the most expensive. Insurance that is really insurance, and not a pre paid health care plan, should apply to everyone equally. If anyone wants a pre paid plan, let them pay for it themselves, and not expect the employer or the government to pick up the tab.

As it is now, the patient who pays and has no insurance pays triple what an insurance company or government program will pay. It's that billing structure more than anything else that makes health care insurance so critical.

There is so much truth in there that it is worth replying to just to see it stated again.

What I don't follow is the person with no insurance paying triple. How is that? Oh wait I get it now. yes the insurance companies negotiate for better prices but the individual cannot do that. I am sure that happens in many instances. Although I recently experienced a situation in which that did not happen. I dropped a vial of insulin and needed another one. The insurance company rightly refused to buy me another since it was me who dropped it. The pharmacy charged me $143 for one vial but did tell me that the insurance company pays them the same amount. After a bit of maneuvering I managed to get a refund for the cost of the vial and the diabetes clinic plans to give me a sample to make up for the lost bottle. I am not even poor and this all is working out. Now if I were poor it would work out much better.

 

[Dr.Who]

In order for a society to actually be civilized, it must ban the initiation of the use of force from human relationships. That would be the moral thing to do, and until a society is moral, it cannot be considered civilized.

Tell us more about how this society would work without coercive taxation. Would necessary but unpopular causes be funded? Would there still be force to stop crime?

I am open to being persuaded but we would need to amend the const and what would the repercussions be? What other areas of the const would need to be changed?

 

[Dr.Who]

That ship has already sailed... SCOTUS no longer recognizes any constitutional limitations on taxation or spending. It's a free for all, just get enough street thugs together and vote yourself whatever "benefit" you want at your neighbors expense.

Are there limits on taxing in the const? If a very expensive war were being waged and it required the absolute confiscation of all wealth to fund is the const against that? Which clause?

 

[Dr.Who]

There is no society in which collective payment is made by "volitional consent", because such a system does not work..

Evidence? The lack of such a society may simply point to the depraved nature of mankind rather than a fault in the system. The question for GenSenica is: can a depraved people make such a system work? I have no doubt a moral people can.

The way I see it such a system has not been proven not to work nor to work. But clearly it is worth trying to achieve. One example that comes to mind is the early church in which all gave as they desired. There was even an example of a couple that did not give and lied about their motive. They were punished (not by the group) for the lie and not for the lack of giving. There was no coercion to give and it worked for how long?. Why did it stop existing?

 

[PLC1]

There is so much truth in there that it is worth replying to just to see it stated again.

What I don't follow is the person with no insurance paying triple. How is that? Oh wait I get it now. yes the insurance companies negotiate for better prices but the individual cannot do that. I am sure that happens in many instances. Although I recently experienced a situation in which that did not happen. I dropped a vial of insulin and needed another one. The insurance company rightly refused to buy me another since it was me who dropped it. The pharmacy charged me $143 for one vial but did tell me that the insurance company pays them the same amount. After a bit of maneuvering I managed to get a refund for the cost of the vial and the diabetes clinic plans to give me a sample to make up for the lost bottle. I am not even poor and this all is working out. Now if I were poor it would work out much better.

I'm basing the statement that the uninsured pay triple on having reviewed several explanation of medical benefits papers received from health care providers. Routinely, the charges are exorbitant, but then the insurance pays a portion, the patient (that's me) pays a portion, and most of the bill is "written off", meaning that the charges were unjustified and unnecessary to begin with. The provider can't, after all, collect a third of necessary charges. If they did, they'd be losing money.

 

[PLC1]

Evidence? The lack of such a society may simply point to the depraved nature of mankind rather than a fault in the system. The question for GenSenica is: can a depraved people make such a system work? I have no doubt a moral people can.

The way I see it such a system has not been proven not to work nor to work. But clearly it is worth trying to achieve. One example that comes to mind is the early church in which all gave as they desired. There was even an example of a couple that did not give and lied about their motive. They were punished (not by the group) for the lie and not for the lack of giving. There was no coercion to give and it worked for how long?. Why did it stop existing?

There's an interesting parallel in what you are saying.

A Marxian utopia in which everyone strives to produce as much as possible for the good of society without regard to personal gain would work, were mankind "moral" to the point of putting others ahead of themselves.

A GenSenican utopia, in which people contributed voluntarily to the collective, i.e., paid taxes voluntarily with no coercion, would work under the same circumstances.

Unfortunately for both utopias, human beings tend to be selfish and therefore more motivated by individual gain than by the good of human beings at large.

Which is why some force is required to get people to pay enough taxes to keep government running, why socialism doesn't work, and why a police force is necessary for a functioning society.

 

[dogtowner]

I'm basing the statement that the uninsured pay triple on having reviewed several explanation of medical benefits papers received from health care providers. Routinely, the charges are exorbitant, but then the insurance pays a portion, the patient (that's me) pays a portion, and most of the bill is "written off", meaning that the charges were unjustified and unnecessary to begin with. The provider can't, after all, collect a third of necessary charges. If they did, they'd be losing money.

of course ins cos pay less because they DO psy and in a predictably timely manner. people not mecessarily so. its a risk premium.
nxt time you are left holding the bill offer cash and negotiate for the ins rate.

 

[PLC1]

of course ins cos pay less because they DO psy and in a predictably timely manner. people not mecessarily so. its a risk premium.
nxt time you are left holding the bill offer cash and negotiate for the ins rate.

Of course it's because not everyone pays. That's why everyone should be covered.
You can possibly offer cash and negotiate, sometimes. It doesn't always work, however.

BTW, are you suddenly typing from your phone, or from some sort of unconventional keyboard?

 

[Dr.Who]

There's an interesting parallel in what you are saying.

A Marxian utopia in which everyone strives to produce as much as possible for the good of society without regard to personal gain would work, were mankind "moral" to the point of putting others ahead of themselves.

A GenSenican utopia, in which people contributed voluntarily to the collective, i.e., paid taxes voluntarily with no coercion, would work under the same circumstances.

Unfortunately for both utopias, human beings tend to be selfish and therefore more motivated by individual gain than by the good of human beings at large.

Which is why some force is required to get people to pay enough taxes to keep government running, why socialism doesn't work, and why a police force is necessary for a functioning society.

I disagree that the gensenican utopia is unworkable. if people were contributing merely for the good of others then yes, but in capitalism people participate for their own benefit yet everyone comes out a winner. The fourth of july show in my town is an example. It is based totally on voluntary contributions and anyone who does not donate can still see the show. yet there is always enough money to put on a pretty darn good show. Why do people donate? Not because they want others to see the show? More likely because they themeslves want to see the show.

 

[GenSeneca]

Tell us more about how this society would work without coercive taxation.

Well "society" works just fine with private sector companies who cannot force you to purchase their goods or services. I think your real question is how would government work without coercive taxation, and my answer would be - The same way the private sector works.

The statists have ground it into everyone's head that government owns us, that everything we have or will ever create is the property of our government (society, the collective) and it's only because of how benevolent our government is that we get to keep anything of what we worked for and produced for ourselves.

We The People, not as a collective but as individuals, have an inalienable right to our own lives, our own liberty, our own property, and our own pursuit of happiness. Government exists to protect those rights, not to violate them. A government has nothing of it's own, it only has what We The People choose to give it, not what it chooses to take from us. Those principles have all been turned upside down and reversing government's choice to initiate the use of force against it's citizens would correct that.

Would necessary but unpopular causes be funded?

I guess that depends on what you consider "necessary". I would consider only those most basic functions of government as being "necessary", the purpose for government's existence - To protect our rights - which means police, courts, prisons, and enough of a military to defend the continental United States. Looking at the FY 2012 budget I only consider about 18% of the budget is "necessary" by that standard. (I have even included many additional items, like fire protection, just for the sake of simplicity)

Protection: 2%
General Government: 1%
Defense: 9% (this includes veteran services)
Debt service: 6%
Total: 18% of the current budget
Cost: $683.2 billion
Revenue: $2.468 Trillion
Surplus: $1,785.392 Trillion

That is, of course, hypothetical and subjective but if we actually reduced government down to the absolute minimum basics it could easily be funded entirely through volitional means.

For what it's worth... Imagine our debt were a surplus, that we'd been accumulating wealth rather than debt all these years... first of all debt service would not be an expense in the budget and using our surplus as a sovereign wealth fund to invest with a modest rate of 5% annual return, we'd have $800 billion in revenue BEFORE collecting any taxes. With my above budget, minus debt service outlays, the cost would be $458.4 billion, giving us a surplus of $341.6 billion without collecting ANY taxes.

I realize all of that is fodder for those who want to denigrate my ideas as wishful thinking but the logic is sound. The use of surplus monies to accumulate and grow wealth works for individuals and it would work for the government as well. Just as massive deficit spending by an individual inevitably leads to disaster, so too will it lead to disaster when done by our government. Those who claim that we can continue to accumulate debt and never face the consequences are the ones engaged in wishful thinking.

Would there still be force to stop crime?

Yes. When I mention banning the use of force, I'm talking about banning the initiation of the use of force but I often leave that off just to simplify the concept: No person or group, not even the government, is allowed to initiate the use of force against others.

The role of government is to stop and/or punish those who do initiate the use of force (or fraud). Government's "right" to do this is simply an extension of your own individual right to self defense, you have a right to defend yourself against the use of force but you do not have the right to initiate the use of force against others. Our government derives its rights to act from our individual rights, it does not possess any rights that we as individuals do not have.

I am open to being persuaded but we would need to amend the const and what would the repercussions be? What other areas of the const would need to be changed?

I have to disagree with your premise that we would have to amend the constitution. Our constitution authorizes government, through congress, to lay and collect taxes. This authorization should not be confused as an obligation. There is nothing in the Constitution that would prevent government from choosing NOT to lay or collect taxes for any of the items listed under article I section 8, same is true with any spending we do beyond that which is outlined in that section. Congress chooses what to tax and how much that tax should be, it chooses what to spend that money on as well, there is nothing in our constitution that says the government cannot choose to NOT do those things.

President Obama even complained about the fact that our constitution is a charter of negative liberties, that it outlined what government must not do to you but didn't actually say what it must do for you, it doesn't actually require the government to do anything. Our constitution was designed so that if you wanted to have government do something that it wasn't specifically authorized to do through article I section 8, then you'd have to get an amendment. No amendment is required for Congress to choose not to do something.

 

[GenSeneca]

Are there limits on taxing in the const? If a very expensive war were being waged and it required the absolute confiscation of all wealth to fund is the const against that? Which clause?

Article I section 8 specifies what government is authorized to lay and collect taxes for... Universal HC, and the rest of the welfare state, is not among the items listed.