Obamacare succeeding

[Shadow Wolf]

Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom

From your source--which comes from a source that claims poor people aren't poor because they have a coffee pot, refrigerator, and video game console (unspecified which one)--there is this about economic freedom:
Economic freedom is the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property.
If Canada scores high on this, it would be because they have higher wages, better social-safety nets, basic health care is met, education is not as expensive, because having these things gives people more power to choose. However, these things are more heavily socialized, which violates Libertarian ideals about the free-market and liberty. Not unless your approach to Libertarianism is leaning further to the left. But there is definitely a widespread consensus among American Libertarians that taxes, if they are to even exist at all, should be used only for a varying degree of necessities, and ideally the free market should be allowed to step in and handle pretty much everything. Some libertarians even believe the entire military and all other defense-apparatuses should be privatized.
Canada's system, on many levels, is an offense to a broad range of libertarians that fall somewhere into the right-winged area that are the brands of American Libertarianism, Thatcher/Reagan, Randian, Miltonian, and Koch. It is probably that many of the heavy fees and taxes of various corporate-lead legislation of various sorts that small businesses struggle to pay but are easily afforded by big business that are rampant in America is probably another reason.
But, anyways, the question still stands is how does such public spending promote the ideals of right-winged free-market Libertarianism, which very often promotes the idea that taxes and social spending violate ones liberties, and is the state deciding what to do with your money? Take education, for example. It's practically a given that those on the left promote state-funded education that incurs no out-of-pocket expenses for the student, while on the other hand, there is no given answer with right-winged libertarianism because the answer varies, and often greatly, as to what extent the government should provide its citizens education. It seems that only a few right-wing libertarians would support public spending to the degree Canada has, when so many libertarians do not believe health care is a right, which is something that Canada decided is a right.

 

[Revoltingest]

You wasn't, but I was asking it.

Well, I'd prefer that as much money as possible remain in the hands of taxpayers, rather than taking & then returning it in the form which government thinks best. This would keep government smaller, less costly, & less intrusive. Bear in mind that this is a general philosophy which does not apply to all things to the same degree. Is there a particular issue which interests you?

 

[Revoltingest]

From your source--which comes from a source that claims poor people aren't poor because they have a coffee pot, refrigerator, and video game console (unspecified which one)--there is this about economic freedom:
Economic freedom is the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property.
If Canada scores high on this, it would be because they have higher wages, better social-safety nets, basic health care is met, education is not as expensive, because having these things gives people more power to choose. However, these things are more heavily socialized, which violates Libertarian ideals about the free-market and liberty. Not unless your approach to Libertarianism is leaning further to the left. But there is definitely a widespread consensus among American Libertarians that taxes, if they are to even exist at all, should be used only for a varying degree of necessities, and ideally the free market should be allowed to step in and handle pretty much everything. Some libertarians even believe the entire military and all other defense-apparatuses should be privatized.
Canada's system, on many levels, is an offense to a broad range of libertarians that fall somewhere into the right-winged area that are the brands of American Libertarianism, Thatcher/Reagan, Randian, Miltonian, and Koch. It is probably that many of the heavy fees and taxes of various corporate-lead legislation of various sorts that small businesses struggle to pay but are easily afforded by big business that are rampant in America is probably another reason.
But, anyways, the question still stands is how does such public spending promote the ideals of right-winged free-market Libertarianism, which very often promotes the idea that taxes and social spending violate ones liberties, and is the state deciding what to do with your money? Take education, for example. It's practically a given that those on the left promote state-funded education that incurs no out-of-pocket expenses for the student, while on the other hand, there is no given answer with right-winged libertarianism because the answer varies, and often greatly, as to what extent the government should provide its citizens education. It seems that only a few right-wing libertarians would support public spending to the degree Canada has, when so many libertarians do not believe health care is a right, which is something that Canada decided is a right.

There are complexities with issues, even for us simple Libertarians.
(It's because we're all different people too.)

We like (not an exhaustive list):
Free market capitalism.
Self defense.
Freedom from coercion (private or government)
Privacy.
Self sufficiency.
Representative constitutional government
Small government
Useful (but minimal) regulation
Low taxes
Peaceful society
A fair justice system

Some of the above goals are at odds with others, eg, self defense of the country requires a military & taxes. Adding to the complexity is the political reality that Libertarians will always be a minority, & never see our agenda fully implemented. The most we can hope for is to see the majority determined solutions lean more in a Libertarian direction than not.

What might this mean in our current situation?
Let's examine health care....
There's no question that we're heading towards universal health care. What systems look best? Obamacare is complex (bureaucratic mess), expensive, punitive (to some), & less than universal. The Canuckistanian system is better, but doesn't allow consumers to purchase more than the minimum government imposed level of service. A more Libertarian system than either would be single payer which allows optional (for a fee) optional &/or services, eg, concierge health care.
The above isn't "Librertarian", but it is more so than politically possible alternatives, & it's achievable.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Well, I'd prefer that as much money as possible remain in the hands of taxpayers, rather than taking & then returning it in the form which government thinks best. This would keep government smaller, less costly, & less intrusive. Bear in mind that this is a general philosophy which does not apply to all things to the same degree. Is there a particular issue which interests you?

Would you agree that a single payer system that was less than half of the cost of the current system and could resonably get by without actually raising taxes release a huge burden off of taxpayers and allow them to re-allot the 17% of money they spend on healthcare to anything else? I mean that would be a massive boost in everything. Companies would no longer have to spend money on health insurance so they could either make more profit, give different benefits (double vacation days or something) or pass that onto the employees as a massive increase to their paychecks a month. It would also reduce costs for those who work in the healthcare system. They could reduce the amount of administrative staff needed and wouldn't have to worry or over charge for potentially unpaid bills as the government should be pretty steady on that.

All in all it would boost our economy by a metric buttload and give far more money into the hands of taxpayers. Then we can work on removing a lot of welfare systems because with healthcare as a primary tool for keeping the public healthy. A person making 10 dollars an hour that no longer has to have their work pay health insurance will on average allow nearly 20% of an increase in their paycheck and there is now zero negative incentive to hiring full time. So now the part time worker that made 10 dollars an hour makes 12 or higher full time. Their monthly income went from 800 a month to 1600 a month. They wouldn't even need food stamps then unless they had like three children.

 

[Revoltingest]

Would you agree that a single payer system that was less than half of the cost of the current system and could resonably get by without actually raising taxes release a huge burden off of taxpayers and allow them to re-allot the 17% of money they spend on healthcare to anything else? I mean that would be a massive boost in everything. Companies would no longer have to spend money on health insurance so they could either make more profit, give different benefits (double vacation days or something) or pass that onto the employees as a massive increase to their paychecks a month. It would also reduce costs for those who work in the healthcare system. They could reduce the amount of administrative staff needed and wouldn't have to worry or over charge for potentially unpaid bills as the government should be pretty steady on that.

All in all it would boost our economy by a metric buttload and give far more money into the hands of taxpayers. Then we can work on removing a lot of welfare systems because with healthcare as a primary tool for keeping the public healthy. A person making 10 dollars an hour that no longer has to have their work pay health insurance will on average allow nearly 20% of an increase in their paycheck and there is now zero negative incentive to hiring full time. So now the part time worker that made 10 dollars an hour makes 12 or higher full time. Their monthly income went from 800 a month to 1600 a month. They wouldn't even need food stamps then unless they had like three children.

Taxes would have to increase to pay for it (since gov won't reduce other spending to compensate), so it's not clear if it would be much of an economic boon. I also don't see a 50% reduction in cost. I'd even expect that coverage for many new consumers would actually increase the overall cost, but with the benefit of servicing the previously unserviced.
If carried out competently (still an open question), & with legal concierge health care, it has the potential to be better than Obamacare.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Taxes would have to increase to pay for it (since gov won't reduce other spending to compensate), so it's not clear if it would be much of an economic boon. I also don't see a 50% reduction in cost. I'd even expect that coverage for many new consumers would actually increase the overall cost, but with the benefit of servicing the previously unserviced.
If carried out competently (still an open question), & with legal concierge health care, it has the potential to be better than Obamacare.

I personally don't think there is any question it that such a system would blow Obamacare out of the water. The current estimate after years of research is that it would reduce overall costs by around 40% in the first few years and then more over the following years to an unknown bottom level. We currently already pay for 40% of all healthcare costs. We would only need to cover about 50% more than what we already cover and that could easily be reduced if we lowered some spending. And if we totally removed Obamacare we could probably cover another bit of that 20% from subsidies in general. Though I'd have to number crunch again since the 40% estimate drop in costs was prior to Obamacare's implementation and we may actually pay far more if we include the subsidies.

 

[metis]

On the national news about a week ago, they said there's already been a significant drop in those who are poor rushing into emergency rooms, often for just relatively minor ailments. Also, the CBO projection of cost has been significantly lowered. And finally, poll numbers have been shifting to the point whereas most now accept the ACA, even though there's often serious reservations about some aspects of it.

It's at the point right now whereas many of the Republicans running for the presidency in 2016 may be reluctant to parrot some of their own comrads in calling for the dismantling of "Obamacare".

 

[Revoltingest]

I personally don't think there is any question it that such a system would blow Obamacare out of the water.

Never underestimate government's ability to take a good concept & wreck it.

The current estimate after years of research is that it would reduce overall costs by around 40% in the first few years and then more over the following years to an unknown bottom level. We currently already pay for 40% of all healthcare costs. We would only need to cover about 50% more than what we already cover and that could easily be reduced if we lowered some spending. And if we totally removed Obamacare we could probably cover another bit of that 20% from subsidies in general. Though I'd have to number crunch again since the 40% estimate drop in costs was prior to Obamacare's implementation and we may actually pay far more if we include the subsidies.

Research on a proposed change should be taken with a grain of salt. I don't know who did it, what agenda they have, what assumptions they made, or how comprehensive it is.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Never underestimate government's ability to take a good concept & wreck it.

Have you ever looked into other governments besides our own? Not all are bumbling failures.

Research on a proposed change should be taken with a grain of salt. I don't know who did it, what agenda they have, what assumptions they made, or how comprehensive it is.

There have been several studies. This was the one that had the most weight behind it since it was a federal research group that hopefully didn't have an agenda one way or the other. It was totally ignored anyway so it was probably a waste of money to do it. But now we know. There have been liberal leaning sources that state the savings would be somewhere around 60% and the conservative sources somewhere around 30% . But unanimously both have concluded significant savings.

 

[Revoltingest]

Have you ever looked into other governments besides our own? Not all are bumbling failures.

Yes, but we're stuck with the government we have....

There have been several studies. This was the one that had the most weight behind it since it was a federal research group that hopefully didn't have an agenda one way or the other. It was totally ignored anyway so it was probably a waste of money to do it. But now we know. There have been liberal leaning sources that state the savings would be somewhere around 60% and the conservative sources somewhere around 30% . But unanimously both have concluded significant savings.

Trust a federal study about a proposed federal program which claims fabulous efficiency?
The military & VA system come to mind.

I'll let McKayla Maroney express my skepticism....

I say great potential is there for savings, but it would be no slam dunk here.
Moreover, if Hillary wins in November, we might see her proposed version, which would make private care illegal.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Yes, but we're stuck with the government we have....

Trust a federal study about a proposed federal program which claims fabulous efficiency?
The military & VA system come to mind.

I'll let McKayla Maroney express my skepticism....

I say great potential is there for savings, but it would be no slam dunk here.
Moreover, if Hillary wins in November, we might see her proposed version, which would make private care illegal.

Allow me to sumerize the issue.

Government has the potential to do great things but you are afraid of allow it. The private sector has zero ability to compete with what government can do but what the hell lets give'em a shot.

 

[Revoltingest]

Allow me to sumerize the issue.

Government has the potential to do great things but you are afraid of allow it. The private sector has zero ability to compete with what government can do but what the hell lets give'em a shot.

Tis good to be afraid of a massive new federal program.
Fear inspires caution & thoughtful consideration.
That's better than rushing into it with inadequate design.
But the private sector can compete....it just hasn't been all that private, & it has been getting less so.
Even with single payer, I'd still want the option of a separate private system.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Tis good to be afraid of a massive new federal program.
Fear inspires caution & thoughtful consideration.
That's better than rushing into it with inadequate design.
But the private sector can compete....it just hasn't been all that private, & it has been getting less so.
Even with single payer, I'd still want the option of a separate private system.

You could still have health insurances and there are still several different types of medical doctors that would be paid via regular cash on the private sector rather than public sector. In canada such doctors as private care physicians for wealthy individuals or for certain groups are often not paid for via the single payer system. And I don't know to what degree Canada provides dental and mental health.

 

[Wirey]

Tis good to be afraid of a massive new federal program.
Fear inspires caution & thoughtful consideration.
That's better than rushing into it with inadequate design.
But the private sector can compete....it just hasn't been all that private, & it has been getting less so.
Even with single payer, I'd still want the option of a separate private system.

There is no design phase. There are several socialized versions out there for comparison. Copy the one you think is best. Every civilized nation on earth has socialized health care except for the US. This is not rocket science, it is where you'll have to end up eventually.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is no design phase. There are several socialized versions out there for comparison. Copy the one you think is best. Every civilized nation on earth has socialized health care except for the US. This is not rocket science, it is where you'll have to end up eventually.

I agree about copying the best. But changes are inevitable, & that means there's a design phase.
It's not rocket science....it's much more complicated than that.

A possible approach.
- Copy Canuckistan.
- Hire Chinese Communist aparatchiks to run it.
- Let the Japanese cater it.
- Let the Porsche make the ambulances.

The risks are that the fed might.....
- Let the VA & the IRS jointly run it.
- Hire the French for customer service.
- Let the Brits cater it.
- Let Trabant make the ambulances

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I agree about copying the best. But changes are inevitable, & that means there's a design phase.
It's not rocket science....it's much more complicated than that.

A possible approach.
- Copy Canuckistan.
- Hire Chinese Communist aparatchiks to run it.
- Let the Japanese cater it.
- Let the Porsche make the ambulances.

The risks are that the fed might.....
- Let the VA & the IRS jointly run it.
- Hire the French for customer service.
- Let the Brits cater it.
- Let Trabant make the ambulances

The only one that seems remotely possible even for our government is copying Canuckistan. The rest seems a bit paranoid.

 

[Revoltingest]

The only one that seems remotely possible even for our government is copying Canuckistan. The rest seems a bit paranoid.

But it's fun paranoia!

 

[Monk Of Reason]

But it's fun paranoia!

I can't argue with that I suppose.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, I'd prefer that as much money as possible remain in the hands of taxpayers, rather than taking & then returning it in the form which government thinks best. This would keep government smaller, less costly, & less intrusive. Bear in mind that this is a general philosophy which does not apply to all things to the same degree. Is there a particular issue which interests you?

It's the issue that right-wing Libertarians typically are largely and generally opposed to the sorts of social spending Canada does. The Koch brothers are not the only ones who want to do away with taxes, which would effectively end all social spending. Many tie social spending to the GPD. Free-markets are very typically the answer, and social-spending and taxes are generally opposed, but also generally acknowledged, sometimes with gritting teeth and clenched fists as they pay taxes for them.
Canada just does not seem like the ideal set-up for a right-winged free-market Libertarian.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's the issue that right-wing Libertarians typically are largely and generally opposed to the sorts of social spending Canada does. The Koch brothers are not the only ones who want to do away with taxes, which would effectively end all social spending. Many tie social spending to the GPD. Free-markets are very typically the answer, and social-spending and taxes are generally opposed, but also generally acknowledged, sometimes with gritting teeth and clenched fists as they pay taxes for them.
Canada just does not seem like the ideal set-up for a right-winged free-market Libertarian.

First, in the English language, there's only "libertarian".
We favor both social & economic liberty.
Anyone who would deny either ain't one of us.
RF's goofy ancient Eurotrashistanian definitions be damned!

Now....I'm largely opposed to social spending.
As I've proposed before, I prefer to give every citizen $10K/year to do with as they please.
Then the welfare state can be far far smaller.