Just when you thought it could not get worse. CBO report #2 out.

[Daelak]

I have no desire to be a slave, or a warlord. Both sound like horrible things to be. I don't have an intense desire to legislate my beliefs upon others, or have them legislate their beliefs upon me.

People should be responsible for their own decisions, and should not seek to force other people to pay for the things that they happen to want.

Doesn't exist in any developed society on Earth. Try South Sudan.

[Machismo]

No amount of bullshit spin and excuse making will change the fact that, contrary to GOP lies, the technical problems at the start had no lasting effect and that first year enrollments were above projections.

Enrollments reached a record high in 2016, and enrollments for 2017 are almost the same. So no, there's no collapse although it is being sabotaged by Trump.

As for premiums hikes I've already debunked this: The cost of insurance is always going up, but because of the ACA healthcare inflation has plummeted to record lows. Premium hikes have reduced compared to before the ACA (premiums and costs are going up under Trumpcare). Subsidies are designed to fully outset premium hikes (this is being ripped away by Trump). Switching to the lowest cost ACA plan with the same actuarial value, i.e. how much costs the insurers covers, (this is being ripped away by Trump) reduces premiums by 20% on average. Out of pocket costs are capped, and further reduced by cost sharing subsidies (this is being ripped away by Trump).

Premiums increased in 2017 because they were way under projection in previous years, which means this is a one-time adjustment as several studies have shown. Moreover, the issue of whether insurers are making money on the exchanges is matter of them charging a high enough price to cover their costs. And no, high prices cannot collapse the ACA, because subsidies were designed in such a way that they fully offset price hikes. So as you can see, the ACA was designed by smart people (unlike the morons in the GOP) who made it robust to these shocks. Thus, it cannot, as a matter of clever design, collapse.

Yeah, you love to spin things. How much did premiums go up for 2017? It seemed like a lot. The first-year enrollment was low... so they had to extend it for quite some time, and were begging people to join.

And to make sure you understand, I do not support the GOP plan, either.

- - - Updated - - -

Doesn't exist in any developed society on Earth. Try South Sudan.

Nope, doesn't exist there. That's the whole point.

[Endus]

I've attacked no such liberties, I'm simply stating you shouldn't take other people's money to pay for what you want. That's like saying that not allowing someone to steal your wallet is taking away their liberties. Give me a break.

You can't make this argument, because you agreed to pay those taxes. You remember when I said there were three options, one being "vote and accept the results"? Yeah. Part of that is accepting your tax burden. You agreed to pay that, by dint of being a citizen. If you found that obligation unacceptable, again, you're free to emigrate. Nobody is stopping you.

You do NOT get to lie about this arrangement and pretend that paying your dues is the government "stealing" your money. You agreed to pay it. Stop pretending otherwise. It's dishonest. Unless you're literally barred from emigrating, you cannot in good conscience claim that your tax burden is "forced" upon you.

[paralleluniverse]

Yes, I know how insurance works. Some people do not get back everything on their investment.

I have stated, I have no desire to force any medical to serve anyone who cannot, or will not pay.

The ACA was meant to lower the total drained, the only issue is, it forces people into the system against their will. That is the part I have a problem with. You should be happy to pay more money (if that's what you want), I'm simply not going to force you to do it.

Wrong.

Everyone is in the healthcare system, whether they choose to or not, whether they pay or not.

Which is why a mandate makes perfect sense.

Healthcare isn't like buying a TV. You can choose to buy a TV or not. When you are in a devastating car crash, you do not choose to buy healthcare or not.

[Daelak]

Nope, doesn't exist there. That's the whole point.

You could have a realistic implementation of your views there for several weeks before you beg the UN for special protection status.

[Bodakane]

I have no desire to be a slave, or a warlord. Both sound like horrible things to be. I don't have an intense desire to legislate my beliefs upon others, or have them legislate their beliefs upon me.

People should be responsible for their own decisions, and should not seek to force other people to pay for the things that they happen to want.

That is anarchy. Pretty much by defintion.

Yes, they cost money. That doesn't mean that money has to be gained via forced taxation.

Unless you believe in magic, I guess.

[Breccia]

How much did premiums go up for 2017? It seemed like a lot.

How much did premiums go up in 2007? 2008? It seemed like a lot more.

Context. It is important.

[araine]

We haven't seen the private market do much of anything, since we have a corporatocracy, also something I do not support.

That is the private market. we cant expect to have the willy nilly dream market where you have 5000 insurance companies fighting for grandma's insurance money. the market doesnt work that way since no way will grandma ever make a good investment for them

[Glorious Leader]

That is anarchy. Pretty much by defintion.



Unless you believe in magic, I guess.

It really isnt anarchy though because im pretty sure that dude youre quoting all in favor of private property which is fundamentally not anarchical. Anarchy is a system that is against hieraechy. Private property is the most violent hierarchical institution imaginable and the elimination of every other right in favor of private property rights is fascist bullshit.

For the record we dont need to tax in order to spend. We can run bigger deficits but i doubt machismo is in favour of that either.

- - - Updated - - -

We haven't seen the private market do much of anything, since we have a corporatocracy, also something I do not support.

Healthcare is a market failure almost definitionaly really.

[Bodakane]

It really isnt anarchy though because im pretty sure that dude youre quoting all in favor of private property which is fundamentally not anarchical. Anarchy is a system that is against hieraechy. Private property is the most violent hierarchical institution imaginable and the elimination of every other right in favor of private property rights is fascist bullshit.

For the record we dont need to tax in order to spend. We can run bigger deficits but i doubt machismo is in favour of that either.

- - - Updated - - -



Healthcare is a market failure almost definitionaly really.

Definition of anarchy. 1a : absence of governmentb : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority the city's descent into anarchyc : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government.

[Breccia]

Reports are coming left and right, apparently starting with the NYTimes, that Ryan just told Trump this hour that they don't have the votes to pass.

It's not over till it's over, but win or lose this just looks bad.

[Glorious Leader]

Definition of anarchy. 1a : absence of governmentb : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority the city's descent into anarchyc : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government.

Dictionary definitions are not complete. They are by nature not senititive to historic or political context. Anarchy is not merely the absence of government, it is the absence of hierarchy it is literally an-archy. An being the greek prefix for no and archy beomg the greek word authority..



http://theanarchistlibrary.org/libra...faq-02-17#toc3

While the Greek words anarchos and anarchia are often taken to mean “having no government” or “being without a government,” as can be seen, the strict, original meaning of anarchism was not simply “no government.” “An-archy” means “without a ruler,” or more generally, “without authority,” and it is in this sense that anarchists have continually used the word. For example, we find Kropotkin arguing that anarchism “attacks not only capital, but also the main sources of the power of capitalism: law, authority, and the State.” [Op. Cit., p. 150] For anarchists, anarchy means “not necessarily absence of order, as is generally supposed, but an absence of rule.” [Benjamin Tucker, Instead of a Book, p. 13] Hence David Weick’s excellent summary:

“Anarchism can be understood as the generic social and political idea that expresses negation of all power, sovereignty, domination, and hierarchical division, and a will to their dissolution... Anarchism is therefore more than anti-statism ... [even if] government (the state) ... is, appropriately, the central focus of anarchist critique.” [Reinventing Anarchy, p. 139]
For this reason, rather than being purely anti-government or anti-state, anarchism is primarily a movement against hierarchy. Why? Because hierarchy is the organisational structure that embodies authority. Since the state is the “highest” form of hierarchy, anarchists are, by definition, anti-state; but this is not a sufficient definition of anarchism. This means that real anarchists are opposed to all forms of hierarchical organisation, not only the state.

Thus libertarians or so called "anarcho capitalists" cannot.be said.to.be true anarchists.

We stress that this opposition to hierarchy is, for anarchists, not limited to just the state or government. It includes all authoritarian economic and social relationships as well as political ones, particularly those associated with capitalist property and wage labour. This can be seen from Proudhon’s argument that “Capital ... in the political field is analogous to government ... The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them ... What capital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the Church does to the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in practice as it is in philosophy. The most effective means for oppressing the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its will and its reason.”

Proudhon is arguable the father of all anarchist movements and his radical conception of property as theft is at the core of anarchist belief. Of course for the purposes of a dictionary definition such context is missing but its extremely important especially in the modern context as individuals usurp and coopt the name of anarchy for.purposes that are almost implicitly hierarchical. Hell Herman Hans Hoppe, one of the so called leading an-caps argues for a return to monarchy!

Anarcho”-capitalists claim to be anarchists because they say that they oppose government. As noted in the last section, they use a dictionary definition of anarchism. However, this fails to appreciate that anarchism is a political theory. As dictionaries are rarely politically sophisticated things, this means that they fail to recognise that anarchism is more than just opposition to government, it is also marked a opposition to capitalism (i.e. exploitation and private property). Thus, opposition to government is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being an anarchist — you also need to be opposed to exploitation and capitalist private property. As “anarcho”-capitalists do not consider interest, rent and profits (i.e. capitalism) to be exploitative nor oppose capitalist property rights, they are not anarchists.

In short any form of anarchism to be truly called that should recognize no form of hierarchy. I usually like to sumarize it as no god, no boss, no master. Iirc Machismo is absolutely in favor of the authority of private property (that is ownership of the means of production by capitalists) and is subsequently in favor of authority and hierarchy. He is not an anarchist. In reality hes actually a gross statist, he just wants the state and the violence of the state repurposed to suite whatever his economic ideology is.

[Bodakane]

Dictionary definitions are not complete. They are by nature not senititive to historic or political context. Anarchy is not merely the absence of government, it is the absence of hierarchy it is literally an-archy. An being the greek prefix for no and archy beomg the greek word authority..



http://theanarchistlibrary.org/libra...faq-02-17#toc3



Thus libertarians or so called "anarcho capitalists" cannot.be said.to.be true anarchists.



Proudhon is arguable the father of all anarchist movements and his radical conception of property as theft is at the core of anarchist belief. Of course for the purposes of a dictionary definition such context is missing but its extremely important especially in the modern context as individuals usurp and coopt the name of anarchy for.purposes that are almost implicitly hierarchical. Hell Herman Hans Hoppe, one of the so called leading an-caps argues for a return to monarchy!



In short any form of anarchism to be truly called that should recognize no form of hierarchy. I usually like to sumarize it as no god, no boss, no master. Iirc Machismo is absolutely in favor of the authority of private property (that is ownership of the means of production by capitalists) and is subsequently in favor of authority and hierarchy. He is not an anarchist. In reality hes actually a gross statist, he just wants the state and the violence of the state repurposed to suite whatever his economic ideology is.

But when I used the term, I used it based on what the dictionary definition defines. Maybe this is an anarchy vs. Anarchy thing?

[Adp]

Why should I? So I can go to another country that does the exact same thing?

Who said anything about going to another country. You can squat on some island or build a shack in some remote mountainous area. Are you not independent enough to live on your own?

[Queen of Hamsters]

so you do not support insurance in any form? since the above is basically the definition of functional insurance


so you care about rich people contributing a relatively smaller amount of money towards poor people getting insurance, but you don't care about rich people contributing a relatively larger amount of money towards poor people getting "free" emergency care when they have a choice of going to hospital while uninsured or dying

strong logic

Not even logic, it seems to be ingrained into a huge chunk of the US population to not give a toss about these things, since "muh tax monies"...
I love how it's related to "freedom" however, hilarious.

[cparle87]

I don't care how many people are uninsured, let them choose to be uninsured. That's what freedom is all about. The coverage got worse for many people, because companies had to scramble to deal with the bureaucratic bullshit. In many states, competition actually decreased because of the ACA.

I just read this quote and something popped into my mind. Disney's The Emperor's New Groove. Yzma is pretending to be the empress and is having a meeting with this peasant, not listening to a thing he's saying. She cuts him off and says "It is no concern of mine whether you have enough, what was it again?" The peasant answers, "Um, food?" To which Yzma replies "Ha! You should've thought about that before you became peasants. Take him away."