So then you're saying that the admins don't actually have the power to punish you? That kind of takes away the support behind your argument (which, you are saying, is that "the power to punish is NOT the power to command")
...Actually, no, it is different in principle, because you do not HAVE to own a car.
"Well you pretty much DO have to--" no. You can take the bus, you can ride a bike, you can walk. Yes, these things may be difficult and inconvenient, but where's the equivalent alternative in the health-care debate? The alternative to health is dead. That's not a matter of degree.
So if I pay the fine then I can get health care when I need it? Whether I actually buy insurance or not?
Congratulations, you have defined the cost of health care. It is $650 a year. The market will now adjust the level of healthcare services provided to the point where providers can stay in business on $650 per patient per year.
Well, I have to admit that if I tried, I'd expect a lot of No True Scot arguments from you; or, rather, a lot of "well that's not REALLY removed" kind of arguments.
It's pretty clear that your definition of "interstate commerce" is "whatever I want it to be to make my argument valid".
And there's some validity to that. Right now, I'm lucky enough to work for an employer who's happy to let me take an unscheduled, unplanned half-day as "sick time" so I can go to the endocrinologist. If I worked a minimum-wage fast-food service job, I doubt I'd have that kind of freedom; if the doctor weren't open outside of my work hours then I'd never have a chance to go.
Well, the point he was going for is that if it weren't for the mortgage exemption, then our taxes would be lower overall (as we wouldn't have to "pay" for the exemptions.)
Which is true, to some extent, but you could make that argument about any tax at all. As I said, this viewpoint eventually turns into "taxes are a penalty paid for not receiving government benefits", and I don't think that's what Boonton actually wanted to say...
See, I hear this a lot. "Oh, well you can't denigrate something unless you propose something better!" Really? That kind of blows away the entire art-analysis industry, then, because you're denying the validity of value judgements made by laymen.
"By the way, the Democrats bent over backwards to involve Republicans in the health care bill."
"Here's what we're going to pass, you can vote on it if you want" is hardly bending over backwards.
"If I wanted to, I could fill up the comment thread of every single post on this blog with profane anti-reality ravings."
No, you can't. The comment system tracks IP addresses; it can search and delete by IP, and ban IPs from posting. (Don't you remember that whole business a few weeks ago?)
You could be a pain in the ass for a while, but you can't "wreck the blog".
*******
You're correct that you can't be compelled against your actual will to follow the comment policy, or indeed any law at all. You can always say "my behavior is an entirely voluntary decision made in order to avoid punishment" if it makes you feel better to look at it like that.
But all this does is move the goalposts from "can the government compel you to purchase a product from a private seller" to "can the government punish you if you do not purchase a product from a private seller". You don't actually change the problem; you just put a different shirt on it.
"Why are we still focused on the idea that health insurance is a pre-paid medical care plan, instead of, well, insurance against catastrophe?"
As well as the notion that it's absolutely impossible to pay for health care without some kind of shared-cost plan. To return to the car analogy, I don't expect State Farm to cut me a check in reimbursement for my oil change and brake inspection.
Or, for an inverse (and more contemporary) example, imagine if "Firefly" had gone on for eight seasons. Would we still remember it as the Best Thing That Ever Happened Ever? Or would we be saying "well it started strong, but ended well past its prime, just like Buffy and Angel"?
So if I can construct a scenario where healthcare is "more than twice removed" from interstate commerce, then I show that the Obamacare mandate is unconstitutional?
"Well no if the rate was so low that each patient was a net loss then he would go out of business."
Yeeeesss, and...
"H makes money at $40..."
Bingo. He makes money at $40. He can therefore afford to charge me $40. Maybe he'd like to charge me more and get more profit, but that his decision--and then it's my decision to say "it's not my moral responsibility to pad your pockets".
"The doctor grumbles but agrees to be a ‘preferred provider’ of some HMO or insurance company and take $40 per visit as his pay because the insurance company will send him enough patients to keep his day filled with patients. "
What, so he'll lose a little bit on each patient and make it up in volume? :D
If he can't afford $40 per visit then he'll go out of business. You may have noted stories about how fewer and fewer doctors are accepting Medicaid patients. There is a reason for this.
"When he can’t, when it’s just you Mr. I’ll pay OOP no Insurance for Me you get charged $100 because that’s what he honestly can afford to charge you."
And I can honestly afford to take my ass down the street to a doctor who can honestly afford to charge me the market rate for service.
...so you're saying that the inappropriate reduction that results in a false inconsistency is, in fact, not an inconsistency? That is is in fact a valid result which we should take seriously, and not just as a cheap "gotcha" towards political opponents?
You sound like someone who's "just asking questions" about whether there might have been thermite planted in the WTC.
"Or maybe the problem is that our economic lives are now so intgrated, so globalized that it’s almost impossible to even imagine any plausible commerce that is purely ‘in state’ anymore."
Can we please remember that this whole thread is in response to Wickard v. Filburn, in which case it was explicitly stated and demonstrated that the wheat in question was solely for personal use?
If "personal cultivation reduces the market" is an actual justification then you're effectively saying that 100% of everything that anyone does must be for someone else. Cooking dinner for yourself is now illegal because it reduces the demand for restaurants...
"The non-zero chance that in a given year the doc may come to you and say “Mr. Duck, we found a dense mass in your brain on that xray….” "
That's what catastrophic coverage high-deductible insurance is for. It's like car insurance; the only time you get a payout is if you lose the car through damage or theft.
"Even though it may not have been obvious, you probably did benefit from the counter weight your insurance played with your doc. "
Ho, ho, ho. If the doctor can afford to provide medical care at that cost when the insurance is paying, then he can damn well afford it when I'm paying, or else I'll go to another doctor.
...or, at least, that's how I'd play it, if the doctor didn't have an entire population of people who were used to letting their insurance pay for all of everything.
But then we get into the question of why this conflict appears to exist. And what Pierre and I are saying is that the conflict is due to the reductionist nature of the "experiment", rather than due to inconsistencies in our moral framework.
I'm not really seeing how you can read "between the states" as an expansive definition allowing restrictions on entirely in-state commerce.
And--look. This thing where we say "it's entirely in-state commerce" and you say "well THAT DOESN'T MATTER because they SAID that they could DO IT ANYWAY". This thing is really getting annoying, because it's the same kind of reasoning that says cops shouldn't be investigated because the cops are never wrong because they're the cops.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Two Obfuscations of Obamacare”
So then you're saying that the admins don't actually have the power to punish you? That kind of takes away the support behind your argument (which, you are saying, is that "the power to punish is NOT the power to command")
"
...Actually, no, it is different in principle, because you do not HAVE to own a car.
"Well you pretty much DO have to--" no. You can take the bus, you can ride a bike, you can walk. Yes, these things may be difficult and inconvenient, but where's the equivalent alternative in the health-care debate? The alternative to health is dead. That's not a matter of degree.
On “The Mandate Double-Bind”
I'm poor. I can't pay. What do you do now?
"
So if I pay the fine then I can get health care when I need it? Whether I actually buy insurance or not?
Congratulations, you have defined the cost of health care. It is $650 a year. The market will now adjust the level of healthcare services provided to the point where providers can stay in business on $650 per patient per year.
On “Florida Judge Voids Affordable Care Act”
Well, I have to admit that if I tried, I'd expect a lot of No True Scot arguments from you; or, rather, a lot of "well that's not REALLY removed" kind of arguments.
It's pretty clear that your definition of "interstate commerce" is "whatever I want it to be to make my argument valid".
On “The Two Obfuscations of Obamacare”
I'm sure that the response will be "well the REPUBLICAN plan was just like giving waivers to EVERYBODY so NYAH!"
"
So it's not actually that great but it's better and that's the important thing?
It seems like this is a case where 'good enough' is the enemy of 'perfect'...
On “The Importance of Being Insured”
Sort of the healthcare version of "food deserts".
And there's some validity to that. Right now, I'm lucky enough to work for an employer who's happy to let me take an unscheduled, unplanned half-day as "sick time" so I can go to the endocrinologist. If I worked a minimum-wage fast-food service job, I doubt I'd have that kind of freedom; if the doctor weren't open outside of my work hours then I'd never have a chance to go.
On “The Two Obfuscations of Obamacare”
Well, the point he was going for is that if it weren't for the mortgage exemption, then our taxes would be lower overall (as we wouldn't have to "pay" for the exemptions.)
Which is true, to some extent, but you could make that argument about any tax at all. As I said, this viewpoint eventually turns into "taxes are a penalty paid for not receiving government benefits", and I don't think that's what Boonton actually wanted to say...
On “The Importance of Being Insured”
See, I hear this a lot. "Oh, well you can't denigrate something unless you propose something better!" Really? That kind of blows away the entire art-analysis industry, then, because you're denying the validity of value judgements made by laymen.
"By the way, the Democrats bent over backwards to involve Republicans in the health care bill."
"Here's what we're going to pass, you can vote on it if you want" is hardly bending over backwards.
On “The Two Obfuscations of Obamacare”
"If I wanted to, I could fill up the comment thread of every single post on this blog with profane anti-reality ravings."
No, you can't. The comment system tracks IP addresses; it can search and delete by IP, and ban IPs from posting. (Don't you remember that whole business a few weeks ago?)
You could be a pain in the ass for a while, but you can't "wreck the blog".
*******
You're correct that you can't be compelled against your actual will to follow the comment policy, or indeed any law at all. You can always say "my behavior is an entirely voluntary decision made in order to avoid punishment" if it makes you feel better to look at it like that.
But all this does is move the goalposts from "can the government compel you to purchase a product from a private seller" to "can the government punish you if you do not purchase a product from a private seller". You don't actually change the problem; you just put a different shirt on it.
"
...so, yes, you did expect us to take an Argument From Authority seriously.
On “The Importance of Being Insured”
"Why are we still focused on the idea that health insurance is a pre-paid medical care plan, instead of, well, insurance against catastrophe?"
As well as the notion that it's absolutely impossible to pay for health care without some kind of shared-cost plan. To return to the car analogy, I don't expect State Farm to cut me a check in reimbursement for my oil change and brake inspection.
On “History’s Lost, Part I: Stesichorus”
Or, for an inverse (and more contemporary) example, imagine if "Firefly" had gone on for eight seasons. Would we still remember it as the Best Thing That Ever Happened Ever? Or would we be saying "well it started strong, but ended well past its prime, just like Buffy and Angel"?
On “The Two Obfuscations of Obamacare”
So your argument is that taxes are, in reality, a penalty paid for refusing to receive government benefits? :D
"
Are you honestly expecting us to take an Argument From Authority seriously?
"
But then you'd confuse the poor furry fans!
On “Florida Judge Voids Affordable Care Act”
So if I can construct a scenario where healthcare is "more than twice removed" from interstate commerce, then I show that the Obamacare mandate is unconstitutional?
"
"Well no if the rate was so low that each patient was a net loss then he would go out of business."
Yeeeesss, and...
"H makes money at $40..."
Bingo. He makes money at $40. He can therefore afford to charge me $40. Maybe he'd like to charge me more and get more profit, but that his decision--and then it's my decision to say "it's not my moral responsibility to pad your pockets".
"
"The doctor grumbles but agrees to be a ‘preferred provider’ of some HMO or insurance company and take $40 per visit as his pay because the insurance company will send him enough patients to keep his day filled with patients. "
What, so he'll lose a little bit on each patient and make it up in volume? :D
If he can't afford $40 per visit then he'll go out of business. You may have noted stories about how fewer and fewer doctors are accepting Medicaid patients. There is a reason for this.
"When he can’t, when it’s just you Mr. I’ll pay OOP no Insurance for Me you get charged $100 because that’s what he honestly can afford to charge you."
And I can honestly afford to take my ass down the street to a doctor who can honestly afford to charge me the market rate for service.
On “A Utilitarian Framework for Evaluating the Morality of Abortion”
...so you're saying that the inappropriate reduction that results in a false inconsistency is, in fact, not an inconsistency? That is is in fact a valid result which we should take seriously, and not just as a cheap "gotcha" towards political opponents?
You sound like someone who's "just asking questions" about whether there might have been thermite planted in the WTC.
On “Florida Judge Voids Affordable Care Act”
"Or maybe the problem is that our economic lives are now so intgrated, so globalized that it’s almost impossible to even imagine any plausible commerce that is purely ‘in state’ anymore."
Can we please remember that this whole thread is in response to Wickard v. Filburn, in which case it was explicitly stated and demonstrated that the wheat in question was solely for personal use?
If "personal cultivation reduces the market" is an actual justification then you're effectively saying that 100% of everything that anyone does must be for someone else. Cooking dinner for yourself is now illegal because it reduces the demand for restaurants...
"
"The non-zero chance that in a given year the doc may come to you and say “Mr. Duck, we found a dense mass in your brain on that xray….” "
That's what catastrophic coverage high-deductible insurance is for. It's like car insurance; the only time you get a payout is if you lose the car through damage or theft.
"Even though it may not have been obvious, you probably did benefit from the counter weight your insurance played with your doc. "
Ho, ho, ho. If the doctor can afford to provide medical care at that cost when the insurance is paying, then he can damn well afford it when I'm paying, or else I'll go to another doctor.
...or, at least, that's how I'd play it, if the doctor didn't have an entire population of people who were used to letting their insurance pay for all of everything.
On “A Utilitarian Framework for Evaluating the Morality of Abortion”
But then we get into the question of why this conflict appears to exist. And what Pierre and I are saying is that the conflict is due to the reductionist nature of the "experiment", rather than due to inconsistencies in our moral framework.
On “Florida Judge Voids Affordable Care Act”
I'm not really seeing how you can read "between the states" as an expansive definition allowing restrictions on entirely in-state commerce.
And--look. This thing where we say "it's entirely in-state commerce" and you say "well THAT DOESN'T MATTER because they SAID that they could DO IT ANYWAY". This thing is really getting annoying, because it's the same kind of reasoning that says cops shouldn't be investigated because the cops are never wrong because they're the cops.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.