I get it... but there's a fine line between a shared world order without an Empire, and free riding your way into the need for imperial fees.
Not that I think Trump isn't bungling his way deeper into a Thucydides trap... but a reset on the costs of the empire we liked to pretend didn't exist was inevitable.
Every once in a while we ask random communion seekers how they interpret Articles 25 & 28 of the 39 promulgated under Elizabeth I. And, as soon as they start to make their case for the real presence, we escort them out. To the coffee/donut space in the basement. For penance.
Sure, but I think that's sort of the inevitable outcome of just calling for re-arming Europe... we've got a pretty good idea that (eventually) there's a decent likelihood that absent a unifying force, that they start to re-arm in competition against each other.
Brussels is not going to hold that thing together.
The US keeping the primary military capacity was acting as the (Empire)/Unifying Force... the allies still need to pull their weight (they weren't - look at 1989 tank battalions for just an idea); but we don't want France and Germany (and Poland) vying for the mantle of Strategic Security Dominance. That way madness lies.
Even though I see a multi-polar world as inevitable, I think that Trump is blundering by forcing a complete 'rearmament' of Europe.
The US's goals oughtn't be a completely re-armed Europe, but a Europe that is armed and in alignment with US materiel and plans to counter various scenarios.
Obviously equivocating a bit on the term 're-arm' but where Trump was correct about the EU's deficiencies in their end of the defense bargain... we don't want to re-write the defense bargain from a US first perspective.
Agreed. *If* there are cost savings, they will be incidental, down the road, and completely unobservable at the individual level. MattY will do a blog post in 15 yrs about the now barely perceptible 'curve-bend' that the new system is introducing.
My biggest concerns would be:
1. Tiers... I think it inevitable that Catastrophic would be primary selection... and that richer folks would pay extra for more. (fine in theory, but if positioned as a public utility/good, it would be unworkable in practice)
2. Non-contributors... which covers lots of things, disabled, stay at home parent, children, elderly, temp unemployed, perennially under-employed, etc. etc.
#2 is one of those things that, if working properly, it's all absorbed... even a % of defectors; just need to make sure % of defectors is not incentivized to grow... might require 2 prongs, Tax plus VAT.
Sure, free tip #1: don't call it publicly funded health insurance.
Call it Universal Basic Insurance that you pay into via work. You own it, you paid for it, and to InMD's point above, it's quite possible you picked it.
It only becomes 'publicly funded' for those periods when you can't work... and even then, don't say that... say your tax also has a 'gap allowance' baked into it to cover those times.
Yeah, if you squint you could see an ACA with better Tech as a sort of intermediate step for ending the employer tax incentives for health care.
And ultimately we'll have to buy-out the insurance companies... so, yeah, they could become regional processors like utilities.
But still have to deal with the pay distortions (which already exist, but you don't realize you're being paid less than the guy with the family plan) and how that unravels.
...and don't make the original ACA mistake of selling it as a welfare program for the uninsured.
I honestly don't think people would accept a 'tax' in exchange for Universal Healthcare as a policy position.
Not because we don't tax labor already for a mostly universal system, but because we'd have to unwind the wild distortions to wages that the hidden tax imposes.
First step would (of necessity) be to return the wages to workers -- which would have very very strange effects -- as in this: imagine two working partners: 1 of them has the health insurance, the other does not. The person with the health insurance gets a $20k raise (assume a family), the other partner doesn't. But, what's *weird* is the other partner's co-worker *does* get a $20k raise, so they are doing the same labor for different pay. And so on and so on.
That's the problem with getting to universal healthcare... in order to 'tax' it into existence, you have to raise all the wages first. Else, it's a massive windfall for business... and a huge hit to take-home pay.
But, that's the rub, with the massive and *hidden* distortions to labor costs we have a sort of gordian knot.
So, one way or another, *first* you have to return the taxes back to workers in some sort of way that doesn't crater your labor markets... and *then* you can re-collect those wages in a broad tax on labor (like FICA).
People would trade employee health insurance for a guaranty of a lifetime of health insurance -- but not for a govt. run system of health -- based on a broad tax on Labor. Then you just have to solve for incentives to drop out of the labor force if health insurance is guaranteed. We hate to admit it, but the absurd cost of health insurance is absolutely a motivator to seek employment.
Which is all to say, there's a path to a better insurance program... but it isn't a straight path, and it won't reduce costs, and it will probably involve tiers and trade-offs... but there's a path, just not one that isn't painful.
The commenter archive features may be temporarily disabled at times.
Douthat's middle way:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/08/opinion/america-conservatives-france-europe.html
I get it... but there's a fine line between a shared world order without an Empire, and free riding your way into the need for imperial fees.
Not that I think Trump isn't bungling his way deeper into a Thucydides trap... but a reset on the costs of the empire we liked to pretend didn't exist was inevitable.
Well sure... but the starting point is that someone who has at least interrogated themselves as to whether they believe in the Real Presence at all...
As for the 39 Articles, I'm certain they are 'taught' in the same way that Americans know we have 'A Constitution'.
But mostly it should be clear that there's absolutely no liturgical gate to receiving communion other than the honor system.
Nope; well, not licitly anyway...
Every once in a while we ask random communion seekers how they interpret Articles 25 & 28 of the 39 promulgated under Elizabeth I. And, as soon as they start to make their case for the real presence, we escort them out. To the coffee/donut space in the basement. For penance.
Point of Order:
"I understand that the Catholic church has lightened up on that in the last decade or so."
It hasn't. The German proposal in 2018 was rejected by Pope Francis. Like, rejected rejected.
1. Catholics under the usual conditions
2. Orthodox properly disposed
3. In Extremis, other Christians
Continue
Sure, but I think that's sort of the inevitable outcome of just calling for re-arming Europe... we've got a pretty good idea that (eventually) there's a decent likelihood that absent a unifying force, that they start to re-arm in competition against each other.
Brussels is not going to hold that thing together.
The US keeping the primary military capacity was acting as the (Empire)/Unifying Force... the allies still need to pull their weight (they weren't - look at 1989 tank battalions for just an idea); but we don't want France and Germany (and Poland) vying for the mantle of Strategic Security Dominance. That way madness lies.
You guys are drunk on Macron. He's a spent force. France's house is not in order.
Doesn't mean they won't grab at brass rings; but I'd not pin any hopes on 'France is the new defender of the Liberal Order'
Even though I see a multi-polar world as inevitable, I think that Trump is blundering by forcing a complete 'rearmament' of Europe.
The US's goals oughtn't be a completely re-armed Europe, but a Europe that is armed and in alignment with US materiel and plans to counter various scenarios.
Obviously equivocating a bit on the term 're-arm' but where Trump was correct about the EU's deficiencies in their end of the defense bargain... we don't want to re-write the defense bargain from a US first perspective.
The user community should still use discretion to promote interesting and/or novel topics.
Now, I'm not sure Italian Senators bartering sex is all that novel, but...
So far to the right, I'm on the left.
Agreed. *If* there are cost savings, they will be incidental, down the road, and completely unobservable at the individual level. MattY will do a blog post in 15 yrs about the now barely perceptible 'curve-bend' that the new system is introducing.
My biggest concerns would be:
1. Tiers... I think it inevitable that Catastrophic would be primary selection... and that richer folks would pay extra for more. (fine in theory, but if positioned as a public utility/good, it would be unworkable in practice)
2. Non-contributors... which covers lots of things, disabled, stay at home parent, children, elderly, temp unemployed, perennially under-employed, etc. etc.
#2 is one of those things that, if working properly, it's all absorbed... even a % of defectors; just need to make sure % of defectors is not incentivized to grow... might require 2 prongs, Tax plus VAT.
Plus a thousand other things...
Sure, free tip #1: don't call it publicly funded health insurance.
Call it Universal Basic Insurance that you pay into via work. You own it, you paid for it, and to InMD's point above, it's quite possible you picked it.
It only becomes 'publicly funded' for those periods when you can't work... and even then, don't say that... say your tax also has a 'gap allowance' baked into it to cover those times.
I agree that the 'Vision' is sellable... people don't like the way health insurance works right now.
Except; we also know that the only thing they like less is change to the system they don't like.
It show's up a 'liking' the system in a perverse way.
Path dependency gets in the way of the 'vision' so have to slowly alter the paths.
Yeah, if you squint you could see an ACA with better Tech as a sort of intermediate step for ending the employer tax incentives for health care.
And ultimately we'll have to buy-out the insurance companies... so, yeah, they could become regional processors like utilities.
But still have to deal with the pay distortions (which already exist, but you don't realize you're being paid less than the guy with the family plan) and how that unravels.
...and don't make the original ACA mistake of selling it as a welfare program for the uninsured.
I honestly don't think people would accept a 'tax' in exchange for Universal Healthcare as a policy position.
Not because we don't tax labor already for a mostly universal system, but because we'd have to unwind the wild distortions to wages that the hidden tax imposes.
First step would (of necessity) be to return the wages to workers -- which would have very very strange effects -- as in this: imagine two working partners: 1 of them has the health insurance, the other does not. The person with the health insurance gets a $20k raise (assume a family), the other partner doesn't. But, what's *weird* is the other partner's co-worker *does* get a $20k raise, so they are doing the same labor for different pay. And so on and so on.
That's the problem with getting to universal healthcare... in order to 'tax' it into existence, you have to raise all the wages first. Else, it's a massive windfall for business... and a huge hit to take-home pay.
But, that's the rub, with the massive and *hidden* distortions to labor costs we have a sort of gordian knot.
So, one way or another, *first* you have to return the taxes back to workers in some sort of way that doesn't crater your labor markets... and *then* you can re-collect those wages in a broad tax on labor (like FICA).
People would trade employee health insurance for a guaranty of a lifetime of health insurance -- but not for a govt. run system of health -- based on a broad tax on Labor. Then you just have to solve for incentives to drop out of the labor force if health insurance is guaranteed. We hate to admit it, but the absurd cost of health insurance is absolutely a motivator to seek employment.
Which is all to say, there's a path to a better insurance program... but it isn't a straight path, and it won't reduce costs, and it will probably involve tiers and trade-offs... but there's a path, just not one that isn't painful.