Libertarian Thread #2: We Shall Never Die!

Going to be away from my computer for about a day but to keep the thread churning I'm going to dump this story link here:

Wow I didn't think it would happen. It's clearly 100% unconstitutional, but that doesn't seem to matter anymore.

I agree Rob. You're going to tell me health insurance companies weren't liking their chops for the the new clients they were going to receive from the compulsion?

This article explains it quite clearly. A confusion I used to have

If everyone is forced to have insurance, wouldn't that mean an increase in demand, thus in prices? Maybe Shields Pat said this already (he has to have mentioned it) but this is my question, asked when I see things with better light... 

The T wrote: If everyone is forced to have insurance, wouldn't that mean an increase in demand, thus in prices? Maybe Shields Pat said this already (he has to have mentioned it) but this is my question, asked when I see things with better light...

Well yes, if we take just that fact, but the bill imposes price controls on insurance companies. Now honestly price controls are never good, but if there's a particular industry where they are disastrous, it is the insurance industry. In order to make a profit, prices must be free to fluctuate with risk. Otherwise insurance essentially just becomes a pool of money that you pay to be able to tap into.

The price controls are put in place to ensure that high risk individuals will not be charged too much for their care. This will result in the price of healthcare being lowered for sick people and being risen for healthy people. Free of the compulsion to buy insurance, this would create an adverse selection problem. Since that can't occur, it will essentially create a moral hazard.

FDIC 'Insurance' works the same way. Since institutions do not pay based on the risk of their investments, it becomes a transfer of wealth from banks which make sound investment to those who make reckless, risky investments. Because of this, it becomes more profitable for financial institutions to be reckless and have a potential to reap the increased profits this brings.

This is of course a basic fact. FDIC protects banks. It protects them from their clients. It protects them from bankruptcy. However, FDIC is never sold with these terms. You sell FDIC to the clientele of banks. Changing the wording, it seems as if its protecting their money. This in turn creates a recklessness on part of the consumer, who now no longer needs to judge the relative merits of banks. The simply go to the ones with the highest interest rates, since their money is protected. Thus, one more self-regulating factor of the market is destroyed. Of course its all an illusion, since any money the consumer loses will be payed back by taxation of printing of money.

That was a long aside into FDIC insurance, but I think the situations are similar. I slept for one hour last night, so I hope that was coherent.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights wrote: Article 26  Everyone has the right to eduction. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

Boy, this thing must have a different definition of the word "free" than I do.

Also funny that a declaration of my rights would tell me what I have to do.

harmonium.ro wrote: It is especially sad to see you, T, condoning those views. Did you know that the situation where your mother couldn't get a helth insurance because of her age is a situation that contradicts the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights (article 25)? I suppose there isn't much respect left for that piece of paper, even if the US helped so much in developing and implementing it.

Why would there be? It's a piece of paper forced on people without their consent or any rhyme or reason. The document doesn't talk of rights, it talks of guarantees, even when those guarantees directly contradict any sense of rights.

harmonium.ro wrote: If libertarians consider taxing to be theft, what do they think of having no choice but to choose from service providers who charge you way, way more (like, for example, 1400% more) than the service is worth? I would definitely consider that a "robbery" and it would be investigated as a cartel in another states.

Good. Investigate the Cartel. I agree. Wait until you see the culprit is hardly capitalism and a lack of guaranteed health care.

It's strange that you say no choice, when a choice is clearly an option, which is what separates it from taxation.

harmonium.ro wrote: The T wrote: This article explains it quite clearly. A confusion I used to have It is especially sad to see you, T, condoning those views. Did you know that the situation where your mother couldn't get a helth insurance because of her age is a situation that contradicts the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights (article 25)? I suppose there isn't much respect left for that piece of paper, even if the US helped so much in developing and implementing it. If libertarians consider taxing to be theft, what do they think of having no choice but to choose from service providers who charge you way, way more (like, for example, 1400% more) than the service is worth? I would definitely consider that a "robbery" and it would be investigated as a cartel in another states. And LOL @ the lie that "socialized medicine is destroying the quality of health care everywhere in the world". Those states who have better health care systems than the US (like Germany, UK, Australia, Holland, Canada, etc.) also provide much better access to care.

I'm done using my problems to impose views on the world and I'm done trying to save my personal situation by using the lifeguard of the state and its compulsory system. I'll do things myself.

The health care bill is not the solution. It forces people to be insured. What's next? How can you force people to buy something and become a client of these companies you hate so much, yet support the obbligation to be their client? I hate those companies too but I don't see the solution in forcing me to be their client

The declaration you mention is just that. A declaration. Made by governments. Not by people selecting what is bestfor each one. Governments cannot foresee every possible individual issue to arise in any field. Only individuals can react to issues. The UN is a body full of presidents. I missed the part where they were granted superior wisdom and powers over conscience.

Let's see how long those systems work perfectly. Once people are too old and nobody is there to pick up the slack, and the 70% taxes on your income can't cut it no more, let's see what happens. My sister lives in Switzerland and has lived in Germany. Wonderful care in the latter, I give you that. I hope it's sustainable. In Switzerland the system is mixed, somewhat similar to the US (in many things like in gun ownership, I never would have believed that).

It's sad to see you tryig to make me adapt the world to my needs using my mom's situation as an excuse. She's fine now. She works and pays (well her husband does). High, yes, but what can I do, the system here is f**ked up but the current bill solves nothing.

A right that is given can be taken away, remember.

horsewithteeth11 wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Wow I didn't think it would happen. It's clearly 100% unconstitutional, but that doesn't seem to matter anymore. I agree Rob. You're going to tell me health insurance companies weren't liking their chops for the the new clients they were going to receive from the compulsion? Not to mention that all of them would have to raise their premiums sharply due to not being able to underwrite anymore, as well as monopolize the insurance industry.

 

Also, after having just read what T posted while I was still typing the above, I would just like to reiterate how proud of him I am.  Not necissarily for the result, either, but for the journey.  Have to admire the dedication he's shown to his political research.  Most people either simply believe what they were raised to believe or just don't bother paying attention at all.