Healthcare fines and mandates

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B15Y920091205?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtopNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Top+News%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

The way I understand this bill, if it passes, is that there will be a mandate to buy insurance,  a fine for not buying insurance and a misdemeanor charge with possible jail time or another $25,000 fine for refusing to pay the original fine. And if someone has been diagnosed with, say, cancer, they can't be refused insurance.

In effect, this is a $2000 dollar tax to help pay for healthcare reform. It will be interesting to see how many people buy insurance or how many people pay the fine. When people begin comparing the subsidies they receive to buy insurance, many who are close to the line to receive subsidies are going to be angry when someone who makes a little less than them receives a subsidy.

This will cause more resentment, division and demands that the subsidies be given to more people who claim they can't afford the extra expense. Something else that will be interesting is the first case of refusal to buy insurance or pay the fine. Will they receive jail-time? Will there be a public uproar over the injustice? What if thousands of people refuse to buy insurance or pay the fine?

If everyone does decide to buy insurance, this will divert money away from other products and services consumers would buy with that money, and, of course, taxes will have to be raised to pay for the subsidies. This will likely keep unemployment high, except in the healthcare field and government jobs.

Wages will need to be suppressed for healhcare workers to keep costs down, so I wonder how many people will study and gain healthcare skills necessary for the increased demand? Will people leave the healthcare field if the demand is increased and the pay is lowered? People don't like the idea of working harder and getting paid less, plus, the healthcare field is a tough business.

If the system is overloaded, and if the public begins complaining about the cost of the mandate, and if insurance companies lose lots of money by having to accept pre-existing conditions, will the healthcare field begin to unravel, and will there be a demand for a government solution? Yes, most likely.

So, all the proponents of single payer, nationalized healthcare ought to be feeling good about the possibilities.

Revolution 21 -- Part V

This Revolution 21 series is an outline of a book I'm writing -- it's about a revolution of individuals whose only purpose is liberty -- to live without fear of coercion and without the ability to coerce others. It's about the death of Statism and the rebirth of libertarianism. It could be fiction -- it could be non-fiction -- time will tell. In the book, of course, I will provide back-up for some of my claims or to strengthen my positions -- this is simply an outline.

Everything I write originates from the idea that power lies in the private sector, although largely untapped, and political power should be replaced by private/liberty/market power, and the State should be limited to protecting this private power from aggression and coercion, especially aggression and coercion by the State itself, so that people can freely express their power without fear of losing private property or individual liberty.

When people own property, including their income, which represents what they own, but can't use the property as they see fit, or can't can't keep all of it because the State is confiscating a third of it, or a half of it, or ninety percent of it, then people aren't free and people suffer because of the reduced opportunities to pursue happiness and prosper.

If we have a limited government designed to protect us from aggression and coercion, then, of course, the people who work in government have to be paid, but money can be raised through consumption taxes, reasonable tarrifs to charge foreign countries for doing business with us, or some creative form of lottery. The worst thing we can allow to continue is income tax. Giving the State the power to tax income gives the State the power to control us and, therefore, political power will always be greater than private power.

In a wealthy country which has the potential of being much wealthier, the amount of money necessary to meet the needs of a limited government will be signifcantly lower than funding Leviathan. This is always the first obstacle to surmount when arguing for limited government -- statists always defend against the proposition for limited government by using scare tactics and screaming "ANARCHY", but this is a diversion, and Consitiutional amendments could clarify all the details involved in limiting government and funding it.

The reality is that if enough individuals want limited government, we can have limited government -- it is possible, in spite of the statists' fear-mongering and self-serving reasons why it's unrealistic.

Blogginghead political cyborgs

I've listened to some of the debates on blogginghead.tv between young political pundits and it's striking how most of them sound alike -- many look alike. The words are pronounced with painful clarity -- the university accents are homogenous -- the content is excruciatingly moderate with only slight variations in political leanings -- the hip-irony is thick -- the politeness is a vanilla-delight -- the humor, what there is of it, is insiderish and winkish -- the passion is fashionably contained -- the bias is intelligently hidden -- and doubt is well-played in open-ended profundity.

So, I've concluded -- they are cyborgs.

Revolution 21 - Part IV

In the late seventies and eighties it was fashionable to talk about making changes from within the government -- so, many idealistic young people chose politics and political activism to remake the world and do good things. Most people simply went about their business and paid attention to family, work and local issues. Today, you hear pundits on the right talk about the virtue of getting politically active and guiding policy, making sasauge in congress, compromising so that the right can be a part of the process. This has never done much good.

The system eats good people. There is too much bureaucracy, too many special interests and too much cronyism for anyone to make a difference within government -- the State rolls on, and it rolls over even the best of representatives. Change will come from without, on an individual basis. The Tea Party movement appeared at first an apolitical, individualist movement, but I suspect the movement will become political, just one more collective effort to seize power and control others.

In many ways, the deconstruction of the State will take place naturally -- the pomp, glory, mythical aura, symbols, extravagance, slogans will all seem odd to the modern man and woman -- it will appear to us like an antiquated monstrosity which is way too wasteful and out-of-touch to support, and too ridiculous for awe and respect. The State is not a living, breathing super-entity, it's a collection of fallible human beings who are not all that competent when judged on an individual basis -- most of them don't deserve any special consideration. This reality of common-ness will become more and more apparent in the Information Age as every wart, blemish and transgression is on display 24 hours a day.

The deconstruction which doesn't happen naturally can come about by transforming our outlook on an individual basis based on philosophy and libertarian common sense, and by paying as little attention to the State as possible. When presidential speeches have no listeners, when hardly anyone goes out to vote, when polls show no partisanship, when no one bows to Kings and Queens, and when people look to themselves for answers, the curtain will be pulled back and the small, pitiful "wizard" will be revealed and realize his/her own emptiness -- the spell will be broken.

h/t to the ghost of Chodorov

More on Ayn Rand

Reason weighs in on Ayn Rand, too. The comments are interesting.

"Most of my actions are autonomic, and I doubt I (or anyone) could articulate all my values, let alone rationally conceive them."

This is quite an admission from Jesse Walker. We develope value-judgements early on, sort of like programming a computer, but our "computer" can be programmed incorrectly by unhealthy parental values, societal values, etc -- and unless we re-assess these value-judgements in the light of reason as we grow older, then this "autonomic" reaction which Jesse experiences can cause many problems -- relationships, at work, in race relations, and so forth. It only seems "autonomic" due to the quickness of the mind, but in between the stimuli and reaction are value-judgements making a snap judgement and affecting our reactions -- unless our values are re-evaluated with reason, then we have no control over our reactions and wind up on a pychiatrist's couch. Maturity and insight slow down the process.