Why does everyone hate "socialist" healthcare here?

[MG]

Originally Posted by Nola So in other words, insurance would be a mandatory tax. Behavioral economists and libertarians would probably tell you that a smarter option would be to have an "opt-out every year" insurance program. That would probably boost enrolment while maintaining the principles of choice. The moral hazard is those who would always opt out until they become seriously sick, delaying medical attention. Opting out of the coverage doesn't opt one out of paying for the insurance for indigents, intransigents, illegals and abortionists. If I could opt out of the tax and the coverage, I would.

To remove this ad, register today or login if you already are registered!

[Nola]

Originally Posted by MG

Opting out of the coverage doesn't opt one out of paying for the insurance for indigents, intransigents, illegals and abortionists. If I could opt out of the tax and the coverage, I would.

I suppose I meant opting out of the coverage and the payment of course. Is that what you mean?

[MG]

Originally Posted by Nola

I suppose I meant opting out of the coverage and the payment of course. Is that what you mean?

except, you can't do that.

[Nola]

Originally Posted by MG

except, you can't do that.

You're going around in circles dude, not even knowing what you're arguing anymore.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by Nola

You're going around in circles dude, not even knowing what you're arguing anymore.

No, he's talking about the current bill which would not allow you to opt out of having insurance, would not allow you to opt out of paying for insurance, and would not allow you to opt out of paying increased taxes to pay for the insurance of others. The last one, opting out of the tax, is the most important one.

[MG]

If a government plan is part of the deal, "as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote," Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent whose vote Democrats need to overcome a GOP filibusters, told "Fox News Sunday."

Lieberman said he was concerned about new government spending the health-care legislation would entail, saying deficits have gotten gargantuan.

"I don't want to do that to our children and grandchildren," he said.

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...#ixzz0WObP5XLN

Joe Lieberman, the only Democrat I have ever voted for that I did not know personally and I have never once regretted it (excepting that whole Gore Lieberman period, which I will conveniently forget).

[Nola]

Originally Posted by revstriker

No, he's talking about the current bill which would not allow you to opt out of having insurance, would not allow you to opt out of paying for insurance, and would not allow you to opt out of paying increased taxes to pay for the insurance of others. The last one, opting out of the tax, is the most important one.

Right, so what I said originally was that an "opt out of everything" plan is much better, and MG just blurts out whatever it is he blurted out.

[revstriker]

Originally Posted by Nola

Right, so what I said originally was that an "opt out of everything" plan is much better, and MG just blurts out whatever it is he blurted out.

Wouldn't an "opt out of everything" be the status quo though?

[Nola]

Originally Posted by revstriker

Wouldn't an "opt out of everything" be the status quo though?

I think the status quo is opt in... as in go shopping for insurance.

An opt-out system enrolls you by default, and you need to consciously opt out.

Behavioral economists argue that such an opt out system (not necessarily insurance... it could also be retirement funds or savings) gives enough of a push to those who are indifferent or borderline into actually paying for insurance (which is good for society), while letting those who object to, well, object (which is good for a free society). So market forces are maintained and enrolment hopefully is increased.

[MG]

Originally Posted by Nola

Right, so what I said originally was that an "opt out of everything" plan is much better, and MG just blurts out whatever it is he blurted out.

Jesus Nola, I purposefully tried to be nice, and you go all asshatty. Can we call it be nice time now or do we have to start throwing crayons?

[Nola]

Originally Posted by MG

Jesus Nola, I purposefully tried to be nice, and you go all asshatty. Can we call it be nice time now or do we have to start throwing crayons?

It's been a tough year man... and you have a strange way of showing nice!

[benz rider]

Factcheck everything the Uncle Tom Kenyan says.

[pel C]

Originally Posted by Nola

I think the status quo is opt in... as in go shopping for insurance.

An opt-out system enrolls you by default, and you need to consciously opt out.

Behavioral economists argue that such an opt out system (not necessarily insurance... it could also be retirement funds or savings) gives enough of a push to those who are indifferent or borderline into actually paying for insurance (which is good for society), while letting those who object to, well, object (which is good for a free society). So market forces are maintained and enrolment hopefully is increased.

Ah, the proverbial "negative consent". I think you're on to something here - forcing the sheeple to actually do a thing in order to not have to do another thing... it hurts ones head just to think about it.

Remember the "long distance services" travesty of a few years ago?