Is Obamacare setting up doodle's vision of the future?

[Xan]

Parts 1 and 2 of this article are relatively brief and fascinating:
1: http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamacares-cool ... epage=true
2: http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-wedding-tax ... epage=true

Obamacare is full of "cliffs" where $1 additional income costs many thousands of dollars.  Marginal rates at the cliffs work out to be 468,800% and 1,221,400%.  People with moderate incomes will face marginal tax rates of 32 to 50 percent.  (50%!)

The overall effect seems to be:
* people having their hours cut back so that employers don't hit thresholds
* people actively discouraged from working more via HUGE disincentives at the margin

which all sounds like doodle's vision of everybody working a few hours a week, and having the rest of their time free.  I think it's pretty likely that all that was unintentional, and a result of the "pass it so we can see what's in it" mentality.  But maybe it'll end up making things a smooth transition to the robotic future.

I still think the whole thing is awful, of course, but it's an interesting idea.  Horrifyingly (see the second article), the solution in many cases to the problem of the cliffs is to get divorced.  Especially if you have children.

[Kshartle]

Parts 1 and 2 of this article are relatively brief and fascinating:
1: http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamacares-cool ... epage=true
2: http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-wedding-tax ... epage=true

Obamacare is full of "cliffs" where $1 additional income costs many thousands of dollars.  Marginal rates at the cliffs work out to be 468,800% and 1,221,400%.  People with moderate incomes will face marginal tax rates of 32 to 50 percent.  (50%!)

The overall effect seems to be:
* people having their hours cut back so that employers don't hit thresholds
* people actively discouraged from working more via HUGE disincentives at the margin

which all sounds like doodle's vision of everybody working a few hours a week, and having the rest of their time free.  I think it's pretty likely that all that was unintentional, and a result of the "pass it so we can see what's in it" mentality.  But maybe it'll end up making things a smooth transition to the robotic future.

I still think the whole thing is awful, of course, but it's an interesting idea.  Horrifyingly (see the second article), the solution in many cases to the problem of the cliffs is to get divorced.  Especially if you have children.

What happens to the amount of goods and services available if people are working less?

What happens to people's income if they are working less?

What happens to tax receipts if people are working less?

[Mdraf]

Parts 1 and 2 of this article are relatively brief and fascinating:
1: http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamacares-cool ... epage=true
2: http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-wedding-tax ... epage=true

Obamacare is full of "cliffs" where $1 additional income costs many thousands of dollars.  Marginal rates at the cliffs work out to be 468,800% and 1,221,400%.  People with moderate incomes will face marginal tax rates of 32 to 50 percent.  (50%!)

The overall effect seems to be:
* people having their hours cut back so that employers don't hit thresholds
* people actively discouraged from working more via HUGE disincentives at the margin

which all sounds like doodle's vision of everybody working a few hours a week, and having the rest of their time free.  I think it's pretty likely that all that was unintentional, and a result of the "pass it so we can see what's in it" mentality.  But maybe it'll end up making things a smooth transition to the robotic future.

I still think the whole thing is awful, of course, but it's an interesting idea.  Horrifyingly (see the second article), the solution in many cases to the problem of the cliffs is to get divorced.  Especially if you have children.

What happens to the amount of goods and services available if people are working less?

What happens to people's income if they are working less?

What happens to tax receipts if people are working less?

Everybody gets poor - but, by gosh, it's FAIR

[Kshartle]

Parts 1 and 2 of this article are relatively brief and fascinating:
1: http://pjmedia.com/blog/obamacares-cool ... epage=true
2: http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-wedding-tax ... epage=true

Obamacare is full of "cliffs" where $1 additional income costs many thousands of dollars.  Marginal rates at the cliffs work out to be 468,800% and 1,221,400%.  People with moderate incomes will face marginal tax rates of 32 to 50 percent.  (50%!)

The overall effect seems to be:
* people having their hours cut back so that employers don't hit thresholds
* people actively discouraged from working more via HUGE disincentives at the margin

which all sounds like doodle's vision of everybody working a few hours a week, and having the rest of their time free.  I think it's pretty likely that all that was unintentional, and a result of the "pass it so we can see what's in it" mentality.  But maybe it'll end up making things a smooth transition to the robotic future.

I still think the whole thing is awful, of course, but it's an interesting idea.  Horrifyingly (see the second article), the solution in many cases to the problem of the cliffs is to get divorced.  Especially if you have children.

What happens to the amount of goods and services available if people are working less?

What happens to people's income if they are working less?

What happens to tax receipts if people are working less?

Everybody gets poor - but, by gosh, it's FAIR

Capitalism = unequal sharing of wealth
Socialism = equal sharing of misery

[Benko]

[Kshartle]

But maybe it'll end up making things a smooth transition to the robotic future.

Designing & Building robots sounds like a highly compensated occupation so it will be much more likely to occur here if we don't have Obamacare, since high compensation is penalized.

They will have to be designed and built somewhere else. The question is will Americans be able to afford them with their reduced incomes and higher tax rates?

[Ad Orientem]

Every country in the developed world (excepting the US) has long realized that rationing health care on the basis of ability to pay is immoral. They all have some form of universal health care system. So you are saying that the rest f the world is somehow evil and we, being the only nation that allows people to die because they don't make enough money or their job doesn't pay benefits, are the last bastion of freedom in the world? I don't grasp the rational that says it's OK to have the government run a fire department, a police department, and armed forces, but not guarantee health care as a basic civil right. The logic, if there is any, strikes me as medieval.

But yeah, Obamacare is nuts. As Justice Scalia noted in his dissenting opinion in the healthcare case, it would have made more sense to just adopt a single payer system.

P.S. You do realize the photo is from the Great Depression and therefor more likely an indictment of pure capitalism than socialism?

[Kshartle]

I don't grasp the rational that says it's OK to have the government run a fire department, a police department, and armed forces, but not guarantee health care as a basic civil right. The logic, if there is any, strikes me as medieval.

But yeah, Obamacare is nuts.

I completely agree. It's a hypocritical notion and I don't see how people can hold it and justify it. People who argue the point above are on very shaky ground in my opinion.

Health care isn't a right though, it's a good or service. It has to be provided by someone else, it doesn't just come from the sky. Who has a right to someone else's time and talents without fair compensation? That sounds like a master/slave relationship. To say that someone else owes you their time and or property and it will be taken by force sounds like the height of immorality.

Nuts? Yeah I just read an article in Forbes pointing out how insurance costs for younger people are going to double and triple. These young people can't even get jobs. How are they going to be able to afford it? They're not. They'll take the penalty and when there aren't enough young healthy payers to subsidise the older and sick it will have to be funded with higher taxes and more printing.

Maybe that was the goal all along.

Many countries bear the cost of socialism but at least they don't have the military empire draining them. The US is trying to do it all.

[technovelist]

I don't grasp the rational that says it's OK to have the government run a fire department, a police department, and armed forces, but not guarantee health care as a basic civil right. The logic, if there is any, strikes me as medieval.

But yeah, Obamacare is nuts.

I completely agree. It's a hypocritical notion and I don't see how people can hold it and justify it. People who argue the point above are on very shaky ground in my opinion.

Health care isn't a right though, it's a good or service. It has to be provided by someone else, it doesn't just come from the sky. Who has a right to someone else's time and talents without fair compensation? That sounds like a master/slave relationship. To say that someone else owes you their time and or property and it will be taken by force sounds like the height of immorality.

Nuts? Yeah I just read an article in Forbes pointing out how insurance costs for younger people are going to double and triple. These young people can't even get jobs. How are they going to be able to afford it? They're not. They'll take the penalty and when there aren't enough young healthy payers to subsidise the older and sick it will have to be funded with higher taxes and more printing.

Maybe that was the goal all along.

Many countries bear the cost of socialism but at least they don't have the military empire draining them. The US is trying to do it all.

The goal all along was a single-payer system. After all the insurance companies go bankrupt from the effects of Obamacare, then they will have their justification for single-payer.

[Kshartle]

They all have some form of universal health care system. So you are saying that the rest f the world is somehow evil and we, being the only nation that allows people to die because they don't make enough money or their job doesn't pay benefits, are the last bastion of freedom in the world?

You'll never hear me make the claim that the US is the last bastion of freedom in the world.

Honest and sincere questions - I've heard it said many times that Health Care is a basic right because people need it to live. Ok.

Don't they need food, water, clothing and shelther much much more than health care though?

Are all those things basic rights?

Is everyone entitled to all of those also?

Since they all have to be provided by someone else, are people entitled to have other people be forced to work and provide them on their behalf?

I think if someone wants to make the claim that health care is a basic right they should be able to answer these questions. Otherwise they are being hypocritical.

[Kshartle]

I don't grasp the rational that says it's OK to have the government run a fire department, a police department, and armed forces, but not guarantee health care as a basic civil right. The logic, if there is any, strikes me as medieval.

But yeah, Obamacare is nuts.

I completely agree. It's a hypocritical notion and I don't see how people can hold it and justify it. People who argue the point above are on very shaky ground in my opinion.

Health care isn't a right though, it's a good or service. It has to be provided by someone else, it doesn't just come from the sky. Who has a right to someone else's time and talents without fair compensation? That sounds like a master/slave relationship. To say that someone else owes you their time and or property and it will be taken by force sounds like the height of immorality.

Nuts? Yeah I just read an article in Forbes pointing out how insurance costs for younger people are going to double and triple. These young people can't even get jobs. How are they going to be able to afford it? They're not. They'll take the penalty and when there aren't enough young healthy payers to subsidise the older and sick it will have to be funded with higher taxes and more printing.

Maybe that was the goal all along.

Many countries bear the cost of socialism but at least they don't have the military empire draining them. The US is trying to do it all.

The goal all along was a single-payer system. After all the insurance companies go bankrupt from the effects of Obamacare, then they will have their justification for single-payer.

Bingo

As Harry Browne says the goverment will break your leg then hand you a crutch and say "look what I did for you".

They've almost completely destroyed the Health Care system in America and they will ride in as the saviors, you just need to give them complete control. They will do a fantastic job of it I'm sure like the post office, DMV, Amtrack, anything else.

[MediumTex]

They've almost completely destroyed the Health Care system in America and they will ride in as the saviors, you just need to give them complete control. They will do a fantastic job of it I'm sure like the post office, DMV, Amtrack, anything else.

Is that perhaps overstating it a bit?

If I could get treated anywhere in the world for a serious illness, I would want to be treated at a hospital in a large U.S. city.