[ExI] health care individual mandate

JOSHUA JOB nanite1018 at gmail.com
Mon Nov 9 22:53:28 UTC 2009

On Nov 9, 2009, at 5:29 PM, spike wrote:
> In the current system, the government measures who is rich and who  
> is poor
> based entirely on d$/dt, and not at all on its integral over time,  
> $.  So
> the young and healthy low $ people will need to subsidize the much  
> higher $
> much lower d$/dt older people.  So we get poorer younger people  
> subsidizing
> richer, older people.  Even if Jeff and I clearly benefit from that  
> deal, I
> do not think it is a damn bit right.  We cannot dump the load on  
> Joshua and
> his peers.  I do not see it as workable at all.  I am surprised the  
> young
> are not protesting wildly.
> That being said, what if the government recognizes this situation as  
> being a
> fundamental stumbling block to the individual mandate and health  
> care reform
> in general, and consequently decides to try to base one's ability to  
> pay on
> $ instead of it's first derivative d$/dt?  What happens then?
> First thing, the fed needs to have some mechanism to measure one's  
> $, which
> it currently does not have.  As soon as any kind of means testing is  
> even
> suggested by any ranking person in government, the price of gold  
> skyrockets,
> the banks fail and venture capital markets dry up and blow away like  
> dust in
> the wind.  Is it clear to everyone here why that would happen?

Actually, I hadn't thought of this. Good thinking! Considering that  
the reason they have the mandate for young people is to help offset  
the costs for the older people, it seems highly likely that this  
requirement will act as a transfer from young to old, from poorish to  
wealthy (much like Social Security does actually, considering the cap  
on the level of earnings subject to the tax).

And I definitely agree that the government can't ever begin taxing  
total wealth, even disregarding the logistics problems. That would put  
a severe hamper on the economy, far worse than a progressive income  
tax. It would basically be a tax on saving, at least for anyone who  
isn't superrich, and that alone will likely cause the interest rate to  
skyrocket (less savings means less money for loans, which means higher  
price for loans, i.e. higher interest rates), which will hobble  
growth. The only way out of that is to flood the economy with money,  
which would spark high inflation, and cause the same sort of perverse  
incentives that got us into this recession.

Now that you pointed it out, I am angry now! Way to hobble the future  
of your country, and be faced either with a choice between hobbling  
growth or hobble the producers of tomorrow.

Joshua Job
nanite1018 at gmail.com

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list