[ExI] Warren Buffett is worried too and thinks Republicans are "asinine"

[Omar Rahman]

> Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 09:01:55 -0700
> From: "spike" <spike66 at att.net>
> To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Warren Buffett is worried too and thinks
> 	Republicans	are	"asinine"
> 
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Omar Rahman
> .
> 
>> .Spike, elsewhere you have stated that it's not in the "track team's"
> interest to sign up for healthcare because they are healthy. This is not
> true because:
> 
> 
> 
>> .1) sooner or later the 'track team' will turn into the 'zombies' you talk
> of
> 
>> .2) they will need a functioning health care system to take care of them
> which can only be built and maintained through constant effort
> 
>> .3) I was on the track team (literally) and we're not (all) short sighted
> jocks, we generally 'grow up' and hopefully grow (very) old and live
> responsible lives
> 
>> .Regards,
>> .Omar Rahman
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Omar, agree to all.  I was on the literal cross country team, which is
> vaguely related to track I suppose, in that both involve running.  We used
> to say the track guys were either immune to boredom or were addicted to
> having their groupies along the track cheering them on, for their sport
> really offered little on the way of variety of scenery, while ours offered
> us nothing for people cheering along the course.  There were very few even
> at the end.  Oh well.
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding your contention that the track team will eventually turn into
> zombies, you are absolutely correct.  What I see wrong with our current
> proposed system is that it overcharges the track team, meaning they will not
> come.  They will wait until they do turn into zombies before they opt in.
> This has two distinct disadvantages: they will become accustomed to living
> without health insurance, for it is unclear when they make the transition
> from track star to zombie; probably whenever the opt-out cost exceeds the
> insurance bill, or first time they get some serious illness.  
> 

The ACA is a classic case of 'slippery slope' actually. You see the generation that is under 26 right now IS GOING TO HAVE HEALTH CARE from their parents unless those parents are either irresponsible jerks or rabid ideologues. Once a person is 26, they are probably going to be mature enough to understand that, like it or not, 'something bad is going to happen to them sometime' and pony up for health care. For them it isn't going to be about 'getting' health care, they will be thinking of the context of 'losing' the health care they had until age 26. Once that shift takes place in the general population it's game over.

> 
> 
> Secondly it will cause them to lose their fear of the IRS, since that is the
> once-respected organization placed in charge of collecting the opt-out fees.
> The problem is, the law was declared a tax after the fact, against the
> explicit declaration of the president who claimed it was not a tax.  The
> language of the law is not easily adaptable to a tax; it isn't adaptable at
> all.  It doesn't explicitly give the IRS the same authority to collect as it
> has for other taxes.  As if to make matters worse, the language of the ACA
> makes it inherently difficult to modify, by design.  
> 

If the Supreme court has declared it a tax then it's a tax and therefore the IRS can collect it. Where is the problem?

> 
> When we start from scratch or begin actual health care reform, I suggest we
> call on the insurance companies to set the price structure, rather than
> dictate it to them.  They know what it really costs; we do not.
> 

Asking private insurance companies to set the prices is a bit like asking the wolves what the acceptable loss of sheep is for the shepherd.

The solution is simple: single payer. It addresses the broken supply and demand curve that I mentioned in my post. 

> 
> If we want the track team to come, in their best interest as well as ours,
> we must first ditch the absurdity of setting price structures.  

I would avoid the 'pricing of risk categories' altogether. Everyone pays the same tax, everyone gets the same care. If you want to smoke $100/pack cigarettes that's your choice. A pack of cigarettes needs to reflect it's true societal cost. Generally do what you want, but we're going to tax it enough so that we can clean up the mess later. No free riders! 

> This is an
> example of a government which presumes to have the expertise to set pricing
> of risk categories better than the CEO of a health insurance company, when
> they haven't even demonstrated expertise in designing a website.


Spike, you were (are?) an aerospace engineer? And you worked on some contracts for the government? When did you notice your competence rising and falling? Did it happen the instant the government contract was signed and/or completed? If so, we have solved the problem of FTL signalling! Now we just need
a pairs of government employees in every home and stacks of contract for them to sign and breach/fulfil. I didn't realise you were so pro-big government Spike but the logic is irrefutable! ;)


> We end up
> with absurdities such as a factor of three maximum between the lowest cost
> category and the highest.  Three?  Ask any insurance company CEO, they will
> likely say that number needs to be at least 10.  Three is a joke.  There is
> no possible way those in the lowest cost category will pay that.  
> 

I wouldn't even start to play that game. Quite simply I would make the opt-out-tax $100 more than the insurance fee you would pay and involve 20 more pages of paperwork to file.

> 
> The system cannot even deal with the very biggest known health risk:
> smoking.  The 65 year old smoker pays thrice the rate of the 25 year old
> non-smoker, when their risk cost differs by a factor of nearly 9.  The 25
> year old track star is not going to willingly pay triple so that the puffing
> 65 yr old zombie can pay a third of his risk cost.  We cannot make them: the
> tax penalty is meaningless if the IRS cannot collect it.  
> 

True, it would be meaningless. Do you honestly think the IRS will tolerate a direct challenge to its core mission? 

> 
> But now we have a new problem: the IRS has two different levels of
> authority.  To collect income taxes, their authority is iron-fisted
> totalitarian absolute authority without accountability.  To collect opt-out
> taxes, their authority is to wheedle, cajole and beg.  A prole can be
> imprisoned for failing to pay income taxes, but not for failing to buy
> health insurance, according to the Supreme Court decision.  A private
> business cannot be padlocked for failure to pay opt-out penalties.
> Conclusion: the track team will not come; the system will collapse without
> them.  The zombies will come; the system will collapse with them.
> Meanwhile, insurance policy cancellation notices are flying like the leaves
> of autumn.  We have taken a broken system and broke it worse than it was
> before.
> 
> 
> 
> spike


If the IRS isn't able to collect these opt-out-taxes (fees?) I will be VERY surprised. We'll see soon enough if people can get away with not paying it. If they can't threaten prison sentences then I guess they'll have to just use debt collectors. Hurray, we will have privatised a portion of government and I'm sure everything will be better once we have more private debt collectors roaming the land. No potential for abuse of authority in the private debt collection industry.

UK's Scariest Debt Collector (Full Length)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUzlmWWdjEQ

Many people had health care until they got seriously sick and got dumped by the insurance corporations. Many of these people are the walking dead 'zombies' you speak of; people who now require palliative care or will require therapy for the rest of their lives. Reintegrating them into the system will be a cost and the insurance companies with their superior data analysis tools have priced this in already. Or did you miss the ramp up in premiums over the last few years?


>  We have taken a broken system and broke it worse than it was
> before.

There wasn't a system it was just a mess. It was exploitative and it still is because there isn't a non-profit insurance option as far as I know. I'm pretty sure for the 50 million people without insurance, many of whom wanted/needed health care, it couldn't really get much worse.

Regards,

Omar Rahman


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20131102/e044164f/attachment.html>