[mothballed]

It's interesting to me you jumped right past charity, loans, work-trade, or any other variety of options and instead went straight to your preferred method of doing things -- either violence (tax man with guns) and if not that you question if they should be executed.

I'm just advocating putting the violent methods aside.

[shadowgovt]

If no one is entitled to the labor of others, why would we engage in charity?

Work-trade when it's someone's health is slavery, so we're going to go ahead and pull that off the table.

Loans are, more or less, how we've gotten into the awful state we are currently in in the US with unpayable medical debt.

I propose an alternate approach: medical care is a civil service that you can voluntarily provide, like fire prevention or undrafted military service. If you do, you are paid the rate the society agrees to for the work. We all pay for it with taxes. If we want more of it, we raise taxes and incentives. This removes several perverse market effects and sets up a minimum standard of care divorced from individual circumstance to level out the effect of bad luck a bit.

This is, more or less, a model that many countries are currently enjoying.

[mothballed]

>If no one is entitled to the labor of others, why would we engage in charity?

Because some people want to help others beyond what they're forced to do. There is a long history of charitable health services in the US and worldwide, you might rightly ascertain they can't possibly provide all of medical care, nonetheless it's non-zero enough to dispel the notion it can't be provided in the absence of an entitlement.

> medical care is a civil service that you can voluntarily provide,

Civil services are funded by people working to pay their taxes. Work-trade when it's someone health is slavery, so work-trade when it's to not have to go in a tiny cage dragged away by an IRS agent has to be slavery too, especially when you consider the health implications of that.

Therefore the public / civil service options are tossed out by your own criteria.

Loans, again, if those aren't allowed you can toss out any government option because that's a huge part of how the government is funding itself.

Using your own criteria only charity or cash payments would be allowed. Not sure I agree with that one, but that's what you're leaving us with.

[shadowgovt]

I think if you're arguing "taxes are slavery" you are coming from a vantage point that is far too libertarian to have a constructive conversation. We can probably just short-circuit that by saying "The only way people in the US get jailed for taxes is by committing fraud; we correctly left debtor's prison in the past" and be done with that, yes?

Taxes aren't slavery; they're how we operate modern, functional, post-feudal societies (and whether they are actually "paying for" services or are "redistributing supply and demand more equitably by curtailing the spending power of the ones who have too much so that the ones who have too little can have access to resources at all" is an implementation detail for macroeconomists and operators of fiat currencies).

You do raise the interesting question of funding it by buying bonds though. I don't see an issue with that; the argument against loans is a practical one, not a theoretical one ("the private debt incurred upon patients is, in essence, an involuntary one-sided loan granted to them, and we've seen that lead to massively unfair outcomes"). Voluntarily loaning the government money seems to work great and is miles distant from involuntarily-accrued (or accrued under duress; "sure, that procedure is optional because you always have the option to die") medical debt.

[mothballed]

>"The only way people in the US get jailed for taxes is by committing fraud; we correctly left debtor's prison in the past" and be done with that, yes?

False. You can be jailed for "tax evasion" which could be as simple as simply saying "yes I owe taxes, no I won't bother calculating and I have put all my money in bitcoins and I'll never give them to you." That needn't be fraud -- everything about that could be 100% accurate and true with no intend to defraud yet still criminal. (btw we still have debtor's prison -- you can be jailed for not paying child support debts and the absurd argument often used you're jailed for violating the court order to pay the debt rather than owing the debt is little more than a legal parlor trick).

>Taxes aren't slavery

They are by your definition, where I need to trade work to pay for them to improve my health (get thrown into a prison, a den of disease and mental health problems). Of course, we could get into a semantic debate about slavery, but it's clear you've already defined slavery not to be literal chattel slavery, i.e. as black people in chains working the cotton fields, rather you appear to be referring to being forced to work under threat of violence which in this case you take the violence to be a threat to your health.

>You do raise the interesting question of funding it by buying bonds though. I don't see an issue with that; the argument against loans is a practical one, not a theoretical one ("the private debt incurred upon patients is, in essence, an involuntary one-sided loan granted to them, and we've seen that lead to massively unfair outcomes"). Voluntarily loaning the government money seems to work great and is miles distant from involuntarily-accrued (or accrued under duress; "sure, that procedure is optional because you always have the option to die") medical debt.

I also find this to be one of the most interesting solutions. Hypothetically if a 22 year old were to have some illness, it's totally conceivable that a bunch of lenders could bid for a race to the bottom so the 22 year old could get a loan low enough that it would easily be both a net positive for him and for the people who helped loan the money that saves him. Of course, if charity or some other option is available instead, all the better.

In any case, the biggest enemy for both of us is overregulation of the health system. Once medical licensing is eliminating and medical regulations eliminated, fights over how to pay become much lower stakes.

[shadowgovt]

> You can be jailed for "tax evasion"

Not even remotely related. Yes, if you fail to bother to calculate your taxes you can be liable. If you do calculate them and you can't pay them, the government works out a payment plan. These trains of thought more or less died with Thoreau arguing why he shouldn't pay taxes (while living on borrowed property owned by his rich neighbor).

> Once medical licensing is eliminating and medical regulations eliminated

Independent issue to paying for medicine. If I understand correctly, your thought is that we have artificial scarcity on medical care because we don't license doctors we could. Those regulations are paid for in blood (or in this case, snake-oil); agree to disagree that lowering the constraints wouldn't just return us to the bad practices that required the constraints in the first place.

[AnthonyMouse]

> If I understand correctly, your thought is that we have artificial scarcity on medical care because we don't license doctors we could. Those regulations are paid for in blood (or in this case, snake-oil); agree to disagree that lowering the constraints wouldn't just return us to the bad practices that required the constraints in the first place.

The "agree to disagree" isn't necessary because it isn't relevant.

People can argue that quacks used to show up to rip people off and then skip town before people caught on that snake oil is snake oil, but they couldn't really do that anymore because now we have the internet which allows your past victims to notify your future victims even if they live in a different city.

But that argument is boring. It doesn't matter if it's true or not, because the laws that really make medicine expensive aren't the ones that require you to register as a doctor so they can more easily investigate quacks. They're the ones that e.g. the AMA has lobbied for to limit the supply of doctors. And we could get rid of those regardless of whether we also get rid of the other ones.

[mothballed]

The train of thought didn't die with Thoreau. It lived on in the minds of those such as Murray Rothbard, and to the extent as it applies to universal healthcare, also known fringe character (and nobel economist) Milton Friedman. Of course Locke himself (a major inspiration for the US constitution, which very narrowly constrains what the federal government can spend money on), I suppose too old as he's the oldest of all of them, only justified taxes so far as they allowed the government to enforce negative rights, that is rights for one person not to molest another rather than positive rights like an entitlement to get something from another such as care.

>your thought is that we have artificial scarcity on medical care because we don't license doctors we could

Really all the above. Probably even more so due to stuff like the intertwining of the insurance and pharmaceutical and medical industries with regulatory apparatus creating all the worst regulatory capture incentives to rent-seek patients with the free market destroyed.

[UncleMeat]

People say that charity should happen instead of taxes. Will you commit to giving all money from future tax cuts to charity?

The practical reality is that charity does not meaningfully solve these problems at scale.

[mothballed]

Of course not. At scale you basically need to remove the government from the situation, they're the one regulating health care into a gigantic blimp. Once health care is completely deregulated and the costs drop you won't need to spending anything close to "all [future] money."

Now if you offered me a deal, I could substitute all my taxes, or even everyone's taxes, for charity, yes I would take that in a heartbeat. In all likelihood I think I would probably donate about 10% of my income to charity if there were no taxes, but the government is so terribly ineffectual it might actually beat the 20-30% I pay now.

[UncleMeat]

Have you though? There have been tax cuts in the past. Did you take your savings and give to charity?

[mothballed]

Look like the effective tax rate has went up rather than down since I started working in 2010, most of which I was closer to the top 1% than the middle 20%. []

There is no savings I can identify there, nor in my tax records, which have only increased in % as I've made more money. And all well above the 10% of the income I would pledge to donate to charity if taxes are eliminated. But yes I have donated to charity on occasion (sometimes formally, sometimes directly in cash to people that needed it), despite the fact I keep getting taxed harder every year and despite the fact the government robs me of ~20-30% of my income under its own bloated forcible charity scheme.

[] https://www.concordcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/...

[ThrowMeAway1618]

Oh noes! I've been Poe's Law'd again!

Mercy, mercy me!

Or are you just spouting ridiculous tropes? Charity? Work-Trade? Loans? Paid by whom in that scenario?

I'd expect you're more in line with Kilmeade than McCain. Why don't you just admit it? It's all out in the open now, no need to hide any more. You'll be broadly lauded for your economic smarts!

Please.

[mothballed]

Your thesis is that people so broadly support additional tax money going to fix the 22 year old that it could be legitimate law, but somehow so few support it that charity or other alternatives (if the very people that support it weren't forced by law) would be a ridiculous trope?

You're defeating your own argument.

[ThrowMeAway1618]

No. My thesis is that we can reduce total healthcare spending by having a single-payer system that covers everyone.

It's not additional tax money, it's money that doesn't need to go to corporate jets and huge pay packages for the C-Suite and large dividends for the shareholders of insurance companies, healthcare providers, pharmaceutical companies and medical equipment manufacturers.

And the tens to hundreds of billions we save on that can pay for that 22 year old.

But we can't have that, now can we? Better to Brian Kilmeade 'em, eh?

[shadowgovt]

> corporate jets and huge pay packages for the C-Suite and large dividends for the shareholders of insurance companies

And armies and armies of middle-folk who are adjudicating from afar whether a given medical procedure is justified or not.

The way the US practices paying for medicine is, counter-intuitively, very expensive because we pay a lot of people to find reasons to justify not paying for it. If we took their salaries and put them into actual service provision, and cut down the vast web of categories and sub-categories to salami-slice the nickels and dimes, we'd spend far less on employment of arbiters and on paperwork and we'd have more money to pay for more services (and no a priori reason to believe the system would oversaturate).

[mothballed]

But you just said it's a ridiculous trope that people would want to charitably donate to the healthcare of others. How would you get the majority to support a single payer system when electing to help others is such a ridiculous trope that you flippantly dismiss it?

[AnthonyMouse]

> But you just said it's a ridiculous trope that people would want to charitably donate to the healthcare of others. How would you get the majority to support a single payer system when electing to help others is such a ridiculous trope that you flippantly dismiss it?

A lot of people have a broken sense of fairness where they're only willing to help someone else if everyone else is required to do it too. It's one of the things causing the world to burn.

Some of this is even learned behavior. A lot of the dumbest econ 101 classes teach people that giving to charity is irrational. (It's not irrational. It's something you do because you want to do it, like eating cake or buying a fast car. Once your basic needs are met, the purpose of having money is to use it for the things you want to use it for. It's not irrational to want to do something good instead of something insalubrious.)

[ThrowMeAway1618]

>But you just said it's a ridiculous trope that people would want to charitably donate to the healthcare of others. How would you get the majority to support a single payer system when electing to help others is such a ridiculous trope that you flippantly dismiss it?

Are you really that ignorant of the issue, or are you just being deliberately obtuse?

We as a society already pay way more than we would with a rational single-payer system. That's not hyperbole either.

What's more, not having employers and employees pay insurance premiums would more than offset any additional taxes.

But you knew that already, because we've known this to be the case for most, if not all, of your life.

I'm done explaining the facts of life to you. Perhaps you should ask your dad.