Obamacare

[Duel of Fates]

all free government stuff should include some sort of penalty to force people to start working instead of just receiving free money. I remember I saw Rudy Giuliani explaining that when he became mayor there was like 1 million people in new york using government welfare. He said he created a rule where people who accepted government help would have to work for the government for 20 hours a week. That way, the money was not free and the quantity of people subsisting on government help dropped dramatically.

To be honest...that's terrifying. The notion that someone, in order to receive governmental benefits, be required to give something to society may sound appropriate, or even noble, to some, but it's the onset of tyranny. What you're talking about leads down a slippery-slope...if the government can mandate that people do something in return for help, they can easily stretch the requirements to include work aimed at achieving a partisan goal (instead of community service), and from there they can qualify recipients of aid as anyone who supports their efforts, and so on.

To give you a real-life example, Robert Mugabe maintains his dictatorial power by forcing anyone who receives governmental benefits to carry a card signifying membership in his political party.

Maybe we should stay off that slippery slope and cut out all socialist programs. If you make it too easy for someone to milk money off of the rest of us, they won't have an incentive to better themselves and try to be productive members of society.

[CommanderOtto]

all free government stuff should include some sort of penalty to force people to start working instead of just receiving free money. I remember I saw Rudy Giuliani explaining that when he became mayor there was like 1 million people in new york using government welfare. He said he created a rule where people who accepted government help would have to work for the government for 20 hours a week. That way, the money was not free and the quantity of people subsisting on government help dropped dramatically.

To be honest...that's terrifying. The notion that someone, in order to receive governmental benefits, be required to give something to society may sound appropriate, or even noble, to some, but it's the onset of tyranny. What you're talking about leads down a slippery-slope...if the government can mandate that people do something in return for help, they can easily stretch the requirements to include work aimed at achieving a partisan goal (instead of community service), and from there they can qualify recipients of aid as anyone who supports their efforts, and so on.

To give you a real-life example, Robert Mugabe maintains his dictatorial power by forcing anyone who receives governmental benefits to carry a card signifying membership in his political party.

pepsi, im not talking about politics. It's common sense (and economics). People react to incentives. People will accept free money because they have no incentives to make them work. If you put a penalty of some sorts, lazy people will prefer to work and the people who really couldn't find a job do get a job (work for the government for a while). Why should working for the government for a few hours be degrading or immoral? Work is a blessing. And comparing it to Robert Mugabe's actions is a total exaggeration. I'm talking about common sense penalties to avoid abuse. There is no doubt there will be people stealing government money from Obamacare when some of that money is intended for the people who really need it. If individuals can't be held accountable then they will just suck all the money away from the government treasury. There is no such thing as free money. Besides, cleaning parks or keeping the streets clean doesn't seem so bad either.

I'm sure there are tons of unemployed lazy people who will accept the free ride to health insurance. That isn't how it should work either. People need to be accountable. Whether the government should or should not hand out subsidies, that's politics... but now that they exist, rules have to be put to avoid abuse.

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

pepsi, im not talking about politics. It's common sense (and economics). People react to incentives. People will accept free money because they have no incentives to make them work. If you put a penalty of some sorts, lazy people will prefer to work and the people who really couldn't find a job do get a job (work for the government for a while). Why should working for the government for a few hours be degrading or immoral? Work is a blessing. And comparing it to Robert Mugabe's actions is a total exaggeration. I'm talking about common sense penalties to avoid abuse. There is no doubt there will be people stealing government money from Obamacare when some of that money is intended for the people who really need it. If individuals can't be held accountable then they will just suck all the money away from the government treasury. There is no such thing as free money. Besides, cleaning parks or keeping the streets clean doesn't seem so bad either.

I'm sure there are tons of unemployed lazy people who will accept the free ride to health insurance. That isn't how it should work either. People need to be accountable. Whether the government should or should not hand out subsidies, that's politics... but now that they exist, rules have to be put to avoid abuse.

You've missed my point, my friend. I've not suggested that genuine community service is degrading, nor have I attacked the motive behind your assertion. Second, I'm in no way referring to people gaming the system, rather I have noted that the legal precedent created by requiring citizens to work for aid is dangerous.

The idea may appeal to mainstream middle-class taxpayers, but from a purely functional point of view, it will never be implemented - its impractical, bordering on immoral, not because your idea in and of itself is wrong, but because what politicians hundreds of years down the line do may serve to undermine American democracy. What I'm saying isn't extreme, the original intent with which a law is established fades overtime.The desire you have to remove abuse in the system may be an honorable one, but its passage and enforcement would put the state of freedom in a precarious position.

[CommanderOtto]

I know pepsi, but I just don't understand you. It clearly worked for Rudy Giuliani. Regardless of his political ideas, he's a good manager, and his policies worked for the good, because New York used to be crap and now it is a great city. And what are you saying... that government should just hand out money with no accountability? It's a er of good governance and good policies and of policies development and management. You can't have a country that is leaking money all over the place. A policy has to be designed in a way that people don't abuse it, regardless of your opinion or my opinion. I don't see how giving people some honest work in exchange for a sum can be put as"freedom in a precarious state". Why wouldn't it be enforceable? I don't get free money. No one should get free money. If people want help, they can ask for work and the government can give some work to help, but money shouldn't just be given out there just like that. It's unsustainable. And Obamacare can be good or bad, but if that "hole" isn't solved, the lack of morality of people will just drain the program out of existence (or taxes raised further for no good reason). Hell, even Social Security, as broken as it is, it does have a tradeoff... you have to pay taxes to get social security, which means the money isn't totally free. If the health care law is giving something in exchange for nothing, then there is no tradeoff and that will kill the program you are defending. It's about the most basic notions of Economics. Tradeoffs. No incentive to force the people out of the free insurance that the law gives to the unemployed. Again, unsustainable.

and by the way... if Rudy's policy was illegal, I am sure the federal courts would have destroyed it by now. Just saying.

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

I know pepsi, but I just don't understand you. It clearly worked for Rudy Giuliani. Regardless of his political ideas, he's a good manager, and his policies worked for the good, because New York used to be crap and now it is a great city. And what are you saying... that government should just hand out money with no accountability? It's a er of good governance and good policies and of policies development and management. You can't have a country that is leaking money all over the place. A policy has to be designed in a way that people don't abuse it, regardless of your opinion or my opinion. I don't see how giving people some honest work in exchange for a sum can be put as"freedom in a precarious state". Why wouldn't it be enforceable? I don't get free money. No one should get free money. If people want help, they can ask for work and the government can give some work to help, but money shouldn't just be given out there just like that. It's unsustainable. And Obamacare can be good or bad, but if that "hole" isn't solved, the lack of morality of people will just drain the program out of existence (or taxes raised further for no good reason). Hell, even Social Security, as broken as it is, it does have a tradeoff... you have to pay taxes to get social security, which means the money isn't totally free. If the health care law is giving something in exchange for nothing, then there is no tradeoff and that will kill the program you are defending. It's about the most basic notions of Economics. Tradeoffs. No incentive to force the people out of the free insurance that the law gives to the unemployed. Again, unsustainable.

and by the way... if Rudy's policy was illegal, I am sure the federal courts would have destroyed it by now. Just saying.

Assuming that the courts will strike down anything that is illegal is wishful thinking. Even after the 14th Amendment was passed in the 1880s, women and African-Americans were denied the right to vote in many states for decades. Why? Because all effective challenges to the law were met with a SC that didn't uphold the Constitution.

Firstly, you and I have a major ideological conflict: I do believe that some people deserve aid without having to work for it - the disabled, impoverished children, single mothers who already work two or three jobs, etc. But I'm not talking about sustainability nor am I addressing the issue from an economic point of view, I am, however, telling you that requiring people to work in government jobs to earn food stamps, insurance, etc. is dangerous. Yes, it worked in the 1940s (Roosevelt's WPA), but that was before the era of post-industrial, modern states, before Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Whatever the monetary incentive, whatever the benefits you (from a learned economists' point of view) say there are to mandating labor for aid, it cannot be done.

[CommanderOtto]

pepsi, you misunderstand what I am saying. I am not talking about people who really can't work... i'm talking about unemployed people who can work. Obviously, there are people who have disabilities and they have to get their benefit because the government is forcing them to buy something and they cant afford it... so it is understandable that some people receive benefits. But if someone is unemployed and can work, that type of person shouldn't receive the benefit unless he works for it. That's what i'm saying. Obviously, there are people who can't work for it because there are people who really need the subsidy. It's not ideological stuff... it's common sense to have regulations that avoid abuse. Nothing ideological there.

yeah I know, I said "all people" at first... but i'm referring to a group of people who get the benefit and don't work and have the ability to do so. I guess I did not explain very well.

[(SWGO)SirPepsi]

I understand Otto - and I can certainly see why you've taken the view you have, as it's a commonly held position. I know this: my only contentions dealt with the legal implications for future generations and perhaps the difficulty of passing such laws.

By the way, Giuliani was the mayor of NYC - assistance comes from a duel-system involving both the state and the federal government; I fail to see how he could have effectively limited access to aid from his position, considering he isn't responsible for the distribution of benefits...

Have a nice day,
SirPepsi

[CommanderOtto]

I am not sure either... I just know that he did that because I watched 1 hour speech he gave at a university where he talked about it. Don't know the details there.

[Bryant]

The Obamacare website has now topped $1billion. The estimate was $394million...
And the product is a non-working site with no security. Roughly 1/3rd of all applications contain errors that may prevent the consumer from getting insurance in January like they thought.
"It could take a year to secure the risk of “high exposures” of personal information on the federal Obamacare online exchange, a cybersecurity expert told CNBC on Monday."

[Duel of Fates]

Cannot wait for the Employer Mandates to kick in, should be just as spectacular.