We need mandates because some people won't do what they "should".

[dblack]

Ever the cheerleader for the nanny-state, Smugman is at it again:

Choice and the Insurance Mandate

...

A key part of the Senate tax bill is repeal of the individual health insurance mandate. The budget scoring relies on this repeal reducing Federal deficits by $318 billion — and the bulk of these spending cuts would hit lower-income families. Republicans argue, however, that these families won’t really be hurt, because they’ll be making a voluntary choice not to be covered and collect government subsidies.

This argument might make sense in a world of hyper-rational individuals. In the world we actually live in, however, it’s a very bad argument. In fact, the very budget savings Republicans are counting on depend on people making bad choices.
...

Krugman's counter argument - that government should mandate these decisions because not everyone will "do it right" - might make sense if we had a hyper-rational government. In the world we actually live in, however, it's a very bad argument.

 

[depotoo]

Who is he to decide what is right? Just more nanny state bull.

Ever the cheerleader for the nanny-state, Smugman is at it again:

Choice and the Insurance Mandate

...

A key part of the Senate tax bill is repeal of the individual health insurance mandate. The budget scoring relies on this repeal reducing Federal deficits by $318 billion — and the bulk of these spending cuts would hit lower-income families. Republicans argue, however, that these families won’t really be hurt, because they’ll be making a voluntary choice not to be covered and collect government subsidies.

This argument might make sense in a world of hyper-rational individuals. In the world we actually live in, however, it’s a very bad argument. In fact, the very budget savings Republicans are counting on depend on people making bad choices.
...

Krugman's counter argument - that government should mandate these decisions because not everyone will "do it right" - might make sense if we had a hyper-rational government. In the world we actually live in, however, it's a very bad argument.

 

[WillowTree]

Exactly,

 

[MadChemist]

Ever the cheerleader for the nanny-state, Smugman is at it again:

Choice and the Insurance Mandate

...

A key part of the Senate tax bill is repeal of the individual health insurance mandate. The budget scoring relies on this repeal reducing Federal deficits by $318 billion — and the bulk of these spending cuts would hit lower-income families. Republicans argue, however, that these families won’t really be hurt, because they’ll be making a voluntary choice not to be covered and collect government subsidies.

This argument might make sense in a world of hyper-rational individuals. In the world we actually live in, however, it’s a very bad argument. In fact, the very budget savings Republicans are counting on depend on people making bad choices.
...

Krugman's counter argument - that government should mandate these decisions because not everyone will "do it right" - might make sense if we had a hyper-rational government. In the world we actually live in, however, it's a very bad argument.

Besides being a terrible policy hack, Krugman is just plain irrirtating.

 

[dblack]

Ever the cheerleader for the nanny-state, Smugman is at it again:

Choice and the Insurance Mandate

...

A key part of the Senate tax bill is repeal of the individual health insurance mandate. The budget scoring relies on this repeal reducing Federal deficits by $318 billion — and the bulk of these spending cuts would hit lower-income families. Republicans argue, however, that these families won’t really be hurt, because they’ll be making a voluntary choice not to be covered and collect government subsidies.

This argument might make sense in a world of hyper-rational individuals. In the world we actually live in, however, it’s a very bad argument. In fact, the very budget savings Republicans are counting on depend on people making bad choices.
...

Krugman's counter argument - that government should mandate these decisions because not everyone will "do it right" - might make sense if we had a hyper-rational government. In the world we actually live in, however, it's a very bad argument.

Besides being a terrible policy hack, Krugman is just plain irrirtating.

He's a true corporatist. In his view, the purpose of government is to "manage" society.

 

[jillian]

Ever the cheerleader for the nanny-state, Smugman is at it again:

Choice and the Insurance Mandate

...

A key part of the Senate tax bill is repeal of the individual health insurance mandate. The budget scoring relies on this repeal reducing Federal deficits by $318 billion — and the bulk of these spending cuts would hit lower-income families. Republicans argue, however, that these families won’t really be hurt, because they’ll be making a voluntary choice not to be covered and collect government subsidies.

This argument might make sense in a world of hyper-rational individuals. In the world we actually live in, however, it’s a very bad argument. In fact, the very budget savings Republicans are counting on depend on people making bad choices.
...

Krugman's counter argument - that government should mandate these decisions because not everyone will "do it right" - might make sense if we had a hyper-rational government. In the world we actually live in, however, it's a very bad argument.

You mean Krugman, the Nobel prize winning economist?

the right's hatred of anyone smart is flabbergasting.

 

[MadChemist]

Ever the cheerleader for the nanny-state, Smugman is at it again:

Choice and the Insurance Mandate

...

A key part of the Senate tax bill is repeal of the individual health insurance mandate. The budget scoring relies on this repeal reducing Federal deficits by $318 billion — and the bulk of these spending cuts would hit lower-income families. Republicans argue, however, that these families won’t really be hurt, because they’ll be making a voluntary choice not to be covered and collect government subsidies.

This argument might make sense in a world of hyper-rational individuals. In the world we actually live in, however, it’s a very bad argument. In fact, the very budget savings Republicans are counting on depend on people making bad choices.
...

Krugman's counter argument - that government should mandate these decisions because not everyone will "do it right" - might make sense if we had a hyper-rational government. In the world we actually live in, however, it's a very bad argument.

You mean Krugman, the Nobel prize winning economist?

the right's hatred of anyone smart is flabbergasting.

I don't see any hate in his statement.

How did you come up with that ?

 

[MadChemist]

Ever the cheerleader for the nanny-state, Smugman is at it again:

Choice and the Insurance Mandate

...

A key part of the Senate tax bill is repeal of the individual health insurance mandate. The budget scoring relies on this repeal reducing Federal deficits by $318 billion — and the bulk of these spending cuts would hit lower-income families. Republicans argue, however, that these families won’t really be hurt, because they’ll be making a voluntary choice not to be covered and collect government subsidies.

This argument might make sense in a world of hyper-rational individuals. In the world we actually live in, however, it’s a very bad argument. In fact, the very budget savings Republicans are counting on depend on people making bad choices.
...

Krugman's counter argument - that government should mandate these decisions because not everyone will "do it right" - might make sense if we had a hyper-rational government. In the world we actually live in, however, it's a very bad argument.

Besides being a terrible policy hack, Krugman is just plain irrirtating.

He's a true corporatist. In his view, the purpose of government is to "manage" society.

But he used to be a rightwinger ????

Makes you wonder......

Ed Shultz used to be a conservative.

 

[dblack]

Ever the cheerleader for the nanny-state, Smugman is at it again:

Choice and the Insurance Mandate

...

A key part of the Senate tax bill is repeal of the individual health insurance mandate. The budget scoring relies on this repeal reducing Federal deficits by $318 billion — and the bulk of these spending cuts would hit lower-income families. Republicans argue, however, that these families won’t really be hurt, because they’ll be making a voluntary choice not to be covered and collect government subsidies.

This argument might make sense in a world of hyper-rational individuals. In the world we actually live in, however, it’s a very bad argument. In fact, the very budget savings Republicans are counting on depend on people making bad choices.
...

Krugman's counter argument - that government should mandate these decisions because not everyone will "do it right" - might make sense if we had a hyper-rational government. In the world we actually live in, however, it's a very bad argument.

Besides being a terrible policy hack, Krugman is just plain irrirtating.

He's a true corporatist. In his view, the purpose of government is to "manage" society.

But he used to be a rightwinger ????

Makes you wonder......

Ed Shultz used to be a conservative.

Team jerseys don't mean much. I want to know about a person's philosophy of government. There are plenty of authoritarians of both the liberal and conservative variety. Krugman seems, to me, to fall for the hubris of leadership. People in positions of authority or power sometimes become enamored with a vision of how the world *could* be, if only everyone would follow their plans. And, all too often, their ambitious visions for society convince them to discard individual liberty as an impediment to government, rather than the point.

 

[MadChemist]

Ever the cheerleader for the nanny-state, Smugman is at it again:

Choice and the Insurance Mandate

...

A key part of the Senate tax bill is repeal of the individual health insurance mandate. The budget scoring relies on this repeal reducing Federal deficits by $318 billion — and the bulk of these spending cuts would hit lower-income families. Republicans argue, however, that these families won’t really be hurt, because they’ll be making a voluntary choice not to be covered and collect government subsidies.

This argument might make sense in a world of hyper-rational individuals. In the world we actually live in, however, it’s a very bad argument. In fact, the very budget savings Republicans are counting on depend on people making bad choices.
...

Krugman's counter argument - that government should mandate these decisions because not everyone will "do it right" - might make sense if we had a hyper-rational government. In the world we actually live in, however, it's a very bad argument.

Besides being a terrible policy hack, Krugman is just plain irrirtating.

He's a true corporatist. In his view, the purpose of government is to "manage" society.

But he used to be a rightwinger ????

Makes you wonder......

Ed Shultz used to be a conservative.

Team jerseys don't mean much. I want to know about a person's philosophy of government. There are plenty of authoritarians of both the liberal and conservative variety. Krugman seems, to me, to fall for the hubris of leadership. People in positions of authority or power sometimes become enamored with a vision of how the world *could* be, if only everyone would follow their plans. And, all too often, their ambitious visions for society convince them to discard individual liberty as an impediment to government, rather than the point.

You ever read Thomas Sowell's "A Conflict Of Visions" ?

You'd enjoy it......

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ever the cheerleader for the nanny-state, Smugman is at it again:

Choice and the Insurance Mandate

...

A key part of the Senate tax bill is repeal of the individual health insurance mandate. The budget scoring relies on this repeal reducing Federal deficits by $318 billion — and the bulk of these spending cuts would hit lower-income families. Republicans argue, however, that these families won’t really be hurt, because they’ll be making a voluntary choice not to be covered and collect government subsidies.

This argument might make sense in a world of hyper-rational individuals. In the world we actually live in, however, it’s a very bad argument. In fact, the very budget savings Republicans are counting on depend on people making bad choices.
...

Krugman's counter argument - that government should mandate these decisions because not everyone will "do it right" - might make sense if we had a hyper-rational government. In the world we actually live in, however, it's a very bad argument.

Ignorant and wrong.

The IM has nothing to do with the mythical ‘nanny state.’

Indeed, there is no ‘mandate’ – Americans are at complete liberty to go without health insurance if they so desire.

And the tax paid by those who decide to not have health insurance is perfectly Constitutional.

 

[MadChemist]

Ever the cheerleader for the nanny-state, Smugman is at it again:

Choice and the Insurance Mandate

...

A key part of the Senate tax bill is repeal of the individual health insurance mandate. The budget scoring relies on this repeal reducing Federal deficits by $318 billion — and the bulk of these spending cuts would hit lower-income families. Republicans argue, however, that these families won’t really be hurt, because they’ll be making a voluntary choice not to be covered and collect government subsidies.

This argument might make sense in a world of hyper-rational individuals. In the world we actually live in, however, it’s a very bad argument. In fact, the very budget savings Republicans are counting on depend on people making bad choices.
...

Krugman's counter argument - that government should mandate these decisions because not everyone will "do it right" - might make sense if we had a hyper-rational government. In the world we actually live in, however, it's a very bad argument.

Ignorant and wrong.

The IM has nothing to do with the mythical ‘nanny state.’

Indeed, there is no ‘mandate’ – Americans are at complete liberty to go without health insurance if they so desire.

And the tax paid by those who decide to not have health insurance is perfectly Constitutional.

What you state about it being constitutional is justified based on the decisions handed down by the SCOTUS.

To say the requirement to buy or be penalized has nothing to do with the nanny state falls under your own classification of ignorant and wrong

Clearly there is an effort by the government to force a particular form of behavior (compliance or pay a penalty). It may not be pure nanny state tactics....but it certainly has a component of them.

 

[dblack]

Indeed, there is no ‘mandate’ – Americans are at complete liberty to go without health insurance if they so desire.

Your understanding of liberty is seriously fucked up, C.

By your reasoning, drivers are at complete "liberty" to run stop signs if they so desire.

And the tax paid by those who decide to not have health insurance is perfectly Constitutional.

I don't give a shit whether you think it's constitutional, whether the Court say it is, or whether 51% of voters think it is. I won't grant sovereignty to a government that uses it's power to fatten the wallets of its corporate "partners". That's a simple and obvious abuse of government power.