Mark Steyn on Obamacare

It definitely is acerbic.

The US is the number 1 destination for medical tourism. 100 of billions of dollars come to the US coming to seek our impressive care for hire. A vast majority of medical innovations, medicine - devices and procedures are created here and generate income from across the globe. By nationalizing 1/6 of our economy and arguable one of the most innovative segments of the economy we may - no - we will cause much more damage than what we purport to repair.

Socializing the expenses of major companies to "bring back" manufacturing jobs and level the playing field will not work. The manufacturing jobs are gone and they are not coming back - ever! It is not the industrial age, it is not the information age - It is the Age of the Intangible Economy.

The health bill does not solve the problem of health care and dope slaps (technical term) the engines behind the Intangible Economy - the innovators in 1/6 of our economy.

The assets of an Intangible Economy are VERY mobile and will land where there is incentive to do so. Where the innovators can make money and protect their rights? Where will that be?

An interesting questions for now...

"It is the Age of the Intangible Economy."

It's amazing how few people realize this fact.

"Age of the Intangible Economy"

I like that (but I'm just a guest).

This, "As I've been saying for more than a year now, health care is the fast-track to a permanent left-of-center political culture." is the most significant thing he said.

A single payer system or medicare for all would be so popular and show yet again the utility of proper government institutions. It's passage, what most American want, would mean that the Republicans would likely wander the dessert for 40 or more years. Unfortunately, even the liberals don't care too much for this lobbyist written bill but hope springs eternal for dramatic changes while in committee.

Why not single payer food, too, scuzzball?

Hope always springs eternal for those that assume competency at the federal level. Forget the innate inefficiencies in government-run programs; I want to know where you get your hope. Why should I expect them to EVENTUALLY cut through the bureaucratic b.s.? Why should I wait in hope and wonder for a coherent, fair bill to make it through congress. We say that this bill is watered down, but it is 100% characteristic of our senate and house. Expect nothing better from these "people."

As of August 2009 only 32% favored single-payer: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/...

There's a pretty good reason why single-payer and the "public option" failed - most Americans like their current insurance and don't want it screwed with.

That you see this as a victory speaks volumes.

"Who? Whom?" Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Because the bill doesn't contain a "public option", but instead controls every minute detail of nominally private health insurance coverage, it allows government to control healthcare completely but still blame private enterprise for its failure.

This is significantly worse than European systems and it's being done on a scale that no other country has ever tried. The Soviet Union attempted to "guarantee" health care to 150MM ethnically diverse people (half the ethnically diverse population of the U.S.) and found the task impossible. I can only hope that the people who think the atrocity of Soviet health care resulted from the Soviet government's lack of concern for its citizenry aren't nursing some delusion that the U.S. government is more concerned about the well-being of its citizenry.

If that were the case, congress would have passed reform they would have all gladly subscribed to instead of resisting like a donkey subjugation to their own concoction.

Yep to Methinks1776

The only way to provide healthcare equally to all is to provide none. All of the rules being developed by and through legislation, standards of care etc... are sincere efforts, no matter how misguided, on how to deal with the inequalities of life driven by our choices.

The idea that we qualify for health care because we have insurance makes about as much sense as qualify for food because we have food insurance....

RE: "Because the bill doesn't contain a "public option", but instead controls every minute detail of nominally private health insurance coverage, it allows government to control healthcare completely but still blame private enterprise for its failure."

Exactly. There were a lot of so-so options we could have moved forward with, but I'm very concerned that basically all we seem to be getting out of this is a mandate. I think private enterprise will even be happy to take the verbal abuse - after all, the government is pushing 50 million new customers into their arms. Merry Christmas! It's not a good situation.

I have slightly different feelings about what exactly the negative consequences are than what you provide with your Soviet example. We can provide some sort of health care to everyone in this country - I don't have the doubts about that that you seem to. The problem isn't the impossibility of guaranteeing health care. The problem is that in the misguided desire to guarantee health care, prices are going to be driven up tremendously by forcing 50 million people into the market, and by forcing the people already in the market to buy at least some sort of least common denominator insurance plan. The actual provision of health care doesn't concern me - nobody will be dying in the streets and for all I know some people will be a lot healthier as a result of being forced into the market for insurance. What concerns me is the distortions that will result from forcing people into the market.

The hope I maintain is that when we do see prices jumping, a mandate is a much easier thing to tweak and pull back. It's easy to eliminate it entirely or just make the penalty so weak that it amounts to a nominal Pigovian tax to counter free-riders on emergency rooms. Hopefully the bill can do some real good as well - the elimination of the tax priveleges associated with employer benefits, an exchange that facilitates competition across states, and rationalization of Medicare.

Aside from the incredibly stupid notion that a state can "guarantee health care" (after all, no country on the planet actually guarantees health care) that is a lot of "hope." I mean, the government doesn't guarantee and isn't required to provide any sort of safety for the citizen (this despite billions upon billions of dollars being spent on police, etc. - much of the money being sent down a bottomless rat hole of waste) yet the state is suddenly going to guarantee health care? That's just stupid.

Now, back in the real world, we have an Obama administration which will brook no effort to repeal the PATRIOT Act, which is going full steam ahead in its efforts to further dig ourselves into Afghanistan, continues unabated human rights disasters like the drug war, etc. and you hope that this most recent assault on liberty and human dignity will do all these things?

RE: "yet the state is suddenly going to guarantee health care? That's just stupid"

Agreed. In the state's defense (always a dangerous proposition on here, I know), I think the only claim is to guarantee insurance coverage. Of course that is meaningless if some form of care can't be guaranteed - which it absolutely can't.

RE: "you hope that this most recent assault on liberty and human dignity will do all these things?"

Huh? I think you're confused about what my hope is. I'm hoping when the U.S. turns out like Massachusetts we can adjust the mandates. I don't see why that sounds so crazy to people. We scaled back welfare. We eliminated previous wage and price controls. It's not a foregone conclusion, but the case is so airtight that it's possible.

...I think the only claim is to guarantee insurance coverage.

Well, this is what got the Canadian government in trouble a few years ago re: the Canadian Supreme Court. The wait lines were so bad that it determined that (at least in one province) that they violated the Canadian constitution's guarantee of health care; since it did so the party who sued was then free to seek privately paid remedies for his health problems.

The challenges this will face before the U.S. Supreme Court will be interesting.

I'm hoping when the U.S. turns out like Massachusetts we can adjust the mandates.

Well, the mandates need to be eliminated. However, once we're down this path we will not deviate from it until the system collapses or comes near to such; SSI, medicare, etc. have all taught us that. These programs create a lot of inertia that is difficult to stop until the programs stop themselves.

As for scaled back welfare, that was a tiny program effecting very few people with very real oars in the water. I don't think it is a good analogy at all. The wage and price controls were so monstrously screwed up and it was so obvious that they were that it was relatively easy to repeal them. This health care mess is much messier.

RE: "The wait lines were so bad that it determined that (at least in one province) that they violated the Canadian constitution's guarantee of health care"

Well OK - I don't know the situation in Canada, but we don't guarantee health care here. If anything this mandate is unconstitutional. Failure to guarantee care isn't going to be the constitutional grounds that it will be challenged on here.

RE: "The wage and price controls were so monstrously screwed up and it was so obvious that they were that it was relatively easy to repeal them."

And you don't think this characterizes an insurance mandate?

My point was that even in countries that "guarantee health care" via their constitution that the task is something the state cannot deal with.

And you don't think this characterizes an insurance mandate?

I don't know how obvious that will be to the public.

>I'm hoping when the U.S. turns out like Massachusetts we can adjust the mandates.

Do you know anyone who lives in Mass? I do. None of them have anything good to say about the mandates.
If we implement this nationally it's going to get really ugly.

But that's OK. Intentions are all that matter.
Consequences are just cans to be kicked down the road.

RE: "None of them have anything good to say about the mandates."

I've heard some do like it, but I have no idea why. Either way - this is good. Not having anything good to say about the mandate is both understandable, and it makes changing it more likely.

How is this good? In this bill, Massachusetts just got a huge subsidy to support its hobbling health care system. They aren't changing the health care system. They're changing how much you are going to be forced to pay for it.

If nobody has anything good to say about mandates there is a much better chance the mandates will be reduced considerably or even eliminated - that's why it's good that they don't have anything good to say about it.

I think you're wrong because I think that the political class will be able to blame failures on "corporate greed" instead of the mandates. That is the higher probability event. It's the higher probability event because state mandates are already failures and that failure is successfully blamed on some non-existent free market and private greed and used to sell the public on more government involvement and more mandates. Nobody in power EVER discussed changing or eliminating the mandates.

I HOPE you're right. But, if I made decisions based on hope instead of probability, I'd be broke by now. And bankruptcy on the wings of hope is exactly where the country's headed.

"if I made decisions based on hope instead of probability," then you would have voted for Obama.

LOL!

RE: "the political class will be able to blame failures on "corporate greed" instead of the mandates"

These two things aren't as different as you might think. Exactly who do you think benefits from forcing almost 50 million people to purchase your product?

RE: "Nobody in power EVER discussed changing or eliminating the mandates."

That's not true at all - Obama did just about a year ago. I think a year ago counts as "ever". The Senate leadership made it clear he couldn't get a bill without one, though, and over the summer he said he would sign a bill with a mandate.

I would evaluate the probabilities differently - it's not just an issue of "hope" - but time will tell.

Why do you make me explain elementary things to you? If government didn't force people to buy health insurance, the health insurers wouldn't have so much power. If government didn't raise barriers to entry through regulation, the only way insurance companies could make money is by pleasing their fellow man.

That's not true at all - Obama did just about a year ago.

Where? I don't remember an event where our current socialist/fascist president wasn't advocating forcing his vision on the rest of us.

:) I don't make you explain anything to me. In fact I spend a lot of my time talking with you correcting what you've written, so I'm not sure why I would request that you explain anything to me anyway.

Did you ever consider the possibility that insurance companies wanted consumers to be forced to buy health care? You can say that government forced consumers to do something or you can say that corporations forced government to force consumers to do something. The point is still the same. Corporate interest and an overreaching government worked together to make this mandate. Don't confuse corporate interest and sway in Washington with the market.

RE: "Where? I don't remember an event where our current socialist/fascist president wasn't advocating forcing his vision on the rest of us."

He made it extremely clear throughout the campaign. I'm not surprised at all that you weren't paying attention.

Did you ever consider the possibility that insurance companies wanted consumers to be forced to buy health care?

Did you ever consider how irrelevant that is? Corporations can't force government to do anything. They don't have the monopoly on violent force and only government can force you to buy insurance. They don't "work together" naturally. Only when government is too powerful can that even occur. So, you're basically telling us that when government expands its own power, it is no longer solely responsible what it does with it. If it sells it to greedy insurance companies, then it's all the greedy insurance company's fault and the only way to fix whatever problems that creates is for the government to usurp even more power.

We don't need to wait. You've made the case already, yet you still dream that mandates will be reduced and everything will be much better. I suggest you stop huffing so much Hopium.

He made it extremely clear throughout the campaign.

He made it clear throughout his campaign that he wanted to toss us all into "universal care". What about that doesn't spell "mandate" to you? Too much hopey changey.

Why do you keep saying things like "it's all the greedy insurance company's fault" when I never said it's only their fault? Why do you say that I'm advocating more government power, when what I've advocated is the elimination of mandates (assuming they're going to happen, that is)?

RE: "They don't have the monopoly on violent force and only government can force you to buy insurance."

Who cares if they have a monopoly on violent force? What does that matter? They practically have Congressmen on their payroll. I'm not saying corporations rule America. What I'm saying is they have considerable sway and a lot that is done in Washington is done by them and for them. No violent force necessary.

RE: "He made it clear throughout his campaign that he wanted to toss us all into "universal care". What about that doesn't spell "mandate" to you?"

He said exactly the opposite. This is very common knowledge, Methinks. It's one of the major reasons why I didn't just vote for him in the election, but in the primary as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Idm_cQOG-NQ&feat...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoSnqofelsQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKS-D5_v9A0&feat...
You had to have expended a great deal of effort to ignore the discussion that went on if you seriously believe that Obama supported mandates during the campaign. You had to have deliberately avoided even listening to him to come to that conclusion.

A presidential candidate will say most anything to help them get elected. FDR criticized Hoover on the campaign trail for not being fiscally responsible. I see you bought it hook, line, and sinker.

Here's Obama taking a much different view in front of his buddies at the AFL-CIO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

Danny,

Imagine I'm holding a hot frying pan and an egg. Imagine I break the egg over the frying pan and the egg sizzles on the pan. That's your brain on Hopium.

Changium is almost as bad, but there's not as much of it going around.

I'm sorry your ideological blinders have ruined two perfectly good nouns for you. Oh well. I'll make a point not to use them again so you don't get worked up about it.

We can provide some sort of health care to everyone in this country - I don't have the doubts about that that you seem to.

The Soviet Union provided "some sort of health care" to everyone in the country.

Nobody is dying in the streets now. They will be dying on wait lists, not in the streets. That's the effect of the "distortions" you fear but don't seem to fully grasp.

You're hopeful? Statists always are. If there are "tweaks" to the mandate that result in better outcomes for the citizenry rather than for the political class and the powerful interest groups it creates, I'll eat my hat.

RE: "Nobody is dying in the streets now. They will be dying on wait lists, not in the streets. That's the effect of the "distortions" you fear but don't seem to fully grasp."

Argh - please don't talk down to me or at least don't be so blatant about it when you feel the need to. I do grasp that. That's a pretty obvious impact of these distortions. The difference is that I'm not as concerned about that as I am about what it will do to premiums and costs. The fact that I don't choose to mention something doesn't mean I don't understand it.

Taking a broader perspective (the way Don does with his Macaulay posts), the change in deaths while waiting for care don't really sully the fantastic health we enjoy in this country, and in this day and age - particularly since those deaths are likely going to come along with the reduction in death for people who didn't have insurance before. In a very crude sense it's a wash - and I also find it hard to get too upset about death rates in 21st century America. A lot of people use this to sentimentalize the debate. Matthew Yglesias posts about how many deaths are caused by uninsurance. Others post about how many die waiting to see a doctor. Both are true, but both distract by pulling at the hearts strings. So I focus on the cost end of the distortionary mandates because that is unambiguously bad.

RE: "If there are "tweaks" to the mandate that result in better outcomes for the citizenry rather than for the political class and the powerful interest groups it creates, I'll eat my hat."

You don't think eliminating the mandate or reducing the penalty to a nominal penalty would result in better outcomes for the citizenry rather than for the political class? I can't speak for statists, but as a non-statist I'm hopeful we'll see the folly of the mandate sooner rather than later.

The fact that I don't choose to mention something doesn't mean I don't understand it.

The fact that you don't choose to mention it means that you choose not to think beyond step one. You need to think about the effects of higher premiums and costs - and not just on the health care system.

It is currently illegal to deny care to anyone in the United States. Nobody is dying for lack of insurance. It's a myth concocted by Harry Reid for soundbites aimed at people like you.

You don't think eliminating the mandate or reducing the penalty to a nominal penalty would result in better outcomes for the citizenry rather than for the political class?

I don't think that will happen.

RE: "The fact that you don't choose to mention it means that you choose not to think beyond step one."

No, it doesn't mean that. Parismony is not a bad thing in writing, and normally I'm not very parsimonious - it's a good thing when I can be. Parsimony is not an indication of short-sightedness. You never mentioned costs once in the post I responded. Does that mean I should conclude that you don't understand that the mandate will raise costs? Of course not.

RE: "You need to think about the effects of higher premiums and costs - and not just on the health care system."

Why do you think I'm concerned about premiums and costs exactly? It's precisely because of their effects!

RE: "It is currently illegal to deny care to anyone in the United States. Nobody is dying for lack of insurance. It's a myth concocted by Harry Reid for soundbites aimed at people like you."

What are you talking about? Just because you have to take people into an emergency room doesn't mean you can't deny them certain types of care. And when necessary types of care are denied, of course people can die. People also simply avoid hospitals if they don't have insurance. I don't know why you think this is a soundbite aimed at people like me. I specifically said I'm not swayed by these concerns.


This is crazy methinks. I was trying to agree with you on the legislation with a slight departure from your point about the Soviet Union. I'm not sure why I'm getting accused of not mentioning something that you never mentioned either.

Just because you have to take people into an emergency room doesn't mean you can't deny them certain types of care. And when necessary types of care are denied, of course people can die.

"Certain types of care"? Certain types of care are routinely denied for the insured and uninsured. What's your point? You're writing like Krugman who doesn't say that wealth is a finite quantity but means to give that impression. If you get cancer, treatment cannot be denied if you can't pay. That's the case today. "Certain types of care" will be denied by third party payers now and always. Nice straw man.

with a slight departure from your point about the Soviet Union.

Really? What was my point about the Soviet Union. It's not clear to me you understand it.

RE: "Certain types of care are routinely denied for the insured and uninsured. What's your point?"

The point is that while the mandate is very bad, one consequence will be that the previously uninsured will probably be denied certain types of care LESS than they were denied previously. In addition, the previously insured will probably be denied care MORE than they were denied previously. The former impact of the mandate will save lives. The later impact of the mandate will lose lives. Both of these are impacts that I acknowledge, but that don't really sway me one way or another - the liberal concerns about uninsurance don't sway me (obviously, because I've never pined for "universal coverage), and the conservative concerns about waiting lists don't sway me because it's hard to get too worked up about the health care in 21st century America - we have it pretty good.

The cost question does sway me.

RE: "Really? What was my point about the Soviet Union. It's not clear to me you understand it."

That the Soviets found it impossible to guarantee health care, despite their "concern" for their citizens. I don't disagree with the observation, my departure was simply that that isn't my primary concern with all this.

the previously uninsured will probably be denied certain types of care LESS than they were denied previously. In addition, the previously insured will probably be denied care MORE than they were denied previously.

You've reached levels of mental origami impressive even for you.

If the uninsured cannot be denied routine care now and everyone is denied hail mary medicine now, then what care will the uninsured be receiving more of that the currently insured will be receiving less of?

it's hard to get too worked up about the health care in 21st century America - we have it pretty good.

You're missing the point. We won't have it pretty good anymore because the quality and quantity of care will decline. Fore everyone. You will never get anyone else to pay for your care. That's a pipe dream.

That the Soviets found it impossible to guarantee health care, despite their "concern" for their citizens. I don't disagree with the observation, my departure was simply that that isn't my primary concern with all this.

The Soviets found it completely possible to guarantee health care for everyone.

Define "health care".

You assert that we will have roughly the same level of care - hence your inability to get too worked up about 21st century American medicine. No other country has ever been able to achieve America's quantity and quality of care through a government system. The larger the population, the more unachievable the goal, hence the comparison to the Soviet Union which by the 1990's did not even meet the standard of the 1950's medicine Western European countries were attempting to basically successfully administer.

Everyone in this country can afford 1950's medicine without government intervention to guarantee decades only decades old medicine for everyone.

BTW, I do make full use of the "edit" function because I can't fully proof my posts in the tiny box provided and there's no "preview".

The greedy capitalists have created a system where emergency treatment is provided based upon need -- with costs being shifted (socialized) based upon chosen access.

The greedy capitalists have given the people who pay for the system a line pass, allowing them immediate access (assuming there are not more immediate needs).

This "line pass" is perceived as too large of a consideration by those who do not contribute -- they demand that we take a number and stand in line.

RE: "If the uninsured cannot be denied routine care now and everyone is denied hail mary medicine now, then what care will the uninsured be receiving more of that the currently insured will be receiving less of?"

This may sound like "mental origami" to you, but in the real world there are intermediate options between "routine medicine" and "hail mary medicine".

RE: "You're missing the point. We won't have it pretty good anymore because the quality and quantity of care will decline."

For the last time, I'm not missing this point. I acknowledge it. I'm only saying that the impact on the price is more disconcerting for me than the impact on quantity/quality. Could you stop pretending you know what I'm thinking?

RE: "The Soviets found it completely possible to guarantee health care for everyone."

Allow me to quote you: "The Soviet Union attempted to "guarantee" health care to 150MM ethnically diverse people and found the task impossible." I agree with this basic observation, regardless of the definitional gymnastics that people can do with the words "health care".



This is getting silly - I'm done. If you insist on telling me what I think it starts to get pointless. Mandates are bad for a number of reasons. The reason that troubles me most is the effect on premiums and costs. That's that - mangle it how you will.

The Soviet Union attempted to "guarantee" health care to 150MM ethnically diverse people and found the task impossible."

The polyclinics never seemed to run out of gauze and aspirin powder.

It was impossible to guarantee basic life saving treatment - the stuff people in this recognize as health care. That's impossible. Getting doctors to work for government wages was impossible. Socialists think that a legal right to die or become permanently damaged on wait lists is "health care". So, I say it's impossible and the Muirdiots of the world think it isn't. Our definitions of "health care" are the difference.

in the real world there are intermediate options between "routine medicine" and "hail mary medicine".

Oh? Well, which life-saving treatments are unavailable to the uninsured that are available to the insured then?

BTW, most of the uninsured who avoid hospitals entirely are illegal immigrants. Somehow, I don't feel compelled to provide them with health care.

Could you stop pretending you know what I'm thinking?

Difficult to do since you don't seem to know what you're thinking either. You know that quantity and quality are impacted by price, right? I think you do.

Mandates are bad for a number of reasons. The reason that troubles me most is the effect on premiums and costs.

What? No! But you said they'll be changed for the better in the future. Of course, the asses in congress are trying to bind future congresses to the current legislation, but never mind. We'll just ignore that. I thought this legislation gave you hope, Daniel! Now you think it's bad? What happened to all that Hope 'n change?

RE: "Oh? Well, which life-saving treatments are unavailable to the uninsured that are available to the insured then?"

The marginal revolution in economic thought totally passed you by, didn't it?

So, you don't know of any.

Good work.

Haha. No I don't have an answer because it was a crappy question. Notice how you morphed from our earlier discussion of "less" and "more" care to "unavailable" and "available". Don't think your rhetorical weaseling goes unnoticed, Methinks.

Don't think your simpering wonkishness goes unnoticed, Daniel. Your faith that we can provide health care to all is proof positive of your fatal conceit, you jackbooted jackass!

There is the possibility of a constitutional amendment -- possibly something on the order of -

"The right of the people to be master of their domain, their free choice in medical and health decisions shall not be violated. There shall be no interference in individual choices, methods of provision, types of treatment, or any freely contracted indemnity."

An amendment of this sort could invalidate everything the left is trying to do. It would have the added benefit of attracting such diverse support as --

-- The Conservative right
-- Abortion rights advocates
-- Medical marijuana supporters (George Soros)
-- Reasonable people.

The courts would, eventually, find something in the Commerce Clause that makes Obamacare perfectly legal. How could it be reworded to prevent that and broaden the support?



(apologies to Jerry Seinfeld)

I like the phrasing. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter. The Constitution is propaganda. It supports the legitimacy of the regime, but its purpose is to enable the regime to exercise power. So, even if the Constitution were modified it would still be propaganda, the regime would still have power, and it would exercise that power to "progressively" enhance its ability to exploit the population. Think I'm wrong? Then consider that we already have a Constitution that any reasonable person would assume sets limits on the regime in such a way that it cannot possibly do many of the things that it does. It does these things nonetheless. Solutions? Only one. The question is whether on not the solution is worth the cost.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.

For the record, I don't think you're wrong.

Now -- there's conviction.

I am indeed convinced that our public servants view us as their slaves.

Yes -- slavery is the position you must opt-out of. If you don't, or can't learn enough, you will not have the information to opt-out of slavery. This is clearly by design.

Yep.

>It supports the legitimacy of the regime, but its purpose is to enable the regime to exercise power.


"Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals -- that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government -- that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."
--Ayn Rand

Opting-out is really just a divergence of opinion. Those who opt-out are acknowledging that the Constitution is a limitation on the government. The government doesn't agree.

You cannot op out for 10 years, even if you leave and renounce your citizenship, and have paid you taxes current - can't renounce your citizenship with taxes due, you still have to pay taxes in the US for 10 more years and report your foreign bank accounts. We are now in a Dickensonian debtor's prison.

You are soooooo right when it come to the government's disagreement on our freedoms.

The question you and everyone else should be asking is "how did you opt in"?

If you were natural born to the soil known as the state of............try and think of when you opted in, what marked that occasion, what formality, what made it distinctive enough in your memory to compel you to perform for them all these years?

Why would you ask to opt out of something you never asked to opt in to? Ahh, now there is a question worth exploring.

"how did you opt in?"

The state has many implied contracts.

Your parents probably requested the states permission to marry by getting a license. Why? You have probably requested a license yourself. Why? They probably asked the state to certify your birth. Why? You have probably asked the state to certify births. Why?

These are all contracts with the state.

My questions were rhetorical and asked to get you to think different.

An implied contract has as its hinge a presumption, no more and no less.

That presumption is not a conclusive presumption, you allow a presumption of law to be made because you are ignorant of this presumption in the first place.

The presumption is a rebuttable presumption or a prima facie presumption.

There are remedies in law to overcome presumptions, duress is one of them, fraud is another.

"There is no way out for those who do not seek the way out and assume none exists."

Black's Law 7th Ed.
Presumption. A legal inference or assumption that a fact exists, based on the known or proven existence of some other fact or group of facts. – Most presumptions are rules of evidence calling for a certain result in a given case unless the adversely affected party overcomes it with other evidence. A presumption shifts the burden of production or persuasion to the opposing party, who can then attempt to overcome the presumption. See burden of production.

Burden of production. A party’s duty to introduce enough evidence on an issue to have the issue decided by the fact-finder, rather than decided against the party in a preemptory ruling such as a summary judgment or a directed verdict. – Also termed burden of going forward with evidence; burden of producing evidence; production burden; degree of proof.

Conclusive presumption. A presumption that cannot be overcome by any additional evidence or argument <it is a conclusive presumption that a child under the age of seven is incapable of committing a felony>. – Also termed absolute presumption; irrebuttable presumption; mandatory presumption; presumption juris et de jure. Cf. rebuttable presumption.

Presumption of law. A legal assumption that a court is required to make if certain facts are established and no contradictory evidence is produced <by presumption of law a criminal defendant is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt>. – Also termed legal presumption; artificial presumption; praesumptio juris.

prima facie presumption. See rebuttable presumption.

Rebuttable presumption. An inference drawn from certain facts that establish a prima facie case, which may be overcome by the introduction of contrary evidence. – Also termed prima facie presumption; disputable presumption; conditional presumption; presumptio juris. Cf. conclusive presumption.
----

I'll ask again, "if you've never asked to opt in, why should you ask to opt out?"

There is a legal age of majority, which I believe has generally been age 21, lower in some states. After reaching that age do you remember one instance of government asking or requiring you to make that formal "opt in"? It would appear that they are satisfied with the status quo of presumption, and depend on the fact that you are unlikely to ever discover it.

First -- I really appreciate your reply. Thank you.

I'll ask again, "if you've never asked to opt in, why should you ask to opt out?"

This is a little different, though not much different, from your first question followed by a statement. I'm not suggesting you've changed the direction of your argument, only that I'm reading it differently.

"how did you opt in?" is the central theme -- and I think we agree that we did not.

OTOH -- I've spent enough time in courtrooms, arguing points very similar to yours, to know that there are very few jurists that will entertain them -- let alone actually reflect on them.

When I say opt-out, I really should have said reject the assumptions of the state. Thank you again for your research.

For any readers that don't understand the issue, I would recommend studying vidyohs post.

I agree that it would be a rare jurist that would actually ponder the point but that does not lessen its impact in my fight with the feds. My job is to stay out of courtrooms while advancing my position.

The State Dept. is the place to take my position, and that is where I am currently making my headway, as it were.

The point that so far govt can not prove any one specific instance in which I committed to opt in, and have not been able to overcome my denial of "being in" speaks volumes to me. (and this even in the full knowledge that I did contract with govt for enough successive years in order to receive a retirement.)

It is all simple logic based on the realization that the Constitution is but a corporate charter for a corporate government, and even above that it is only an agreement among men; which leaves room for those who do not agree. I am here, the product of no government action, and I do not agree to be a part of it; now what do you do about me?

What I did, and am doing, is denying the presumption and challenging government to show that I am wrong.

Does anyone ask to be born?

Your information is old. The HEART Act of 2007 changed that (thanks, Bush, you old bastard!).

Apparently chasing ex-citizens around the world for a decade is inefficient and yields little tax revenue.

Now, the U.S. government will only accept your renunciation after you have paid tribute. The government assess a capital gains tax on worldwide property for any gains above $600K. After you pay that (you're still liable for the cap gains tax after you actually sell the property, of course), you are no longer taxed. So, if you're young with a high earning potential but no assets, this is the time to leave.

Of course, your renunciation will not be accepted unless you have citizenship in another country and your renunciation is made on foreign soil (you're not permitted to renounce within the United states). The government can take its sweet time deciding whether it'll let you go or not - a decade is not unheard of.

If you are so much as upper middle class, regardless of the actual reason you're renouncing (you've lived in France with your spouse and children for 25 years and have no plans to return to the U.S., for instance), the United States will declare that you are renouncing to avoid paying U.S. taxes. The United States doesn't have to but it does banish those people. They will never be able to get a visa to visit the United States ever again.

Reminds me a lot of immigrating from the Soviet Union (minus the physical threat). The laws and attitudes regarding people immigrating from the United States to other countries were not always so harsh. They became much more harsh in the 1990's. The trajectory for freedom in this country is not good and the trajectory for the ability to leave this country is also not good.

Dear Methinks1776

As always dealing with tax matters in a short space provides ample opportunity for incomplete information. You are correct there is an Expatriation Tax for those who have a 2MM Net worth adjusted for inflation and or over certain annual earnings, there are also ongoing taxable obligations if you meet / or fail certain tests... For way too much information on a messy and complicated subject read on..

From the IRS rules

"Further, expatriated individuals will be subject to U.S. tax on their worldwide income for any of the 10 years following expatriation in which they are present in the U.S. for more than 30 days, or 60 days in the case of individuals working in the U.S. for an unrelated employer."

Please see for a bit more information for those who really wish to look into this.

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/internation...

Expatriation tax is covered under section 877, 877A and Form 8854

Don't forget form 8874 affirming that you have complied with all U.S. federal tax obligations for the 5 years preceding the date of your expatriation or termination of residency.

Also if you are subject to US tax reporting requirements you are also subject to the FBAR requirements. TD F 90-22.1

http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,...

Please excuse my over simplification of a very complicated tax regime...


On another note the real tragedy has been on FBAR reporting requirements hitting students living overseas and expats who just did not report, they paid their taxes but just did not file the FBAR. Most of penalties are mandatory for failure to file the FBAR. Very sad.

But, certainly, the US considers foreign money deposited in the US in a similar light -- no? Is it possible that the US is indifferent to foreign deposits and at the same time antagonistic toward offshore financial centers that accept domestic deposits?

Tell me it's not so!

What light would that be? The U.S. is indifferent to deposits in foreign accounts. It is not indifferent to any income earned abroad. If those accounts are meant to hide foreign income from the KGB...er....I mean the IRS, then they care. If not, you just disclose and move on (and increase your probability of an audit, but then that's already increased if you're making enough money to even attempt to hide it).

The US is not indifferent to foreign deposits by sovereigns -- even with full disclosure, AML laws raise suspicion. To the US, full transparency means the government standing behind the reflecting surface of a one-way mirror.

I think I misunderstood your original post on the subject. The U.S. isn't hostile to foreign investments and foreign financial institutions have similar AML laws. This makes it difficult, but far from impossible to open a foreign bank account and for a foreigner to open an account here. In U.S. banks, the foreigner must present in person with documents verifying his identity, explain where the money is coming from and then the account is opened.

If being subject to AML laws constitutes hostility for you (and I don't know that I necessarily disagree with that view), then the U.S. is hostile to major financial transactions. If you wire or deposit $10,000 or more (even in small amounts), you set of AML triggers.

I find the use of CTR's and SAR's as a method to expose an otherwise undetected underlying crime analogous to bedroom cameras meant to expose an otherwise undetected rape. I'm funny that way.

What a joy that this is even a point of discussion, eh?

"Further, expatriated individuals will be subject to U.S. tax on their worldwide income for any of the 10 years following expatriation in which they are present in the U.S. for more than 30 days, or 60 days in the case of individuals working in the U.S. for an unrelated employer."

The payment of taxes is subject to the 30 day rule. If you spend at least 30 days in the United States as an ex-citizen (provided you are issued a visa), you will be treated as a U.S. citizen for the purposes of taxation for that year. However, if you spend less than 30 days in the United States, then you are not subject to U.S. income taxes after you renounce and pay the exit tax.

It's difficult to deal with hairy tax issues in a short space, but even incomplete information is informative. Thanks for your reply.


The FBAR is truly obnoxious. I agree. Most of the tax code you linked to deals with taxation of Americans living abroad, not ex-citizens. The FBAR rule extends to people who for simply pragmatic reasons have power of attorney over relatives' accounts who live overseas and most of those people don't even KNOW they have to file with the IRS. Why would they? They have no economic benefit from that account?

FBAR - it get worse. How about a child who is the beneficiary of a trust she is not even aware of! 10K mandatory per year fine and possible forfeiture of the full value of the Trust assets ascribed to her. Very bad law...

Jeeez! Bad for you and me. Great for the bloodsucking whores in power.

This can only lead to either challenging the rule in court or going further underground, which will lead to more mafia-style tactics by the U.S. government. The line dividing soft and hard tyranny is much thinner than people imagine.

A majority of our GDP is generate by small businesses. They lack the funds and the will for a legal challenge. They will choose, as most have done throughout history, to enter the cash / underground / gray economy. And you are correct - more oppressive methods of tax collection. Over regulation leads to avoidance of regulation and movement into the gray economy where there are no tax revenues. Smells of a Laffer curve effect.

As for bloodsucking whores - I always thought of them as pimps. They are laying in their crib awake at night wondering what all of us service workers are doing and how much we are not paying them. ;-)

Could this be -- Gasp! -- why the economy is not rebounding?

Are these the "animal spirits" so disdained by macroman?

Pimps lying in their crib wondering why we're not working for them -- I like that.

YeeeHaah What good fun! Bar is open at my place and drinks are on me. Good dialog should always be rewarded - thanks to Methinks1776 and Sheetwise

Well, we have a lot to look forward to, don't we. And you're right, they are more like pimps. Comparing prostitutes to politicians is terribly insulting to prostitutes.

Welcome to the Hotel California.

I jumped out of one into another. You can't imagine how happy I am about that.

Actually, I can ;)

my condolences.

That would be the right response. Thank you.

May I ask which hotel you hail from?

Nevada -- home of allodial title (as declared).

You're talking about the oppositions strategy.

When I say "opt-out" I mean ignoring the opposition. The opposition doesn't really exist until they choose to expend the effort to pursue you. This may happen.

Best to choose to not be rich -- you won't have any worries. This is consistent with my theory on consumption. The goal in life is to live as well as possible and make no money.

Essentially, I agree. That's why I knew it had to be reworded.

But when we have a court that determines "... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation" means that private property can be taken for private use -- we have problems.

There must be a way to write a sentence that cannot be parsed.

Of course. If the Framers wanted to prevent private property from being taken for private use, they would've said so.

/sarcasm off.

***** ^^^^^^^^^^

Economiser has said it well.

Lawyers and politicians can parse anything. Have we settled on the meaning of "is"?

Only reasonable people would come to a consensus. Even most of the mercenaries would agree -- up until someone offered a retainer or contribution.

"Government health care turns out to be all government and no health care. Adding up the zillions of new taxes and bureaucracies and regulations it imposes on the citizenry, one might almost think that was the only point of the exercise."

"My Republican friends often seem to miss the point in this debate: The so-called public option is not Page 3,079, Section (f), Clause VII. The entire bill is a public option - because that's where it leads, remorselessly. The so-called death panel is not on Page 2,721, Paragraph 19, Subsection (d), but again, the entire bill - because it inserts the power of the state between you and your doctor and in effect assumes jurisdiction over your body."

Not funny. Not even a little bit.

Of course the literalists will cry "Liar!" because, unless it is spelled out as such, it isn't true.

It is humorous but the conclusion is dead on.

I wonder how long it will take seniors to decide that Nebraska is the new go-to state for retirement.