tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post6911148643407561325..comments2023-09-25T04:26:51.568-06:00Comments on The Barefoot Bum: Health care and wagesLarry Hamelinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-51999101210033759092008-02-08T08:56:00.000-07:002008-02-08T08:56:00.000-07:00Basically, yes.If paying is optional for something...Basically, yes.<BR/><BR/>If paying is optional for something required, people will not make the optional payments. But TANSTAAFL: someone will pay in the end.<BR/><BR/>One way or another, everyone pays for health care. Take the $200/month per employee as taxes from employers, for example, and the macroeconomic effects will be the same.<BR/><BR/>The money has to come from somewhere, and no matter where you take it from, the economy will adjust until the effects are distributed in equilibrium. However, where you initially take it will affect <I>which</I> equilibrium is favored.<BR/><BR/>The only alternative to change the current, broken system would be one supported entirely by conventional taxes.<BR/><BR/>See also Badtux's comments on <A HREF="http://blog.badtux.net/2008/02/why-obamas-plan-wont-work.html" REL="nofollow">the microeconomic effects of an "optional" system</A>.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28755195.post-20313390903317130702008-02-08T08:13:00.000-07:002008-02-08T08:13:00.000-07:00Fascinating. So if I'm reading this right, your re...Fascinating. So if I'm reading this right, your response to the letter to the editor above would be, "you're welcome"?<BR/><BR/>What I'm reading here is that the only answer is forcing everyone to pay because as long as there's a way to opt out, the system will never right itself and equilibrium will not be achieved. Is that correct?PhillyChiefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355892225956705948noreply@blogger.com